I have a Q about domestic politics in CivIII

[Uffty]

Hi,

I imagine I have a civ with about 8 cities and two of them close to the borders of another civ.

The other civ is culturally very strong and about to "capture" my two cities over culture at the borders of my empire.

I see the threat coming and act.

I want to station a lot of domestic forces in there, like Police Men or National Guards to "fight" :banned: my own people down, so they are not joining the other civ.

In short words...is there any way to "repress" my people, from joining another civ by culture ??

[splangy]

yes, they mentioned that you could put a soldier on patrol to keep your people in line.

[Uffty]

hi, thanks for your answer, but i actually dont only want "a soldier patrolling" ...

I want to "eliminate" every kind of "wrong attitude" from my peoples mind. I could only reach that with high motivated forces like Policemen.

Sending in Army troops might be good and effectiv, but when I send them out, the old **** (i dont think you have to censor a mainly used word like **** ) is boiling again and my people turn back to what they were about to do...joining the other civ...

you know, i wanna set a clear "sign" to my people by "cutting" of unhappy citizens like an apple from the tree.
Unhappy People are not meant to be in my empire

[Nikolai]

Hmmm, I wonder if it is the same with a phalanx or a tank? Maybe something with the zones of control!
I guess it is easier to suppress the people with a tank than a warrior...! Heeeey, I'm mighty!

[Kropotkin]

Oh yeah that policy will really help your culture rating in the long run. There's nothing that creates a advanced and prospering culture as a repressive regime.

[campmajor!]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Hmmm, I wonder if it is the same with a phalanx or a tank? Maybe something with the zones of control!
I guess it is easier to suppress the people with a tank than a warrior...!

Well, actually a phalanx looks a lot like a modern policeman (armed with stick and shield), so maybe he'll be better in suppressing than a tank. A tank cannot go everywhere a footman can go, for instance.

[campmajor!]

Originally posted by Uffty
you know, i wanna set a clear "sign" to my people by "cutting" of unhappy citizens like an apple from the tree.
Unhappy People are not meant to be in my empire

Well, if you really want to cut off the bad apples, than you should do nothing. Because if the city turns to the other side, the bad apples go with them!

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by campmajor!
A tank cannot go everywhere a footman can go, for instance.

Hey! Don't be mean!!! You ugly, ugly man...


( )

[Grumbold]

I thought domestic politics was when she cooks and you profess to love it no matter what

[Uffty]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Oh yeah that policy will really help your culture rating in the long run. There's nothing that creates a advanced and prospering culture as a repressive regime.

There's more truth in it than you think. In a free minded society people can easily choose between their culture or nation. They can move out or do whatsoever.

Not in my Nation! *gg*

I fight those "they-think-they-wanna-be-special" folks til they finally either get killed or accept the way my citizens "have to think"....
My nations culture rules before other civs cultures.
Military or Police repression always works

[General Ludd]

The culture ratings wouldn't really matter to you though, if you shield your people from the outside and oppressed them.

I like this idea, though, It'd be nice to have the ability to declare martial law(or something similiar) in cities to stop revolts, the down sides would be lower population growth (in extreme cases, the population would even decrease) and lower culture value.

[Ralf]

The government-type also plays a role.

A culturally dominant republic/democracy can easier "persuade" cities belonging to a much weaker republic/democracy. But its much harder to do that successfully if that weaker civ happen to be nationalistic or communistic. Compare with cold-war west/east Berlin. The nationalistic/communistic civ simply builds an "Berlin-wall". Period.

[ajbera]

That was one of the great things about Alpha Centauri - if your subjects got out of line, you could Nerve Staple 'em. Sure, it was an atrocity, but every ruler should have the freedom to commit atrocities.

Unfortunately, I don't think atrocities made it into Civ3.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Ralf
The government-type also plays a role.

A culturally dominant republic/democracy can easier "persuade" cities belonging to a much weaker republic/democracy. But its much harder to do that successfully if that weaker civ happen to be nationalistic or communistic. Compare with cold-war west/east Berlin. The nationalistic/communistic civ simply builds an "Berlin-wall". Period.

Well, it really was not that simple. If it was, they would not have to put soldiers there to shoot anybody who was trying to cross the wall (and there were many). So the soldier on the border is really for this purpose.

[Ralf]

double-post

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Martinus
Well, it really was not that simple. If it was, they would not have to put soldiers there to shoot anybody who was trying to cross the wall (and there were many). So the soldier on the border is really for this purpose.

Border-quards or no border-guards.

I nevertheless believe that the problem of enemy culture-expansion is less if the culturally weaker civ is nationalistic or communistic. I started it, I know - but please try to keep history out of the debate. Concentrate on the gameplay side of the issue instead.

[Uffty]

Originally posted by Ralf
The government-type also plays a role.

A culturally dominant republic/democracy can easier "persuade" cities belonging to a much weaker republic/democracy. But its much harder to do that successfully if that weaker civ happen to be nationalistic or communistic. Compare with cold-war west/east Berlin. The nationalistic/communistic civ simply builds an "Berlin-wall". Period.

Ralf, this is not a very good example. Since I'm from German and from Berlin, I can tell you. Germany always had only ONE culture, beside having two political systems due to the lost war.

I dont want to build walls in Cities, cuz that might cause my broken hearted some prussian pain

I wanna hide my folks from joinging the others, either they accept it or just die....I'd rather have 2 citizens less than they have 2 more.

[Uffty]

Originally posted by ajbera
That was one of the great things about Alpha Centauri - if your subjects got out of line, you could Nerve Staple 'em. Sure, it was an atrocity, but every ruler should have the freedom to commit atrocities.

Unfortunately, I don't think atrocities made it into Civ3.

Could you explain Atrocities ????

I dont know this word, neither have I ever played AC !!

Thanks

[MORON]

No trading/goting to UN meetings.

[ajbera]

In AC, as in real life, atrocities were certain actions you could perform as a ruler/military leader that would cause other members of the international community to object.

Nerve Stapling (violent repression of rioting citizens), Nuclear, Biological or Chemical warfare (like nerve gas pods), razing a base to the ground (I think, I'm not certain about this one) - these acts would cause other factions to regard you quite unfavorably, and would sometimes take diplomatic or military action against you.

I really liked having those options. Sometimes I like to play as a tyrant or dictator. In my last Call to Power game, I played the Hebrews as a theocratic slaving empire (enslaved the Egyptians, which was amusing.) Sometimes I'm a pacifistic, research-oriented civilization. But I like the freedom to be either.

[General Ludd]

Atrocity:

(from dictionary.com)

Appalling or atrocious condition, quality, or behavior; monstrousness.

An appalling or atrocious act, situation, or object, especially an act of unusual or illegal cruelty inflicted by an armed force on civilians or prisoners

And yes, in SMAC obliterating a base, nerve stapling ( 'stapling' the citzen's nerves, affectively turning them into 'zombies') and NBC weapons where all considered atrocities, unless the U.N. charter was repealed during a planetary council meeting, then I believe everything is fair game.

I don't really think that atrocities would fit well into civ3, not untill the U.N. is formed anyways... then there could be bans on NBC weapons and such.

Speaking of which, are there any biological or chemical weapons in civ3? (I assume that the spies will still have some sort of options for these, anyways)