Civil Wars

[rcoutme]

This is a poll on what people want for Civil wars, trial #2. I am hoping it does not time out on me again!

 

[zjl56]

Is this supposed to be a multi choice poll? I think making this poll could put up some real results.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I confess that I did not vote yes for the provinces system-largely coz I don't want to commit myself to supporting one system over another-at least, not yet ! That said, though, the more I read about provinces-especially the most recent posts by Anty and Loafwarden-the more attracted I become to the provinces system!
Whatever system is used, though, civil wars really MUST be a feature of Civ4!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rcoutme]

Yes, it is multiple choice (I want people to limit their choices to five or less, though).

As for the provinces idea:

In a nutshell: a player would designate provinces at some point in order to gain advantages (probably in corruption). These provinces would be 3-6 cities and would be able to contribute to the empire better than if left as individual cities. The downside is that provinces would gain ethnicity and be a potential for civil war (instead of losing just one city). The benefits would, obviously, need to outweigh the potential loss of the province.

 

[rcoutme]

Ok folks. We need more votes. We are just about split on split nations reuniting or never reuniting. Also, I need to keep bumping this thread so that people will see it and vote.

By the way, this will affect what goes into the Civ IV consolidation sticky.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, I confess that I did NOT vote on the issue of whether or not split nations should start in war or ever reunite etc etc-because I don't think things should be so ABSOLUTE, but should instead rely on in-game factors!
To put my argument into a more historical context, consider this: both Australia and the USA are former colonial holdings of Great Britain. Now, the USA split from Britain and war ensued-today, of course, they are the BEST of friends. Australia OTOH, was granted independance without a shot being fired, and we have ALWAYS been the best of friends with Great Britain! As far as unification goes, well a number of nations, like Italy for instance, have gone through periods of break-up and unification. Like I said, I think it depends on diplomatic and cultural factors-and the manner in which the breakaway occured. For instance, to use my historical examples above, I reckon that when a civil war is in the offing, your domestic advisor might come foreward and say 'Sire, the peoples of the _______ province are demanding their independance, what shall we do?' At this point, you COULD decide to let them go-in which case you'll get a reasonably amicable new civ on your border OR you can say 'No, dammit, they are part of our empire-send in the troops to quell the dissent!' If you choose the latter option, then the province almost certainly WILL break away (unless you can sufficiently alter their mood in the space of that turn) and the breakaway nation will be very hostile towards you, and may even declare war upon you!
Anyway, just some thoughts.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rcoutme]

I would suggest, then, Aussie, that you are for the 'possibility' that they can reunite. The other option is really the limiting factor. I like your take on it, though. If you let a province go (as opposed to an actual war) then they have a much more favorable attitude towards you. That is something I would like to see in Civ IV.

 

[Ant509y]

I've added my vote to this! I voted for the provincial effect (of course, being one of the major supporters of Provinces I have to. ^_^) as well as for agreements staying valid for the nation that keeps the capital, near random event status, and I believe... that they CAN reunite, though I must say it can't be often.

Also, thanks for giving us a nod, Aussie! I'm happy to hear my ideas are liked. We are now using a new thread than Again, Provinces, to simplify the province idea we are using so that it is feasable to be put into Civ 4... go read it. And hopefully give your thoughts, this is for all of you! I stated that civil wars are essential to why I want provinces, and that means I'm right at home here.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hi there Anty. Actually, it was your simplified Provinces thread which actually got me a great deal more interested in the whole idea of provinces. The only problem that I could forsee with provinces, from a civil war sense, is that you will almost always get a fairly standard number of cities breaking away (i.e. the 3-6 that you mentioned!) Wheras, the civil war model I've put forward has it being much more random-though close proximity to a breakaway city will increase the chance of a city thats on the cusp breaking away!
Anyway, your method could still work very well if multiple provinces, or parts of provinces, could break away at the same time-as then the numbers of cities involved becomes more varied!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Ant509y]

Thanks, Aussie. Also, I've now remembered to start emphasizing in my last post there, that I want it to be rather rare that a province rebels on its own. I want at least a few other provinces [and/or non-provincial cities nearby] to rebel. That would take care of that worry!

 

[rcoutme]

Well, Provinces seem to be popular as is reuniting. Keep up the votes, guys.

 

[rcoutme]

Time to bump the poll again so that others will vote. As I mentioned above, the poll results will go into the consolidation sticky. So I really am not trying to spam the thread, I am just trying to keep this poll current.

 

[rcoutme]

Time to bump this again.

 

[SewerStarFish]

I voted for the 5 most important (to me things). I really think that size should be a factor -- the bigger you are the more likely you'll have one. I don't like the idea of automatic peace.

And one that wasn't mentioned: I'd like extended periods of peace to increase the risk as much as extended wars.

Also it would be cool if the nation that splits off would be related to the original (eg English have a civil war the other side is might be America, Rome has one it could be the Franks).

I also would think that more than one CW for the player per game might not be fun, but let the AI have more at easier levels.

 

[dh_epic]

I put in my vote for provinces just as much as I'm voting for re-uniting. (Of course, this can be a combination of war, surrender, and peaceful collaboration -- like the end of the USA civil war.)

I wish this thread had been titled "civ splitting" -- because civilizations HAVE split without war, peacefully. Britain didn't go to war with India when it split. There was no war in Hong Kong when it shifted back to China. Canada and Britain never had a war. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even Rome split into East and West, with only some tension between them.

The USA and Britain DID have a war, of course.

There should be incentives for fighting a split, and there should be incentives for letting a split happen peacefully (e.g.: Britain letting France free, after taking it from Germany.).

 

[SewerStarFish]

Good point: You can have the new province immediately offer peace terms.

 

[rcoutme]

Great voting guys! I think we are really starting to get a good feel of what people want out there.

 

[rcoutme]

Just bumping this for more votes.

 

[Matternich]

Any thoughts on a smaller 'Rebellion' whereby a pecentage of your troops go renegade (possibly ones garrisoned to quell resistance or unhappiness), break away and attack other troops without any change or loss of cities?

 

[rcoutme]

Probably too difficult to incorporate into civ.