Enemy Capital=civil war?

IIRC I once had civil war happen to me with Civ1. I did something foolish, back when I was still new to the game (lo those many years ago), and I lost my capital. Boom, there went half my other cities, and I was not a happy camper.

Seems like civil wars were much more common in Civ1 than Civ2. I know because I constantly, constantly tried to induce the AI to have them.

It shouldn't be triggered by the capital being seized, but I think the fundamental idea of a civil war -- half the civ's cities suddenly becoming a new civ -- is awesome, and should have been implemented somehow. Maybe if you let WW linger too long, or if you find some other way to piss off huge numbers of your population . . . or you let your corruption run rampant and do nothing to combat it . . .
 
Well, They did elimanate civil wars in Civ 3. Many of the people in the Civ 4 subform want them back in some form.

I do remember that in Civ I, in particular, where civil wars were almost automatic, that it would bring back some long off killed off civ. So, the American civ would break into the Babylon or someother crazy civ like that that made no sense.
 
The Last Conformist said:
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.

I totally agree. There seems to be no historical precedent on which to base this feature. I'm glad that Civ 3 dropped it. :)
 
So, the American civ would break into the Babylon or someother crazy civ like that that made no sense.
Easily worked around in Civ4, now that civs can be culturally similar. The Americans splitting into Americans and Iroquois, for example, would make slightly more sense.
 
It's been too long since I played Civ2, but I have a question. In Civ2, there were only a maximum of 7 players, plus the barbs. If playing a 7-player game, did Civil War then not happen? :confused:
 
This was actually one of my favorite features in Civ I and II, although I didn't see it happen in Civ II more than once or twice. I remember it happening only if:
  • the civ is very large (I recall one the Zulus having over 50 cities when it happened to them)
  • you never had any contact with the civ before
  • you attack and capture their capital on the first turn
  • there is a long-dead civ ready to take up the mantle of leadership

I'd like to see this reintroduced in Civ 4, actually, but with a number of very unlikely conditions, designed to give the "loyalist" civ many advantages in reconquering lost cities:
  • the civ that undergoes the civil war has to have been in a state of turmoil for some time before the attack on the capital -- many key cities in a state of civil disorder, for instance
  • the rebel cities are of primarily of foreign nationality, most likely of a civ completely conquered by the civ that undergoes civil war, and on the perhiphery of that civ's empire
  • the rebel civ begins in a state of anarchy
  • each rebel city only gains one defensive unit -- just as if the city defected through propaganda
  • all unique units of the defeated civ are immediately transferred to the new capital
  • the rebel cities are very far from the capital -- the most corrupt cities, for instance, or cities on a different continent
  • a REALLY random number generator
 
MikeLynch said:
The Americans splitting into Americans and Iroquois, for example, would make slightly more sense.

Without trying to sound too controversial, the way it should be is that certain Civilizations can only arise through Civil War rather than starting the game, America being a prime example, and an excellent one as it could easily have been created from a split from France, Portugal, Holland or Spain as it could have England.
 
Top Bottom