Empire Split

[MidnightRambler]

Does anybody else remember the good 'ole days in Civ II when u could take a HUGE AI empire, mass about 10 tanks, send them along on the AI's own railroads, take their capital, cause a civil war and effectivally SPLIT the empire in two. sometimes even three or four times.
does anybody else miss the civil war feature or is it better that they took it out for Civ III.

 

[WildFire]

I think it would be cool for single player (to have the option) but for multiplayer, it would be a real pain in the ass.

 

[Chieftess]

I wouldn't imaging how it might work in MP, except that the AI would take over, or you could have another player who's waiting for a game to join in (although ladder play might not like that...).

IMHO, civil wars should be much different than, "invading your enemy's capital, and splitting that civ". (I think it was a common deity tactic in Civ2).

Civil wars should happen if a provincial era were to become unhappy long enough, or have a connection be disconnected (i.e., harbor, road, etc.).

 

[Milan's Warrior]

Does anybody else remember the good 'ole days in Civ II when u could take a HUGE AI empire, mass about 10 tanks, send them along on the AI's own railroads, take their capital, cause a civil war and effectivally SPLIT the empire in two. sometimes even three or four times.
does anybody else miss the civil war feature or is it better that they took it out for Civ III.

I sooooo miss that.
Actually I tried that during my first game, and when it did not work I
and
and

 

[Longasc]

In Civ3 I think the concept of civil unrest is represented by unhappy and rioting citizens and culture flips.

It is also true that capturing the capital was an easy way to neutralize a superior opponent in Civ 2.

I am looking forward to Civ 4, I hope they do not go for too cartoonish graphics like in the Pirates! Remake right now and add some new and improved concepts to the game, e.g. a less annoying concept for corruption and waste.