Atrocities!

[ajbera]

Remember atrocities in SMAC? How PO'd the other factions would get if you nerve-stapled your citizens, or used chemical weapons against a foe?

Who thinks atrocities should be implemented in Civ3?

Essentially, after a certain point in history, some actions (slavery, extreme suppression of dissent, using nerve gas on orphans) truly anger more 'enlightened' civilizations, and they censure you, impose trade embargoes, demand reparations, etc.

I would love to see this. Anyone else?

-ajbera

[King Richard]

I'm in favour of realism, so I'll have to agree with you! Slavery, biological- and chemical weapons should be included in civ3! And how about a vote in the U.N. (when it arrives) if it should be banned or allowed? Then, if you break the agreements, you'll be punished economically, or everyone goes to war with you...

[Ilkuul]

Great idea! Maybe certain types of atrocity (e.g. slavery, child labour, suppression of human rights, etc.) could be inherent in more primitive types of government like despotism and (to some extent) monarchy - so if you haven't changed to a more enlightened government by the time the UN arrives, you're liable to have sanctions imposed on you, or whatever. Likewise if you change back to a more primitive govt. type. Other kinds of atrocity, like bio/chemical weapons, would obviously have inherent advantages, so the savage warmonger would go for them anyway and risk the consequences (cf. Hitler & Saddam!).

[King Richard]

quote: Originally posted by Ilkuul on 04-13-2001 06:15 PM Great idea! Maybe certain types of atrocity (e.g. slavery, child labour, suppression of human rights, etc.) could be inherent in more primitive types of government like despotism and (to some extent) monarchy - so if you haven't changed to a more enlightened government by the time the UN arrives, you're liable to have sanctions imposed on you, or whatever. Likewise if you change back to a more primitive govt. type. Other kinds of atrocity, like bio/chemical weapons, would obviously have inherent advantages, so the savage warmonger would go for them anyway and risk the consequences (cf. Hitler & Saddam!).

Can't agree more!

[Zanzin]

I also like the aforementioned ideas!

[connorkimbro]

I'm not so sure that child labor should be an atrocity. . unless it's FORCED child labor, thats something different. for children in some countries, they only way they can eat is by getting a job, so i don't think i those cases that getting a job is so horrible. thats more of a topic for the OT though. sorry

but the atrocity thing in general, i like.

maybe according to certain factors in the game (like how rich they are compared to other nations, maybe how religious they are) can determine WHAT the nation considers an atrocity?

IE, a deeply religious nation would see, say. . abortion as an atrocity, but one with maybe over crowding wouldn't, but would instead see alot of reproduction as an "atrocity". . i guess these wouldn't be atrocities in the same sense, but could act to affect international relationships. .

[tniem]

The one problem I have with attrocities is what exactly makes them attrocities.

Slavery now would be considered an attrocity or at the very least a human rights violation yet it was used in most of human history. Ditto for child labor.

And what makes the world look down on an attrocity. For instance the U.S. and most of the world following WWII believed that Hitler's answer to the "Jewish Problem" was unacceptable. Yet at the same time Stalin was killing off millions in Russia. The same goes at the end of WWI when the Turks had been killing millions of Christians in their country. What makes the world respond to these so-called attrocities? That is my main concern for this whole idea/thread.

[SerapisIV]

Something doesn't become an atrocity till people are able to see the horror of their actions. Gas attacks in WWI were common to both sides and only became an atrocity afterwards. Except for the few people at Trinity, few realized the full horror of atomic weapons until after their use. The fire bombings of Dresdin and Tokyo today would never be acceptable, though at the time they were considered deadly but strategic action. Also the use of child labor is a sticky one because the idea of when you are a man has grown in the past 2 centuries. You used to married and supporting your family at a much younger age (though people lived as extended families more then). Also, human and animal sacrifices to gods, which have gone in and out of acceptance depending on the culture/religion

However along those lines, some things should always remain atrocity, such as the wiping out of a town, unnecessary killing of civilians, for example, the Rape of Nanking, the killing of diplomats under truce. There are some fundamentally evil things.

[Ilkuul]

I appreciate the points that have been made here; but I still like the idea of there being some kind of penalty in the later game against more 'primitive' forms of government. How would it be if atrocities are not defined - i.e., there is no list of atrocities (slavery, fire-bombing, etc.) - but they are assumed to occur, at least to some extent, under more primitive govt. types like despotism and monarchy (assuming, as we've been told, that fundamentalism is 'out'!)? Then if a given civ still has one of these govt. types after the UN appears, they run the risk of having sanctions placed on them for 'human rights violations' (again, undefined). How such sanctions would work is another question! This, IMHO, could provide a further useful disincentive to warmongers wanting to retain more despotic types of government.

[tniem]

Ilkuul,

I am more open to this suggestion. However, attrocities as what have been defined above supposedely happen in Communist and Democrat nations around the world today. These are supposedly modern governments, yet are still mistreating their people. So to just say primitive governments take away rights just wouldn't be fair, realistic, or make good playable sense.

[Ilkuul]

Well, I'd have to agree with you, tniem. I realise we're straying into controversial territory here, but one possibility would be to rate govt. types in terms of how 'enlightened' they tend to be, with the more democratic ones at the top simply because human rights violations are a lot harder to commit in more open societies; that's not to say they don't happen, but they don't happen so easily. This would mean that a despotic civ would be almost certain to have sanctions applied to it, while a democratic one would be almost certain not to (but not entirely certain: there would still be a small chance). The other govt. types would fall in between, I imagine in a table something like this:

Despotism: 5/6
Monarchy: 4/6
Republic: 3/6
Communism: 2/6
Democracy: 1/6

(Now shoot me down in flames! )

[This message has been edited by Ilkuul (edited April 15, 2001).]

[Uncle Sparky]

How about this - any action against a non military enemy unity will be interpreted as an atrocity by the other side - effecting the AI's relationship with you.
So, if you attack or bribe a settler, caravan or diplomat, it may not be seen as an act of war ,but as a barbaric act that may have long term ramifications.
Also, of course, the winners in history define what is or is not an atrocity. Realistically, the more advanced & larger your civ. - the more you should be able to get away with.

[tniem]

A big part of the whole treatment of nations that the U.N. believes to be violating human rights and taking part in attrocities is the nation's size and power. Look at China who is believed to have done a great deal of human right's violations in the past 20 years. No one looks to punish them because their is little chance that a military operation would benefit the nation attacking and the U.S. and other nations needs the market that China provides.

During, the war in Chechnya, Russian soldiers are believed to have participated in some war attrocities in that region. Yet, no one is willing to attack Russia.

Meanwhile, the world is attacking Saddaam and Milosevic (not that they don't deserve it) because of their nation's lack of size and strength. The whole part of attrocities in the modern world is what to do about them. And then when to do something about them. The answer in the U.S. has been only when victory is secured and the politics of it are to the President's advantage.

How in Civ would you simulate a nation going against another due to attrocities only when such a war would benefit that nation?

[ajbera]

The action against the nation committing an atrocity need not be martial. Trade and research embargoes can also be enacted, plus the general lowering of opinion and esteem towards the offending country. If trade and resource management are important aspects of Civ3 (and I hope they will be), then the ability to impose sanctions to express opposition to atrocities can be quite effective.

We have had (and still have) such sanctions against countries that we aren't happy with. In some cases it has had the desired effect, in others it has not. Generally, the bigger and stronger the offending nation, the better it can withstand sanctions, though it may prove troublesome for the economy, research, and happiness.

Such manipulations are a much needed alternative to actual warfare.

[SerapisIV]

quote: Originally posted by ajbera on 04-15-2001 07:16 PM research embargoes can also be enacted

What is a research embargo? Don't civs do their own research based on trade? Cutting off trade lowers their research output, but how do you purposely lower their research otherwise?