Bring Back the Civil Wars

[VilleDick]

I would like to see the Civil Wars return like in Civ 2. I always found it interesting that if you took the capital real quick that the Civ would break off into 2 factions. Clearly it was flawed i.e. you conquer Paris on the first turn and the faction that broke off was for instance the Mongols but it was a neat thing and I think should be brought back. Maybe make it so war weariness could bring on a civil war in a backwards civ. Like if you're way behind in tech and culture your civ could split off.

 

[Sub]

I would love to have civil wars implemented again. Though not the way civilization 2 had it, I'd like civil wars to break out if you didn't keep your citizens happy or something along those lines.

 

[sir_schwick]

What about if your really advanced and big, you have a civil war. This means on a relative threshold, not absolute. So if you are No 1 and more powerful than 2 and 3 combined over a certain time. Your nation splits. Of course sings should show up of htis, but fundamentally you have to maintain balance of power somehow. Unfortunately you never benefit from territory you do not own, so its harder without that.

 

[searcheagle]

I would like to see the civil war system implemented through the province/state system. It would work like in the US Civil War, where individual states split off. However, it can NOT work like existing system with no warning and no warning.

 

[Babbler]

Instead of a culture flips, cities, en mass, rebel agianst your empire. In some cities, you are automatically lose, others partasians apper in the countryside. They mess around untill you crush them, or make peace with you.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Yep, I agree Babbler. I think that replacing culture flips with a system of Civil Wars and Rebellion would work VERY well. A civil war would be when entire cities/provinces break away, wheras a rebellion would be when a particular social group/caste/faction decides to rise up against you. This way, a city or nation with a large number of foreign citizens (as a result of cultural mixing and immigration) might actually break away to form a new nation if its happiness falls too low. Of course, the chance of a city seceding should be based on a number of factors (such as culture ratios, % happiness, distance from capital, crime/corruption levels and # of troops), and should have certain 'trigger events' which results in a secession check (like moving troops out of a city, losing your capital, having happiness pass through certain thresholds, having crime/corruption pass certain thresholds, change in government/social engineering settings, overruling your peoples wishes, or an 'espionage' attack by a foreign nation!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Someone mentioned how it shouldn't be that a totally unrelated civ pops up after a rebellion, so here's my idea. Each civ gets a rebelling sub-civ (i.e. leader and a few extra cities, but same UU, blahblahblah.) For example: Canada breaks off from England (since America is different civ). Confederacy breaks off from America; Mexico (or Catalunia or Basqueia) breaks away from Spain, Nubia from Egypt, Wallonia (the French-speaking part of Belgium) from France, Flanders from the Netherlands, Tibet from China, Pakistan from India, Austria from Germany, etc., etc., etc. Alternately, the rebellion could be based in a single city, even if it includes other cities, and the name of the central city would be the name of the new civ (so York breaks off from England, El-Amarna from Egypt, Macao from China, Atlanta from America, etc., even though Macao includes Canton, Tatung, and Nanking, York includes Bristol, Plymouth, and The Mumbles, Atlanta includes Seattle and other cities, blahblahblah). Take your pick.

 

[striq]

civil wars could be cool... I think what is more importiant is having more complex relationships between nations.

 

[Stile]

Cool, yes. But it has to be implemented properly. If there was a mathematical formula for it and it was applied only to the most powerful civ, it would turn into an exploit within weeks of Civ4's release. There would be articles on how to avoid it and how to force it upon an enemy. I would like to see something implemented based on something that smaller nations would be immune to. I think every person (not citizen who works the tile necessarily) should have an ethnic background and religious background which can change based on different factors as the game progresses. And based on this and happiness should large scale civil wars occur.

 

[purplengold14]

Cities breaking away to form their own country due to mistreatment was implimented a long time ago in civ-call to power. Call to Power had several good aspects that sids civ could learn from.

 

[Corvex]

Provinces should be able to break-off to form new civs, either because the capital was taken, or because of policies contributing to unrest (general unrest should grow with distance from the capital, so your overseas provinces are most likely to rise-up). But for the sake of realism, the new civs that are created should have to belong to the same culture group as the original. In this way, Civilization is given more of a 'rise and fall' dynamic, allowing that not all civs will begin at the start of the game (which will certainly make the histograph more interesting).
Furthermore, rival civs should be able to contribute funds and propaganda to ease a rebellion along.

 

[AndrewH]

That would be the perfect time to get an alliance against a huge nation. While they are having a civil war!

 

[sir_schwick]

It would be like the French helping out some colony that was rebelling against the English.

 

[AndrewH]

Or what if the British were to help out the confederacy. (gasps)

 

[Admiral8Q]

I think Cids did learn a few things from CTP, even though CTP was (is) ridiculously unbalanced. But, yeah, I'd definitely like to see the "rebellion" thing return.

 

[AndrewH]

But if your nation was fighting over what the right government should be (Or some other reason that your nation would be divided) Would you, as the leader, be able to pick which side you wish to go with. Unless one half of ur civ was rebelling against... you..

 

[Corvex]

Fighting over what the right government should be is already essentially covered during revolutions.

 

[eternal_empire]

Civil wars are one of the most sorely missing features of civ3 yet at the same time are one of the hardest to accurately implement.
Sorry for being so long-winded but a couple of suggestions on my part may be;

1) Each nation is divided up into regions, a bit like how countries are divided in Hearts of Iron. These regions could either be determined by
(a)Their proximity to other civilizations. As a rough example, if you are playing as Germany and France borders on the West and Russia borders on the East, you may have 2 or more seperate regions. If you were to go to war with Russia, those on the East would be more unhappy than those on the West, therefore increasing the chances of a split. If you were an Island nation, this wouldn't be such a problem until you start colonising other continents.
(b)The period of time in which the surrounding cities were founded (i.e. the cities that were built in ancient times will be of a different region to those of the middle ages, provided that they are grouped together and not spread out on different continents). The citizens of each region would have differing likes and dislikes.

or

2) As you progress along the tech tree, discovering new religions or forms of govt, this has an effect on the characteristics of your citizens.

For example, at the beginning of the game playing as Japan, your citizens are all Japanese and all in favour of Despotism as that is the only known form of govt. However, as you discover Monarchy and Republicanism, some of your citizens favour one or the other of these govts. Hence some of your citizens become Republican Japanese and some become Monarchic Japanese. The happiness of the citizens will depend of the style of govt you have at that time, so that a city with a majority of Republicans will end up being unhappy under a Monarchy. As you discover more govts, the greater the difference of opinions become. You could have a city with 12 inhabitants where 2 are Republican, 4 Democractic and 6 Communist. The likely political make-up of your citizens will be determined by the favoured and shunned govts already in place in civ3

In order though to stop your country from being permanently fragmented, advances such as propaganda could be discovered to turn more of your citizens towards the style of govt you want and this could be used by democracies as well as totalitarian govts.

 

[Arne]

It seems to me, civil wars aren't easy to implement. I'm afraid, it could tend to be unfun, if *my*own Civ often (often means: in every... 2nd or 3th game for example, means not: in every game more than once) is splitting or rebelling in a heavy way. How to make sure, there won't be tousands of threads here about fu**ing Empire splitting shortly after Civ4 relase? Remember Civ3-corruption... It has to be FUN and it has to be "fluid".

I personaly would love to see some rebelions, but I don't see any reason why empire splitting or revolts are fun for *normal* players ... (*normal* players: aren't hanging around here at CfC or other Civforums every day ) Imagine you are playing Civ4 and then you think "Please, dear Civ4, when will splitt my empire again? Let it split, please let it split." Sure, if you think this, then it would be fun, wouldn't it? But how to make sure it happens that way and is not tend to be frustrating after a dozen games? I don't know.

I agree with Stile, if there will be a *simple* formula, then human players will within a short time able to avoid civil wars and force it upon an (AI) enemy. So civil wars, rebellions or empire splitting has to be more random, not to foreknow. On the other Hand, I love that one can manage nearly evrything in Civ. Some kind of influence should be there... Looks like being in a quandary.

 

[dh_epic]

I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective, Arne. Although I agree with you -- having to deal with an empire split two or three times in the same game would be very annoying, let alone even one split per game (on average).

But no, Civil war is not appealing for how it penalizes you... it's something else. What makes the empire splitting so interesting is two things.

One is that your enemies have to deal with it too. Imagine that Civilization is a boat racing game. Each Civilization is a boat. Imagine somebody put in the feature request "I want the ability to wipe out, flip over, and fall behind!" You'd look at him kind of funny. "Why the heck would you want that?" But when he finally plays, he rams his boat right into you, flips your boat, and causes you to fall drastically behind. You'd say "ahh, I see why he requested it" -- and you might even try to do the same thing against him next time. Civil war isn't for you, it's for your neighbors to use AGAINST you. The key is, of course, making it possible to "rock the boat" of another Civilization.

The second part that makes Civil War fun is that it means that builder types finally have a reward that compares with the expansionist. An expansionist is like the boat who never takes their foot off the gas-pedal. A builder is the boat that slows down in order to master the rough water. To break from the analogy, choosing not to expand actually gives you the advantage of a highly unified empire, and the disadvantage of a smaller empire. Expanding very quickly gives you the advantage of a huge empire, and the disadvantage of fragmented provinces (see the late Roman Empire). Are you a builder or an expansionist? Maybe circumstances require you to switch strategies?

Which leads me to the requirements for a Civil War model:

- predictable (in your own empire)
- provokable (in your enemies)
- preventable (with more and more caution)

- requires a measurable factor of cultural unity / similarity / difference
- requires divisions (provinces / regions) to naturally emerge in an empire
- requires more espionage and diplomatic options against your enemy and regions in his empire
- requires the ability to encourage cultural unity (through improvements, wonders, and other spending/building)