Revolution

[civarchitect]

I would like to unhappy citizens be able to overthrow the government to create a new nation that is not already in the game. America was a colony of Britain with unhappy citizens who started a new government. When unhappy citizens outnumber hppy, there is rioting which should stay the same. But there could be a percentage chance that an unhappy citizen gets on his soapbox and convinces even the content and happy citizens that he could do a better job. If you are unlucky enough that a city starts a revolution, all of the neighboring cities become more likely to enter the revolution. So if you don't keep your people happy, 10 cities may leave to start their own government and they start with all of the technology you had...

 

[ChrTh]

This was a feature of the original game (although I'm not sure what the logistics were, or whether or not it could happen to you)

 

[fitchn]

Originally posted by ChrTh
This was a feature of the original game (although I'm not sure what the logistics were, or whether or not it could happen to you)

In the original Civ, if you destroyed or took over the capital of another civ, there was a chance that a portion of the remaining cities would rebel and form their own civ. Of course, this would only happen if the civ was large enough, and if at least one of the other seven civs in the game had already been eliminated (so as to not exceed the seven-civ limit).

In Civ II, when you destroyed or took over a capital, the civ would have no palace and corruption and waste would run rampant.

This is one feature from the original civ that I miss quite a bit! There was nothing like splitting an empire in half to quickly take over an opponent or end a war! Unfortunatly, in Civ III, if you eliminate the capital, another city becomes the capital... not nearly as gratifying, not to mention that it elliminates a very useful (and fun!) strategy!

 

[thestonesfan]

In Civ2, it split the Civ in 'twain when you sacked their capital.

 

[cgannon64]

I've always wanted this too, but it would probably take lots of code changes, etc.

My more honest hope is that its in Civ4.

EDIT: I think that (in Civ4 because I know this won't be in C3C) the game should randomly create a new name and attributes for the new Civ based on the original that they broke away from, rather than use a pre-existing Civ, to be realistic. This would be a great feature, because suddenly WW and anarchy would be alot more dangerous.

 

[civarchitect]

Cities that are conquered could be more likely to revot to a new government or flip to their former ruler, but even cities that you built have a chance to break away. This would force a greater percentage af income to be directed to happiness. An added benefit of this is that it would slow down the tech research so that nobody is entering the modern era in 800 AD.

 

[Irktar]

I too remember the impact that resulted from sacking an empire's capital! They definitely need to bring that back.

 

[TerraHero]

yes i agree, the defect too an other civ is cool, but i think a lot of ppl are waiting for a rebelion, that the civ forms a new civ, or just a barbarian like civ, no identity.

it would be so cool, too have a scenario where u have too opress the rebelion. And they could have new troops for rebels, like angry mobs.

 

[Vietcong]

has any one played hoi?? (hearts of iron)

in that game if ur nations decent(unhapyness) gets to high a number of things can hapen.

1. ur nation splits into 2 nations, ever teriror u have will randomly go to ehter u or the rebles, then each unit will go to ether u or the rebles, then u slug it out in a civil war.(what thay dont have but need even in civ3, is whear u can make peace with them, and the civil war stops but u remain as 2 difrent nations)

2. a govermentl coup(spelling) by a left or right wing group.
what hapens is ur goverment is firced to change, and leaded ship chages and ever thing is realy messed up. ( in civ if this hapens u can ether become ruller of the new reigem or get a game over becus u lost power)

both thes need to be in civ3!

 

[Tatran]

This is a feature in Call to Power 2.
In the civ series this feature has been reduced.

Civ 1 : - Capture capital -> civ splits
- Elemination -> new civ same colour
- Unhappiness flip -> enemy city becomes part
of an other civ.

Civ 2 : Only capture capital + elemination

Civ 3 : - culture flip

I think they left it out,because such a civ won't
play significant role in the game.They can't expand.

This feature is only useful if a civ has a civil war
and the nation splits in 2 or more sizable civ's.

 

[Plug]

I too experienced the joy of splitting a civ in to 2 while playing Civilization 2. The Germans became the Germans and the Indians. It only happened once and I had begun to think I had imagined it. Why was this missing from Civ3?! It was on of the great features. Could we have it again one day, please Sid.

 

[jamesjkirk]

I enjoyed that also in Civ 1 and 2, but it lacks too much nuance and realism for Civ3 IMO.
A civ facing certain defeat or just a long unpopular war could split into a civ wanting peace and one wanting to keep fighting.
Or it could happy when there's too much unhappiness at all, or as a result of you raising taxes/using taxmen.

More civs is (almost) always better, and there aren't as tight limits on the number of civs like there used to be, so this could definitely be fun. And I agree that the splitting civ should make sense, some examples:

US: Confederates
Aztecs: Mexico (or Texas)
England: Canada or Australia or Scotland or Ireland, etc
France: Algeria? or Louisiana?
Russia: Ukraine, etc or Soviets?
India: Pakistan
Dutch: Belgians
Portuguese: Brazil
Germans: Austrias
Ottomans: Turks (or anyplace that they used to control)

and so forth, I think there are enough choices to get at least one per civ

 

[sourboy]

In Civ2, when Civil War broke out, one side was the original empire, the other had nothing (or was there fanatics?)

If Civil War broke out, I would like to see a non-used culturally linked Civ to become the new nation, and have 1 militia (or the equivalent per its Age if in ancient times) per x population. Also, knock them back y% of the original civ's techs OR give them the techs that the general world knows. Destroy b% of each revolting cities buildings due to riots, then let them duke it out, and who ever wants to join in, can...

base civil war on unrest. if a country has more then 33% of it's cities in unrest, theres z% chance that civil war can break out.
it sure would give more use to the whole espionage spoof.

 

[Meateater]

I have been thinking about these things too. I think the idea of having a part of your empire want its independents and revolting to be its own civ is a good one and I hope to see something like it in a future civ release.
Under the same general topic. If one of you cities weather you have captured it or was your own and it wanted to do the so called cultural flip and join whoever's civ. Rather than you loose all your units that were there and the city just flips, instead you would get a message of a hostile uprising and depending on the size of the city, a # of military units would pop up in the city radios to try and take that city, but the city would loose a population point or two because the military units that pop up were citizens of that city.

 

[Bamspeedy]

What is the fascination with civil wars?

I played CTP I &2, and civil wars weren't anything special, just a nuisance.

I think the people who want this the most, are the ones who are just putzing around in the late game and not finishing off their opponents and looking for an additional excitement other then mopping up the lame AI. In that situation, the 'civil war' is nothing but a minor nuisance and just drags the game on, giving the AI just a few more turns to breath their last breath.

Annoying if you already have the game 'won'.
Annoying if you are just struggling to stay alive.

Give the civ who lost their capital massive corruption/anarchy? Makes the game too easy, just strike their capital and they are a dead civ.

Have it happen when cities go into disorder? Too easy to prevent. Any half-skilled player can keep his cities out of disorder. I'm sure there are many players who have never had a nuke plant meltdown (which is triggered by city disorders). Governors prevent disorders (in 99% of cases, anyways), so the AI will never have this 'civil war'.

 

[NHJ BV]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
Have it happen when cities go into disorder? Too easy to prevent. Any half-skilled player can keep his cities out of disorder. I'm sure there are many players who have never had a nuke plant meltdown (which is triggered by city disorders). Governors prevent disorders (in 99% of cases, anyways), so the AI will never have this 'civil war'.

Yeah, I agree. In Civ2, I really needed to do my best to get a nuclear meltdown, I think it should be more random. Say, a 0,1% chance per turn per plant, or something.

Although civil wars can be nice sometimes...In Civ2 WWII scenario, I captured Berlin and then the Germans split into the Germans and the Americans

 

[TerraHero]

what about propaganda, give it more options. a civil war is really extreme, but it's reality.

civil wars are still poing up every where globaly. but how about an otehr option at the start of a game enable civil war or not

 

[Cincinatus]

well, as a builder in the civ games, i'd almost like to have to fight my own civil war more so than cause it in other civs (guess i'm a glutton for punishment). yes, i see how it could become a nuissance, but it could add another aspect of war finding peacemongers and forcing a fight.

 

[sourboy]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
What is the fascination with civil wars? I think the people who want this the most, are the ones who are just putzing around in the late game and not finishing off their opponents and looking for an additional excitement other then mopping up the lame AI.

Civil Wars are a commonplace in this world - look how many countries are currently in a state of Civil War. It may happen when a nation is crumbling (like the old USSR), but are you trying to say it doesn't happen when a nation is growing (like the old USA) too? Civ is pretty realistic in terms of the possibilities through time, and that should include the commonplace of Civil War.

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
Have it [Civil War] happen when cities go into disorder? Too easy to prevent. Any half-skilled player can keep his cities out of disorder. I'm sure there are many players who have never had a nuke plant meltdown.

First, even war can be prevented, but sometimes people get a 'chip' on their shoulder and decide to go to war - or by lack of care, end up in one. Second, I agree many or even most players haven't had a nuclear plant meltdown - I am one of them - but what is more likely to happen to a country over 5000 years: a nuclear plant meltdown, or a civil war?

 

[Plug]

Civl wars are realistic and they also give the benefit of creating a new ally civilization when you take an enemies capital city, while halving your enemies territory.

Civil wars happened very rarely to me in Civ 2 (once) and I think the case would be the same in Civ3. But when it did happen it added a little more excitement to the game. I certainly did not find it a nuisance.