Civ Splitting?

[Sureshot]

In Civ 2 when you took over a civs capital (and you weren't at max civ number) there was a chance their empire would split in two. It was weird though since you'd take over the german capital and it'd turn into Germans and Americans for instance.

Now though, there's multiple leaders for most civs, if there we atleast 2 for each it'd be neat if civil war could happen and you'd have two of the same civ, but with different leaders (could be triggered either by loss of capital or by being too expansive with too much unhappiness or high maintenance).

I've looked around for this, but so far only noticed a mild barbarian version that hasn't been updated, has anyone seen a mod that incorporates this sort of thing?

 

[Baloo]

I kind of liked this but now I'm thinking that everyone would just beeline for the capital to make conquest easier. Also, how pissed off would you be if you'd just lost half of your empire. Plus, I remember my old 486DX 100Mhz of power crunch for about 2 minutes eveytime this happened, imagine how long it would take now. It sounds fun, but it would just piss a lot of people off...

 

[Sureshot]

I actually tried to lose my capital one time in Civ 2 to make this happen (since I was England on a world map and had many cities in the new world that I wanted to separate from but still be on good terms with).

I know the pain of beelining for capitals though, Master of Magic was a civ like fantasy game, and if you lost your capital there you were out of the game pretty much, which is annoying.

There could be some requirements for it though, like only splits if your empire is huge and has over double the Score of the next best rival. Or things like only cities with unhappiness in them can separate. Or if the city has negative gold production total (maintenance cost exceeds gold production) with the new "old civ" capital and their new rebellion capital has positive gold production.

The current system of capital hopping is kinda silly to me, the capital seems too undervalued (its only real loss over that of a normal city is that you might get higher maintenance costs if next capital is poorly centered).

 

[Armed_Maniac]

I actually tried to lose my capital one time in Civ 2 to make this happen (since I was England on a world map and had many cities in the new world that I wanted to separate from but still be on good terms with).

I know the pain of beelining for capitals though, Master of Magic was a civ like fantasy game, and if you lost your capital there you were out of the game pretty much, which is annoying.

There could be some requirements for it though, like only splits if your empire is huge and has over double the Score of the next best rival. Or things like only cities with unhappiness in them can separate. Or if the city has negative gold production total (maintenance cost exceeds gold production) with the new "old civ" capital and their new rebellion capital has positive gold production.

The current system of capital hopping is kinda silly to me, the capital seems too undervalued (its only real loss over that of a normal city is that you might get higher maintenance costs if next capital is poorly centered).

Though it used to be cool, if it's implemented once again it should be for vassal states and "colonies", colonies being any territory that has no land route to your capital that passes by nothing but your territory. In half? Not necessarly... Think of USSR and if it had say Alaska, Yukon, and Cuba (just giving an exemple). If you took it's capital, the vassal states would split, Alask and Yukon would form a new faction, and so would Cuba, leaving Russia intact (though I seriously think losing a capital should create civil disorder in every city).

 

[Mewtarthio]

That would be a little unfair to people who start out on islands (on, say, a Fractal map where such an occurence is more likely), wouldn't it?

 

[drkodos]

That would be a little unfair to people who start out on islands (on, say, a Fractal map where such an occurence is more likely), wouldn't it?

Fairness has nothing to do with things. People that are expecting fairness will always be disappointed by reality.

 

[Armed_Maniac]

That would be a little unfair to people who start out on islands (on, say, a Fractal map where such an occurence is more likely), wouldn't it?

Indeed, but think of it. If at some point in history, France invaded London, or all of England for that matter (One would incur the other), Would the scots, the irish, the canadians, the australians and all the other colonies remain under their banner? At the very least, it would be civil disorder...

 

[saleg37]

I like the idea, but one would have to be very careful about putting restrictions in.

I honestly think implementing a system where one would have to be in a war for a certain period of time before this would happen would cut down on beelining to the capital. More leaders would have to be put in or else you'd have Saladin and Saladin 2. If all countries had two leaders this would be really cool (implemented properly). For a one leader civ however this would be stupid and annoying.

 

[kristopherb]

good idea but a empire split in 2 i lke the idea of a couple city s joining a rebelloin to get separeted from th mother land some units could swap side .the rebelloin would build an army if you destory the army fast you could save the coutry .rebelloin would occour if they want to try a new civic or the are un happy or/and un healthy

 

[s.c.dude]

Indeed, but think of it. If at some point in history, France invaded London, or all of England for that matter (One would incur the other), Would the scots, the irish, the canadians, the australians and all the other colonies remain under their banner? At the very least, it would be civil disorder...

what about each civ having a minor civ for each like the scots for the english and having every civ at peace with them except for the overlords. And any civ that choosrs to go to war

 

[Armed_Maniac]

Well, perhaps having a system so that if a colony splits because of the loss of the capital, it becomes it's own state, a sub-civ perhaps, such as Canada or the Scots for the Brittish civ, but it is locked as friendly until their goverment is overthrown, in which case they might become simply very firendly to you but start acting like normal AI and might turn away from you if you, say, nuke the world. Regaining your capital would turn all ex-colonies who have not changed goverments into vassal states of yours.

I'm not sure of the mechanics behind vassal states, but i'm familiar with the concept, so I think what I proposed makes sense.

Also, if the colonies liberate cities they go to you. Sure, it would be annoying to not be able to control your armies untill the stupid AI recovers your capital, which should be set as their main objective (somehow), but it's hard to control an army if the head quarter is occupied by enemy forces, but on the other hand, someone is fighting for you and liberating cities for you, so it's not all lost unless the enemy has well fortified your capital then the colony might eventually change goverments, declare independance and stop helping you. Either way, you would regain most lost territory the turn you recapture the capital if you had forces nearby, exept for vassal states who would use this opportunity to declare independance.

 

[Jazzster]

I liked this feature in Civ II too. As been pointed out, the capital is strategically undervalued in Civ IV. HQs had reasons to go for Moskva, for Paris or Berlin, and the location of a nations capital has been of strategic importance in all times. In Civ IV, it's just another big city. It would make things more interesting if something else might happen if the capital is taken. Oh, yes.

 

[wolfigor]

Actually somebody made a CIVIV mod that can address this point:
revolution.
The mod is about some of your town that under certain conditions can revolt, separate, and become a new independent civ.
I should read the detail to see if in that mod the loss of the capital can trigger (or make easier) a separatist revolution

 

[Armed_Maniac]

Actually somebody made a CIVIV mod that can address this point:
revolution.
The mod is about some of your town that under certain conditions can revolt, separate, and become a new independent civ.
I should read the detail to see if in that mod the loss of the capital can trigger (or make easier) a separatist revolution

Interesting, I'm checking it now. And anyways, I don't find splitting too harsh. If you see an enemy comming and you can't defend, relocate your capital to a more isolated spot.

 

[Sureshot]

Ah, great to see someone working on civ splitting! I missed that from civ2 and was beginning to wonder if it was even possible.

 

[Rule Brittania]

I think that civ splitting should only work when your civ or any other has over expanded and is suffereing from high maintenance and unhappiness or if your capital is taken and then its only your vassels which spilt. Becuase if your civilization is to split then it would make it far to hard to regain your capital afterwards. all together though it sounds cool to be able to have civil wars. Perhaps they should occur wen you change your civic and it creates a lot of unhappines in the population

 

[winddbourne]

The problem with civ splitting is that you take one formidable opponent and split him into two more managable foes. Either that your you yourself wind up losing a lot of the things you've worked for, and the result is either something so small you laugh at it, or is immediately at war with you as you try to rightously retake your cities.

Realistically a lot of players would take full advantage of their computer opponents misfortune, and reload when the event happened to their own civilization unless it got rid of cities you didn't want, or resulted in you being able to use the new civ for your own purposes in some other sneaky way.

 

[Damjo]

In Civ 2 when you took over a civs capital (and you weren't at max civ number) there was a chance their empire would split in two. It was weird though since you'd take over the german capital and it'd turn into Germans and Americans for instance.

Now though, there's multiple leaders for most civs, if there we atleast 2 for each it'd be neat if civil war could happen and you'd have two of the same civ, but with different leaders (could be triggered either by loss of capital or by being too expansive with too much unhappiness or high maintenance).

I've looked around for this, but so far only noticed a mild barbarian version that hasn't been updated, has anyone seen a mod that incorporates this sort of thing?

I was thinking the exact same thing..

It should be a feature only applicable to civilizations with two or more leaders. It should be triggered when the capital has been taken and the civilization can split equally between the new leader and current..

Civil war should only be triggered for special circumstances. I dont want three different civilizations splitting and make conquest too easy for me just because their capitals happened to be right beside my borders. Maybe religion could act as the dividing factor or the lower half of unhappy cities ends up being the rebel state. Just a suggestion..

Would love to see this in CivIV..