Bring Back the Civil Wars

[Vael]

Some sort of civil war system would certainly be welcome. One of the things I liked from Civ 2 were the Partisans, though they weren't very effective. The most they did was annoy an attacker, rarely actually stop him... and when they did that was another annoyance. Likewise, the way Civ 2 civil wars were implimented was rather atrocious balance-wise.

Having some system where units could appear depending on factors in nearby cities may be an answer. If conditions get bad enough in a city it could spawn rebels nearby, which would destroy improvements, cause general havoc and perhaps even capture cities if they grow enough in strength. Obviously capturing cities would be a major cause of this, requiring some units stay behind to garrison captured cities - making things harder but not impossible for those who wish to expand through war. Just something I've thought about, there are likely other solutions to this intriguing dilemma...

 

[Princeps]

I remeber that this was suggested before. But, anyway, if AI or you use forced labor against some nationality, the cities that have alot of them might revolt, and refound, or join their former civ. Of course you can stop them, if you have enough troops.

During times of anarchy the chance of civil war erupting would be enormous.
Oh, and think that there should be two different ways to change your government: A coup or anarchy. Anarchy would be sort of the people revolting, and coup would be kind of small amount of influential people taking control of the government illegally.

A coup would be shorter but more unpredictable, And a anarchy would be longer but little more steadier, I guess...

 

[dh_epic]

I think above all, civil war needs to be organic.

NOT:

Action X --> Civil War
(e.g.: forced labor --> civil war, espionage --> civil war, too much expansion --> civil war)

but THIS:

Action X --> Fragmentation
Action Y --> Unhappiness
High Fragmentation + High Unhappiness --> Civil War

Where unhappiness and fragmentation are things you can control, if you're smart.

I think most proponents of civil war already agreed with me. But just so the critics know what they're dealing with.

 

[flamescreen]

Yeah, that would be a great idea, if they can work well with it. I'd certainly be glad to see it, in any case.

 

[Vael]

Dh_Epic: I agree!

The liklihood of spawning rebel units could be tied with a city's happiness and other similar factors. Conquest would exacerbate these issues, but you would be able to deal with them if you have enough units and concentrate on pacifying your new citizens.

I believe 'culture flipping' is a bad mechanic for the reasons you present. Something so random is not fun and I've heard often players will simply reload if one happens to them. Having rebellions and civil wars come about through the spawning of rebels would eliminate this problem.

The community's response to culture flipping shows that such gameplay elements are not universally praised. Even worse would be having a large number of cities released from their grasp instantly! Units spawning would give players multiple options to deal with these issues as well - you could focus on internal development to make your people happier and less likely to produce rebels, OR you could build units and simply destroy the rebels as they appear and not worry about investing in infrastructure.

 

[AndrewH]

Would the rebels come out like barbarians out of a goody hut? Surrounding the city they spawned from...

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Ideally the rebels would be IN the city they spawned from, and enemy units could occupy the same square, turn after turn slowly battling. (especially if one unit was something like Rebels in City terrain, the battles could go on for tens of turns.)