Civil War

[Roxalana]

I really miss the "civil wars" that would sometimes break out in civ I if you took a nation's capital city. Then it would turn into two different civs. It was such a great way to cripple the opponent in wartime. They should bring that back.

 

[Ant509y]

Look to the thread Again, Provinces to see how we're forming a province system with an in-depth civil war ability as a key feature.

 

[sealman]

I like the idea of a civil war should you capital fall.

 

[gazdeluxe11]

i like the idea of civil war, definately, but it should be much more fleshed out than it was in Civ2, IMO. First, capturing a capital shouldnt *always* be a trigger to civil war. There should be other, less predictable ones that are not completely dependant on war (for example, a religious Civ builds Copernicus' Observatory or something that would potentially really make the people angry, or a tax rate over a certain percentage for a long time, or being in disorder for a really long time perhaps... it should be extreme conditions that would result in civil war, but it shouldnt just be caputring the capital.)

Also, i always thought it was a bit silly in Civ2 that it would always be a rival Civ that would spring up when you took a capital. This is cool if the Civ that sprung up had just been eliminated by the city falling into civil war, but i think there should be certain "sub-civs" that civil wars generate for certain other civs. For example, in the ancient ages, if the Romans get hit by civil war, the new civ could be the Etruscans, if Rome gets hit by civil war in the industrial era, it could be the Vienesse. For Germany, ancient civil war could result in the Goths or Visigoths, medieval civil war the Bavarians, Industrial civil war the Austrians or Poles, and Modern could give East Germany or perhaps Lithuwania or Lichtenstein. France would have the Burgundians, a host of middle age civs.

Also, rival civs could foment civil war and rebellion in other civs, and the diplomatic attitude of those "new" civs would be reflected by your support (or lack there of). For example, if I'm fighting the Chinese, I can give gold to independance movements in China. Lets say China has civil war in the industrial era and Tibet breaks free. If my support had been sustained, the Tibetan envoy would be worshipful, if i didnt support them but had been at war with the mother country, they could begin furious. Of course, there would be middle ground: a tech or two or a few hundred GP could get you Polite / Gracious, whereas indifference could get you Cautious.

A few questions though: should these "sub-civs" have UUs and traits? Should subcivs even be in there? Am i out of my mind?

-john

 

[sealman]

Yes, you are out of your mind if you think that the Poles or Lithuanians should come out of a German Civil War

Good idea though, but to avoid the arguments that would arise, such as what I mentioned above, the rival or off shoot civ, should be called by their "capital". Wait a minute, that means if Hamburg is the new capital for an off shoot of the Germans, that would make them the Hamburgers. Mmmmm Hamburgers.....

 

[Arathorn]

I don't understand this. You want to make the game easier for the human and harder for the AI (a very bad thing, IMO), tied to an event that essentially never caused a Civil War in real life... WHY?

That's one piece of Civ2 I hope never sees the light of day again. Yuck.

Arathorn

 

[gazdeluxe11]

arathorn: agreed, but war-time failures have definately led to civil war in the past. The communist revolution in Russia, for example, was a response triggered by the failure to withdraw from WWI. I dont think the capital should cause civil war every time, but i do think military defeats should be able to trigger civil war (maybe the loss of magellean's expidition to a seafaring civ or something)


sealman: I was having a hard time thinking up example civs off the top of my head, but you get the general gist of my intentions.

Civil war could be very nice if done right. I definately think it should be era based. No more Aztecs springing up as a result of an egyptian civil war in the modern era like in Civ2 (unless, of course, egypt just eliminated the aztecs and there are still a sizeable amount of aztec citizens left in a particular part of the empire).

-john

 

[mtgfreak]

@gazdeluxe11: i beg to differ about the communist revolution. The Czars had been opressing the peoples of Russia for quite a long time. Russia was the only powerful nation with serfdom still allowed. There was little food, because Russia had not modernized. There were no liberal reforms in Russia that would have allowed the serfs more freedom. The military defeat was just the spark under the gunpowder that the Bolsheviks needed.

this is like the ottomans: they were torn apart after WWI, but that wasnt the reason for their falling apart. civil reforms were needed but not given

I personally think you should plunge into civil war if your civ does something that completely violates your religion or civics. i.e. christian allying with pagan or muslim, or going to war with a much loved ally (you declaring of course)

 

[Joey_Ramone]

I really liked the whole civil war thing. Even if they decide not to do it, I believe there still should be a penalty to losing your capital city, which makes it more strategic.

The way it is now, there is no penalty at all for losing your capital which I don't like.

 

[Jon Shafer]

If Civil Wars are included at all in Civ 4, I'm sure they'll be tied to some triggers which can be accessed through Python. This will be a very neat feature, if so. Making sure the AI can handle it is an important consideration though.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I KNOW I've said it before, but I'll say it again here-just to be safe!

I do agree that loss of your capital should be a potential trigger for civil war-though a very potent one-but it should not happen automatically.
Other factors in deciding if a civil war occured could be:

1) # of foriegn nationals in your cities.

2) Your Nationalism and Libertarianism settings.

3) The number of troops stationed in your cities.

4) City wealth, war weariness, city happiness, crime/corruption levels and the like.

5) Your culture rating compared to your neighbours.

6) Government type.

7) Distance from the capital

8) Distance from another 'breakaway' city.

Also, these factors should also be potential triggers-i.e. if happiness falls below a certain level, or if crime/corruption levels increase above a certain level, then it might act as a trigger for a civil war.
In my mind, a civil war might start with a single city breaking away, with that leading to a potential 'Domino Effect' that could see neighbouring cities breaking away as well. Cities which break away on the same turn would form a brand new civ. In this model, your most outlying cities would probably be the most likely to break away from your empire-all other things being equal! Also, religious factors could spark a 'religion-specific' civil war-known as a 'Religious Schism'!
Anyway, thats how I would like to see it work!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Punkymonkey]

I like the idea of a civil war but how could they not make it stupid like in Civ 2 when it is utterly random which civ it picked. Unless the population of breakaway cities are uniform then it would hard to pick a name for the civ. It is was a mess of different nationalities how could they solve that problem. I guess only if you just conquered a civ and you let unhappiness play a factor instead of resisters then if you get the " How can we forget the cruel oppression you beared down on us" message if you don't build some happiness improvements fast, they rebel. However that would make it rare and still stupid.
There needs to be a whole new way to incorporate it into a game because it plays a huge role in our history. If the province thing is implemented then maybe you could "encourage" provinces to rebel, giving money and weapons(units) in excgange for them to rebel. That would be cool and perhaps more than two provinces at a time, if you got the cash or if they're just really really unhappy.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Easy, PunkyMonkey.
You have a database of Minor Civs, and the Culture Group to which they belong. When a civ undergoes a civil war, the computer will access this database, and change the breakaway civ's name to one of those minor civs that are in the appropriate culture group.
If there are none currently available in that culture group, then it will look to the next closest for a new civ-name!

For this purpose, the culture groups should be:

1) North American

2) South/Central American.

3) Western European.

4) East European.

5) Mediterranian.

6) Middle Eastern.

7) North African.

8) South/Central African.

9) North Asian.

10) South/SE Asian.

Anyway, how does that sound?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Punkymonkey]

That sounds like a good idea but i believe that if you rapidly conquer a civ and leave them unhappy for too long, perhaps not stationing enough troops in the area to supress opposition to your rule, they should rebel too taking their old civ's name. I don't know if that data base thing would help with a problem like this but could be part of a multi-faceted approach to civil wars.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

In that case, I would say that if breakaway cities contained a majority of 'foreign nationals' then that city would become, or rejoin, the civ to which those nationals formerly belonged. If all the foreign nationals are assimilated, then the culture group of the cities predominant population should be the determiner of what name a breakaway civ goes by.
As an example, lets say that several Zulu cities are conquered by the Carthaganians during the Classical Age then, during the middle ages, Carthagania undergoes a civil war and these cities-still with a predominantly Zulu population-break away. Now, if the Zulu civ still exist, then these cities will probably rejoin that civ. If the Zulu civ no longer exists, then these Cities will form up to become "New Zulu's", or just 'Zulu's'. Now, if the Zulu's in those cities had been Assimilated, then they would no longer see themselves as Zulu's, but they would still belong to the South/Central African culture group-therefore these cities would become a new nation with a name belonging to the South/Central African Culture Group! Of course, if these cities had been ULTRA-Assimilated, then they would now belong to the North African culture group of their 'Carthaganian Masters', and would thus take a name from the North African Culture group!
So, does that suit you PunkyMonkey?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Punkymonkey]

Alright, now that sounds pretty solid!