Civil War

[Comrade Pedro]

i dont agread with that rebel factions when turn into civilizations assume graphics of existing non in game civs. Because if the pc choose a civ leader at random, the final result could be a culture with a leader who haves another completely diferent culture.

 

[slc193]

That is a good idea for a conqured civ going into rebellion. And what you said about a non-existing civ being the new one was how civil wars worked in Civ1. I think that that original method could still work, especially since regional ethnicity is a part of Civ3. Just have the new one be of the same region.

But what about new leaders? Maybe if a Civ is conqured but then goes into rebellion and breaks off, they have a new leader, (maybe even w/ different passive/aggressive qualities). Maybe the list of great leaders from military victories and/or scientific accomplishments could also be the list of possible new leaders, perhaps depending on the era. If you think about it, when the original civ was conquered, the original leader was probably deposed rather harshly, especially in pre-industrial times.

 

[Dell19]

i dont agread with that rebel factions when turn into civilizations assume graphics of existing non in game civs. Because if the pc choose a civ leader at random, the final result could be a culture with a leader who haves another completely diferent culture.

I see your point that in general it should be a new civ from the same culture group instead of completely random but there is a chance that the new civilization may have been established because of developing its own unique culture and once it breaks away this rapidly changes into a completely different culture.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm one of the biggest advocate of civil wars, revolutions and such... but not to add realism, but strategy.

To me there are two faces to strategy.

1) you take one position, and risk danger, but with great benefit
2) you take another position, which is safer, but you risk mediocrity

In other words... how does a nation prevent civil war, and what is it costing them?

 

[Comrade Pedro]

Nations could prevent civil war by providing decent happiness to all of it cities. Consequences of a civil war are losing part of its country to another newly civ, if the factions wins the war.

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

In other words... how does a nation prevent civil war, and what is it costing them?

The cost will be to have a large empire with high corruption, and to have to fight the enemy within and the other civs at the same time...
or you go for a smaller and thus more flexible civ...

 

[Comrade Pedro]

i think civil wars dont need to be started when a civ is already at war with another civ. Being at war with another civ is not the reason why civil war starts: the primary based reason is unhappyness...

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

i think civil wars dont need to be started when a civ is already at war with another civ

right. usually an outside enemy unites...

so, a deeply centralized empire contains the seed of its own destruction and change(split, fractions,civil war) should be unavoidable

 

[Comrade Pedro]

But the civil war dont need those invasions and those aids from the foreign to start itself....(altough that aid was most usefull). The civil war should be unavoidable in situations of war did you said...I think not. If the citizens are very happy they dont need to rebel against the goverment, and they are more likely to destroy the invading country first than trying to make the civil war.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Linkage to poll-topic: Civilwar-inclined-civs http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=99170

 

[CivEconomist]

Sounds complicated to program, would certainly give incentive make people happier

 

[civilleader]

Why not hard program a list of new civs created by a break up:
Have a generic leaderhead so Canada, NZ, Australia have all same leaderhead.

UK-> Canada, Australia, NZ, South Africa
USA-> CSA, Texas, Hawaii, California Republic
France-> Brittany, Bourbonaise, Corsica, Orleans?
Spain-> Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela
Portugal-> Brazil, Uruguay, Goa?, Hormuz?
Russia-> Ukraine, Belarus, Chechnya, Moldovia
Austria-Hungary-> Austria, Hungary, Bohemia/Czechoslovakia, Slovenia
India-> Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal
China -> Shinkiang?, Tibet?, Manchuria, ?
Greece-> Attica, Laconia, Aeolia, Krete
Germany-> Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria, Bremen?
Vikings-> Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland
Incans-> Tihuanco, Nazca, Chimu, Tupi?
Indonesia -> Timor Leste, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei Darsalaam

and the list goes on...

 

[Comrade Pedro]

another good idea is to give the names of the governments the various factions choosed, like Comunist Republic of United Kingdom.....

 

[Secret Agent]

I agree with the idea of civil wars. Your civilization usually spreads far away from the capital as time goes on, and some of it might be on another continent where it's much easier for those citizens to rebel. This would be a cool idea for cities you capture during war because the citizens might not approve your rule multiple turns after the city was captured. There are many circumstances in which a civil war might start, so I think it would be a good idea to have it in Civilization 4.

 

[miRageR]

You should be able to grant states independence. Creating a new nation altogether.

And abandoning should not even be there. Hmm... the only real life example of abandoning, is if you kill all the citizens... but.. IMO it doesn't need to be represented.

So if you can't contol another continent, grant it independence. But another issue is what techs does it have?

 

[Comrade Pedro]

You should be able to grant states independence. Creating a new nation altogether.

And abandoning should not even be there. Hmm... the only real life example of abandoning, is if you kill all the citizens... but.. IMO it doesn't need to be represented.

So if you can't contol another continent, grant it independence. But another issue is what techs does it have?

and what would be the advantages if you grant independence? maybe you gain comercial interests within the new country....

 

[dh_epic]

There would need to be reason that you'd rather have commercial interest in the nation than actually control the nation. Civil war does raise a lot of tricky questions, but they have answers if you think about it reasonably.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

There would need to be reason that you'd rather have commercial interest in the nation than actually control the nation. Civil war does raise a lot of tricky questions, but they have answers if you think about it reasonably.

When i talked about comercial interest i was putting the possibility of freely grant independence to a region, not by means of war...

 

[dh_epic]

I'd love to see that, but everybody knows that conquering somebody is much more valuable than having them as an ally. Something would need to balance these two factors, so having an ally is equally as valuable as conquering them, maybe even more valuable in some cases.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

i think this topic should be several involved with terrorism matters....