Revolution
- Thread starter civarchitect
- Start date
I have the feeling that making civil wars to split civs is not a minor thing programmingwise meaning you probably won't see it at least in Civ3. Also, having _your_ civ split would cause a larger outcry than the introducing of the culture flip did. 
However, there's a way to have civil wars in Civ3 that are a) not killer events, b) relatively easy to implement, c) balanced against other gameplay, d) but still a (minor) challenge and perhaps fun too.
The Revolution
When you hit that "revolution" button to change your government type your advisor does not warn you for nothing. When you start a revolution that's exactly what you will get.
If you have troops in your capital they are disbanded. Then a big barbarian uprising, their number depending on the difficulty level, happens just next to your capital. These barbarians represent the troops that are still loyal to the Old You. Remember the guy who was in charge a turn before? That was the Old You. Then it's the job of the Revolutionary Leader, i.e. the You You , to hunt down all the "traitors to the revolution" so they can be given a proper trial and shot.
Gamewise all that would happen is a simple disbanding of troops and triggering a barbarian upraising. That's already coded there. Just add the revolution as the trigger event.
Having a real revolution would produce a "feel" to what happens, and it would make revolutions cost something even to the religious civs.
And why disband the troops in the capital? An experienced player would of course move them out before starting the revolution, but the idea is that the capital is the place most likely to remain, if not loyal to then at least in the control of the old regime. Also, having your capital defenseless will make the barbs attack it. That's also a civil war thing: the revolutionaries and the loyalists are fighting in the capital probably burning it to the ground in the process. (Change the pop-up texts to reflect this.)
What would also be nice is that the barbarians should be troops appropriate to the age in question so that it wouldn't just be tanks against warriors. Heck, the _old_ government ought to be the one with the tanks!
However, there's a way to have civil wars in Civ3 that are a) not killer events, b) relatively easy to implement, c) balanced against other gameplay, d) but still a (minor) challenge and perhaps fun too.
The Revolution
When you hit that "revolution" button to change your government type your advisor does not warn you for nothing. When you start a revolution that's exactly what you will get.
If you have troops in your capital they are disbanded. Then a big barbarian uprising, their number depending on the difficulty level, happens just next to your capital. These barbarians represent the troops that are still loyal to the Old You. Remember the guy who was in charge a turn before? That was the Old You.
Then it's the job of the Revolutionary Leader, i.e. the You You , to hunt down all the "traitors to the revolution" so they can be given a proper trial and shot.Gamewise all that would happen is a simple disbanding of troops and triggering a barbarian upraising. That's already coded there. Just add the revolution as the trigger event.
Having a real revolution would produce a "feel" to what happens, and it would make revolutions cost something even to the religious civs.
And why disband the troops in the capital? An experienced player would of course move them out before starting the revolution, but the idea is that the capital is the place most likely to remain, if not loyal to then at least in the control of the old regime. Also, having your capital defenseless will make the barbs attack it. That's also a civil war thing: the revolutionaries and the loyalists are fighting in the capital probably burning it to the ground in the process. (Change the pop-up texts to reflect this.)
What would also be nice is that the barbarians should be troops appropriate to the age in question so that it wouldn't just be tanks against warriors. Heck, the _old_ government ought to be the one with the tanks!
I agree totally: barbarians should be able to capture cities. It wouldn't have to be anything sophisticated like minor civs or somesuch. The original Civ2 solution would be plenty: barbs just own the city and start producing attackers. No diplomatic options, trade or anything fancy stuff needed there.
If the "loyalist barbarians" revolution was to be implemented they probably ought to change the barbarian attack logic, too. Not much point in a revolution where the barbarians spend themselves one after another by sacking your capital repeatedly.
If they could capture cities that would actually solve the above problem. The barbs would automatically get your capital, and if they also got troops of similar tech level to yours they might even capture some other nearby cities before you finally managed to defeat that "Old Tyrannical Bastard".
If the "loyalist barbarians" revolution was to be implemented they probably ought to change the barbarian attack logic, too. Not much point in a revolution where the barbarians spend themselves one after another by sacking your capital repeatedly.
If they could capture cities that would actually solve the above problem. The barbs would automatically get your capital, and if they also got troops of similar tech level to yours they might even capture some other nearby cities before you finally managed to defeat that "Old Tyrannical Bastard".
Iztvan
the Terrible
Excellent idea, Pembroke! 
A revolution should definately be a revolution. Viva la revolucion!
But not all government change is a drawnout civil wars, sometimes there is just a coup or a gradual transition.
Coup: Nazi takeover of Germany.
Revolution followed by civil war: Russian revolution.
Gradual transition: Monarchy -> Constitutional Monarchy -> Democracy in countries like Sweden, UK, etc...
So what if you could choose to "risk" a coup and get a one-turn gov't change (like religious currently) if you are lucky, but get a civil war with a splinter-Civ if unlucky.
Or, you do it "the safe way" and go throug a period of disorder and corruption like the current system?
A revolution should definately be a revolution. Viva la revolucion!
But not all government change is a drawnout civil wars, sometimes there is just a coup or a gradual transition.
Coup: Nazi takeover of Germany.
Revolution followed by civil war: Russian revolution.
Gradual transition: Monarchy -> Constitutional Monarchy -> Democracy in countries like Sweden, UK, etc...
So what if you could choose to "risk" a coup and get a one-turn gov't change (like religious currently) if you are lucky, but get a civil war with a splinter-Civ if unlucky.
Or, you do it "the safe way" and go throug a period of disorder and corruption like the current system?
How about making your civ's favorite government matter here? E.g. if you switched to the favorite government you'd get the normal anarchy as the gov is something your people prefer so it goes relatively peaceful. OTOH if you switched to something else you get a full blown revolution.
And for additional spice: if you switched _from_ your favorite government to something else you really ignited the powder keg and got a _massive_ upraising.
And for additional spice: if you switched _from_ your favorite government to something else you really ignited the powder keg and got a _massive_ upraising.
Iztvan
the Terrible
Of Course! Why didn't I think of that? 
Change from non-favoured to non-favoured gov't: "Normal" 5-8 turns anarchy
Change to fav gov't from non-fav gov't: 1 turn anarchy, like "religious" revolutins today
Change from fav gov't ton non-fav gov't: Civil War!
Why didn't I think of that? Change from non-favoured to non-favoured gov't: "Normal" 5-8 turns anarchy
Change to fav gov't from non-fav gov't: 1 turn anarchy, like "religious" revolutins today
Change from fav gov't ton non-fav gov't: Civil War!
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Well I've noticed that, in C3C, the loss of your capital increases the chance of cultural conversion in all your remaining cities-which is at least a step in the right direction, given that your cities could all break away from you, and join neighbouring civs!! I'd still like to see a model where, corruption, unrest, poor culture, and distance from the capital (as well as capital loss!) could all contribute to a chance of your cities potentially breaking away to form a completely NEW civ. Maybe they'll get around to it in the NEXT XP 
.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
.Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Mrogreturns
The Ghost Who Posts
I`ve sometimes thought that in the modern era "regime change" could become something like a minor wonder. Some thing you work on by accumulating shields (representing reeducation campains etc). The costg would be high and would vary depending on what governtment you wanted to change from and change to. Completion would enable you to change govenmrnt with no (or much reduced) loss of production etc. Virtually the exact opposite of pembroke`s idea - but maybe there is room for both.
RegentMan
Deity
I'd really like to see civil wars reintroduced into the game. It was a way for a weak nation to strike at a strong one.
Michael York
On Sabatical from Civ
I loved the old civ2 civil wars. I remember the first time I triggered one. I was tiny little England fighting the massive Mongolian Empire. It was sweet.
Perhaps Bamspeedy's concerns could be avoided by only triggering a civil war if civ that is broken up is substantially larger than the nation sacking her capital.
Perhaps Bamspeedy's concerns could be avoided by only triggering a civil war if civ that is broken up is substantially larger than the nation sacking her capital.
Similar threads
