Civil War - Civ 3 - Removed from Civ4/5

[R0gue]

Hi guys.

I wonder why the devs removed the civil war trigger from civ 4/5?

The civil war triggered when you took a capital city. The civ broke up into 2 civs.
The newly formed civ, became friendly with the civ who took the capital and was @ war with the other civ.

I found this great. Because it stopped one civ running away with city spamming.

Who remembered this, and should it be introduced into the next update.

 

[JtW]

It won't ever be introduced in Civ5 due to the way Civilizations are set up. In Civ 3/4 there was much less individuality to a Civ than it is this time. With all the uniques, it would be difficult to balance such a thing, I think.

 

[VainoValkea]

I thought it was a neat feature in Civ II times, but there are far better ways to limit overspreading now. Besides, it did little to actually limit ICS and was historically inaccurate - I don't claim to know much about history but I can't remember a single civil war sparked by some third party storming the capital.

 

[DemonMaster]

I think it is better as it is represented in BNW, where the people revolt because they want another type of government (i.e. ideology).

 

[Civking5]

Civ3 didn't have civil war. Although, Civ2: call to power had it which had another developer (?).

 

[DemonMaster]

Civ3 didn't have civil war. Although, Civ2: call to power had it which had another developer (?).

About Civ 3 you are probably right (I don't remember), but Civil War was in civ 1-2. I don't know about CtP, I never played that so much.

The event was extremely rare though, it only happened (I think) if the top civ lost its capital (or chance it happened) and it had a lot of cities and a civ "slot" was available (one civ has been taken out).

Edit: And of course I might be wrong, this was so very, very, very, very long time ago. And also not a good concept either.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Making a target even weaker by taking the capitol, which means the target is already severely weakened, creates runaways. It doesn't prevent them.

All this would do is allow a human to cheese 1-shot a capitol on the coast and split even massive empires against themselves, a functional "lose capitol = game over" for the AI.

 

[Socratatus]

I do miss civil wars in any strategy game using nations. The danger of Civil wars are a staple diet at some point of any nation`s history and it`s a seriously dumb move to omit it in a game like Civ.

 

[megabearsfan]

I think I remember hearing that Sid Meier himself said that it was a wasted mechanic because
a.) it hindered the AI's ability to play effectively
b.) when it would happen to a player, they would just reload an earlier save to stop it from happening or just quit the game completely.

So it just wasn't worth the effort required to make it work and be balanced, since most players didn't play the mechanic through anyway.

 

[pilot00]

About Civ 3 you are probably right (I don't remember), but Civil War was in civ 1-2. I don't know about CtP, I never played that so much.

The event was extremely rare though, it only happened (I think) if the top civ lost its capital (or chance it happened) and it had a lot of cities and a civ "slot" was available (one civ has been taken out).

Edit: And of course I might be wrong, this was so very, very, very, very long time ago. And also not a good concept either.

No you are not wrong. The prerequisite was for a civ to have been wiped out completely by the one who lost its capital. Then the losers empire would be split in two, the 'occupied' civ and the original civ. It represented the fact that the conquered civ took the chance to kick out their occupiers.

More or less it has been replaced with liberation.

 

[VainoValkea]

I do miss civil wars in any strategy game using nations. The danger of Civil wars are a staple diet at some point of any nation`s history and it`s a seriously dumb move to omit it in a game like Civ.

You've got a point, but they aren't really omitted any more - high unhappiness causes parts of your country to rebel, spawning barbarians.

 

[Socratatus]

I think I remember hearing that Sid Meier himself said that it was a wasted mechanic because
a.) it hindered the AI's ability to play effectively
b.) when it would happen to a player, they would just reload an earlier save to stop it from happening or just quit the game completely.

So it just wasn't worth the effort required to make it work and be balanced, since most players didn't play the mechanic through anyway.

I hate it when Devs make sweeping comments like this then alter things... How do they know what we ALL do? I certainly never reloaded because of a civil war.

 

[Circuit]

I think that the Revolutions mod from Civ 4 should be included in the base game. It's more advanced than civil war and more realistic.

 

[Lone Wolf]

To clarify the confusion, such "civil wars" were removed in Civ3, but Civ2 indeed had them.

 

[pilot00]

I hate it when Devs make sweeping comments like this then alter things... How do they know what we ALL do? I certainly never reloaded because of a civil war.

Its a case of: We didn't want to copy the same mechanics of our predecessors so we build out own, even if its more crappy.

 

[Falconiano]

One thing I really miss is rebels.
In Total War when you conquer a new city you might have some of the pop gather up and rebel, but this doesn't happen in Civ (you get some barbs if really unhappy but that's not the same).

 

[Chiatroll]

I consider having a dozen Red Barb units spawn at the same tech level as you in the middle of your territory because people are unhappy is a civil war.

it would be nice if those barb armies would grow with success and maybe take over a few cities when they get big but if they would stop getting labeled barbarians since they are using tanks, but they seem to fit everything else I want from a rebellion/civil war.