We need more atrocities!

[BeechWell]

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.

I think that would put too many constrains on the strategy of the player. Then the development of your Civ would be less due to your choices, but more to the demands of your people. Sure it would be realistic, but no fun imho.

About changing your options for warfare in modern times: In CIV the goal of warfare remains the same pretty much throughout the game: Expand your territory. This already doesn't reflect the changes to warfare IIR. As long as that stays the same, I think it would only create an imbalance to include the restrictions of modern warfare.

[Civilized 67]

I have to agree with BeechWell. Realistic or not, all this would do is limit the player's options and become a huge pain in the ass in the late game.

The AP and the UN already throw enough roadblocks in a player's path. The last thing I need is to worry about committing "atrocities" in a PC game...

[rah]

I like the concept, but yeah it might get too intrusive.
Best would be an auto trade embargo of all civs that are pleased with the victim. More than that at it would remove choices.

[Asmodeous]

I also agree, but I think everyone should agree about more UN Resolution options.

Half the time I ignore everything beyond "Single Currency," "Free Trade," "Nuclear Non-Proliferation," and "I would like to win, now, please."

Me.

[Rockoon]

The UN/AP votes are already are fairly intrusive tho..

..forced to declare war?
..forced to declare peace?
..forced to use universal sufferage?

This infact removes these "forced" issues and instead gives you a choice about how to handle it .. tasked to solve the problem rather than forced to do something specific

[Nyghtfyr]

Wouldn't it be possible to just turn them off? We can already completely disable random events, what's to prevent programmers from making the propaganda 'slider' or whatever form it takes from being purely optional? I definitely wouldn't want it in every game, but I think it would add enough meat to the diplomatic part of the game that it's worth considering.

[gdijedi7]

Well, as to Rockoon's post just above, I also think there should be a way to defy the UN. Like the "NEVER!" option for the New League of Nations.

I also think that if someone (I'm looking at Hatshepsut and Catherine) poisons my water, and/or has a history of poisoning my water, I should be within my rights to declare war on them without my people, not to mention the rest of the world, hating me.

[Yosho]

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.

Heh...I always figured that that was basically what you were doing when you built broadcast towers and/or spent money on culture to boost happiness.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Yosho
Heh...I always figured that that was basically what you were doing when you built broadcast towers and/or spent money on culture to boost happiness.

Music (or the idiot box) is a good way to distract attention from the events of the day.

OT: As far as that goes, having a president is a great lightning rod for dissatisfaction.

[LzPrst]

The AP and the UN already throw enough roadblocks in a player's path. The last thing I need is to worry about committing "atrocities" in a PC game...

But atrocities are what keeps the empire together, prime minister!


(humphrey paraphrases)