Civil War

[joshaarrowood]

I would love to see the concept of a civil war somewhat like was in I believe Civ II. If you get a certain size or take over lots of foreign land, you would be at higher risk when you suffer lots of unhappiness.

[cakes]

that would be neat. at the moment the closest we have to civil war is when your unhappiness is too high and it spawns rebel units

[Rob (R8XFT)]

It was actually the original Civ game which had civil wars, where an empire would be split in two, with the original leader retaining half the cities whilst a leader previously not in the game took over the other half. I'm in agreement - it would be a great idea.

Another similar idea I had was that if (in the next expansion??) they went with multiple choices for leaders per civ - as per Civ 4 - one of the other leaders could take over the civilization following a coup. A previously peaceful neighbour, who had slowly but surely built up a strong group of cities could suddenly be taken over a raving warmonger....hmmm....food for thought Firaxis?

[joshaarrowood]

Just researched it. I never played Civ I but it did have civil wars as did Civ II. I liked having a choice of leaders.

[Glassmage]

The rebels at -20 happiness is close enough imo.

[Babri]

Originally Posted by Glassmage

The rebels at -20 happiness is close enough imo.

But that is not enough. We need a full mechanism for civil war because they add some extra immersion as well as balancing runaway civs. It also adds another layer of challenge.

[askia53]

What do the rebel units created at -20 happiness actually do?
And yes, I think a civil war thing would be great.

[nokmirt]

Originally Posted by askia53

What do the rebel units created at -20 happiness actually do?
And yes, I think a civil war thing would be great.

They seem to surround your capital. However, they are barb units and easy to kill. At least that was how it was the last time this happened, which was quite a while ago now.

I suppose the civil war if idea would be interesting as long as it does not happen so easily. Otherwise it is not as exciting. They should also allow you a choice to control either Nationalist or rebel forces.

[KevinLancaster]

Even if this feature isn't implemented in the expansion, we still have the Revolutions mod which I think does about the same thing.

[poom3619]

I think it act like tech-advanced barbarian spawn closed to one of your city. They aren't any threat to your city at all.

I think rebellion should pose more threat by spawn in non-capital, preferably conquered , populous city. If any conquered city are in rebellion. You will take relation hit with civ you conquered from if they're exist. It should be about -15 happiness and another wave at -18

[joshaarrowood]

I agree it shouldn't be easy, but as you get to be a very large civilization and especially one that has grown that way due to conquering neighbors, there should be a greater chance of revolt. I would even think there should be greater chance at revolt if you have a land mass on a different continent.

Not sure about taking control of the rebels as you don't rebel against the choices you have made.

Maybe there should be x number of turns with rebel forces coming out and multiplying before you lose temporary control of cities. Then, after a few turns of having no control of cities, those cities actually become their own civilization.

[Gedemon]

Originally Posted by KevinLancaster

Even if this feature isn't implemented in the expansion, we still have the Revolutions mod which I think does about the same thing.

Yes, I do plan to add civil wars in the mod.

From a gameplay perspective we can have something like that :
- revolt : rebel spawning in an area, trying to capture nearby cities or pillaging tiles
- rebellion : single city joining rebels, can join another civ after a few turn or declare it's independence (new CS/civ)
- revolution : rebellion spreading to a larger area (and could include foreign cities, depending on local stability)
- civil war : one empire splitting in two civilizations

[bcaiko]

It's an interesting idea, but what would be the catalyst? Would it be completely random? That could really suck under some circumstances. If the catalyst is just unhappiness based, then civil wars will almost never happen (I think I've been below -10 in unhappiness once, and that was because an AI gave me a bunch of crummy cities in a peace deal. This was before that behaviour was patched out.).

If a good mechanism could be worked out so the player knows when s/he's playing with fire, or the player gets enough warning/rumblings of a potential civil war and can take steps to stop it, that would be cool. It would be the kind of thing a player could turn off in the options, though.

[Gucumatz]

Originally Posted by bcaiko

It's an interesting idea, but what would be the catalyst? Would it be completely random? That could really suck under some circumstances. If the catalyst is just unhappiness based, then civil wars will almost never happen (I think I've been below -10 in unhappiness once, and that was because an AI gave me a bunch of crummy cities in a peace deal. This was before that behaviour was patched out.).

If a good mechanism could be worked out so the player knows when s/he's playing with fire, or the player gets enough warning/rumblings of a potential civil war and can take steps to stop it, that would be cool. It would be the kind of thing a player could turn off in the options, though.

Yea it would take a lot of balancing and putting plenty of mechanisms in place so it doesn't become an annoying hindrance to players making them think "what did I so wrong?"

It could be done... but I somehow doubt that the "fun" factor would be large enough or worth adding.

One thing I know I always wished for is having a proper alliance system in singleplayer. I hoped with cses that this could be done but it didn't happen. Since the current AI are too stingy, it could make a fun addition if the breakoff civs could come to civs looking for support of their independence.

So sort of acting like a City State mechanism... but the reward for helping a breakoff province/region would be something similar to that of a vassal. Perhaps a small tribute and "an ally" in your wars. This way the Vassal system could be re-introduced without having any major civ being put under as a vassal so it is a bit more balanced.

[Eagle Pursuit]

Here's my concept for Civ V civil wars:

If your empire's happiness drops below a certain amount, a rebel faction within your empire will begin making demands such as:
build an Opera House in city X
connect city X to the capital
adopt Social Policy Y

If you fail to meet the rebel faction's demands within so many turns, the rebel faction will align with a neighboring city-state and it will declare war on you to "liberate" the rebel faction.

We are assuming the rebel faction is an ethnic or ideological minority.

If you persist in ignoring the rebel faction, you might end up with several city-states attacking your borders, and they might draw another civilization into the conflict.

[Gedemon]

Originally Posted by bcaiko

It's an interesting idea, but what would be the catalyst? Would it be completely random? That could really suck under some circumstances. If the catalyst is just unhappiness based, then civil wars will almost never happen (I think I've been below -10 in unhappiness once, and that was because an AI gave me a bunch of crummy cities in a peace deal. This was before that behaviour was patched out.).

If a good mechanism could be worked out so the player knows when s/he's playing with fire, or the player gets enough warning/rumblings of a potential civil war and can take steps to stop it, that would be cool. It would be the kind of thing a player could turn off in the options, though.

Not random, won't be fun.

The catalyst is unhappiness, pondered with culture group relation. Tiles can have multiple culture influence, and depending on who control a city and which cultures are represented on a city tile (based on percentage), the mod calculate a stability level.

Cities away from the capital create a percentage of separatist culture group that need high happiness to be kept under control.

Culture group relation are dependent of relative happiness of each civilization they are from, and diplomatic relations (Dof = bonus, war = malus, etc...)

See :



And I still need beta-tester here, as I totally agree that such a mod require a lot of balance and feedback from the UI to prevent frustration.

[Txurce]

Originally Posted by bcaiko

It's an interesting idea, but what would be the catalyst? Would it be completely random? That could really suck under some circumstances. If the catalyst is just unhappiness based, then civil wars will almost never happen.

The civil war mechanic in Civ 2 occurred only when the largest civ lost its capital.

[Rob (R8XFT)]

Some interesting ideas here methinks. In Civ 1, as far as I recall, the civil wars happened to opponents - so Egypt could suddenly have half the civilization remaining as Egypt ruled by Ramesses and the other half becoming Russia ruled by Stalin! Naturally, I'm not suggesting for one minute that this could be historically right...but it was fun at the time !

[TheKingOfBigOz]

Whatever the case, I strongly recommend making the "fallen off" cities a CITY state, because I don't think it makes much sense to have them a diffrent Civ, and city States can still defend themselves. they could even have their own "Rebels" city-state trait or sumfing.

[Eagle Pursuit]

Having a rebel city become a city-state is an interesting concept.

How would the city be selected? Bring back city-level happiness? Random?

What would the benefit be of allying with a "Rebel" city-state? A combat bonus against and diplo penalty with the original civ?

Could you re-annex a broken-off "Rebel" city-state by allying with them a la Austria?