Empires don't last, Civil Wars would be nice

[Chomes99]

Hi All, long time Civ player and forum reader, finally made an account today!

Anyways, I didnt see it mentioned anywhere else, but I really liked the feature from Civ II where if you took the capital of a really large empire there would be a good chance that the said empire would split in two (1) loyalist (2) a new civ for the rebels. They immediately went to war with each other which was good for the person who took the capital, causing all sorts of chaos and chances to take more cities. Gives a huge incentive to protect the capital!

I wish this feature would be in Civ V since I've noticed that there is a clear trend towards weaker Civs being eaten up and stronger ones gaining full continents and the game turns into a continent vs continent sort of war.

In history, large empires always have a point where they start to reduce their size for strategic reasons, like when the Romans left Britain to defend Rome from the barbs. or when England basically went bankrupt from two world wars and had to let her colonies go independent, yet maintaining some level of relationship.

I'd like to see a feature where you can create a new Civ by letting a group of cities leave your empire, kinda like vassalage, also I think the Civil war feature is great.

I'd like to hear anyone else's thoughts on the topic, also happy thoughts of Civ II are welcome.

 

[Rooftrellen]

I'd say taking a capital of another civ would likely cause civil war in your civ, as you try to integrate a different culture and would likely unite the enemy civ, as an important historical city has fallen into enemy hands.

I can't think of any situation when a country, kingdom, empire, etc. gave up land because they wanted to. As you mention, it is generally due to attacks or money. A civil war mechanic already exists on a level, with high unhappiness causing barbarian "rebels" to spawn, though this is obviously not like you are imagining. I think losing cities and what not would be a bit too much.

If you want to be a good leader, you want to manage your empire so that you won't be losing land, not giving land away to another leader due to poor management.

Then, with the idea of civil war, if anything were to happen like that, I'd be more for big civs that conquer a lot of enemy cities being more likely to face such a situation, rather than someone who is already staring defeat in the face.

 

[El Caballerion]

Yes. I really don't like how new cities in CIV V automatically forget the horrors of the past once you build a courthouse. There needs to be some more pros and cons for capturing foreign cities. Maybe a big cash or new UA payoff if you win the Civil War?

 

[GhostSalsa]

I'd like to see a feature where you can create a new Civ by letting a group of cities leave your empire, kinda like vassalage, also I think the Civil war feature is great.

this would be nice. Whenever I play tall there's spots on the map that should have a city, without me having to wait for the AI to make it. It would be nice to be able to found independent cities that basically have their own mind and can do other stuff which I don't feel like ironing out - maybe found their own new cities or join other independent cities. Maybe this ability would be something unlocked by finishing tradition.

 

[El Caballerion]

I think the bad part of CIV is that you ALWAYS play as if you are a totalitarian dictator, regardless if you have a 'democracy'. It would be cool to have a civil war and be able to choose between two different factions, each which give you new benefits if they either stay separate or reunite.

 

[afedyuki]

By the time you build the courthouse many years (or even centuries in the early game) would have passed. It is the opposite that bothers me: say, a city was conquered 2000 years ago, why does it still need a the courthouse and why there is still an option to raze it?

Yes. I really don't like how new cities in CIV V automatically forget the horrors of the past once you build a courthouse. There needs to be some more pros and cons for capturing foreign cities. Maybe a big cash or new UA payoff if you win the Civil War?

 

[Chomes99]

I think the bad part of CIV is that you ALWAYS play as if you are a totalitarian dictator, regardless if you have a 'democracy'. It would be cool to have a civil war and be able to choose between two different factions, each which give you new benefits if they either stay separate or reunite.

I think it was in Civ I or maybe Civ II, but if you were a republic or a democracy your own government sometimes prevented you from going to war because the people you represent didnt like it. That doesn't happen any more. And if you say switch from Freedom to Autocracy, you get that one turn of anarchy and lose your freedom civics, its almost pointless. kinda off topic but, It would be neat if the anarchy lasted longer, but you got to reuse your civics, or if the cost of new civics went way down after a "revolution"

 

[PhilBowles]

Hi All, long time Civ player and forum reader, finally made an account today!

Anyways, I didnt see it mentioned anywhere else, but I really liked the feature from Civ II where if you took the capital of a really large empire there would be a good chance that the said empire would split in two (1) loyalist (2) a new civ for the rebels.

I also really liked this in the first two Civ games. I can't remember if it was Civ III or Civ IV that removed it, but sadly I doubt it will be back since it's been gone a long time.

 

[Jatta Pake]

I'm putting together my suggestion for an expansion that includes these ideas. I'll put a link up when I finish it.

But yes, the Civ2 civ split was rare but definitely memorable.

 

[whyidie]

Wouldn't mind seeing something like this coming back...

 

[AriochIV]

I liked that population had ethnicity in Civ IV, and if you were at war with another nation, your populace of that ethnicity (if any) would generate extra unhappiness and potentially trigger unrest and even revolt. A full-blown civil war would, I think, be a bit too extreme... game mechanics that take control out of the hands of the player generally aren't much fun.

Unfortunately, Civ V lacks all of the systems that would be required to make any of these ideas work.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Moved to Ideas & Suggestions.

 

[PibbZ]

I'm putting together my suggestion for an expansion that includes these ideas. I'll put a link up when I finish it.

But yes, the Civ2 civ split was rare but definitely memorable.

Agreed, loved it!

 

[Byrsa Suffet]

I really enjoy some of these thoughts and here are some of my thoughts.

In large part, while Civ5 delivers on many of the features to make us hardcore fans happy, it seems many of these more complicated features were removed or seriously nerfed from previous versions of the game. On civil war, there was a Civ IV mod called Teturkhan's Test of Time where a game mechanic called "stability" that took into account population, geographical spread, happiness, health, and the economy. If your empire was considered "unstable" for too long, your empire would split. This happened somewhat randomly but it was a fun element to take into account. This version also took into account the real life timeline of your empire, so Rome would start to become inherently unstable into the medieval period but that was mod-specific.

I think it would also be neat to ressurect colonies. In Civ 3, you could spend a worker to build a "colony" on a strategic or luxury resource that was outside your borders. You would have to defend them and there was upkeep associated them, but they also never became fully-fledged cities. It would be neat if you could found some kind of "colony city" that would perhaps take up fewer tiles at the time of founding, grew more slowly, but would not provide the same benefits or costs as a full city. At some point in the future the city (or group of close colony cities) may opt to seperate and you might be presented with the choice of recognizing independence which would have diplomatic benfits, or by enforcing your sovereignty which would set off a colonial war. This also closely mirrors the "grant independence" feature of Civ 4. However, in Civ 4 I found myself reluctant to let these cities go as they were full cities and I couldn't pick and choose individual cities to grant independence to, though it was fun as well.

Another interesting idea was brought up earlier in the thread about running different governments but ultimately playing as a dictatorship. It would be neat for certain social policies (or add a new feature altogether) to come with a parliament or government with certain factions or parties that would have to be appeased through various means. One faction might desire an emphasis on scientific infrastructure, another may want closer relations to a particular civ or CS, or even war and expansion. They could work similar to CS missions and could come with consequences like temporary unhappiness or city revolt if you fail to appease the parliament, maybe if you have chronic unhappiness a separatist party could emerge. The Total War series of games have features like this that add a neat internal governance to the game.