Civil War

[Comrade Pedro]

I think in the next civ, to the things get more harder, it will be some kind of civil war in your own country, when you are screwed the things and the people are not very content with your goverment. Then it appears various factions, each one with its own possible goverments (the ones that have been discovered), and the player have to "liberate" all the cities. This would occur even if you are at war with other countries, and that wars continue normally.
If in some time, nothing resolves, then the factions can go to a deal, forming then new countries....

Please give your comments....

 

[tossi]

That´s a great idea. Just look at real life and how civil wars formed nations. This idea should be evolved to colonys - Independence wars!

 

[Comrade Pedro]

Yeah, that's a great ideia too.
You can have small cities in a certain continent or land, that formed your colonies.

 

[Jake5555555]

I agree. There should be more nations being formed throughout the game in general. No modern nation was around in the ancient age, so why should it be that way in Civ? If in area of your nation is unhappy and sufficiently far away from your capital, it should form its own nation and rebel. These new nations might even defeat their mother country and become a major world power.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

That's right, and this should happens not only with you, but with the pc as well. Then you have the possibility to take one side of the civil war and support that faction, gaining then a reward.

 

[wlievens]

Civil War is very much necessary!

 

[raven15]

There should also be a life-time renegotiation option to rejoin the two civs, or negotiate a truce... Also, the new civ's capital could maybe be placed in the Civ3 second capital if it is built...

 

[Warlord Sam]

I definately like this idea, and Jake5555's point as well.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

The distribuition of units when the country go to a civil war will be very hard to deal.....Maybe the quantity of units themselves split into two and be distributed to the factions.
Another thing that would be interesting is when you go to the civil war and if you don't have much military units to control, your own citizens turn into conscripts and fight for you, without having the disanvantage of having people unhappy, like happens when you do this with draft.
You take as many citizens as you want until contues the civil war. When it's over you have to return them to their homes.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I had a similar idea, but it was for Resistors, I think I'll start afresh for this one, and maybe start a new thread for Resistors (its burried somewhere).

I think Civil Wars should really have a lot to do with culture, unrest, and disorder. I think when a city is going to flip due to culture, it will first riot (attacking and killing the military units in the city before fully forming military units). Then the city will get a white (Barbarian) border and any units produced will take the name of the city. Of course, since this a cultural flip, they will probably pledge allegiance to a new nation in a turn or two, if you don't stop the rebellion sooner. Than the new owners can bring units to the city, and the city will join that nation.

Civil Wars can also be caused by unrest (say pop-rush, or just unhappiness). They happen more frequently than culture, because unhappiness is more common. But they aren't necessarily going to flip to another nation. They will probably just attack you, trying to capture new cities.

BTW, if there are a lot of cities in unrest at the same time that riot and rebel, you have a much bigger problem. They take the name of the first city to rebel and, although some cities might peacefully submit again, the rebellion might spread as well. Although content cities will usually stay loyal if they feel safe. But they will launch organized war against you, and might have a chance to defeat you (if you are destroyed they take your civ color, and your civ, as the new government). If they take your capital, there is a chance many cities will defect (assuming you don't have lots of units to stop them).

There are ways to stop them. When they are rioting and in armed resistance, military police can stop them (sort of like stopping resistors), but, in democracy, this can cause more unhappiness. Police Station work much more effectively. If the units in the city are killed, you can use any force necessary to bring the city back under your control. Aside from that, just keep them happy (or under control).

 

[Comrade Pedro]

Another good thing that maybe would be fun is the terrorism.
In modern times, it will like barbarians, but with other weapons and with some specific objectives, like the ones on ETA and Al-Quaeda.

 

[Mescalhead]

Civil war should be implimented. Absolutely.

 

[RegentMan]

Loved them in Civ II. Missed them in Civ III. A must have in Civ IV.

 

[Headline]

The new concept I hope Civ4 will incorporate is the city-states concept.

Usually in history, a civilization does not build cities on its own. The growth of an empire is usually through the conquest of neighboring city states.

I want Civ4 to have several hundred different city states. The player has to either conquer the state or acquire it through marriage (through popular vote in democracy, and through senate resolution in republic only when nationalism is available).

When the culture in a city is really low, the city can become independent if the citizens are not happy. The city will become a city state in which the player cannot control. All of the units produced by this city will rebel against the player. This will create a mini civil war. This concept will force the player to be more careful about his culture and the sad citizens.

 

[judgement]

The potential for your cities to rebel should absolutely replace corruption and waste as the main "brake" applied to keep the larger civs from running away with the game. And the concept of "culture flipping" should definitely be re-worked and tied into the idea of rebellions and civil wars. No one has any fun when a city they have a dozen units in suddenly pledges allegiance to some other civ and all those units dissapear. To sum up:

Bad: cities flipping instantly to another civ and your military units disappear.
Good: cities want to join another civ so they rebel and your military units get attacked.
Even better: cities occasionally want to rebel and start a new civ (or re-start a defeated civ, if the city has people from that civ) instead of joining an existing rival.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

That is also a good idea, but i think this will only apply to the ancient times and end almost in the medieval times. I'm saying this, because if we see the facts of history, we realized that this happens only in this period.

 

[Pounder]

Originally posted by RegentMan
Loved them in Civ II. Missed them in Civ III. A must have in Civ IV.

Exactly.

 

[judgement]

This is somewhat relevant to the whole civil war / rebellion / culture flip discussion: why are new people who are born in your cities automatically your nationality, even if you just conquered the city the previous turn? Surely their parents (who are the ones chanting "Stop the agression against our mother country!") would try to raise them to dislike you. The problem with the way it works now is that it encourages you to starve a newly conquered city way down to low population, then let it grow back up full of your own people who won't try to instigate a culture flip.

A simple solution, since the computer keeps track of how much culture the previous owner of the city had built up there as well as how much you build up, is for the new citizens of a city to be whatever nationality has the most culture in that city. Thus, you wouldn't get new citizens of your own nationality until you had built a few improvements in the city and owned it for several turns. You could still starve the natives off and repopulate with your own people, but you'd have to do that by bringing in workers and joining them to the city, instead of just letting it grow back on its own. It would make the starve/repopulate strategy a little bit less attractive.

A more complicated solution would be for the nationality of new citizens to be determined by a combination of culture in the city, current population (what percentage are foreign citizens), and possibly overall culture. The more foreign citizens a city has, the more likely new citizens will consider themselves foreign, unless they see your culture as being dominant, in which case they scorn the culture of their parents and assimilate themselves into your nationality. The point is, you should have to either invest some energy in building cultural improvement and/or re-settle some people from elsewhere in your empire into a newly conquered city before the new citizens born there have any chance of being your nationality.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

But the fact of the new citizens born in that cities were ours it's totally legit: It can be explained with the migration of people to that city. The citizens with diferent cultures have too it's own grow, but while the young citizens arise, the old citizens die......

 

[Semulin]

"That is also a good idea, but i think this will only apply to the ancient times and end almost in the medieval times. I'm saying this, because if we see the facts of history, we realized that this happens only in this period."

Yea, because the english diden't have a civil war in the medieval times, America diden't rebell from the English, Brazil is still a Portugeese colony, and the Southern US diden't try to form it's own country.

-Sem