Civil War

[liandy]

I remember in CIV II or III if you took over a nation's capital, that nation would split and go to civil war. The Space Ship would also get recalled from space. Does the same thing happen in CIV IV?

 

[Party]

I remember in CIV II or III if you took over a nation's capital, that nation would split and go to civil war. The Space Ship would also get recalled from space. Does the same thing happen in CIV IV?

That would be civII, woldn't it? Jeez, I havn't palyed that in so long!
Nope, in civ IV that does not happen, and rightly so. Otherwise it would be way to eazy to bitz the enemy capital and win the game.

 

[The Conquerer22]

well it might be easy but then if the game split the 2 parts of the former nation,who would the spaceship belong too?And the fact that they split inot a civil war is kindof idiotic over a capital place, sure some cities were P.O.ed when Ottawa was chosen to be the capital of Canada and not Toronto Motreal or whatever but it didin't split our country. Overall I think they should reintroduce and expand upon the civil war aspect of the games. But not over something idiotic but over the governament like communism over monarchy in Russia, like in the Russian Revolution. Or religion or other things.

 

[Cuchalain]

That was one of the things I loved about civ 2, along with the ability to change civs (roman to german for instance) using the cheat button.

 

[The Conquerer22]

can u do that with any of the later civs

 

[Cuchalain]

not to my knowledge, but I haven't really experimented with the cheats yet.

 

[rabidveggie]

It wouldn't make much sense. When Napolean captured Moscow the Russians kept fighting.

 

[Thomas G.]

Ehm. Very often the loss of capital is connected with a sort of social uproar, which might lead to that effect.

Napoleon - Moscow capture, I'd say it was more that the Russians retreated from Moscow, leaving nothing behind, so nothing was really gained by its capture. If, say, the Russians had tried to defend it, the Tsar might have remained there, and THEN its capture would have had a very different result.

But gameplay-wise it would be unbalancing and erratic.

CIV is just a game - I think most people would agree that Alexander the Great won a domination victory, or very close to it - but then a few years later his empire had almost completely disappeared.

 

[The Conquerer22]

reason being that he died and all his generals and family faught over the mid east, Egypt, Greece and Macedonia, all because of his death, the ;longest lasting was the Egyptian Empire cuz the mid east was split then was conquered second, after Greece and the Egyptians were conquered by the Romans afterwards

 

[pholkhero]

reason being that he died and all his generals and family faught over the mid east, Egypt, Greece and Macedonia, all because of his death, the ;longest lasting was the Egyptian Empire cuz the mid east was split then was conquered second, after Greece and the Egyptians were conquered by the Romans afterwards

true, if alexander was immortal like the leaders in Civ, then i think his Domination win would've lasted as long.

 

[The Conquerer22]

yah, I think a few of the civ leaders would be cool to interview, plus I think the longest lasting empire ever would be the Byzantine Empire with like 1,100 years under its belt, and too bad we can't have military leaders of the likes of like Alexander or Basil the second of the Byzantines or people who want to do good for their militaries, and countries

 

[The Conquerer22]

anybody agree with me?

 

[L4zXX0r]

anybody agree with me?

No. It's a good thing that world leaders that go around conquering other countries can die. I don't think I'd be too fond of a monarchy.

 

[The Conquerer22]

yah but I meant like the interview part, I believe you mean pholkhero when u mean lasting empires and monarchy, but I like history so, thats why I got civ games

 

[sydhe]

It wouldn't make much sense. When Napolean captured Moscow the Russians kept fighting.

China split up a couple of times because the capital fell and the major warlords asserted themselves against what remained of the central authority.

 

[The Conquerer22]

I think thats true

 

[ZB2]

Moscow wasnt the Capital, St. Petersburg was.

 

[jessiecat]

It wouldn't make much sense. When Napolean captured Moscow the Russians kept fighting.

Just check with Wik. Napoleon didn't really capture Moscow. Russian forces
abandoned the city to regroup in Sept 1814. French walked in, stayed and
looted for a month then retreated west after fires started all over the city (prob. accidental). About 3/4 of Moscow was destroyed. Winter was coming
and Napoleon kept retreating west, harrassed by Russian cavalry. Less than
a third of the Grande Armee made it home.

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

I remember in CIV II or III if you took over a nation's capital, that nation would split and go to civil war. The Space Ship would also get recalled from space. Does the same thing happen in CIV IV?

In BtS, the Space Ship does get recalled if your capital is captured.

 

[Nor'easter]

You might enjoy this mod, then.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=171127