I have a Q about domestic politics in CivIII

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Martinus
Well, it really was not that simple. If it was, they would not have to put soldiers there to shoot anybody who was trying to cross the wall (and there were many). So the soldier on the border is really for this purpose.

Border-quards or no border-guards.

I nevertheless believe that the problem of enemy culture-expansion is less if the culturally weaker civ is nationalistic or communistic. I started it, I know - but please try to keep history out of the debate. Concentrate on the gameplay side of the issue instead.

[Uffty]

Originally posted by Ralf
The government-type also plays a role.

A culturally dominant republic/democracy can easier "persuade" cities belonging to a much weaker republic/democracy. But its much harder to do that successfully if that weaker civ happen to be nationalistic or communistic. Compare with cold-war west/east Berlin. The nationalistic/communistic civ simply builds an "Berlin-wall". Period.

Ralf, this is not a very good example. Since I'm from German and from Berlin, I can tell you. Germany always had only ONE culture, beside having two political systems due to the lost war.

I dont want to build walls in Cities, cuz that might cause my broken hearted some prussian pain

I wanna hide my folks from joinging the others, either they accept it or just die....I'd rather have 2 citizens less than they have 2 more.

[Uffty]

Originally posted by ajbera
That was one of the great things about Alpha Centauri - if your subjects got out of line, you could Nerve Staple 'em. Sure, it was an atrocity, but every ruler should have the freedom to commit atrocities.

Unfortunately, I don't think atrocities made it into Civ3.

Could you explain Atrocities ????

I dont know this word, neither have I ever played AC !!

Thanks

[MORON]

No trading/goting to UN meetings.

[ajbera]

Atrocities

In AC, as in real life, atrocities were certain actions you could perform as a ruler/military leader that would cause other members of the international community to object.

Nerve Stapling (violent repression of rioting citizens), Nuclear, Biological or Chemical warfare (like nerve gas pods), razing a base to the ground (I think, I'm not certain about this one) - these acts would cause other factions to regard you quite unfavorably, and would sometimes take diplomatic or military action against you.

I really liked having those options. Sometimes I like to play as a tyrant or dictator. In my last Call to Power game, I played the Hebrews as a theocratic slaving empire (enslaved the Egyptians, which was amusing.) Sometimes I'm a pacifistic, research-oriented civilization. But I like the freedom to be either.

[General Ludd]

Atrocity:

(from dictionary.com)

Appalling or atrocious condition, quality, or behavior; monstrousness.

An appalling or atrocious act, situation, or object, especially an act of unusual or illegal cruelty inflicted by an armed force on civilians or prisoners

And yes, in SMAC obliterating a base, nerve stapling ( 'stapling' the citzen's nerves, affectively turning them into 'zombies') and NBC weapons where all considered atrocities, unless the U.N. charter was repealed during a planetary council meeting, then I believe everything is fair game.

I don't really think that atrocities would fit well into civ3, not untill the U.N. is formed anyways... then there could be bans on NBC weapons and such.

Speaking of which, are there any biological or chemical weapons in civ3? (I assume that the spies will still have some sort of options for these, anyways)