Civ Rebel Suggestions(And a few others)

fireclaw722

Imperial Guard
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
499
Location
The Americas
I think that it would be interesting to see a civ fall apart due to a civic not adopting a civic that the people want, and the other civ that comes in is the same civ with a different leader. Examples in history where this happened:

-The French Revolution, Napoleon had taken parts of the French army and destroyed the Royal troops to take control of France(France didn't become HRE or anything, it stayed France)

-The American Civil War, the southern states ceceded from the Union and created a new "civ" but they still considered it as America, not Aztec or Inca.

-The War between Communist China and Republican China, Mao Zedong created a communist state in China and had war with Republican China(China stayed China again).


I would also lie to see more realistic civ dynamic names ie.

-U.S.A(instead of American Republic)
-U.S.S.R.(instead of People's Republic of Russia)
-Commonwealth of Great Britian(Instead of Republic of England)
-SPQR(instead of Roman Republic)


All in all I have to say, Great mod:goodjob:!
 
SPQR means "the Senate and People of Rome" ie: Roman Republic
USA means "United States of America" ie: American Republic
USSR means "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" - Soviet is a Russian word for "People's Council" meaning "Republic of United People's Councils"

Also, the "didn't become a new civ" thing is false for the CSA vs. USA. It's just that Civ4 doesn't ship with the CSA as a playable Civ. Red China vs Nationalist China were not an internal war since BOTH of them were at war with Japan. Basically, it was 2 China Civs. Since we know the game can handle multiple copies of the same Civ, one thing I *would* support is 2 copies of the same Civ, but that could get very ugly in RevDCM.
 
The civics system in RevDCM should be a balance - the player should not want to switch to "newer" civics. Players should have to give up some control in order to make the citizens happier. In history, the people in power/elites rarely wanted to give up their hold on society to create a more equal form of government for the rest of the people.

So, realistically, many civics changes should be involuntary, and involve the player needing to give up some of his or her control of the people. Unfortunately, this is most likely not fun. As it stands right now, both players and "citizens" usually benefit from most civics changes. If we wanted it to be more realistic, the player would be reluctant to switch certain civics, and thus there would be good reason for the citizens to revolt and demand that the player adopt certain civics.


A while back, I suggested that civil wars should be based on trying to gain the most citizens' support in a limited amount of time. A civil war would be like a mini-game, in which you have 20 or so turns to gain the most momentum and unite the civ (this would be a contrast to the current state of affairs, where civil wars usually degenerate into two weak civs that stagnate for the rest of the game).

So, in the civil war, there'd be a % of people who support the loyalists, a % who support the rebels, and a % that were neutral. There would be lots of random events tied in, with the consequences leading to more people supporting one side or the other. Support would also be won by winning battles, taking cities, using spies and subversion, bribes, etc. Other civilizations would also be able to lend their support - civs who liked the original country would support the loyalists, and civs who hated the original country would support the rebels. Support would come in the way of unit or money gifts, resources, etc. It might be cool to not allow both sides of the civil war to import or export during the period, to prevent any weird things happening with previous deals with other civs, and to represent the chaos of the war. At the end of the 20-turn (or whatever) period, the side which had gained the most amount of support/momentum would gain control over the original civ's territory. This would prevent what I described before - the 2 sides of the war ending up as separate weak civs for the rest of the game.

The reason I mention this is because it would be a perfect opportunity to clone a civ, for instance allowing two Americas, which would end up united at the end of the war. I suppose America is a bad example though - if it is a war of secession, what I described above might not necessarily happen, but if it is a war of disgruntlement (i.e. civics changes or something) then the civil war mechanism I described above would probably take place. Jdog seemed to like the idea of civil wars being based on momentum over a short period of time, but it probably will be a long time, if ever, that something like this would get implemented.
 
Top Bottom