Civ Splitting

The idea has a good feel to it, but there's several problems.

If half of the soldiers are ejected and the rebels stay in, that means the rebels have the advantage, and that sounds more like a military coup than anything.

I think just taking the stability thing from RFC and comibing it with Revolution would be simplier and more fun.

What Scilly Guy said, I like his idea. If a king dies with no heir, than there might be a small civil war. If a dictator dies, than there'll be a LOT of problems.

Also, with the princess thing, I like it =P. Also, If two nations become friendly enough with each other, they could combine their kingdoms, like in Permanent alliances.
 
Yeah, but it was worth suggesting =P. It kinda reminded me of Total War and I got excited for remembering:lol:
 
3. Lack of Actual Case Studies

Some real-life civilisations never split! Like the Greeks, or Mayans. In these cases it might be possible to fudge it slightly, for instance seeeing what administrative regions exist/existed in those times (e.g. Macedonia), or name the new Civ after a city, or (as they did in Germany post-WWII) just call one of the new Civs 'West Maya', or 'Machu Piccu'. Therefore a number of stock leaders would also need to be made (I can just hear the graphic designers groaning).

The Greeks were split for most of antiquity, were then briefly united by Philip, and were then united by the Romans. The Mayans had always been split: there was no Mayan state, just a lot of Mayan city-states and until the Spanish came along and killed most Mayans with their diseases, no one could unite all of them.
 
I had an idea that when you first started settling, you would only found city states. You couldn't directly control their production, but they would generally fight along your side against foreign enemies and research the same goal, but that wouldn't stop them from warring with each other! Vassalage would automatically unite all the city states involved. Unfortunately, I have no idea how they would make this fun, but the people at Firaxis are geniuses, so they can figure it out. Perhaps it could be an option at the beginning of the game.
 
I'm a big fan of the idea of civil wars. But there's a lot of fundamental problems. How do you make a game out of it? For some people, this question won't matter, but then they shouldn't be playing a game. Civ is a game.

Probably the best way to sum up the problem... why should a game company spend months of development and balance just to create an interesting way to lose? Losing half your empire because you didn't mange your happiness properly is defeat. It's something that will only happen if you screw up. It's a punishment for making a small mistake. Why punish unhappy civs with by cutting their empire in half when you could just as well assassinate the leader, and call it game over?

The answer: because that's not fun.

OK on the way, but on the fundamentals, aka rebellion, i have the answer: make it happen so often that it is a part of the game.
 
Im not sure if any body said this already but I thought the game started in 4000 BC, not 5000. Unless you guys are just saying it should start in 5000 BC in civ5, but whatever.
 
You could just say that you can only have 1 for every 7 courthouses or some such limit. Added with the fact that if it is overpowered you can make it more expensive and/or weaker, reducing its affect until it isn't overpowered. Everything can be balanced some how, the only thing is it adds to the depth and makes the game ever more complex, don't get me wrong, I am not against this, I would just imagine the publishers (and a lot of players) are.

Adding to your idea, the administrative centers should become more expensive as more are built. and they should be suggested to be in centralized locations.

And you should be able to group cities together to form States or provinces.

----------------
Now playing: Pink Floyd - Us And Them
via FoxyTunes
 
Top Bottom