Multiplayer Civil War Entertainment

[Oz the Puny]

Okay, I was watching World War Wednesday and I was thinking about the Civil Wars that can happen in the game and such. I then had this amazing idea;

What if, in multiplayer, two players could start as one country embroiled in civil war? I.E. Bob and Quasimodo the Second wanted to both play Honduras, Bob is a staunch Communist, but Q II is happy with the current status quo of democracy (fascism or other such government)? Bob clicks a special button, which prompts Q II with a "Civil War" thing of sorts, which Q II has the choice to deny or accept. Bob is given the choice to customize his civil war, at that moment. While provinces and such given to the nation are random and in most cases a 1/2 of the original nation's territory, Bob can change things such as the 'title', (I.E. 'Nationalist' Spain as opposed to Spain) ideology, and possibly even the leader of the uprising.

Perhaps you could make it so that you can have every nation in the world have an entirely random civil war, while you're at it? That'd be fun to see.
Not to be asking too much for the development of this game, but just think about putting it in at a later time. Maybe for the second or third DLC? I think you get my point, if you guys like it, just put it in whenever you have time and such.

 

[Radioactive]

How would the provinces and armies be balanced? (Certainly, whatever general balance HOI4 has been given by the developers won't really apply, right? They'd have to re-do it for all countries internally...?)

And even if there was some fairness + variation in the civil war setups, what stops the game from being lost in 2 minutes for one player? 2 minute wars don't strike me as the thing most people would go into HOI multiplayer for.

 

[Nicolas I]

The greatest idea ever ? Isn't that a bit of overstatement ?

 

[Evan05]

Then what happens to the player that loses the civil war? Do they just lose the game and have to pick a different nation? Or do they awkwardly live and can cause another coup later?

 

[Lifthrasil]

calling your own ideas "greatest" and "amazing" will get you guaranteed dislikes for being cocky, and rightfully so, since your idea is nice but certainly not amazing.

What I like about it (and have thought about it myself) would be if players playing the same country could choose sides in a CW independent from each other, so you can have a Trotzky vs Stalin CW in the SU, and after one side wins they play together again. Would unfortunately be open for abuse...

 

[Adonnus]

Possibly an overstatement but I think this idea sounds like quite a bit of fun. Of course there will have to be a mechanic so that player B who has been defeated can keep playing as another nation later on.

 

[mdw1985]

Okay, I was watching World War Wednesday and I was thinking about the Civil Wars that can happen in the game and such. I then had this amazing idea;

What if, in multiplayer, two players could start as one country embroiled in civil war? I.E. Bob and Quasimodo the Second wanted to both play Honduras, Bob is a staunch Communist, but Q II is happy with the current status quo of democracy (fascism or other such government)? Bob clicks a special button, which prompts Q II with a "Civil War" thing of sorts, which Q II has the choice to deny or accept. Bob is given the choice to customize his civil war, at that moment. While provinces and such given to the nation are random and in most cases a 1/2 of the original nation's territory, Bob can change things such as the 'title', (I.E. 'Nationalist' Spain as opposed to Spain) ideology, and possibly even the leader of the uprising.

Perhaps you could make it so that you can have every nation in the world have an entirely random civil war, while you're at it? That'd be fun to see.
Not to be asking too much for the development of this game, but just think about putting it in at a later time. Maybe for the second or third DLC? I think you get my point, if you guys like it, just put it in whenever you have time and such.

NO!!!

 

[Loke]

Im sure someone will make a RISK mod or something.

 

[Evilfisher]

well 2 players could pick the same country in Hoi3 i think. so it would be cool if there was a revolution in a country with 2 players they would fight eachother if they picked different sides

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

Didn't even read your thread, voted "respectfully disagrees" and I won't read it.
Man, change the title for something just a bit less pretentious.

 

[frolix42]

Bob clicks a special button, which prompts Q II with a "Civil War" thing of sorts, which Q II has the choice to deny or accept.

"Bob wants to start a Civil War"

*DENIED*

 

[Oz the Puny]

calling your own ideas "greatest" and "amazing" will get you guaranteed dislikes for being cocky, and rightfully so, since your idea is nice but certainly not amazing.

What I like about it (and have thought about it myself) would be if players playing the same country could choose sides in a CW independent from each other, so you can have a Trotzky vs Stalin CW in the SU, and after one side wins they play together again. Would unfortunately be open for abuse...

I intended it to be done in a more comical way. I'm too socially awkward for it to have worked, and I was really excited at the moment I made the thread. Personally, I gave it maybe three minutes of thought and went 'Oh, I'm a genius, I'll post this on the forums so everyone will love me!'.

 

[Oz the Puny]

How would the provinces and armies be balanced? (Certainly, whatever general balance HOI4 has been given by the developers won't really apply, right? They'd have to re-do it for all countries internally...?)

And even if there was some fairness + variation in the civil war setups, what stops the game from being lost in 2 minutes for one player? 2 minute wars don't strike me as the thing most people would go into HOI multiplayer for.

I do believe I stated that in most cases a halve of the country would be split, or a portion of the nation that makes it relatively equal. I agree, 2 minute wars don't sound fun, so perhaps it will show you what each side gets before you start? As stated above, I didn't put any thought into it myself, but I kind of figured that ideas would freely flow with conversation.

 

[Oz the Puny]

Then what happens to the player that loses the civil war? Do they just lose the game and have to pick a different nation? Or do they awkwardly live and can cause another coup later?

Their choice? Maybe the game doesn't start with the civil war, but instead the other player attempts to rally support for their coup, sabotage the current government, etc.?

 

[Oz the Puny]

Didn't even read your thread, voted "respectfully disagrees" and I won't read it.
Man, change the title for something just a bit less pretentious.

I'll do that.

 

[Lifthrasil]

I intended it to be done in a more comical way. I'm too socially awkward for it to have worked, and I was really excited at the moment I made the thread. Personally, I gave it maybe three minutes of thought and went 'Oh, I'm a genius, I'll post this on the forums so everyone will love me!'.

I know what you mean. I guess most of us have done that sometime, but things like this don't really work via text over the internet, because no intonation and stuff. no harm done

 

[Ibn_Solmyr]

I'll do that.

Nice, now I'm gonna read it.