A third state between anarchy and order

[Ralf]

There should be a third state between 100% city-anarchy and 100% order: 50% anarchy mixed with 50% order

Now, seriously guys:

What im aiming at here, is that it was far too easy to pacify conquered foreign cities, in Civ-2. I think that establishing martial law (or rush-build happiness-improvements - hire entertainers) in newly conquered cities should enforce/lure the population out of anarchy - yes. But, directly into 100% peace and order?
I suggest a third in-between state, there the conquered city is pacified, but only produce 50% of its normal full capacity. The rest; both the shields- and trade-production is wasted or corrupted away. The lightbulb-production is completely nullified. Food-production is unaffected, however - it would only be stupid and self-destructive, if the conquered city tried to sabotage that.
City-improvement and unit maintain-costs is (of course) still full-price.

Something like "make a fist within a pocket" or "silent protest". In short: obstructive behaviour. Over time - IF you invest in health and happiness-related improvements, and IF your manage a steady food-surplus, and finally; IF you have a little patience - this state transforms into 100% order.

- 100% Anarchy
- Any good name for this labil state?
- 100% Order

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited December 17, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

Transitional State

[Sirotnikov]

Banana Republic?

[Adm.Naismith]

Resistance?


BTW Sirotnikov: your "Banana Republic" make me ROTFL

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Ribannah]

Consider the factor time. The one turn (could be as long as 50 years!) of automatic anarchy in Civ2 is quite sufficient. You need a few more turns to rebuild the city improvements, too. After that, they will have forgotten that their ancestors were ever part of another empire ....

So, what you want is already in the game.

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[Deity Dude]

I agree. In the later portion of the game turns are 1 year or 5 years. I think conquested cities should be in disorder for a minimum of 10 years and maybe more. Sometimes they're never happy. Also when they become stablized they shouldn't necessarily become and function like the government of the conquering civ.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

You guys have to remember, any comquered civ will not be happy, no matter how well you treat them, because of one fact: they are conquered. when you capture another city, it should not be able to rise above 70% happiness for the rest of the game.

[orange]

that's not really accurate. Look at the American South. They were sort of captured during the Civil War, and they're fine now. (well equal with the rest of us) and what about the land taken from mexico (east of the Louisiana) and nations formerly dominated by empires?

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by orange on 12-18-2000 04:55 PM that's not really accurate. Look at...

Arrrgh! Not AGAIN!!!

[orange]

I have a habit of playing devil's advocate

I've also been through most of these threads, or similar ones in the past. So I recall some of the arguments that were made before.

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

ok, ok I admit, most countries have been ok, with new leaders...over a long period of time! the armerican civil war was over 100 years ago. and also, we did not "conquer" them, we crushed a rebelion, theres a big difference.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Ribannah on 12-17-2000 08:24 PM Consider the factor time. The one turn (could be as long as 50 years!) of automatic anarchy in Civ2 is quite sufficient.

What have that time-scale factor to do with anything?

Early in the game you send out scouts to uncover the map. Converted into game-time, this takes a few milleniums. Dont these scouts ever get homesick? Is that realistic, perhaps?
Ribannah, that time factor is just a passive backdrop for a great strategy-GAME - its not suppose to fit super-realisticly into some in-your-dreams super-detailed Civ-10 world-simulator.

quote: You need a few more turns to rebuild the city improvements, too. So, what you want is already in the game.

The problem is that whats "already in the game", isnt enough. You can fund pretty much of the costs of rush-building happiness-wonders, by using the money from conquered city-treasures.

Its too easy! Many "conquerer the world" type of players complains/brags about how easy it is to dominate the world. Well, this and simular suggestions is designed to turn massive multiple city-conquerings, into something that is more of an uphill struggle.

Is that a bad thing?

[Grumbold]

Most of the modern conflicts have been as a direct result of racial hatred between neighbouring countries or different racial populations in the same country. Better communication methods, faster transportation, more job mobility e.t.c. seems to foster a greater sense of cultural identity while most modern regimes are more squeamish about crushing internal dissent. Still, there are plenty of examples of revolts throughout history to lend credence to having some cities or minor civs harder to subdue than others and never fully assimilable. The more volatile would instantly revolt when their happiness dropped too low, no one turn warning, and lower morale in all captured cities of the same original nationality. This seems a better solution than one city revolt bringing down a government.

[Deity Dude]

quote: Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto on 12-18-2000 03:05 PM You guys have to remember, any comquered civ will not be happy, no matter how well you treat them, because of one fact: they are conquered. when you capture another city, it should not be able to rise above 70% happiness for the rest of the game.

How about the Japanese after WWII or the West Germans after WWII. They were conquered, but now seem pretty happy. Which leads to another point, in reality, quite often the conquered is not absorbed into the new civ but allowed to stay autonomous if it agrees to terms. It would be tough to do that in this game because the motivation here is to win - not stability.

[orange]

I think something needs to be addressed about the happiness of conquered nations.

If the civ is assimilated rather than made a slave-city, it may be just as happy as the rest of the nation...especially when your civ's people begin to dominate the city that was once dominated by another civ's people.

So there are two different scenarios.

Diablo - Yah, I suppose that doesn't apply that much. It was the first thing that popped into my head. Perhaps the Spanish domination of the Colombian tribes (Aztecs Incas Mayas) is a better example...though this is more assimilation (applying to the above idea ).

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

[Grumbold]

The Japanese and West Germany surrendered but were not conquered and assimilated into any other nation. The East Germans became part of the Soviet Bloc, primarily because of military occupation in the same way France was occupied by Germany but had its own administration (Vichy). That is the subtle but decisive difference between Civ, where cities have no loyalty to anything greater than themselves and belong to the owning player of the moment, and RL where cultural and national identity is almost impossible to eradicate.

If a populace like you and want to be ruled by you, then you 'liberate' the city from another power. If they hate you, almost no amount of military repression, rewriting of history or building theatres, churches and cinemas will change their desire to be free. That can only be represented by requiring a permanent garrison and -10% productivity for an extremely long time, and never be forgotten entirely. The Scots may not have been living under military occupation for centuries but have just (amicably) regained the first scraps of self-government after over 500 years of rule from England. They may, in time, elect to go for full deunification. The original unification would probably never have achieved such a peaceful end had not the Royal families of the time merged, with James VI of Scotland becoming King James I of England.

In Civ a nation never surrenders, it just loses cities until it has none left. There ought to be a way for a nation as a whole to admit defeat while retaining its national identity. If the victor could not afford to heavily garrison the whole of the defeated country it would make sense to withdraw from most, if not all, of the captured cities, accept surrender and receive some ongoing war reparation payments instead.