Mod Idea: People/culture/religion extermination

[Nik]

In the history of humankind, people always had a certain hatred against others beliefs/cultures/races etc., and entire groups are massacred because of this.

Well I dont want to get into a discussion about the correctness of adding this into the game, but no one can negelect this (as Firaxis couldnt with religion), as a major factor in the development of civilizations in real world.

So I just want to know if it is possible to say if a city has:
20 % A culture, and 80 % B. Then I want to drive off culture A, or maybe even killing them, of course with some negative sideeffects, in which the civilization A get move angry towards me, etc. Of course this should only be done in non-democratic states.

[Stone-D]

Been musing about this myself. I think it would be amusing to implement pogroms and jihads into the game - add an extra facet to extend the game's complexity a bit further. Hey, it might even lead to possible total conversions, like the armies of the West versus the hordes of Sauron.

As it is, I've already modified the game slightly so that I *start* with christianity(1), my intent being to avoid all other religions and maybe initiate a policy of extermination. Not sure if I can pull it off though, as the spanish are ahead of me technologically right now. I've already wiped out the mongols and the russians I keep under firm control, as I nurtured a barbarian city on their lands to pop 13 by holding them off with a small city... which I intend to give to the barbarians.

BTW, I found a barbarian city in my previous game which was the holy city of buddhism. LOL. Tinkering with the XML files rendered that save unplayable, unfortunately.

(1) I did this by giving myself a free missionary. This founds the religion, but does NOT create the holy city. A python mod must be implemented to fix this.

[Nik]

Interesting, but are there not any other comments on this one?

[Sharule]

They would have to be pretty severe consequences.
When the Christians slaughtered all the Jews and Muslims in Jerusalem there was a renewed cause for Arabia to unite and defeat the christian armies. Germany is still feeling the reprocussions of the Holocaust. Many will say that the Ottoman clensing of Serbians was one of the nails in the coffin so to speak.
I feel a little uncomfterable with the idea, but anyhow, if its issued in a balanced way, to each their own. The main problem is that Playing Civ you have little sense of morals, which is a little unrealistic. Either way, it seems to be dangerous grounds.

[Nik]

Yes of course, you shouldnt just go off and kill every other culture or religion you (dis)like, my main argumentation is that this have had a HUGE impact on the real world, and I not just think in Holocaust (Hitler) / Gulag (Stalin) / The Culture Revolution (Mao), in ancients times it were rather normal to slaughter without any form of regret.

I can see you concern, but it is a game. Well you might have no moral when playing civ, but we are all different.

Well it was just a proposal...

[abman]

There are mods in progress that remove religions from cities, either automatically or with a unit such as an Inquisitor. This sort of code would be a good starting point for any mods for dealing with religious/ethnic tensions. Another useful element would be to have one religion add happiness to a city, but multiple religions add unhappiness to simulate religious tensions.
Also if you want to have religious holy wars play a bigger role in games then you could just hike up the value that the AI places on other civs having the same religion as they do. For specific scenarios you could even make civs of X religion totally hate civs of Y religion. Lots of possibilities with that.

[Nik]

RANT Warning....

Removing Religion, like moving the seats of a car! It still works but aint that comfortable. What is wrong with people and religion!??!? Well I dont understand, I am neither a athist (which actually is a religion in it self) or a believer.

But hey thanks for info. Sounds good.

Anyway I have had a game were the whole world was one religion and I another. The only wars were me vs. the rest! Holy Crap that was tough, wars on 4 fronts.
North, south, west and east.

[ghen]

Atheism is only a religion if you believe it is If you just don't care then you're concidered Agnostic.

Back on topic, I would love to see a way to exterminate populous to make culture wars easier. As it is, I use slavery as much as I can on border cities that I've just taken in war.

[Stone-D]

Just had a thought.... imagine an additional great person ability, "Initiate Cult".

Smuggle him deep into enemy territory with a spy (if with spy, also invisible?) and sow the seeds of dissent from within.

Combine this with the ideas from the revolution/splinter civs thread and things might get interesting...

[Ollywood]

Originally posted by Sharule
The main problem is that Playing Civ you have little sense of morals, which is a little unrealistic. Either way, it seems to be dangerous grounds.

I have to agree in as much as that in real life I would probably not want to be a dictator who declares war on any rising nation before they become too powerful.

In my last game of civ however, I loved India. They were good friends and a good partner for trading. At one point however their golden age began and they shook me off in the space race. At the same time they had a defensive pact with the Malinese empire and both being my neighbours on either side I was unable to attack India.

I had no other choice but to buy the Romans into attacking the indians, drawing the Malinese in to defend them at the same time breaking the defensive pact with the indians. I waited a while so the indians moved a lot of their troops north towards the romans. Then I asked the malinese to make peace with the romans so that the romans could concentrate on war with India and then I joined in myself, attacking from the south and bringing the second most powerful nation to its knees, conquering all its capital cities.

I mean, I betrayed my best trade partner simply because they would have won the space race otherwise. The mailnese got used by all parties and still had no clue who or why it happened and they gained nothing out of it.

The romans became my new best friend and rose to being the second most powerful nation after me, they gained a science and gold from raiding and I gained 4 major cities, lots of gold and won the game.

When playing the game its seldom that I am a good moral leader. I don't want to be. I enjoy conquering to some extent. At the same time it makes me understand the real world a little better. I think thats an idea of the CIV series. It's not trying to ask us to be better leaders than we had in history but it does in a way show us why wars can happen.... I think.

In the best civ III game I played, I had to cause a devastating world war that raged for hundreds late years (talking about at least 100 rounds) and involved 9/10 nations, simply because I had no coal or rubber, but I had the technology for railroads and infantry before all others and it was my only chance to acquire these resources before others would catch up with me. Trade was not an option since the prices other nations demanded from me were too exhausting. They wanted many technologies which would only give me these resources for 20 rounds and the amounts of gold they demanded I couldn't afford at the same time to becoming a world power. The best thing I could do was build a massive army of riflemen and cavalry and galeon them to the weakest (rising) rival which was egypt. fought them in long and brtual campaign and just as I took the required cities they aquired the technologies to use the resources they just lost. Hence they comitted to naval blockades and I chucked in my entire gold reserve into upgrading my army in order to stand a chance. The egyptians had many many allies so I had to find my own and this is how I dragged the world into a world war that shifted the powers drastically. The Zulu were about to defeat the Japanese as this campaign began and in the end the Japanese were one of the only civs left over with about 4 cities when I conquered them just in order to test my modern armor armies. The zulu were defeated first even though they were the greatest power at the beginning of the campaign but nobody can withstand three large neighbours fighting you at the same time. I conquered their cities and my babylonian allies actually razed a lot of them. (some cities had a population of 16 and were razed. I mean that is pretty nasty genocide if you think about it. The babylonians just didn't want to deal with rebels and unhappiness. They rebuffed any rebel cities of mine that threatened to crossover to their sides. After the zulu, the egyptians got exterminated and then the aztecs got wiped out just before the were able to destroy the americans and russians. At the end of the war I almost had a domination victory on a 'huge' map. All of this simply because I lacked coal and rubber in the beginning. In the end I controlled 65% of all major resources making most other civs dependant on my prices. This makes you think about the real world.....

[Blake]

It should be possible to make a "Purge" option. Like you purge a city and it destroys all foreign culture, as if you had founded the city, presumably this wouldn't be very good for the population, especially if it's mostly foreign... and it shouldn't be possible under enlightened civics.

[Dr. Broom]

We need to be able to kill off unwanted nationalities and religions. I think it should be possible under even the most enlightened civics but the consequences would be worse. Under barbarism there should be no consequence while under pacifism there should be mass rioting and production and income penalties depending on the scale of the exiling/killing.

Another option is for it to only cause problems in the modern age since in ancient and medieval ages it was pretty common to just kill anyone hindering your progress or anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with you.

I really don't always see it as evil either, if you are at war with somebody and you have their people living in your empire and they are causing trouble I don't see how it is bad to kill or exile them.

It would be cool to have holy wars too, maybe only Islam and Christianity can have them, maybe not but if a you were at war with a nation of another religion you could declare it a holy war and it might be similar to wartime mobilization in civ iii. I would add something like no unhappiness in your cities with your religion and minus 10% research on anything non-military and you troops loot 2 times as much. Whenever you take a city where the enemy religion is present you kill most of the population automatically. Other civs with your religion are more likely to join you than normal and civs of the enemy religion are more likely to join your opponent.

[Nik]

I dont think we need a special Crusade option, and indeed NOT adding it to only Christians and Islamic civs, however this will be historical accurate, it may offend people. But purging specific relgions, cultures should be an option, like Dr. Broom states, but I dont think it should be possible in the most enligheted civics. As an example think of the USA making prognomes against black people. This would not only upset the black people, but also a majority of the white, and the rest of the world would go beserk if this happend. Even Iraq is an example, USA cannot erase entire population of Iraqi people becuase there are a few troublemakers (ok terroists), but still here the the States more or less protecting their soldiers (I mean only a few years in prison, becuase you have tortured and made perverse and pornograpic necrofilic pictures, that is just disgusting), but I dont want to get into a discussion of the Iraqi war.

But by beginning to kill off your (foreign) population should have severe consequenses. It shouldn't just a like a simple option to remove other cultures / religions, but a well thought decision, becuase it might initiate violet revolt, or a declaring of war by the civ with the culture etc.

Btw Ollywood it is true what you are writing, but here again normal history is full of betrayels, even your best friend might stick a knife into your back for a girl (resources in CIV )

[greggbert]

This is not a good idea. Developers and publishers have made it clear they don't want this in the game, and I don't think it's wise to do something like this because it may create a backlash which causes Firaxis or Take2 to be less supportive of the MOD community or (gasp) try to exert control over our custom content.

If you like to make mods, this might be one NOT to post to a major site or advertise on the forums.

[Dr. Broom]

Don't worry about it greggbert they won't mind. The only reason they didn't put it in is because it is a sensitive topic but if some modder puts it in they don't care, it doesn't make them look bad. Remember they did have ethnic cleansing in Civ III and firaxis put that in themselves.

I think it should depend on the civic as to whether or not you have severe consequences or not. If you have a theocracy and you kill off foreign religions I think it should make your people happy and the only downside should be that you lose population.

Also it should be possible to do ethnic/religious cleansing under any civic but under certain ones the consequences are worse. Afterall, governments almost never stick to their ideals.