Enemy Capital=civil war?

[bgart5]

In Civ II, every now and then when you took an enemies capital a 'civil war' would break out and split the enemy into two civs (so, like the vikings would become the vikings and the english).

Does this happen at all in Civ III? I liked it when that happened because that meant I had another ally, or some one else to pulverise.

 

[superslug]

No, I'm afraid it doesn't.

 

[primeminister99]

I never remember that happening though -- maybe cause I had civ2 on playstation.

 

[citizen001]

It doesn't happen in Civ3 but they should have an option in the editor to implement it for custom scenarios.

 

[Pounder]

I never remember that happening though -- maybe cause I had civ2 on playstation.

It happened on the Playstation Civ II as well, seen it many times.

Too bad it didn't make it to Civ III.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

That is a feature I really miss.

 

[Abaddon]

Was Great when it happened.. was another thing that immersed you in the game

 

[Jon Shafer]

I disagree... just another way to exploit the AI.

 

[primeminister99]

I think if its done in an intellgent way it can be okay. But if you just dispatch a strong expeditionary force to the AI capital than it is an exploit.

The AI should also have a strong way of assesing the situation. Example: if the AI capital is on your border it wouldn't cause much of anything to happen should you capture it, but if it's deep in their territory (compared to pre-war borders) then there should be some upheavel for a few turns. After the upheavel have a new goverment that is able to produce units quicker and cheaper (for the duration of the war) -- a sort of desperation move perhaps.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Civil wars were cool, but, as Trip says, horribly exploitable.

And not terribly realistic either. I'm hard pressed to think of examples where countries have fallen into civil war because of their capital cities being captured by external enemies.

 

[braclayrab]

I don't remember them being that exploitable in Civ I... of course, I was like 8 yrs old then. Wasn't it still somewhat rare, even when you captured a capital...?

 

[primeminister99]

This is true TLC, although there should be a way of encouraing a real civil war -- and of course it should be able to happen to your own civ.

 

[Yuri2356]

I don't remember them being that exploitable in Civ I... of course, I was like 8 yrs old then. Wasn't it still somewhat rare, even when you captured a capital...?

I belive that was in Civ1, but it was so rare that I've only seen it once.

 

[LLXerxes]

Civil wars were cool, but, as Trip says, horribly exploitable.

And not terribly realistic either. I'm hard pressed to think of examples where countries have fallen into civil war because of their capital cities being captured by external enemies.

yes, but we can only go so far realism-wise

my friend told me this is possible in Civ3 but it's not. he got II and III mixed up.
maybe they'll add it back in Civ4 maybe

 

[Jon Shafer]

yes, but we can only go so far realism-wise

No reason to come up with a game mechanic that's both unrealistic and imbalanced...

 

[bgart5]

True, it was exploitable, but I would like to see something like that.

And, I think it would be interesting if the same thing could happen to your civ. You'd be going along and all of a sudden have half of your citys under someone elses controll. Hmm, on second thought, that sounds like an immersive feature, but not much fun.

 

[The Last Conformist]

This is true TLC, although there should be a way of encouraing a real civil war -- and of course it should be able to happen to your own civ.

I can recall exactly one instance in any Civ game in which the loss of my capital was not swiftly followed by my elimination from the game or my giving it up as hopeless.

 

[Herrs]

Either way there should be some punishment for loosing your capital, maybe a period of anarchy or something. As it is now, a civ might even benifit from loosing the capital if the new location is better than the old.

It shoul'nt be treated like any city when conquered.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I can't recall any AI civ benefiting from a loss of its capital in any of my games - it's at any rate not a common occurence.

I wouldn't mind some suitable penalty for the loss of a capital, but it shouldn't encourage "surgical" strikes against capitals as a sure-fire way of defeating stronger enemies; that's bad for realism and bad for gameplay.

 

[punkbass2000]

I agree with TLC. I think WW is enough of a penalty. You lose a city, your people are unhappy. Makes sense, isn't game breaking and doesn't give way to too many exploits. Maybe you could have population in the city determine the amount of WW and things like that, with the capital causing highest amount or some such.