Refugees

[QuixotesGhost]

Originally posted by CarnalCanaan


There is a massive penalty for burning down someone's holy city, which will enrage even the most mild of leaders. This is understandable. However, the penalty for razing cities does not seem connected to their size or cultural output.

To obliterate a metropolis of millions of persons that serves as a cultural icon to millions more should be a HUGELY expensive diplomatic decision that would probably stop late-game razers (*cough* Monty...).

Perhaps it could be called the 9/11 Mechanism: razing (or even just attacking) a culturally significant city (top five in global rankings or beyond Influential in status) results in -1 to -5 diplomatic hit from the victim, -1 to -3 from his allies and -0 to -1 from all others.

Is there any record of such in the playtesting?

Originally posted by nugog
C'mon.....................

No think about it, why did more people care about the 9-11 attack than say... the Rwandan Genocide. What did the international community care more about? Culture, or at least what culture in Civ is supposed to represent is a big part of it.

I think this makes a lot of sense. I always felt that culture should have a diplomatic impact and that would be a cool way to do it.

[padillah]

I think he was objecting to the name, not the mechanic. Some people hold that event in an almost religious regard.

Tom P.

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by QuixotesGhost
No think about it, why did more people care about the 9-11 attack than say... the Rwandan Genocide.

Because many of your average people didn't, and still don't, even know what went on there. Hell, most average people haven't even heard of Rwanda. News coverage is awful, especially in the States, when it comes to African stories. It seems a 3rd world country has to have oil to get any attention.

Your reason has merit, but it's not the only reason.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Xorbon
Hell, most average people haven't even heard of Rwanda.

Does that include the Oscar(tm) nominated movie Hotel Rwanda with Don Cheadle?

I would be more likely to think that it's because the World Trade Centers were just that - centers of World Trade. There were offices of companies from all over the world in those buildings. A lot of people miss that.

You want to attack the US you run into the Statue of Liberty or the Pentagon. Attacking the WTC was a deliberate message that most everybody missed.

Tom P.

[Generaldoktor]

When I talk to people in the United States about 9/11; the big shock and revulsion are derived from:

A. The number of people killed. The United States is not used to large disasters; there has been an equal reaction (at least almost) to the hurricane deaths in New Orleans, which were comparable, but not caused by terrorism.

B. OTH, there is a fair amount of shock at the "penetration" of American defenses. There is a right-wing element in this country that does not really believe we "lost" in Vietnam (or the War of 1812,) and thus are "undefeated." There was a lot of heroism in New York City by ordinary people (and on the now celebrated Flight 93 that missed its target) and that is a form of moral victory for Americans, but really, there was no way we "won" 9/11; or the peace after, this last due to Bush's mishanding of the inevitable reaction. Big shock.

C. People killed were from all walks of life. Yes, when the rich die, it does get more attention, just like from that other airliner that went down coming from Britain a few years ago and killed playwrights, novelists, musicians, etc. A well-known Fox News commentator died on Flight 93, the brokers who died in the towers were very successful at their trade; I think Carleton Fisk or something was the big brokerage house most affected (also American Express and many others; ) but so did hundreds of police/firemen/janitors/cooks. Our society is more in touch with itself through various communications media perhaps than Rwanda. The survivors affected spanned the nation and were very vocal about it; their grief was transmitted quickly and extensively to the world. Is this "culture" talking? I don't know; it is maybe just a superior communications infrastructure.

I think Rwanda got better coverage than what was said here; I remember a big "Newsweek" spread on it, including a picture of a decayed 14-year-old girl with her head blown off that was very graphic and which I remember to this day, twelve years later. The Clinton Administration was also under pressure to get involved in Bosnia and Haiti; we were very confused as the whole country had been expecting a "peace dividend" after the end of the Cold War; playing international policeman did not fit in, though eventually it was made to fit.

Conclusion: I don't think it was American "culture," New York City culture or the significance of the World Trade Center buildings, (which were bombed less successfully in 1993,) which made this event significant. I think it was some of these other things. I have not lived in other countries and communicated little with them prior to being on this message board; but the general feeling here is that the Bush Administration wasted away what sympathy and empathy this country received after 9/11 very soon after with mishandled responses and poor maintenance of existing diplomatic relations. The "culture" value of the atttack on the site was short-lived, if at all.

[Xorbon]

Good points.

But I still stand by my statements.

Does that include the Oscar(tm) nominated movie Hotel Rwanda with Don Cheadle?

Yes. The average person thinks "Hotel Rwanda" is a song by the Eagles.

And yes, I do have a low opinion of the 'average person' when it comes to knowing about world events.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Xorbon
Good points.

But I still stand by my statements.




Yes. The average person thinks "Hotel Rwanda" is a song by the Eagles.

And yes, I do have a low opinion of the 'average person' when it comes to knowing about world events.

Then I can't help. I was trying to allude to the fact that, being Oscar(tm) nominated, it has been mentioned on the Oscars(tm) awards show. And, as such, has been mentioned to 35 million "average persons".

If you can't believe in their interest in world events at least believe in their cow-like ability to watch what they've been told to watch. (Why do you think there's an audience for "My Left Foot"?)

Hmm, on second thought, I'm not sure that's a better argument or not. :P

Tom P.

[Xorbon]

Movies like Hotel Rwanda definitely help. &nbsp But people seem to have short-term memories. A similar thing is happening in Darfur now with relatively little interest (relative to what's happening in the Middle East, for example).

I guess the problem, as I see it, isn't just with the news industry. They give the people what they are want to see (or at least what they think they want to see). Unfortunately, people are only interested in what affects them. Or, like you said, what they've been "told to watch". (A good example is Oprah's book-of-the-month club, or whatever it's called.)

But then again, people will only be interested in something if they've been told about it in the first place. And it's the media's responsibility to do that.


To get back on topic (and this thread has a way of getting off-topic), I think taking into account refugees is a cool idea, as long as it's well implemented. The unhappiness and starvation that could occur in those cities that receive refugees would be realistic.

[padillah]

Agreed. Way off topic. Sorry guys.

I'm not sure wether I am against the idea of an uncontrolable circumstance forcing my civ into a state. And I don't see an overriding argument for this.

This game is hard enough as it is (to me) if you toss in a random uncontrolled circumstance that directly affects the size and happiness of my cities I'm never gonna win.

Tom P.

[Generaldoktor]

There's a whole thread on "random happenings" that was done early in the life of the game, last year, or early this year. Feelings ran strong. Some here may have even contributed to it. I don't have time to look it up right now, but it shouldn't be hard to find. No consensus was reached. About half, including me, wanted random events; about half were opposed. As I said, the people that wanted one or the other had strong feelings on it.

Yes, refugees will create food problems. (My cities always have lots of food, though ) But this sort of brings up the subject of the game mechanic, which also existed in CTP and past Civ's; why can't cities share food?

I live near Tampa, FL. We have the best tomatoes most of the year and between us and Miami/Homestead and a few other spots like Orlando, grow a significant amount of the "truck" crops (vegetables) for the whole East of the Mississippi. OTOH, we can't grow corn, wheat or root crops very well. Those come from the Midwest. The existing trade rules allow for some of this (poorly,) but if Miami is short on food and Chicago has plenty, I don't see why the game can't allow sharing, within the same country at least.

This is a little off topic too, but might become much less so if refugees were really implemented.

[alms66]

Originally posted by yin26
Frankly, I have turned off razing cities because I find it too gamey.

Ok, that's just downright silly. You find razing cities too gamey, but great people (at least the way they were implemented) aren't gamey? Religion (again, the way it was implemented) isn't too gamey? Not to mention too overpowered, but that's a different topic altogether...

[yin26]

Sorry, but the game just plays a lot better without the ability to raze cities. At least for me. EDIT: And, yes, I find razing cities offends my sense of gaminess far more than do great people or religion (as implemented). Aren't game options great?

[Prussia]

I keep Razing on as much as possible just because if I want to conquer a Civ without paying the maintenance costs, I just raze the city. If the option isn't on, I just give the city to some AI player who totally ruins it anyways.

[alms66]

Originally posted by yin26
Aren't game options great?

You're right, they are. Where's my option to turn off the gamey religion and gamey great people though?

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by alms66


Ok, that's just downright silly. You find razing cities too gamey, but great people (at least the way they were implemented) aren't gamey? Religion (again, the way it was implemented) isn't too gamey? Not to mention too overpowered, but that's a different topic altogether...

Well tell us how you really feel? Er, where we going with this, anyway? I thought I had some issues with Civ4. You could consider shelving the game. (I'd suggest Ages of Man, but I don't think you'd like that either. It's a game, too.)

Civ4 is what it is. I am playing it again after taking some time off for the real world in the early Spring, despite my own frequent criticisms.

As for razing cities; it happened in the real world, as has been brought out here and can happen again. That's not too gamey for me.

And it does feel good if some "player" (live or AI) has really been messing with you, to get even a little bit by burning all his sh-t to the ground!