Civil War

[elementgoo]

I it seems like a civil war would completely screw a civ over because they have to deal with the civil war while all the other civs advance into the future.

 

[dh_epic]

Not necessarily. That assumes there's no easy way to recover from a civil war, and that assumes that you couldn't turn the tables and provoke a civil war in the new frontrunner's civ.

Not to mention that civil wars ought to be totally preventable.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I see civil war as largely a punishment for 'Expansion without Consolidation'. Under the current system, you are rewarded based on how fast you expand, which allows you to expand faster-etc, etc ad infinitum. This is what we have termed the 'snowballing effect'. By implementing Civil War, however, should you choose to remain small, or grow in fits and starts-marked by periods of consolidation-then you are rewarded with inherent stability. Thus, in one fell swoop, you have seriously pegged back the 'Snowball effect' WITHOUT removing expansion as a game option. Plus, it gives you a really cool new thing to do to mess up a bigger and more powerful neighbour-but only with a significant investment in your Intelligence budget!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

P.S: thats not to say that a poorly run small nation can't suffer a civil war, its just less likely to happen (they are more likely to get rebellions !)

 

[Comrade Pedro]

I see civil war as largely a punishment for 'Expansion without Consolidation'.

Why that? You mean Civil War only occur in situatons of bad organized expansion?

 

[Serutan]

I think Aussie_Lurker means the the primary case for Civil
War would be when a civ expands so quickly that it becomes
over-extended (i.e. lacks sufficient military, cultural, and
economic infrastructure to adequately support a civ its
size.).

While the idea of civil war/revolution sounds nice, I have severe reservations about it, because I fear it would be a micromanagement headache; i.e. *very* annoying.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

But i think civil war isn't about the idea of expanding, it's just about the idea of the conflict between two factions that are in the same country....

The civil wars would only occur if your organization weren't so good enough....

 

[dh_epic]

It's not so much organization as a sense of solidarity. Even poorly organized nations can stick together if there's a sense of social solidarity. Poorly organized nations will go through revolutions or regime changes, but not civil wars.

Your nation would experience a lack of solidarity if you never took the time to turn those Greeks and Spaniards and Germans into proud Romans. That's part of why Rome fell. Expansion without consolidation.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

Poorly organized nations will go through revolutions or regime changes, but not civil wars.

And what about the african civil wars? Most of the countries shortly after they made independent they struggle each other for the right to rule...

 

[mastertyguy]

off topic question : Is this one the first civil war / revolt etc. thread?

 

[dh_epic]

African Civil Wars... to speak very generally...

That had little to do with organization and EVERYTHING to do with the huge amounts of cultural contamination from colonization. A small ruling elite represented the culture of the colonizers long after they had left, while there was often a populous that represented a hopeful if vain hope for an African Rennaisance.

We're also talking about nations whose borders were made arbitrarily by the colonizers, with no respect for who was similar to who. Many of the countries that emerged in post colonial Africa actually contained two or three seperate peoples.

In other words, no solidarity. People who saw themselves as seperate from one another. That's what distinguishes civil war from the larger category of civil unrest.

(Mastertyguy, this isn't the first civil war thread and it won't be the last. But it's helpful to try to keep it all in one thread anyway.)

 

[Blitersety]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned; with ten pages of replies, it would take a while to read them all. Anyway, i agree with you. I really thought it was a great idea in Civ 2 when a country would 'rebel' and form two new ones. Only dissapointing thing was it never happened to my country!

 

[ironpawn]

That is also a good idea, but i think this will only apply to the ancient times and end almost in the medieval times. I'm saying this, because if we see the facts of history, we realized that this happens only in this period.

Uh... What about Vietnam? (French Colony), Korea? (Both are tail end Industrial/modern era) United States(Begining Industrial- of course by game play it could be argued that it was tail end med-evil...) United States Civil war? (Industrial) Or even look at whats going on in Russia right now... i.e Colapse of goverment, replaced with another, sattelite states splitting off...

But the civil war idea is a great one...

 

[dh_epic]

I agree. One of the strengths of the idea of civil war, seperation, seccession, wars of independence, and so on... is the fact that it's ALWAYS happened throughout history, and for many of the same reasons. It's just ripe to be easily implemented in a game, if you can just translate the reasons into something that are fun to play.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

I agree. One of the strengths of the idea of civil war, seperation, seccession, wars of independence, and so on... is the fact that it's ALWAYS happened throughout history, and for many of the same reasons. It's just ripe to be easily implemented in a game, if you can just translate the reasons into something that are fun to play.

I love the idea, esp. when combined with the Minor nations concept (see the Barbarians thread).

 

[Iron Clad]

lol. This was my idea too. I thought when you conquered the world....It gets boring so you can go to one of your advisors and click a button for a civil war. You can type in a reason for a civil war and you can choose to be you or the rebelling side. You can install new governments and other cool things if you win the War (If your the rebelling side). Or Maybe the War ends but you only gain control of one other continent. So this War can be a continious struggle.

 

[Headline]

I don't think CivIV is going have it implemented. If that is the case, I'll be really really sad....

 

[dh_epic]

It lives on in the hearts of its fans

There are rays of hope. But the biggest hope lies with the mod community -- if they really think hard about gameplay and don't just implement it for the sake of it.

 

[mastertyguy]

If that's still not enough, you can enslave any racial group of your choice, incite holy wars, and commit crimes against humanity without regret. And if a rebellion starts to overthrow your regime, there's always the reset switch.

Nothing else to say
I know, I sent it in "secession" thread

 

[Corvex]

Civil war...why not?
It'll give my bloated army something to do to pass the time.

 

[mastertyguy]

It should have ben in civ2, I always had to fight only barbs at the end of the game!!