Atrocities!

[ajbera]

Remember atrocities in SMAC? How PO'd the other factions would get if you nerve-stapled your citizens, or used chemical weapons against a foe?

Who thinks atrocities should be implemented in Civ3?

Essentially, after a certain point in history, some actions (slavery, extreme suppression of dissent, using nerve gas on orphans) truly anger more 'enlightened' civilizations, and they censure you, impose trade embargoes, demand reparations, etc.

I would love to see this. Anyone else?

-ajbera

[King Richard]

I'm in favour of realism, so I'll have to agree with you! Slavery, biological- and chemical weapons should be included in civ3! And how about a vote in the U.N. (when it arrives) if it should be banned or allowed? Then, if you break the agreements, you'll be punished economically, or everyone goes to war with you...

[Ilkuul]

Great idea! Maybe certain types of atrocity (e.g. slavery, child labour, suppression of human rights, etc.) could be inherent in more primitive types of government like despotism and (to some extent) monarchy - so if you haven't changed to a more enlightened government by the time the UN arrives, you're liable to have sanctions imposed on you, or whatever. Likewise if you change back to a more primitive govt. type. Other kinds of atrocity, like bio/chemical weapons, would obviously have inherent advantages, so the savage warmonger would go for them anyway and risk the consequences (cf. Hitler & Saddam!).

[King Richard]

quote: Originally posted by Ilkuul on 04-13-2001 06:15 PM Great idea! Maybe certain types of atrocity (e.g. slavery, child labour, suppression of human rights, etc.) could be inherent in more primitive types of government like despotism and (to some extent) monarchy - so if you haven't changed to a more enlightened government by the time the UN arrives, you're liable to have sanctions imposed on you, or whatever. Likewise if you change back to a more primitive govt. type. Other kinds of atrocity, like bio/chemical weapons, would obviously have inherent advantages, so the savage warmonger would go for them anyway and risk the consequences (cf. Hitler & Saddam!).

Can't agree more!

[Zanzin]

I also like the aforementioned ideas!

[connorkimbro]

I'm not so sure that child labor should be an atrocity. . unless it's FORCED child labor, thats something different. for children in some countries, they only way they can eat is by getting a job, so i don't think i those cases that getting a job is so horrible. thats more of a topic for the OT though. sorry

but the atrocity thing in general, i like.

maybe according to certain factors in the game (like how rich they are compared to other nations, maybe how religious they are) can determine WHAT the nation considers an atrocity?

IE, a deeply religious nation would see, say. . abortion as an atrocity, but one with maybe over crowding wouldn't, but would instead see alot of reproduction as an "atrocity". . i guess these wouldn't be atrocities in the same sense, but could act to affect international relationships. .

[tniem]

The one problem I have with attrocities is what exactly makes them attrocities.

Slavery now would be considered an attrocity or at the very least a human rights violation yet it was used in most of human history. Ditto for child labor.

And what makes the world look down on an attrocity. For instance the U.S. and most of the world following WWII believed that Hitler's answer to the "Jewish Problem" was unacceptable. Yet at the same time Stalin was killing off millions in Russia. The same goes at the end of WWI when the Turks had been killing millions of Christians in their country. What makes the world respond to these so-called attrocities? That is my main concern for this whole idea/thread.

[SerapisIV]

Something doesn't become an atrocity till people are able to see the horror of their actions. Gas attacks in WWI were common to both sides and only became an atrocity afterwards. Except for the few people at Trinity, few realized the full horror of atomic weapons until after their use. The fire bombings of Dresdin and Tokyo today would never be acceptable, though at the time they were considered deadly but strategic action. Also the use of child labor is a sticky one because the idea of when you are a man has grown in the past 2 centuries. You used to married and supporting your family at a much younger age (though people lived as extended families more then). Also, human and animal sacrifices to gods, which have gone in and out of acceptance depending on the culture/religion

However along those lines, some things should always remain atrocity, such as the wiping out of a town, unnecessary killing of civilians, for example, the Rape of Nanking, the killing of diplomats under truce. There are some fundamentally evil things.

[Ilkuul]

I appreciate the points that have been made here; but I still like the idea of there being some kind of penalty in the later game against more 'primitive' forms of government. How would it be if atrocities are not defined - i.e., there is no list of atrocities (slavery, fire-bombing, etc.) - but they are assumed to occur, at least to some extent, under more primitive govt. types like despotism and monarchy (assuming, as we've been told, that fundamentalism is 'out'!)? Then if a given civ still has one of these govt. types after the UN appears, they run the risk of having sanctions placed on them for 'human rights violations' (again, undefined). How such sanctions would work is another question! This, IMHO, could provide a further useful disincentive to warmongers wanting to retain more despotic types of government.

[tniem]

Ilkuul,

I am more open to this suggestion. However, attrocities as what have been defined above supposedely happen in Communist and Democrat nations around the world today. These are supposedly modern governments, yet are still mistreating their people. So to just say primitive governments take away rights just wouldn't be fair, realistic, or make good playable sense.

[Ilkuul]

Well, I'd have to agree with you, tniem. I realise we're straying into controversial territory here, but one possibility would be to rate govt. types in terms of how 'enlightened' they tend to be, with the more democratic ones at the top simply because human rights violations are a lot harder to commit in more open societies; that's not to say they don't happen, but they don't happen so easily. This would mean that a despotic civ would be almost certain to have sanctions applied to it, while a democratic one would be almost certain not to (but not entirely certain: there would still be a small chance). The other govt. types would fall in between, I imagine in a table something like this:

Despotism: 5/6
Monarchy: 4/6
Republic: 3/6
Communism: 2/6
Democracy: 1/6

(Now shoot me down in flames! )

[This message has been edited by Ilkuul (edited April 15, 2001).]

[Uncle Sparky]

How about this - any action against a non military enemy unity will be interpreted as an atrocity by the other side - effecting the AI's relationship with you.
So, if you attack or bribe a settler, caravan or diplomat, it may not be seen as an act of war ,but as a barbaric act that may have long term ramifications.
Also, of course, the winners in history define what is or is not an atrocity. Realistically, the more advanced & larger your civ. - the more you should be able to get away with.

[tniem]

A big part of the whole treatment of nations that the U.N. believes to be violating human rights and taking part in attrocities is the nation's size and power. Look at China who is believed to have done a great deal of human right's violations in the past 20 years. No one looks to punish them because their is little chance that a military operation would benefit the nation attacking and the U.S. and other nations needs the market that China provides.

During, the war in Chechnya, Russian soldiers are believed to have participated in some war attrocities in that region. Yet, no one is willing to attack Russia.

Meanwhile, the world is attacking Saddaam and Milosevic (not that they don't deserve it) because of their nation's lack of size and strength. The whole part of attrocities in the modern world is what to do about them. And then when to do something about them. The answer in the U.S. has been only when victory is secured and the politics of it are to the President's advantage.

How in Civ would you simulate a nation going against another due to attrocities only when such a war would benefit that nation?

[ajbera]

The action against the nation committing an atrocity need not be martial. Trade and research embargoes can also be enacted, plus the general lowering of opinion and esteem towards the offending country. If trade and resource management are important aspects of Civ3 (and I hope they will be), then the ability to impose sanctions to express opposition to atrocities can be quite effective.

We have had (and still have) such sanctions against countries that we aren't happy with. In some cases it has had the desired effect, in others it has not. Generally, the bigger and stronger the offending nation, the better it can withstand sanctions, though it may prove troublesome for the economy, research, and happiness.

Such manipulations are a much needed alternative to actual warfare.

[SerapisIV]

quote: Originally posted by ajbera on 04-15-2001 07:16 PM research embargoes can also be enacted

What is a research embargo? Don't civs do their own research based on trade? Cutting off trade lowers their research output, but how do you purposely lower their research otherwise?

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-13-2001 10:02 PM Something doesn't become an atrocity till people are able to see the horror of their actions. Gas attacks in WWI were common to both sides and only became an atrocity afterwards. Except for the few people at Trinity, few realized the full horror of atomic weapons until after their use. The fire bombings of Dresdin and Tokyo today would never be acceptable, though at the time they were considered deadly but strategic action.

I agree! That is why I can't see attrocities as a part of Civ III. In the past they have been because of one type of action i.e. the bombs in SMAC.

How though can you simulate the changing of an entire world against a certain action in a computer game? I certainly do not want to just have things like slavery or fire bombs be an attrocity if they have not been used before.

So for me, I have to say that I am against attrocities finding their way into Civ III.

[ajbera]

Master of Orion allowed for research pacts, and perhaps Civ3 will have something similar. Regardless, civs may exchange advancements as they see fit. If a nation commits an atrocity, other civs may be less forthcoming in sharing knowledge with the offender.

My point is there should be other pressures that can be brought to bear against a civilization you dislike other than military. Coercion by threatening to negatively impact trade or research/knowledge exchanges would be a nice option for negotiations.

[Ilkuul]

How would it be if the UN can impose a research embargo, which then cuts off academic exchanges and opportunities, causing a brain drain as scientists and others leave the offending country to seek better opportunities abroad - thereby negatively impacting their research capability, which would be represented in the game by an increase in the number of turns taken to discover new advances. The longer the embargo continues, the greater the research penalty.

[Brad]

I think atrocities should be linked to wonders (eg. once the Emancipation Act is built slaving becomes an atrocity, once the U.N. is built Atomic Bombs become an atrocity etc

[Stuff2]

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 04-15-2001 06:11 PM How in Civ would you simulate a nation going against another due to attrocities only when such a war would benefit that nation?

I suggest that an atrocity is simply a valid pretext to declare war. Ofcourse this only applies to the really big atrocities. This means that if you don't make any atrocities a civ can't start a war against you without some happiness penalties and reputation penalties. The same is true with your civ. If you start war with a civ that has done very few atrocities youre population will be more unhappy than they would if you started a war with a really bad ass civ. Also, atrocities dissappear with time. The happiness-in-war factor should disappear within 50-200 years and the declare-war-without-getting-bad-reputation-factor should only be possible during the turn when the atrocity is done.

Different societies will have different ideas on what is an atrocity (except the universal atrocities that someone mentioned). I suggest that every atrocity gets a value and how they change with different kinds of society. If the value gets under zero it's no longer considered an atrocity and vice versa. Universal atrocities will always be big enough for being able to start a war without happiness and reputation penalties.

No country will wage war unless they see some benefit in it. The Ai-players should 'know' when they can't win a fight.

[JamesJKirk]

I don't think Ethnic Cleansing would be a good atrocity in that you just have a riot and click on "Ethnic Cleansing" especially if they had your majority culture in the civ. But it'd require martial law and stuff like that for putting down the insurrection

[EnochF]

I'd never use it. I never use the "Nerve Staple" button in SMAC, either. But I think it's a relatively clean translation from one game to the other, except for the population drain. I forget exactly how Nerve Stapling works, but I think it stops the city from rioting for approximately ten turns, no matter how many angry citizens/drones are there. (Perhaps limiting the population drain to 2 would work best, 1 for smaller cities.)

"Martial law and stuff like that"? Er...

[EnochF]

Suggested atrocities:

• Any use of nuclear weapons. (Possible exception: using nuclear weapons against a nation that made the first nuclear strike against you)
• Certain spy abilities: plant nuclear device, poison water supply, anything involving chemical warfare (but not including bribes, sabotage or tech stealing)
• Ethnic cleansing. A new ability, much like the "Nerve Stapling" in SMAC, which eliminates all unhappiness in a city based on culture, at the cost of 2 or 3 population, for example, when you conquer an enemy city and it doesn't "assimilate" entirely.
• Razing a conquered city.
• After construction of the United Nations, any sneak attack.

These are mostly just translated in some form from Alpha Centauri. There may be others made possible by the Culture rules.

If atrocities are implemented in Civ III, we should be careful not to confuse them with "pretext for war." Tech stealing is pretext for war. Enemy units within your borders is pretext for war. Hell, even failure to pay tribute is pretext for war. Atrocities are much different.

[Xuenay]

Ugh. If atrocities are implemented in Civ 3, make them optional.

I hated the atrocities in SMAC. I happen to like waging a ruthless war against my opponents. What I dont like is the other factions opposing my way of fighting - that's none of their damn business!

Also, the way how the factions would refuse to surrender if you commited atrocities against them doesnt make a lot of sense. The Japanese didnt get a grim determination not to surrender after the US nuked them, did they?

------------------
"Now Lone Star, you will see that Evil will always triumph, because Good is Dumb!"
-- Dark Helmet

"One of the thoughts jostling for space was that there was no such thing as a humble opinion."
-- Terry Pratchett, Men At Arms

[ajbera]

quote: Originally posted by Xuenay on 04-21-2001 12:37 PM I hated the atrocities in SMAC. I happen to like waging a ruthless war against my opponents. What I dont like is the other factions opposing my way of fighting - that's none of their damn business!

There is nothing to stop you from waging war the way you desire. Hell, I loved using nerve gas in SMAC - it was a delightfully brutal touch. However, realistically, there would be some out there who would protest at that extra touch of ruthlessness. Some nations (depending on the characteristics of the leader, style of government, etc.) may actually like you more (this would be cool to enact, if feasible), and some may not give a damn one way or another. But some nations recognize the concept of human rights, and would protest a truly excessive action as a violation of those rights. It comes down (I suppose) to a matter of character. IRL, if someone you know commits a serious act, you have the option of supporting it, remaining silent, or denouncing it, and everyone else you know has that right as well. It may not necessarily prevent such occurrences in the future, but you have the right to speak your mind.

quote: Originally posted by Xuenay on 04-21-2001 12:37 PM Also, the way how the factions would refuse to surrender if you commited atrocities against them doesnt make a lot of sense. The Japanese didnt get a grim determination not to surrender after the US nuked them, did they?

This should be a variable, again depending on the characteristics of the civilization, its leader, and perhaps its culture rating. Civs with a high culture rating may develop a strong resolve to fight to the finish in the face of adversity, while others with feeble culture ratings may just lose morale, fight less effectively, or surrender outright. But it should have more factors than that. It shouldn't be so formulaic that you can say, prior to committing an action, that Civ A will definitely fight to the death if I do this. I want to be surprised if they choose to fight that way, or if they choose to suddenly surrender. Civ3 should try to resist any deep predictability. And, OT, it would be nice if, out of the blue, a civ chose to surrender when half its cities had been taken, as opposed to always, always fighting to the very last damn city.

Less predictability!! Keep me guessing!! Though I suppose that I'll be able to experience the uncertainty of my opponent's actions in multiplayer, it would still be nice.

[Sindai]

Great list there Enoch, I like it.

Ajbera - great ideas all around. I love the concept of leaders who won't care at all about what methods you use on your population, as well as the somewhat random surrender chances.

[TechWins]

I feel that an atrocities should could from slavery, dangerous chemical weapons, killing citizens, etc.... How an outside nation reacts to something in particular should differ from their approach on their empire and the rest of the world. Per say if your had the personality of Lady Dierdre of SMAC you would be more against chemical weapons than anybody else. If you were Lal you would be more against killing citizens than anybody else. Not to say that the other nations wouldn't be against these atrocities it's just that your personality would depend on how angry you would get.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

It's hard to define atrocities. But slaverie MUSTN'T (I made a mistake) be an atrocity. It's was quit normal in the past. I think to be simple we must keep only very atroce things like :
- Total destruction of a civ should be an atrocity (genocid).
- Use of Massive destruction weapon is are atrocity : like nuke, chemical, bio weapon and masse bombing...

Of course we can say that each age, each gouvernment (they are both game concepts) could have is notion of atrocity of course.


[This message has been edited by ZoboZeWarrior (edited April 25, 2001).]

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Lets get Amnesty International in here so they can define an atrocity

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now

[SerapisIV]

No amnesty international, they'd b*tch about having war altogether, and where's the fun in not killing