Ideas for Civil Wars and New Civs LOOK HERE

Ok everyone (for the most part) want civil wars back, so I was thinking (scary isnt it). In Civ2 with civil wars you would get a completely random Civ pop out say if you were america you might get mongola come from a civil war. So i thought instead of useing completely random create minor Civ's (you cant play them) that use all of the orginal Civ's traits and UU but they would be a break of so in the case of America have a minor Civ called the Confederatacy or England would have Scotland (or America but it is not possible if you kept america in the game) and so on. Also you might think this would take alot to put in the game but not really since you would have the orginal Civ to base off of.

Also this would add alot of realism without alot of game play taken.

SO what do you guys think????

I was thinking of something like that, but the breakaway civ would have to be slightly different from the original (alfter all they are splitting for a reason)
There was an English civil war, but it was between sides called Parliamentarians and Royalists (supporters of King Charles I)

yea you could change some of the cultral traits so make the american split could be agrulcultral and commerical instead of industrious and for the rest ppl make up

It think it would be good for new civs to pop up during the course of the game as a result of barbarian invasions or civil wars. All the civs of western europe (France, England, Spain) were once barbarian tribes that built their civs on the ruins of the Roman Empire. The US is of course an offshoot of England.

That would mean that barbarians would be able to capture cities, and found new cities which would then lead to the new civilization

I think civ4 should make a difference between two realities :

Civil wars based on the secession of a region like America against England or Belgium against the Netherlands. In this case, the new civ should have a different name than the original one, in a list of possible "daughters civs" ( Englans -> Scotland, American... ), and a well defined territory.

Civil wars caused by political opinions/economical interests like in Colombia or during the October Revolution in Russia. In this case, the new civ would just be called "Colombian guerilla" or "russian revolution". The reb cities distribution would be random in the original civ territory.

Problem with the first idea of Civil wars for religous reson is that yhey would have to make a choose of what religon you would be like in Civ3 with the way u choose Goverments. Also this would mean possibley more religon techs........ nvm that it already fit with present techs. Also with an addition to the different religons you could have a choose of allowing all religons

I like the idea of civil wars. Perhaps the schizeming could be based upon corruption in the cities. for example, if you're (on a world map) russia who built in New Zealand, the corruption, over time, could cause them to revolt and declare independance. This could also be linked into your cultural value. if you're the domonate culture there is less of a chance.
This would require a re-working of the corruption system. I forget who, but somewhere on here I heard an idea of making corruption based on acess to improvements, i think that this would work well in this case, I.e, if the city has a collusium, it is less "corrupt," or in this case less "un-ruley."

I would've liked to of seen the barbarians found cities. They coudl be minor, with wierd names or whatever, but they could be evoloved barbarian camps, I.E. if the camp survived for a whole age, it woudl start out as a new city 1/2 as advanced as the least advanced civ or something.

crimson238 said:

I like the idea of civil wars. Perhaps the schizeming could be based upon corruption in the cities.

Click to expand...

I forgot about the effect of corruption due to distance. It would have a large effect on separist movements.

Another idea, if you conquer a civ, the national identity remains with the cities so after time they might revolt and recreate their own civ (but it won't be quite the same because of the effect of your civ).

Chukchi_Husky said:

Another idea, if you conquer a civ, the national identity remains with the cities so after time they might revolt and recreate their own civ (but it won't be quite the same because of the effect of your civ).

Click to expand...

This im no so sure about because after time you slowly begin to assimilate the people with yours through.. well breeding is the best way to put it.

as far as the corruption thing goes.. the computer seems to have an idea of continients in it..(which angers me on my world map and nothing i build in europe does anything for england..) but, when the average corruption per city on a continient becomes.. say 85% or 95%, then they would revolt, you're garrisoning units would be expelled outside the city, and they would get x ammnt of defenders (unit class and # based upon your former government.) you would not be at war, and would have the option of either attacking your next turn to try to retake the lands, or, withdrawing and living to let live.

This is a bit off topic, but names could evolve over time.
For example, you could start as the Anglo-Saxons in the Ancient Age
Then, in the Medieval Age, the Angles or Engles
Later, the English
Finally, the British.

The Romans could start Roman and eventually become Italian.
The Greeks could start Greek, and after 2000 years.. stay Greek. They're Greek.
The French would start as the Franks, the Mongol hordes would start as a really loud Garage band and eventually evolve into a civilization of Lawyers and Insurance Salesmen..
The Americans could start.. well.. I don't quite know how the Americans would start. Perhaps a wandering tribe called the Marii''Kans or something.

The Civ world doesn't really have a system for tribes splitting into bunches of different Civilizations. (English -->American, Australian.. English + French --> Canadian.>) And they would make playing the game very complicated and hard. But little chunks of rebellious Civs could be named after divisions of old (Scottish, etc..)

I think the best rebellion ever would be a bunch of British towns, taken by the French, and then rebelling and becoming Canadian. Just because I *really* want to see some Canadians in a Civ game.

But that brings to mind how rebels could be a part of gameplay.. your civ could secretly (or openly) support a rebellion in a neighboring civ with guns and food.

The rebel option woudl be great in the espionage screen, a kin to the CIA in afghanastan in the 1980s.. you could have the option of "staring rbellion" ,or if one exists "assisting rebellion." TO start it would change in cost and danger depending on the government, and the level of corruption/unhappiness. As for governments, democracies woudl be the most at risk as they have the most freedoms and least personal intrusion, while a dictatorship woudl be the most dangerous to start it in. THe cost would be the inverse of this. Democracy woudl cost the most because htey'd be happier, and dictatorship woudl cost the least because they'd probably be tiered of orpession.

This is a tie-in for the Guerilla/Partisan thread. Can't remember where it is.