 |
|
Mattaba
|
|
It would also be good that if an enemy has a very big empire and he neglects the eastern part for example by not building a good infrastructure and doesn't build many city improvements,while the western part is well developed, that the eastern part would rise up and form a new civ.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Gen.Dragolen
|
|
Greeitngs All,
I agree that they should have had a civil war as the result of too many turns of unhappiness amongst a population.
But they should also include the other big civilization killer: natural disasters. Aside from Global Warming, put in code for flood damage, drought, hurricanes/typhoons. They should have more than just a 1 tile impact too.
It would be nice to see a War of the Roses battle happen if enough cities are in civil disorder, as opposed to just having them flip to the neighbouring civ.
D.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
bnmac3
|
|
Pimpaha
Jun 2002 time: 05:21
|
|
I agree with the thought of a civil war, and that the two sides would have to go to war at least 20 turns until peace can be granted.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
whosurdaddy
|
|
New York
Jun 2001 time: 00:21
|
|
A RIDICULOUS IDEA!!! Something like that being implemented might make Civ3 almost as in depth of a game that Civ2 was ...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kramsib
|
 |
Father and protector of PROGRESSIVE GAMES, SANTANDER, Cantabria, España (Spain), Unión Europea (European Union)
Sep 2001 time: 06:21
|
|
I think CTP included that concept and that is good. Not only by taking the capital but also if your citizens are extremely angry they may revolt.
Look at this, imagine you are the Romans, and you have taken the city of Madras from the Indians (a different culture). Your empire is glorious, your science is the best, and the Indians are a poor Civ. The citizens of Madras start to get profit from your empire, they have a wealthy status but they still have a strong national feeling, they initiate a revolt with other conquered cities and they win but they don't want to return to India and they become a new country.
It is a good possibility, more possibilities, more interesting civ-stories, more fun, ...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mwaf
|
|
Helsinki, Finland
Jan 1970 time: 07:21
|
|
Civil War *really* needs to be implemented in PTW. I really can't see with it was left out off Civ III in the first place.
That colony forming a new country idea would be even greater (though probably a bit more difficult to implement). Even more fun would be the fact that cities of different civilizations in a 'new world' would together form a new civilization. But that should require unhappiness (mainly in the new world).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Mattaba
|
|
I have another idea: That you get a notification just before the civil war begins because a rebel leader contacts you for aid, but if you dont give the aid the rebellion will come later.
I'd like to see an adivisor say:
Your royal highness, a persian Splinter group wants to start a rebellion against the brutal opression of the their king, the rebel leader has requested an audience with you.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Coracle
|
|
Hey Firaxis. Are you listening, finally?
I see 90.38% of those voting want WHAT YOU TOOK OUT - Civil Wars.
You can also end your capital hoping in Civ 3. No matter how many times we take the enemy capital it just jumps to another city or town. It should at least not occur for several turns of Anarchy.
There is an old saying - DON'T MESS WITH SUCCESS. But you messed alot with Civ 2, where Civil Wars were a basic part of the game.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Adagio

|
|
As I stated before, I want a civil war to be triggered by taking over the capital, BUT not just as in Civ2, were the civil war just spil the country in two in the same turn. The way I see how it could work:
By taking over the enemy capital, a lot of citicens in that country gets unhappy (Could be like one unhappy person for each 8 citicens in the cities...example: a city, size 16 gets 2 unhappy faces in the city). Those unhappy people, will stay unhappy until:
a) the capital was taken back
b) a new capital was errected (which requires: the palace shouldn't just "pop-up" in some other city the same turn...you should manual build the palace)
c) 5-10 turns has passed (only if b isn't possible...being changed)
Of course, this is not the only thing that the civil war depends on...this is just one of the triggers (unhappyness)...If your people are generally happy, then loosing the capitol wouldn't trigger a civil war, while a civ, were people have been rioting a lot lately, a loss of the capitol might trigger the civil war
IF the take over of the capitol triggers the civil war, then it doesn't happen in the same turn, but it will happen within 2 turns, unless the leader of the country can fix the problem before it's too late...
The reason why I really want the loss of capitol to be able to trigger a civil war, is that at the moment it makes no difference if you take over the enemy capital, or just some other large city. In real life war, the attackers tries to take the capitol (e.g. WW2, London...don't kill me if I'm wrong, I'm not into history, but I believe I have heard this...)
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21. Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|