Rather than having so many new civs to play...

[Turtleneck]

Civilizations never really popped up on their own... We always hear of how migrating peoples from one place or another settled down elsewhere... USA was a British colony, Carthage was a Phoenician settlement, and all the way back to the first signs of civilization with people settling down and making a new identity for themselves.

I remember in Civlization: Call to Power, one of the last wonders had some sort of quirk in that it would sometimes take some of your cities and start up an independant civ of its own.

I think the Civ IV team should at least think about how they could manage new civs arising from existing ones during the course of a game. This could be for any reason such as civil disorder leading to--> a revolution(!), or simply having too many cities with too much corruption too far from your capitol. This could all be optional too, like cultural conversions, and I think it would add a great new element to the game.

Yes it might be annoying to see your newly founded oil cities "revolt", but that just goes to show how much trade would matter more and making a big empire even more of a challenge to partake in... if you want to. <-- since this would provide incentives to keeping a more centralized civ rather than expanding everywhere you can.

 

[Turtleneck]

-And reading the thread with established ideas, this could go well with the "commonwealth" improvement as another path that would be taken to the creation of a different civ which wouldn't necessarily, in this case, have to have permenant mutual protection and right of passage.

 

[JohnRM]

Great idea. I have wanted this for a long time. Once you conquer the world, the game is not over, if this option were added. Then, games could last forever!

 

[ybbor]

There is a asticky at the top of this page entilted "Current Topics" READ IT!!!

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84798

 

[Turtleneck]

My apologies man, and yes I did read it before posting this- probably skimmed over it, and I don't think of this idea as just civil war.

The point I'm making here is that we don't need so many new civs introduced again, I'm not just talking about "civil war".

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

This is an excellent idea. There should be several ways that a new civilization could be formed.

If you have a starving or unhappy city, people might just leave and start life else ware. A settler and one or two workers and a few military units could be created. They might even attack an already weak city and add to it or found a new one if they find some god untouched land.

Corruption might inspire a civil war or just flip into a new civilization, diplomacy should be started right away and determine the relationship between the mother civ and the new one.

Development of new technologies might spark nationalism in some population groups that differ from the capitol.

Different religious beliefs might be enough for a split civilization.

The change of government might result in a great civil war and several new civilizations may emerge.

Immigration/migration might result in a split civilization. Immigration/migration should not be totally controlled by the player.

The limits are almost endless.

 

[searcheagle]

This would make make it easier for some civs to win because they already have a massive head start. This would make it harder for civs entering later in the game. In addition, there would be a lot of uninhabited land, making the power civs even more powerful.

However, that type of thing would work well for senerios, if a system was developed for civ splits.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Sure it is a good idea. Civilizations could even change their own identity slowly, because of new culture assimilations, conquests, unions, trade, relationships, etc... their culture or identity, if it's not the same thing, would change slowly with all those interactions, but there would be a resistance to it of course, and the player would have to fight this resistance in order to extend his civilization. The resistance would be culture difference, relationship (less), and the means to fight it would be military presence, military actions, relationship (more), favozizing the mix of two given cultures. Of course a given city or group of city could revolt early if there is not enough military presence for example, and become another civilization within the game, or a city-civilization, a city-state, and eventually enter in war with the former civilization.

 

[Turtleneck]

Yeah-
I'm not sure if this future new civ would instantly become one, or maybe it would go from part of your civ-- breaking away -- and somehow they can have it that the rest of the world begins to interact with this new civ, cementing its status as unique from the parent civ.

 

[klopolov]

How about a diplomacy option of acknowledging such new civ as a nation to confirm it's status? If most civs agree that it is indeed a new civ, it becomes one and if the original "owner" tries to get it back, the AI relations to him/her proceed as in a regular civ vs civ war. But if they do not agree that this new civ is an independant state, there are no rep penalties for razing cities or any other things that could damage your reputation in a normal game. Also, if others do not acknowledge the new civ as independent, they will not trade or make any deals with them...Maybe even have the other nations to ally with the new one to help it establish its sovereignty or vise versa: pay them to help you get it back under your control? But maybe that is going to far...