 |
| |
|
|
Metaliturtle
|
 |
University of Wisconsin Stevens Point
Mar 2002
time: 23:34
|
|
I know some people really didn't like these in Civ 2 unless they happened to the computer, but I thought Civil Wars were awesome, I'd even cheat a barbarian army outside my capital if I was close to winning and wanted to keep playing. Civil Wars were a unique and awesome part of Civ 2 and I would like to see them in Civ 4 with a few changes.
Capturing a capital shouldn't trigger a Civil war, The brits captured Washington in 1812 and The U.S. didn't go into civil war (not right away at least).
So how would one trigger a civil war?
Well the obvious example to me would be to anger a large group of your people.
For example, say you are a Republic and you start a war with someone, fine, but after 50 turns you're still at war, the people nearest that civ dislike being at war with them and revolt en masse.
Similarly, Crazy Communist man keeps sacrificing his citizens to the Gods of production, resulting in a lower class uprising and a very interesting split.
These could even be turned into a "revolutionary" game, where factors such as being across an ocean too early could lead to a revolution by colonists who are sick of getting ruled by a King on another land thousands of miles away.
Revolutions and Civil wars could be turned on and off at the player's discretion.
What do you guys think?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:34
|
|
Tie happiness to it, and then make the happiness model more complex. As it is now, only gross neglicgence will lead to a city rioting for more than a single turn (if that), but in reality large populations are much harder to control
Enough unhappiness (which can be seen specifically in game terms as dislike for the controling regieme) and you run the risk of parts of the empire fragmenting off.
Making civil wars like this would only work if happiness is harder to control (ie, based on other factors than city size and city improvments).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
sykodude
|
|
I'm all for this. And we really need a better happiness model. While we're at it, I think it would be a good idea to differentiate between citizens who are merely unhappy (who will strike and riot) and those who are actively resisting your rule (who will precipitate a full-blown uprising). Newly conquered peoples who resist your occupation would automatically fall into the second category, instead of just kinda standing around doing nothing like they do now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Max Sinister
|
|
@Kuciwalker: It could work like that. Many years before the Roman empire broke apart, it was eroding - legion commanders who declared themselves emperor and started to march to Rome, emperors who didn't do much but defend themselves against these commanders, warlords who declared whole provinces independent...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PresidentMarcos
|
|
I think cIV should reflect the fact that historically, most war has been between people of the same civilization fighting amongst themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
I agree that civil wars should come about from massive internal unhappiness, which means a change to the unhappiness model.
It would be simplest, I think, to break down the system thus:
Each city has an unhappiness factor, from 1-10, with the chance of riots in a city going up as it gets closer to 10, with 0 chance at 1 to say 90% at 10 (figured each turn). Cities of different nationalities would never go to 1, but hover around 3 or so.
A National unhappiness scale would be based on the % of cities over unhappiness 5 or so. The more such cities, the greater the national unhapiness scale. And if the sacle goes above a certain spot, a chance for a full blown rebellion occurs.
This would force one not only to paficy each city, but make sure all the cities are not simply just bellow exploding.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PresidentMarcos
|
|
No, no. Like lots of different petty states. To build an empire, you would have to unite a group of them close to you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
fezick31
|
 |
Cliffs of Insanity
Nov 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The notion of a minor civ is a device to increase the number of civs in the game while limiting the drain on AI powers. Any civ being played by the player would instantly function as a "major civ". The distinction is not one of size or power at any point in the game, but the ability to become a great power by having a greater set of skills that AI can use to expand, trade, conquer, and research. |
 I understand the technical needs - just misunderstood the intent in reading those posts. I still like the idea of "minor civs" as a concept though. Perhaps what we are approaching is the difference between city states and empire (and the tendancy of those city states to want to be independent from said empire; this is afterall a thread on civil wars).
What if there were two type of barbarians - standard mauraders, and minor tribes that when conquered, could be added to your empire? This could also lead to two different types of splits in civil wars - monir civs that break off, but aren't big enough to really be considered a seperate power (i.e. taiwan type nations), and others that would be full fledged civs (i.e. USA, France, Byzantium).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by fezick31
I understand the technical needs - just misunderstood the intent in reading those posts. I still like the idea of "minor civs" as a concept though. Perhaps what we are approaching is the difference between city states and empire (and the tendancy of those city states to want to be independent from said empire; this is afterall a thread on civil wars).
What if there were two type of barbarians - standard mauraders, and minor tribes that when conquered, could be added to your empire? This could also lead to two different types of splits in civil wars - monir civs that break off, but aren't big enough to really be considered a seperate power (i.e. taiwan type nations), and others that would be full fledged civs (i.e. USA, France, Byzantium). |
Well, there are many ways to treat a possible civil war, including civil wars within AI empires.
Some of the ones I see that might work fine are:
1. For AI empires- empire breaks down into multiple minor civs, from 2 on (with the original civ being one but demoted to minor civ). Then the game at random picks a minor civ to become a major civ to keep the number the same- now, the game may randomly chose one of the civil war civs as the new power, or it might not.
2. an AI empire losses large sections that become independent minor civs, but automatically retain great power status for the areas left.
3. for a player empire, same as #2 for AI,
4. A human empire breaks into 2, with the other side a major civ, while another major civ in the game gets demoted to minor to keep the number of majors equal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
fezick31
|
|
Cliffs of Insanity
Nov 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Well, there are many ways to treat a possible civil war, including civil wars within AI empires.
Some of the ones I see that might work fine are:
1. For AI empires- empire breaks down into multiple minor civs, from 2 on (with the original civ being one but demoted to minor civ). Then the game at random picks a minor civ to become a major civ to keep the number the same- now, the game may randomly chose one of the civil war civs as the new power, or it might not.
2. an AI empire losses large sections that become independent minor civs, but automatically retain great power status for the areas left.
3. for a player empire, same as #2 for AI,
4. A human empire breaks into 2, with the other side a major civ, while another major civ in the game gets demoted to minor to keep the number of majors equal. |
These are good ideas, but they operate on the assumption that the status quo must be maintained for the game. If the intention of minor civs is to limit the demand on the AI, perhaps the AI could be developed so that there are a couple of "empty" slots that it could still handle and be competetive. That way you could still get the twist of a new major player interacting with its mother culture without sacraficing other civs status. Otherwise, I could see civil wars just serving as a way to take powerful civs out of contention (although that would be an interesting strategy if there were ways to influence a civil war in another culture).
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-07-2004 00:32
I would also like(if the features is implemented in a way that makes it possible), an empire with lots of cultures and religions or an empire that has grown too fast without checking its back so to speak regarding its new inhabitants(ancient Greece being a good example), to have a greater risk of entering a civil war.
I like this idea a lot. It also came up in a thread the maximum number of civs that should be available. The idea of minor vs major civs was brought up, and I thought it would be interesting if eveyone started as a minor civ, and had to work your way up.
|