What about a "grief-factor" over killed units, in Civ-3?

[Ralf]

In order to discourage reckless and heartless use of your own units (= cynically producing cannon-fodder), why not add a "grief-factor" - depending somewhat on time-era and government-type.

- If X numbers of your military units simultaneously gets killed within one turn; all your cities temporarily gets one extra unhappy face for 1-3 turns ahead. Also, the more simultaneously wounded units you have under your command, the more unhappy faces you have to deal with back home, in your cities.


About waging war and arms-race, under Democracy:

Democracy should (of course) be a wastly superior choice then it comes to science and economy. However, these irresistable benefits should in Civ-3 be merged with some really awful trade-offs, as well (for the war-mongers point of view, that is):

One extra unhappy-face for each three MILITARY-units a single city maintains (this simulates the effects of anti armes-race peace-demonstrations. Under democracy, only).

This is culmulative, of course:

- 3-5 military units = one added unhappy face to that city.
- 6-8 military units = two unhappy faces
- 9-11 military units = three unhappy faces, and so on...

Added to above:

- Two unhappy-faces for each military-unit outside your borders.
- Three unhappy-faces for each military-unit within borders of war-waging Civilization.


Finally: The Senate should (under Democracy) ONLY allow you to attack/conquer if:

- One of your units/stacks gets attacked. The Senate then allows you to retaliate against 2-3 times as many enemy-units ONLY (not cities). After that it will automatically accept any peace-suggestions, regardless of what you want.

- One of your cities gets conquered. The Senate then allows you to retaliate against max 2-3 enemy-cities. After that it will automatically accept any peace-suggestions, regardless of what you want.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 14, 2000).]

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 12-14-2000 02:54 PM One extra unhappy-face for each three MILITARY-units a single city maintains (this simulates the effects of anti armes-race peace-demonstrations. Under democracy, only).

Oops! This idea perhaps collides with the already excisting martial law-factor. I didnt thought of that.

Any ideas for good workarounds, in order to save the anti arms-race idea?

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

I like this idea.

[Deity Dude]

I like the concept. My only problem is - the greatest war machine in the history of the world is under a democracy/republic - The United States. In reality the more weapons we build, note i didn't say use, the more secure and happier we seem to be. In reality, it seems like democracies will fight a prolonged war that they didn't start, especially if they are attacked (WWII) and to a lesser degree in response to an ally being attacked (Korea) without a lot of low moral. I love the grief factor, it reminds me of Vietnam, and would suggest that that would be the appropriate "penalty", for advanced governments. I would set it high and raise it every turn your involved in an "unpopular" war. This would represent reality i.e. we just didn't go into Vietnam or Bosnia for that matter and take it over because we wouldn't have stood for the type of military involvement it would have taken. It would allow for a weaker opponents to defend with inferior weapons on its own territory. Also you shouldn't just be able to get of the war to avoid the grief factor without paying a price. (i.e. maybe gold reparations, give tech improvements or even lose conquested cities) that would leave you with the all too real choice between 2 bad endings. The other thing that has to be looked at in this context is government switching. I don't find it too realistic that a democracy or republic would switch their government to fight a war (reverend clinton or comrade bush). And if you did have a revolution the first thing that would probably happen is that the troops would be recalled. I think conquested cities should also be very unhappy for a very long time the whole reason why we didn't want to occupy Iraq).

[Mo]

I think the idea if a "Grief factor" would be hard to implement as in always depends on the attitude of the populace and how the government portrays it to them. In a lot of wars the government controls the information about the war so it can control what the other units know about a loss. Also if the people see the war/conflict to be in the interest of the country they will be willing to take a lot more casualties, especially if the country is being attacked.
Also this might give an unfair advantage to the technological supperior/builder nations as they often have fewer stronger units than expansionist more conquest orriented nations who have a whole lot more weaker units. Look at the believers in AC they would have suffered a lot if this penalty was in place.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Deity Dude on 12-14-2000 05:04 PM I like the concept. My only problem is - the greatest war machine in the history of the world is under a democracy/republic - The United States.

Well, perhaps we should skip the "anti-arms race" idea then. Besides, as i already mentioned; it collides with the martial law-effect. However the greif-factor and the added unhappiness then units away fighting in enemy-territory, together with your ideas below, should be more then enough:

Your quotes:

"I would set it high and raise it every turn your involved in an "unpopular" war". "Also you shouldn't just be able to get of the war to avoid the grief factor without paying a price". "It would allow for a weaker opponents to defend with inferior weapons on its own territory".

The last quote has a very good "AI-friendly" point!

quote: The other thing that has to be looked at in this context is government switching. I don't find it too realistic that a democracy or republic would switch their government to fight a war

In addition to the several turns of anarchy (like in Civ-2), they should also add only gradually increasing efficiency upto the choosen government. Erratic government-switching back and forth, should be costly - especially VERY costly from democracy downwards to a totalitarian government.
Also, you have to EARN democracy: XX number of turns of domestic stability = a certain percentage of your empire population must have constant happy faces, under a certain number of turns.

Only having the Democracy-tech in it self, shouldnt be enough.


Reply to MO:

I think most of those factors that you mention can easily be incorporated in the grief-factor formula. Also: then implementing an idea like this, everyting dont necessarily have to be based on an exact carbon-copy of our reality, with all its complex details. (And thank God for that). Civ-3 is an simplyfied abstraction.

MO quote: "Also this might give an unfair advantage to the technological supperior/builder nations as they often have fewer stronger units than expansionist more conquest orriented nations who have a whole lot more weaker units".

Well, that can be a problem of course. I think however, that it can be rather easily tweaked. Technological superior builder nations (especially under Democracy and Republic, with its comparably free press) have a relatively bigger grief-rate, then warlike ancient (or modern totalitarian) governments (with its totally controlled press, and their much more war/power-idolizing citizens). That unfair advantage could easily changed to be neutralized, or even made into a disadvantage, if Firaxis wants that.

Finally: above feature could also be user-tweakable through the txt-files, so the player can fine-tweak anything, if he dont like it.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 15, 2000).]

[Ralf]

GRUMBOLD:

Each and every idea ever suggested here at Apolyton, will be "very difficult to model", if one continue to absolutely insist on, that it must be based on our real physical world, with ALL its extremely complex and contradictive historic and present day parameters included.

The Civ-game is - and will always be - a simplified ABSTRACTION, for crying out loud.

Now, is Civ-3 going to be a great strategy-GAME, or is it going to be extremely detailed history-based world-simulator? If its going to be the latter; then im afraid that Firaxis never will get this "simulator" of the ground. Ever.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 15, 2000).]

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Grumbald, Although you are right that there is pride with having 'the best military' (dont mean to be cocky about living in the USA), I personally feel that the US militarys duty is not to safe guard every frikkin' minor country. It is OUR military, let it defend OUR borders.
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 15, 2000).]

[Grumbold]

From my limited experience of watching the Europeans and the US there does not seem to be any 'unhappiness' from having masses of military units steaming round the world. In fact there is a certain feelgood factor in having the biggest/fastest/heaviest/most disciplined military machine. Only when real casualties start piling up is there a difficulty. Then the casualty rate has to be compared to the morale/propaganda/decadence factor.

In the ACW and WWI nations took horrendous casualties on the chin for years. In WWII only the USSR sustained that casualty rate unflinchingly, the Western Front was a holiday camp by comparison. In recent times the same democratic nations get nervous if a peacekeeping action gets more than a handful of soldiers shot or tortured.

Very difficult to model all of this accurately in a Civ game. Each advance like refrigeration, TV etc would have to negatively affect your ability to sustain morale with propaganda. I don't think there should be any penalty for having military units stationed anywhere except inside hostile nations territory though. That allows you to station units to defend your allies NATO style.

[DarkCloud]

Yes, the population should get overally, 10% unhappy marks when you lose 10 men, (for 2 turns)
9% unhappy when you lose 9 in a turn (for 2 turns), etc.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by DarkCloud on 12-16-2000 02:50 PM Yes, the population should get overally, 10% unhappy marks when you lose 10 men, (for 2 turns) 9% unhappy when you lose 9 in a turn (for 2 turns), etc.

Well, why not Easy and simple to understand!

The percentage unhappy marks can vary according to timeline-era and government-type, and also: something likewise clever/simple, can be suggested with the "simultaneously wounded units" parameter as well.

Only two variable factors: Timeline-era and government-type! Thats enough!

[Deathwalker]

I definateley like this idea

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[Grumbold]

When I said hard to model, I didn't mean to imply I didn't like the idea. I do. I just know that there is a vocal 'keep it simple' group out there and unneccesary complexity is certainly pointless. The greater the complexity the harder it is to get the balance right. Sid has a tradition of making sure the game works first, so any addition needs to justify it is worth the extra 'cost'.

I thinkg the idea of suffering unhappiness for each unit getting killed (with differing penalties for government type and certain tech innovations) is a good idea. I think unhappiness penalties for having units outside your cities/borders but in peaceful locations around the world is a bad idea and one of the things I disliked about Civ 2. I wasn't particularly thinking USA here, although as the strongest member of NATO it certainly applies. All the modern powers have troops stationed in 'friendly' countries and there is a growing trend for peacekeepers to be stationed -by invitation-in neutral countries. The new combined European defence force is being created for precisely this purpose. The UK still has regiments around the world in former Commonwealth countries, too.
[This message has been edited by Grumbold (edited December 18, 2000).]