28-06-2002 03:00									#1
	Poll: Bring Back Civil War! Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Back in the original Civilization and I think even in Civ2, there were civil wars. If you captured a large civilizations capital, the large nation would split into 2 civs: the original civ whose capital you captured, and the "rebels".

This poses for great military strategy. You could align yourself with the "rebels" and repel the original civ, and gain a new ally.

Or, you could initiate propaganda against the enemy civ, and if you're launch successful propaganda against, let's say... 3 of the target civ's cities, they break out into civil war.

With the new PTW civilizations coming with the game, you could easily have the civs that you don't select to play during the game (granted the max in one game is still 16) and have them play the role of the "rebel" civs if ever a civil war breaks out. You could even break it down further to have certain civs in the same culture play "rebel" to the other civs in the same culture.

Example: The Babylonians can rebel against the Persians, the Mogols rebel against the Chinese, the Americans against the English, etc...

What does everybody else think about this?

	28-06-2002 03:24									#2
	Got spare money?

I don't think Civ 2 had civil wars

	28-06-2002 03:43									#3
	Re: Poll: Bring Back Civil War! Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GraveEatr Back in the original Civilization and I think even in Civ2, there were civil wars. If you captured a large civilizations capital, the large nation would split into 2 civs: the original civ whose capital you captured, and the "rebels". This poses for great military strategy. You could align yourself with the "rebels" and repel the original civ, and gain a new ally. Or, you could initiate propaganda against the enemy civ, and if you're launch successful propaganda against, let's say... 3 of the target civ's cities, they break out into civil war. With the new PTW civilizations coming with the game, you could easily have the civs that you don't select to play during the game (granted the max in one game is still 16) and have them play the role of the "rebel" civs if ever a civil war breaks out. You could even break it down further to have certain civs in the same culture play "rebel" to the other civs in the same culture. Example: The Babylonians can rebel against the Persians, the Mogols rebel against the Chinese, the Americans against the English, etc... What does everybody else think about this?

hi ,

this is certainly something they should bring in ,
there is room for a total of 31 or 30 civ's , so they could do something like that , .....

, it does not even have to be a complete new civ , just a split , like a civil war , if you have certain obligations fullfilled you could re-unite it , ...

have a nice day

	28-06-2002 03:45									#4
	Suffering from ads?

Yes, I loved doing that in Civ II (although it was quite a rare affect).

	28-06-2002 05:20									#5
	Got spare money?

HI Guys,

I have been arguing for Civil War for as long as I knew CivIII was going to be released!!
I think that losing your capital should be the main trigger for a Civil War! With the cities with highest happiness and/or highest culture remaining true to the original Civ! Border cities who join the rebels would also, in my opinion, run a higher risk of joining up with another nation (culture flip!). Like a culture flip, a strong garrison should also be enough to stop a city from joining the rebels!
Other possible causes of civil war might be

a) Excessive, long-term corruption in more than 1/3 of your cities!

b) Civil unrest in 3 or more cities, which remains unsresolved for several turns.

c) Extremely low culture.

d) Extreme war weariness or "Revolution"

e) Government Collapse!

All of the above triggers would have a level of "priority", with each higher priority trigger having a greater chance of causing a Civil War. Capital Loss and revolution would be at the top of the ladder, with corruption and low culture being at the bottom. If you are suffering from multiple triggers, then the chance of Civil war would be based on the highest "priority", with the others having an additive effect.
Once the trigger is "pulled" every city in your civ would check for seccession, based on factors such as:

1) Distance from Capital

2) Cultural Value of City

3) No and average strength of garrison

4) No. of resistors

5) No. of foreign nationals

6) No. of unhappy citizens

7) Level of corruption/waste.

All secceding cities would become, collectively, a new civ as closely related as possible, culturally, to the parent civ. This new civ would be hostile to the parent Civ (at first) in diplomatic relations!

Anyway, thats my thought on the issue! Please, please FIRAXIS, bring back CW!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

	28-06-2002 16:44									#6
	Remove this text

I remember in CTP2 Spies could cause a rebellion in a city, which would cause that city to declare itself a new civ. But that was another good idea from Activision, so it won't happen in Civ3

	28-06-2002 19:04									#7
	Got spare money?

Great thread graveatr.

	28-06-2002 19:09									#8
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Absolutely!

Civil Wars, implemented in a similar way to how they were in Civ 2, would be an excellent addition to PtW.

I doubt we're gonna get it, but it would really be great ...

	28-06-2002 22:23									#9
	Tired of ads?

what if the americans split up into yankees and confederates, the russians into reds and whites, the indians into hindus and muslims and so on...

i reckon all civs have been to some sort of civil war, so it wouldn't be impossible to find two fractions for each civ

	28-06-2002 22:36									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Civil War --> yes yes yes!

Civs splitting into two (or more) warring factions would be an awesome addition to the game. This was a very cool feature in CTP.

I see the possibility of abuses in mulitplayer, however. If seizing someone's capitol brings a high chance of civil war then it would totally change warfare between players, the capitol would always be the target of a lightning fast assault. Imagine:

1) Country A goes to war against more powerful country B

2) instead of throwing large numbers of troops at obvious targets, country A instead sends a mass of fast moving units to attack country B's Capitol

3) country A wins the battle and B loses its Capitol, it then splits apart in civil war

4) now country B has to fight country A and the rebel "faction" of its original civ, LAME!


Instead of losing the Capitol being a major trigger (like it was in CivII), civil war should be the result of high corruption and unhappiness in many cities. Also, maybe long periods of anarchy should bring a chance of civil war. That would make players think twice about pulling the old "democracy- make army, communism- use army" trick.

	29-06-2002 02:20									#11
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

i think this sort of thing is taken care of with culture flipping. the basic idea is that if you neglect cities (culturally) you lose them...

but none the less

	29-06-2002 02:38									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: i think this sort of thing is taken care of with culture flipping. the basic idea is that if you neglect cities (culturally) you lose them...

Ya but the cool thing about rebellion/civil war in CTP was the emergence of a completely new power. I think its more realistic for cities to splinter off into their own factions than just "flip" to an opposing civ.

USSR was a perfect example, it became Russia (original civ) and a bunch of other sovereign states. It didn't "flip" and become part of the US or Europe.

	29-06-2002 05:07									#13
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by JtheJackal I don't think Civ 2 had civil wars

I don't think Civ1 had Civil Wars.

I know Civ2 did, because I would always try to cripple civs by taking their capital first and hoping for a split. It worked well in one game, and I won the space race because of it.

I think the Civil War idea is good, but I don't know what should cause it. Taking a capital city doesn't seem like it would to me...

	29-06-2002 05:09									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Holy Cow! 27 yes and 0 no and only 3 who don't care! That is overwhelming. If Firaxis sees this and has the time to implement it, Civil War will be back!

	29-06-2002 06:26									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Civil wars were the ultimate game balancer in civ1. If I was smaller than a huge enemy, conquering their capitoly was a sure way to cause turmoil and power grabs. Maybe capturing the capitol shouldnt trigger it, but some rampant internal chaos should. Maybe during times of civil disorder national movements can arize and citizens can revert back to their original nationality. If enough of this happens, civil war!

Firaxian method of argmument:

You could get an embargo against a huge civ, denying them luxaries. Citizen unhappiness increases and internal chaos pursues, prompting civil war.

	29-06-2002 07:17									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by zulu9812 I remember in CTP2 Spies could cause a rebellion in a city, which would cause that city to declare itself a new civ. But that was another good idea from Activision, so it won't happen in Civ3

I'm afraid I have to agree with you on this on Zulu. There are so many good ideas about Civ that Activision came up with but Firaxis just seems to have the additude that "if they did it then by god I won't!".

	29-06-2002 10:52									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Yes, attacking capitals was a major strategy in Civ 2.

With Civ 3 it just hops around from town to town.

bring back civil war, or at least put a civ into ANARCHY for four or five turns if it loses the capital, and then give it a new one.

	29-06-2002 15:45									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I really like the idea of having a nation split into two (or more nations), but then it should NOT be as it was in ctp, were all of a sudden (Without being at war with anyone), my nation split into two nations

The trigger shouldn't only be loosing your capital. It should be loosing the capital AND a few other cities (The greater city they loose, the greater are the chance for a nation to split, when (or if) the capital is lost...

The nation that has lost the capital needs to built the palace again, to get a capital, instead of just giving it a new capital the same turn...

IF a nation is split, and one of the split parts of the nation takes back the old capital (Within a certain amount of time, the nation will be one again.

When a nation is split, it could name the parts, something like South (input name of country here) and north (input name of country here), and thereby the lines from where the nation should be split is set (Each side should have equal number of cities, though it doesn't matter what the size of the cities are...Maybe cities below size 5 doesn't count as a city, they just belong to the nation part closest)

Hope you understand what I'm trying to say here...sometimes is just doesn't make any sense at all

	29-06-2002 20:26									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Coracle Yes, attacking capitals was a major strategy in Civ 2. With Civ 3 it just hops around from town to town. bring back civil war, or at least put a civ into ANARCHY for four or five turns if it loses the capital, and then give it a new one.

hi ,

it would be fun to see it moving true all your territoy on its way towards the capital , .....

we should ask firaxis to have that option in the editor , so we can put it on or off , ....

have a nice day

	29-06-2002 23:00									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by ADG I really like the idea of having a nation split into two (or more nations), but then it should NOT be as it was in ctp, were all of a sudden (Without being at war with anyone), my nation split into two nations

The CTP 1&2 way makes perfect sense. If a city or group of cities has it's happiness fall to low for to long then there was the risk of revolt.

This makes more sense then only having a rebellion when an enemy army occupies the capital. How many times in real life does a rebellion start because of losing your capital to an enemy? In the real world most rebellions start in the hinterland due to some type of dissatisfaction or unhappiness with the current gov.

	29-06-2002 23:25									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by bad0cat USSR was a perfect example, it became Russia (original civ) and a bunch of other sovereign states. It didn't "flip" and become part of the US or Europe.

Well Eastern Europe (part of the Soviet Empire) became unified with the Western Europe and many of the Soviet Republics have strong bonds with Islamic Civilization. (i.e. the Chechyns, Tajiks, etc.)

So some of this is taken care of with culture flipping, but civil war is a unique phenomenon and needs to be dealt with independently. I loved to see a large civ fracture and then left my armies to pick up the pieces.

	30-06-2002 03:36									#22
	Increase the size of your Attachments

No enmey army took Washington D.C. and set off the American Civil War. Same is true for the Chinese Civil war and the Russian civil war.

	30-06-2002 05:48									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Dark Age, Dark Age & Dark Age...

	30-06-2002 06:16									#24
	Increase Your PM Length

Possibly having a monarch government in a none religous civ for to long would cause the people to rebel! (No real effects on aproval rating till everybody begins to think! Then bam your civ is split into two and you have to take a side! Round heads or Loyalists! (rounds heads is just the old name for the parlimentarys!). After civil war is the loyalists win you can still get monarchy, but lose your ability to have democracy (and maby lose republic, but i'm not sure!) If the Round heads win your lose monarchy (not much of a problem really!) and then you carry on!

Multi continental empires should have more of a chance to split! (Doesn't inclued lots of little islands! They are explained below!)

If you have an island thats far away and near the coast of a rival you should have trouble stopping it flipping because they are beginning to have more in common with them! This could also be reversed, AI feels inclind to try to take the island by militery might becuase the island is no where near your homelands and is right next to them, so it should be rightfully theirs! (Falkland islands!)

	30-06-2002 15:32									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin The CTP 1&2 way makes perfect sense. If a city or group of cities has it's happiness fall to low for to long then there was the risk of revolt. This makes more sense then only having a rebellion when an enemy army occupies the capital. How many times in real life does a rebellion start because of losing your capital to an enemy? In the real world most rebellions start in the hinterland due to some type of dissatisfaction or unhappiness with the current gov.

In theory it makes sense, in ctp1/2 it doesn't...When having less than 10 cities, I always keep an eye on the happynes in the different cities, and until the day they decided to be independent there was no sign of unhappynes in any of the cities. And when they are happy, then there's no reason to revolt

	30-06-2002 16:34									#26
	Suffering from ads?

I suppose revolution could spill over in to near by cities! Unless of course they are incredibly happy!

A civilwar when the cities split randomly would just be annoying, they should have a front line right through the middle of a nation. In a multicontinental split some cities on the continent thats splitting should still stay loyal, cuz theirs always some people who want to stay!

	01-07-2002 04:15									#27
	Support Apolyton

I actually don't believe that Civil War would be a multi-player "exploit" for the follwoing reasons:

1) As I noted before, capturing an enemy capital should not guarantee a civil war, but simply be one of several possible triggers for one.

2) Even if the civil war is triggered, the potential damage can be minimized by ensuring you have a largely happy, productive and culturally strong civilization (with plenty of garrisons)

3) You should, as in civ2, have the chance to move your capital but, like in Civ2, the cost should be exhorbitant!

4) Knowing that the capture of a capital might cause a civil war, you could always defend against it, not only with a strong garrison, but by ringing your capital with a number of smaller cities and defensive structures (forts, sentry stacks). It would also be harder for an enemy to reach the capital (compared with Civ2) given that you no longer gain the benefits of that civs improvements.

This is not to say that it wouldn't get used by players in the MP but, rather than an Exploit, it would be just one of many strategies the player has in his arsenal, with all the requisite benefits and potential risks!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

	01-07-2002 07:53									#28
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I think that happiness is the ultimate reason for Civil Wars, and although I am not exactly sure how they should tie it to happiness (I mean, one turn of dissatisfaction in a city is no reason for a Civil War), I still think that it should be tied directly to the happiness of the cities and the majority population (like if it has a large Babylonian population but is ruled by the Russians or something).

	01-07-2002 23:24									#29
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by ADG In theory it makes sense, in ctp1/2 it doesn't...When having less than 10 cities, I always keep an eye on the happynes in the different cities, and until the day they decided to be independent there was no sign of unhappynes in any of the cities. And when they are happy, then there's no reason to revolt

hi ,

in order to prevent the above , they would have to go over this with a special comb , ....

and we would have to keep it simple , logical , and make sure that no-one start's to mod like a nut with it , so that it says "goodby , i chrash" , ....

and there would have to be some options in the editor , like on or off , and some settings concerning the how , how long , where , why , who and such , in all a huge workload , ..... is it worth it , ....can it be done , ....
loads of Q's , .....

it would be nice if someone from Firaxis would give some feedback , ...

good question for the next chat

have a nice day

	02-07-2002 02:10									#30
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I don't think people would start a civil war when theirs sombody who is going to take away their rights even more!
What would you want, Facist government, or Facist government with a foreign leader! A civil war wouldn't start during another national crisis!

I'm sure if france declared another war on England just before the English civil war, the people would of banded together on both sides to fight the french! Then maby later started a civil war! And a freedom fighter / old facist government would agree to peace if their country as a hole has had war declared on them!