We need more atrocities!

[onodera]

What CivIV needs is more ways to commit atrocities and more way to react to them.
I mean, if it's 1965 and I'm razing someone's city it should elicit some negative reaction across the boardm not just "-1: You razed one of your cities!" from the victim, because I don't care what he/she thinks.
On the other hand, when Mr. Khan razed the cities in Central Asia, it was perfectly normal.
I think a good atrocity-enabling tech could be Liberalism. If a liberal civ commits an atrocity it should elicit some reponse from other liberal civs, some negative modifiers at least.
Having Untied Nations would be another step. Any atrocity committed after the UN is completed would result in a blockade: cancelling deals with everyone. There should probably be some ways to evade this, like being the one to build the UN or making this not an automatic blockade, but an emergency vote.
What should count as an atrocity?
- pop rushing
- razing
- nuking
- declaring a war?
- pillaging?
- being discovered when poisoning water supply?

And of course, more atrocities can be added.
Chemical weaponry upgrade for modern gunpowder and artillery units, requires military science and combat 2. Deals collat. damage (extra in case of arty), decreases city population. Using one counts as an atrocity.
Firebombing upgrade for aircraft, requires combustion and combat 2. Destroys buildings. Using one counts as an atrocity.
Flamethrowers upgrade for modern gunpowder units, requires combustion and combat 2. Ignores Forest/Jungle/Woodsman bonus. Using one counts as an atrocity.

I think we should see more inhumane behavior in Civ5.

[Solver]

Pre-emptive warning to keep this thread nice.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Solver
Pre-emptive warning to keep this thread nice.

[Gaius Octavius]

I don't agree with all the specifics, but you're on to something here. You just can't get away with doing the same things in the modern world that were commonplace in ancient times. Killing off entire groups of people may have worked for Caesar in Gaul, but it doesn't work today without some kind of backlash from the more democratic nations.

Mass Media is another idea: the use of television and radio to bring events closer than ever certainly has an effect on popular opinion of atrocities.

Anyway, by the time you're in the modern world you've pretty much built up an unshakeable alliance with somebody, or an eternal enmity. I don't know that this would change that.

[Yosho]

Originally posted by Gaius Octavius
I don't agree with all the specifics, but you're on to something here. You just can't get away with doing the same things in the modern world that were commonplace in ancient times. Killing off entire groups of people may have worked for Caesar in Gaul, but it doesn't work today without some kind of backlash from the more democratic nations.

Hmm...perhaps if you do certain acts, it lowers your relations with people that have certain civics running? I don't think a communist police state with slaves is going to get too upset about how people on the other side of the wold treat each other, but a pacifist democracy with free speach might get upset about it.

[Lambiorix_be]

Re: We need more atrocities!

Originally posted by onodera
I think we should see more inhumane behavior in Civ5.

the sad thruth is that this is human behaviour

[LordShiva]

When you raze a city, teh diplo penalty should read "-1: You committed an atroCity LOL "

[nbarclay]

I think that for the most part, the concept of atrocit8es is already handled adequately. There is already a "You declared war on our friend" penalty. There are already diplomatic repercussions for using nuclear weapons (at least assuming the Civilopedia is correct; I've never actually used them). The issue of slavery is already dealt with by the way the Emancipation civic creates a happiness penalty for civs that don't have Emancipation, so there is no need for a diplomatic penalty on top of that.

If the issue of culture around captured cities were handled better, it could make sense for the penalty for razing to affect all civs, with the strength of the negative reaction depending in large part on how much particular civilizations liked the victim. But that would require a system that always makes capturing and holding a city a viable option. It would be unfair to put players in a situation where they aren't allowed to raze cities without getting a large chunk of the world mad at them, while at the same time making it prohibitively expensive to provide captured cities with a large enough garrison to prevent them from flipping to their original owner or to a culturally powerful neighbor.

I'm very much against the idea of adding new elements to the game just to give players (and AIs) more opportunities to commit atrocities. Diplomatic effects can add an interesting dimension to features that are worth including in the game for other reasons. But making the game more complicated just so atrocities can be a bigger issue doesn't seem worth it.

[DaShi]

"-17 You razed our cities"

Later I realized I could just give him back some of his captured cities that were on remote island after he capitulated. Maybe then he would have shared artillery with me.

[Rockoon]

In the past 150 years, many atrocities have been commited with no longterm backlashing:

40 million people died under the 27 year reign of Mao.
20 million people died under the 29 year reign of Stalin.
8 million people died during the Congolese revolution.
1.5 million people died during the 4 year reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

55 million died during WW2.
2 million Germans were killed after WW2 during the Explusions.

These are very large numbers of deaths and this is not at all comprehensive.

Hell, 2.8 million died during the Korean war.
1.5 million died during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
1.9 million during the most recent Sudanese civil war.
1 million died during the Mexican revolution.
1 million died during the iran-Iraq war.

We could go on and on...

15 million died during WW1.
8.8 million died during the Russian civil war.
1 million died in Nigeria during the Biafran war.
1.2 million Bengali died in 1971 alone during one of the larger flare-ups over this continualy disputed piece of land between Pakistan and India.

Want more??

[Ari]

Originally posted by Rockoon
In the past 150 years, many atrocities have been commited with no longterm backlashing:

40 million people died under the 27 year reign of Mao.
20 million people died under the 29 year reign of Stalin.
8 million people died during the Congolese revolution.
1.5 million people died during the 4 year reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

55 million died during WW2.
2 million Germans were killed after WW2 during the Explusions.

These are very large numbers of deaths and this is not at all comprehensive.

Hell, 2.8 million died during the Korean war.
1.5 million died during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
1.9 million during the most recent Sudanese civil war.
1 million died during the Mexican revolution.
1 million died during the iran-Iraq war.

We could go on and on...

15 million died during WW1.
8.8 million died during the Russian civil war.
1 million died in Nigeria during the Biafran war.
1.2 million Bengali died in 1971 alone during one of the larger flare-ups over this continualy disputed piece of land between Pakistan and India.

Want more??

Depends on what you mean by long term. Also depends on backlashing. Come to think of it, it also depends on what you mean by atrocity. For example, I would argue that bloody wars don't immediately imply atrocities. Without trying to start a philosophical debte, clearly the designers of Civ regard military war deaths as non-atrocities. In SMAC, for example, only when you use nerve gas do you *infuriate* other factions; merely attacking their units or cities is treated differently on a diplomatic level.

World war I may have had many deaths, for example, but even by the most liberal modern standards they wouldn't all be considered atrocities. And actual WW1 atrocities (chemical weapons, for example) were a) not neccessarily judged by modern standards and b) not exclusive to one particular side. Given that it was a war that involved all major powers of the time, who remained neutral to give long term backlashing? Surely the parties involved in a war don't count.

Most of the things you mention would at least be the equivalent of a negative modifier in a civ-esque diplomatic relationship. As in civ, in the real world, a negative, even a large negative, doesn't imply war is about to be declared. Sometimes a large negative doesn't even take you below zero.

Mao and Stalin surely incurred "negatives" with what they did. Both would have gotten a "we do not like you enough" on a request for, say, open borders, resource or tech trades. Much of the 'like' may have been for "civic" related reasons, but surely not all.

As counterexamples to those mentioned above, South Africa incurred huge "diplomatic penalties" for its actions, that only ended with a change in "civics". Libya managed to get plenty of "negatives" with its actions. Nobody has declared war on Sudan, but that's not to say it's the toast of the international community at the moment. Milosevic certainly managed to incur "negatives."


In response to the original post, I kinda like the idea of certain techs, wonders or civics changing the nature of the diplomatic late-game. Poisoning the water may have been acceptable in ancient greece, but today that would be considered state-sponsored terrorism. It's silly to treat that the same as a "steal treasury" action.

[Asmodeous]

I would like to see a much larger pool of options in the UN.

Me.

[Nyghtfyr]

I like this idea, and I think tying it to Mass Media is an excellent way of carrying it out. I don't think it's too extreme or politically incorrect to include this concept; most of the 'atrocities' are already in the game - nuclear weapons of various sizes, the ability to slaughter an entire city, espionage (bring back the suitcase nuke?), and a bias towards civs that share your religion until you discover the progressive free religion civic. I wonder if the devs might shy from adding really explicit atrocities like chemical or biological weapons to the core game, since that's awfully specific, tactically speaking. The penalty for 'poisoning the water supply' could be increased...

And yes, more UN resolutions. It's fine for the Apostolic Palace to be a simple selection of 'embargo/kill the infidels' but the UN needs to be more dynamic.

[TriMiro]

Revolutions, Civil Wars and Evil Dictators are mainly internal atrocities and should cause mostly internal problems (like unhappiness from slave lashing). Countries like Iran and Iraq still don't like each other. Events from anywhere form 50 to 250 years ago still play enormous role in the politics in the Balkans. Most real world atrocities do have long term effect especially when it comes to relations between the actual countries involved. A lot of that effect is also due to propaganda.

Propaganda may be an interesting innovation in the game. If someone is destroying cities, another player can go to war with this guy calling it a "just war" and suffer less war unhappiness. The effects of the propaganda can be largely boosted by Mass Media.

In related matter IMHO the war unhappiness is kind of messed up in Civ IV. If someone is attacking me all the time and if that someone would not negotiate for peace, then I should not get war unhappiness. How many protests were there in medieval France during the 100 year war with England. War unhappiness should be large in modern times and small in ancient times and it should never be there if fighting a defensive war.

[Rockoon]

Originally posted by Ari
In response to the original post, I kinda like the idea of certain techs, wonders or civics changing the nature of the diplomatic late-game. Poisoning the water may have been acceptable in ancient greece, but today that would be considered state-sponsored terrorism. It's silly to treat that the same as a "steal treasury" action.

I agree with this, but more to the point I would like to see a complete overhaul of the demand system as well and many of the 'atrocities' discussed could be folded into it.

Most of the demands should have to come from your citizens and not from other leaders, and induce happiness penalties while they are "on the books"

The basic tempate would be:

+1 We demand *X* because of *Y*

With this staying on the books until *X* is met or *Y* is no longer valid or has timed out.

Options for *X* could be:

Leave civic *Z*
Adopt civic *Z*
Stop trading with *Z*
Declare war on *Z*
Make peace with *Z*
Open borders with *Z*
Liberate city *Z*
Increase our military.
Decrease our military.
Build wonder *Z*

As an example of options for *Y*, given "Declare war on *Z*"

..because they are heathens!
..because they are weak!
..because they are at war with our friends!
..because their culture infests our cities!
..because we should rule the world!
..because they razed our friends city!
..because they poisoned a water supply! (timed)
..because thet are slavers!

Each civ's citizens could have their own personality and that personality could change based on the era.

Situations could arise where you really have to act or suffer:

They are heathens AND they are at war with our friends AND their culture infests our cities giving you +3 faces ...

..declaring war then basically gives you +3 but if the war ends without the reason resolved, then the benefit was only temporary.

OR

..changing state religions gives you +1
..fixing the culture imbalance gives you +1
..getting the war with your friend to end gives you +1

This also opens up a game of giving the competition more unhappy faces than they give you, but NOT enough to force the competition to actualy do something about it which will erase them.

Further, world opinion can now be modelled much more succinctly .. every unfriendly civ could get +1 because you are still sacrificing on the alter .. and if half the civs in the world have +1 then you really do have justification for that "+N the world thinks of us as villains!" that is currently tied to U.N. resolutions but really shouldnt be.