people percents

airdrik · October 31, 2000, 19:53

There is a difference between 'conqering' and 'wipeing out'. The first is where you completely take over the leadership of another person/business/country/civ. The second is the killing of every thing about that person/business/country/civ. Currently, the Civilization games have it so that when you take the last city of a civ, you totally wipe them out and replace them with people from your own civ.
This is so not right. When you take a city, you mearly take over it's leadership. A few years down the road people from the rest of your civ will move in and it will become one of your cities.
My suggestion is actually three combined: people percents, distribution of people, purging your cities of a people. The first, people percents, shows what percent of the people in a city are of a certain nationality/race/belief/etc. Happiness of different people would be shown on two levels: national which shows what types of people are relatively happy, and city which shows the average happiness of all the peoples in a city. These combined would give an aproximation of the happiness of one people in a given city.
The second of my suggestions, distribution of people would be an option available at any time durring your turn. You could choose to move a certain type of people between cities/regions in or out of your civ or you could choose to distribute the people in your civ so that there is the same percents of each people in each of your cities. This would take time relative to the population of people moved in or out of each city.
The last of my suggestions, purging, would be available on your turn. You could choose to purge any number of peoples in any number of cities. The time to complete the purging in a given city would depend on the population being purged as well as the total firepower of the units in that city (it would take longer to purge a city of 5000 people with one unit whose firepower is 1 than to purge a city of 100 with 10 units whose combined firepower is 25). The actual number of people purged would be calculated at the beginning of each turn, so if you have some units move in or out of a city in the middle of a purging, it would adjust the numbers accordingly.
Both the distribution of people, and the purging of people could be deactivated as you want. they would also be options that pop up whenever you take a city and allways have consequences and bonuses, like distribution takes time, but the people are less likely to rebel, and purging a people would severely damage your rep, but they wouldn't be there to complain.
[This message has been edited by airdrik (edited October 31, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by airdrik (edited October 31, 2000).]

chrispie · October 31, 2000, 19:58

purging is such a nicer word than genocide isn't it?

But, I agree...I like this idea, it would make a good representation of the world and one of the biggest problems in it. I especially like the ability to move them around, posing the question do you move a certain people all together, and try to control them that way, or spread them out...risking even greater damage if they do rebel. Great!

airdrik · October 31, 2000, 20:09

The thing there is that if you spread them out, you have a better chance at controlling more smaller groups than less bigger groups. Aso there is a thing about familiar turf. people will be more likely to succeed in a rebellion on their own ground than halfway across the country from their former home, but after a few turns the home turf could be adjusted because of the rising generations, so you could also circulate people around your country to keep them in check.

airdrik · November 1, 2000, 14:19

quote:

Originally posted by chrispie on 10-31-2000 06:58 PM
I especially like the ability to move them around, posing the question do you move a certain people all together, and try to control them that way, or spread them out...risking even greater damage if they do rebel. Great!

That brings up another point that leads to each civilization has another rating of the aggression of it's people when under foreign rule. This is not related to the aggression of that civilization if it is still in play, because the people from most aggressive civilization in the world could very well be the most pacifist since it is their leaders that are the aggressors when they rule themselves. Pacifist states with aggressive people would be very hard to come by as their people would take over the leadership and transform the state into a more aggressive one.

DarkCloud · November 1, 2000, 22:44

Dang. I remember this subject was brought up by me in a thread, but I cant remember which thread and I can't remember what I said.

I've been here for a while... but the post had to be within the last few weeks, Ultra- can you possibly help me, I think the post was to you, Roman or rremus?

Christantine The Great · November 2, 2000, 20:35

http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/001579.html?14

Is this it DarkCloud? It was one I made called Life After Death.

airdrik · November 3, 2000, 00:19

I just looked over that tread(I didn't see it before, forgot to look) and from what I saw, my proposal would make computer civs more able to break out of other civs, but it doesn't have a solution to if your own civ is conquered, but as most people said in that thread, if their civ was conquered, they would just start over. I would have to agree with them on that, though the prospect of continuing a civ would be fun to try once in a while.

airdrik · November 4, 2000, 01:14

Some critisisms on your Idea, Christantine, (though not nessecarily a bad one if it were not for these critisisms) include, Why would the civ that conqered you hire you as mayor? It is totally stupid to hire the leader of an enemy you just conqered who is very mad at you to the position of the 'leader' of one of your cities. I wouldn't, it just doesn't make sence.
[This message has been edited by airdrik (edited November 03, 2000).]

DarkCloud · November 15, 2000, 19:41

Well.. not really Christantine, but thank you anyway.