I wish the concept of Civil War can be implemented

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Veteranewbie, Mar 24, 2006.

  1. Veteranewbie

    Veteranewbie Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    402
    Although this will complicated the game up or foreseeably causes some frustration, I think Civil War should be implemented. I mean, historically, there are powerful Civilizations being destroyed by Civil War and those Civilizations that can handle their crisis of Civil War tend to grow into a major power
    In this game, it happens that large civ will always have the upper hand since they're... large. It just happens so that small civ can no way defeat a big civ (hey, everybody start off the same opportunity - they build up at the same rate, plus they can build a larger military and their infrastructure at the same time as a small civ (I tend to think that a small civ can improve faster than a large civ i.e. Japan, Korea, Europe countries etc.)
    I think generally a good way is that under some conditions i.e. insufficient troops in a large city, adopting emancipation (colony indepedent scernario), religion i.e. half country in Judasism and other half in Taoism, too many unhappy population etc. may cause a city to cede from the main civ and become a NPC city (though it should keep hold of all the cultural building) like a barbarian state, small civ can grab cities without having to declare war, for example
    Anyhow I know there is a much better way to implement such concept.
    Everybody, feel free to give out your opinions
     
  2. jac0001

    jac0001 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    20
    i seem to recall in civ (or possibly civ2 ) that if you attacked a civ's capital city and captured it, (under a very specfic set of conditions) approximately half of that civ's cities would break away from the original civ and a new civ would emerge.
     
  3. Veteranewbie

    Veteranewbie Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    402
    Man why don't they keep this feature?

    I would think that if civil war is implemented, this may spice up the middle-late game. It will also allow a small civ to 'come back'
    I mean, historically it was common that large civ couldn't sustain itself and fell apart eventually, while providing chances to small civ to emerge
     
  4. Bast

    Bast Protector of Cats

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    6,060
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Civil War is a great idea but it is very hard to implement. Because in a way it becomes a game based on luck.

    Civ IV has taken steps to make sure that large empires have detrimental effects so they are aware of the problem of just taking a big lead in the early game and getting bigger and better.
     
  5. CivFan91

    CivFan91 Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,590
    Location:
    USA
    Civil war is an interesting angle, but if it is implemented it should be under very specific conditions. Like: War weariness from two wars combined with slave hurrying and poor living conditions could have a couple of small cities switch to a new nation at war with the parent nation. But not half the empire.

    What do you think?
     
  6. balthamael

    balthamael Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    270
    There is a (huge) thread about this In Ideas and Suggestions
     
  7. Veteranewbie

    Veteranewbie Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    402
    Well I think Civil War should be something that is so foreseeable like a cultural flip in Civ4
    Some of conditions maybe cities with so many unhappiness, a rioting city with insufficient units guarding it (I think currently you can have just 1 unit to suppress a city with say 7 rioting population?), a pop 10+ city with only say 2 units guarding it, a large hindu city while your state religion is islam etc. there are so many realistic or creative ways to implement it.
    The effect may just be that a Civ break into two ie. you using Frederick German, the break away cities eventually become Bismarck, for example, or simple you have one large Barb cities sitting in the heart of your empire and attacking your other cities.
    And as a bonus, the bordering civ may then be able to attack your renegade cities without having to declare war on you, though even after their capture that city, they may have to deal with the rioting and cultural influences of what remain in your former city
    And one better way is to make the chance more likely to happen as time passes base on some kind of factors that develop and grow with time i.e. population, unhappy+unhealthy population (you can still have unhappiness population even though that unhappiness factor may not be larger than your happiness pop so you don't have striking citizens) in big Civ so you can't just sit back and relax and wait till the time runs out or till the element for victory such as space or diplo come into effect
    It can also be made so capital and city with forbidden palace will never become restless and cede from your civ
    And hell, if you really feel bored, you may even just let the city cede from you can conquer them again or let your opponent take it for funner game in late game circumstances
     
  8. Tony Montana

    Tony Montana Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    38
    Location:
    Andover, UK
    Civil war would be a great thing to have in Civ4. I love it.
     
  9. Bongo-Bongo

    Bongo-Bongo The Master

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Messages:
    621
    I'd love to see civil war implemented into the game again and here is how I would personally like to see it implemented:

    Firstly, all civs would need two leaders. I dont want to see the situation in Civ 2 where Shaka could suddenly spawn as a leader if China had a civil war.

    Civil war should be able to be triggered by several different factors. The loss of the capital, or a major city such as a centre of government should cause instability and the possibility of collapse into civil war. A nation in economic ruin, lots of unhappiness, or lots of illness should also be more likely to see the possibility of civil war breaking out.

    The unused leader should then breakaway as the "enemy". Cities should then flip to this leader, which is where I see the big problem. Which cities should convert to the leadership of the opposition? This should be the cities that are the unhappiest, but if these are dotted all over the nation, then this would be patchy, and IMO would be unrealistic.

    It should be possible to re-unite the nation through both diplomacy and war. Once re-united, all cities should flip back to the leader, but I think there should still be a level of instability present in the cities that were under the oppositions control.
     
  10. Tony Montana

    Tony Montana Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    38
    Location:
    Andover, UK
    Here's my answer for how civil war could be implementated.

    Your empire is split into two opposing territories.
    The rebels get all the technology that you have.
    They get all of the resources (that are under their territory).
    War is declared immediately

    You keep your existing capital.
    The rebels have a new capital set up for them.

    VICTORY CONDITIONS
    If the capital city is captured, the country is united and the civil war is over.

    If a foreign leader conquers one of the capitals, the entire side is NOT united. All of the rebel cities must be captured.

    Peace can be negotiated which can separate your country forever.
    AI can intervene and fight for one of the sides.
     
  11. Veteranewbie

    Veteranewbie Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    402
    But one complicated issue in the spliting civ suggestion is that, what happen if you have a game when both of the leaders of a civ is present i.e. if you have a game when you have 2 French civ for example, and both louis and napoleon are here... what might happen if both have a civil war then? You're allowed to have 2 leaders from same civ in Civ4, if set up in Custom game

    Also, how would you implement the concept if only one city is eligible to civil war conditions? Will you have a 1 city civil war?

    Some of the good ideas that may trigger civil war are:
    Starvation
    Slavery
    Unhappiness
    Unhealthiness
    Religious
    Economy factor (not sure about this one, a city must provide at least 2 gold for each pop it has?)
    Occupation/Foreigner ie. a city with lots of non-native population
    Cultural inferiorness
    Insufficient Garrison units
     
  12. Veteranewbie

    Veteranewbie Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    402
    The Civil War element should be implemented so the large civ will most affected and a situation that players will very eager to avoid, but not to become a nuisance which make having a large civ so hard to handle that there is no point to establish a large civ
     
  13. Bevertje

    Bevertje Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    123
    Location:
    Belgium
    Each city could have a variable like culture, but dependent on several factors, like the ones you mention. If a city has a high enough score it would become the capital of a new civilisation, because of the differences between those people and yours. That city doesn't necessery have to be at war with you. There are quit a lot of states that split but didn't had a war.
     
  14. Tony Montana

    Tony Montana Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    38
    Location:
    Andover, UK
    A very good point. This is a big problem indeed...

    I will say that civil war cannot happen if a civilization only has one city.

    1. We will assume that the regime is already deeply entrenched. That one city can already be considered stronghold where the regime is operating.

    2. Technical reasons :)
     
  15. Tony Montana

    Tony Montana Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Messages:
    38
    Location:
    Andover, UK
    In answer to the entire "2 leader problem"...

    We don't need 2 leaders for evey civilization for civil war to work.

    Think about it, even if there were 2 leaders for every Civilization, this still wouldn't work too well...The biggest problem is that a nation may descend into civil war more than once.

    We need a more dynamic approach to the civil war leadership issue.

    My answer is to use the same system that the "great leader", or "great artist" system uses for generating names. You could enter a load of names into the game, which would automatically pick one when a civil war takes place. For example "Fiedel Castro" or something like that.

    As for the leader graphic when you are negotiating...you could create ONE which is pretty much generic to all of them. For example a guy with a mask on, or something like that which would be applicable to every rebel leader....
     
  16. Veteranewbie

    Veteranewbie Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    402
    Also, there must be something specific that will make civil war always possible like a cultural flip but won't definitely happen if the player can maintain his civ well enough to allow himself not to fall into the civil war trap

    Currently, unless you're in long war or constantly warring, you won't have all cities totally filled with unhappy people, but under a war condition you will definitely try to avoid it, especially war weariness is such a pain already.

    If two equally powered civ are at war and is throwing everything in against each other, it will absoluately be a pain and unfair to the player if the random civil war factor kick in and disadvantages one of them.
     
  17. Veteranewbie

    Veteranewbie Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    402
    Yeah this will be good
    This or just give them a civ flag with different colours
    i.e. give each civ their flags with a set of colours for example
    so we can have more than one rebel faction in a civil war scernario
     
  18. CivFan91

    CivFan91 Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,590
    Location:
    USA
    Works for me. :)
     
  19. ulsterman88

    ulsterman88 4-2 Rangers rule supreme!

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2006
    Messages:
    523
    Location:
    Co. Down, Northern Ireland, UK
    i defenitly think civil war should be inlcuded, what about if you changed a certain civic that some of your people wanted to keep. Then cities with a majority of people who disagree with the change break away, form a seprerate state and immediately declare war on you.
     
  20. CivFan91

    CivFan91 Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,590
    Location:
    USA
    Under that system I would fling my nation to bits. :D

    Welcome to the forums, by the way! [party] :band:
     

Share This Page