Nuclear disarmament?

[Crouchback]

With the exception of ethnic cleansing, I think these things being in the game wouldn't bother me...I would just refrain from employing them.

I guess I'll use slavery if a foreign worker or settler (or scout?) crosses into my land, and if they have nukes then you know I've got to have them too.

As for ethnic cleansing I'd bet we'll all do that. Firaxis said somewhere that a player can pick which citizens of an unruly captured city with more than one nationality get expelled when it builds a settler. But the new city will all belong to the main nationality, so it is a good way of expanding and creating a little happiness.

David

*Exits left singing "Spring time for Hitler and Germany..."*

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Crouchback


I guess I'll use slavery if a foreign worker or settler (or scout?) crosses into my land, and if they have nukes then you know I've got to have them too.

As with Civ II, I plan on using the editor to remove nukes from the game. Call me an idealist...

As for the foreign workers, I can see doing that in early stages. But once I feel my civ has progressed into a more "civilized" stage, I hope I can do without it.

I guess by ethnic cleansing I was referring more to the mass murder aspect of it than just kicking out the foreigners. The former is something I have no desire to see in a computer game, and would find it akin to having a first-person shooter in which you could go around raping women. Not at all suitable or necessary, no matter how "realistic" it supposedly is.

Cheers.

[Akron]

Actually, mass murdering of a population will sorta be possible in civ 3. Every turn, you just build a settler and get rid of an opposing nationality. Then, if the city is small enough, you just make this settler rejoin the city. Magically, you've converted these people to your culture. I think that its also possible to kill off a city when you conquerer it.

But I don't think firaxis will refer to this form of ethnic cleansing as what it really is.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Akron
Actually, mass murdering of a population will sorta be possible in civ 3. Every turn, you just build a settler and get rid of an opposing nationality. Then, if the city is small enough, you just make this settler rejoin the city. Magically, you've converted these people to your culture. I think that its also possible to kill off a city when you conquerer it.

But I don't think firaxis will refer to this form of ethnic cleansing as what it really is.

Is that confirmed? That would seem like too easy a loophole for solving public disorder. I would hope Firaxis would have the forethought to make it so that the settler will maintain its nationality upon rejoining a city.

Even so, that is not an explicit suggestion of murder. It sounds more like a minor, unintentional design flaw.

As for destroying the cities, I would probably just infer in my own happy little world that the citizens were dispersed around the Empire rather than being outright killed. Hey, it's possible!

But death camps and massacres? No thank you.

[Christantine The Great]

As for destroying the cities, I would probably just infer in my own happy little world that the citizens were dispersed around the Empire rather than being outright killed. Hey, it's possible!

That sounds like a good strategy! Pump settlers out of newly captured cities and move your's in. Then disperse the non-you settlers.

[Akron]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Is that confirmed? That would seem like too easy a loophole for solving public disorder. I would hope Firaxis would have the forethought to make it so that the settler will maintain its nationality upon rejoining a city.

Even so, that is not an explicit suggestion of murder. It sounds more like a minor, unintentional design flaw.

As for destroying the cities, I would probably just infer in my own happy little world that the citizens were dispersed around the Empire rather than being outright killed. Hey, it's possible!

But death camps and massacres? No thank you.

I hope that you can't simply pump out settlers to solve all your problems. I would be surprised if there aren't diplomatic consequences for such ethnic cleansing. I think the topic of settler ethnicity was talked about a while ago, so Firaxis may have changed it since then.

I also am against death camps, though there are a few people who support their inclusion.

[Ironwood]

Settlers take a while to make. One would not want to waste time making settlers when one could make cultural buildings and lessen the problem... as well as getting the usual benefits.

Then again, if you've got a city of a different nationality, it's likely your neighbors won't be very nice people anyway, so you may want to build *military* units to defend your new territory. No time for settlers!

[Akron]

You don't have to do it immediately. First, you'd want to secure the city with military units. But suppose you like the city and want to make it productive for yourself. At some point you'll want to get rid of those unproductive foreigners and replace them with your own people, right? So at that point you can crank out settlers by rush buying them every few turns. Cultural buildings may be an alternative, but its likely that these structures will already exist, and since they were there before you came, they will not produce culture. It's just a small design flaw that is likely to get exploited by people like me.

[dainbramaged13]

you have to have great leaders to rush buy...

[Mongoloid Cow]

How many Great Leaders can you have? And as for the topic, I would hope you can make agreements not to use nukes, disarm nukes, etc.

[SteveJH]

From what I've seen from screenshots and the official Web site it looks like the only aggreements will be a peace treaty, mutual protection pact, right of passage act, and an alliance. I haven't even seen anything about cease fires.

[Oligarf]

Disarmament should be included and should exceed that of nuclear weapons. Disarmament among a conquered civ or a civ that you have forced to peace. Like the NATO in Kosovo. Disarm attacker-units and leave the defending units by example.

And about those concentration camps. I quite hate them, but they should be a reason in the game to kick a civ it's butt. I would love to declare war on that moronic civ using that horrible thing.

[Dknight]

well we know that the United Nation in Civ III will be similar to SMAC, so maybe Nuclear disarmament is one of the options there?

[Jason Beaudoin]

I remember that in CIV I, once multiple civs had nuclear weapons, wars occured much less frequently between two civs that had nuclear weapons. Mutually Assured Destruction seemed to have been built into that game, and maybe that will be the case in CIV III. I don't think it's that far off the mark to assume that such things will be implemented in this game, along with other things. Who knows.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
I remember that in CIV I, once multiple civs had nuclear weapons, wars occured much less frequently between two civs that had nuclear weapons. Mutually Assured Destruction seemed to have been built into that game, and maybe that will be the case in CIV III. I don't think it's that far off the mark to assume that such things will be implemented in this game, along with other things. Who knows.

I remember playing as the Americans in Civ I on the toughest level, and the Russians were my biggest opponent. After we both had nukes, we nuked the hell out of each other. Old Joe started it (I've never used nukes first), and I remember wishing then there were no nukes in the game. Russia always seemed to use them.

However, I don't recall instances in Civ II of a computer civ nuking another computer civ. They always just seemed to nuke me!