Refugees

[Grrr]

When a city is being attacked, I think their should be an exodus of refugees to a near city of the original owner's civilization.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I would really like to see some kind of strategic refugee unit. For example, under certain types of governments, when you conquer a city you get x number of refugee units. These are handy little things you can do lots of stuff with. You can choose to resettle them in the city you just conquered, boosting the population back up, but lowering the happiness of the city. You can just keep them hanging around your territory, or (slowly) move them around your territory to resettle them. Every turn they aren't resettled, though, they cause minor diplomatic problems with other government types, and draw off food from your empire, or the closest city, whatever. When you move them to another city, it's just like you added them to their home city; pop goes up, happiness goes down. The third thing you can do is herd them across the border into the territory of another civilization. Once they cross the border they aren't your problem any more, but, you can't control them, either. They wander around the enemy territory, drawing off his resources and food, until they are contained by his military units (how? I'm not sure yet...). They become an economic weapon and a distraction for his military units, but the drawback is he gets the population once they've been contained and resettled (still with happiness penalties).

I could see strategies where you share a long border with another civ, blitzkrieg all the cities along the border, then turn around and release all those refugees back into his territory, crippling his economy and military at the same time. Of course, there are diplomatic penalties for this, but since when have iron-fisted dictators worried about what the diplomats think?

[jdlessl]

They become an economic weapon and a distraction for his military units

And a much better one than say, the Lawyer unit.

Also, you could have another, rather distasteful, option. Just kill the refugees off. Obviously, this has serious diplomatic reprecusions, but this would not, as you said, stop an iron-fisted dictator.

--
Jared Lessl
[This message has been edited by jdlessl (edited December 12, 2000).]

[Nikolai]

We have discussed this three times:
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/001795.html

and
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/001656.html

and(archive)
http://apolyton.net/forums/Archives/...-6-000467.html

[Koyaanisqatsi]

quote: We have discussed this three times:

True. None of those discussions were along the same lines as what I said above, though. I'm not talking just a settler that leaves the city after it's conquered, like in SMAC, or a complex system where you have to constantly be aware of and manage your refugee population. I just want a simple unit that has a couple of special rules and powers built in to it. The complexity of the unit lies in the strategies you come up with, not micromanagement.

And not to get off on a rant, because I don't know if this is how you intended it or not, but I realize it's been discussed before. That doesn't mean that there will be no new ideas presented or that it shouldn't be discussed again.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Yes, we have talked about refugees, I think its a great idea.

[Jeje2]

GREAT topic.

I remembered yesterday evening a documentary serie, that came recently in Finnish TV, about the Roman empire.
(Unfourtanately I've forgotten it's English name)

Now they sad that the reason for the collaps of western Rome was people coming from north and wanting there peace of the good cake (=fruitful land). When Rome sad no, it was invaded.

Another point happend earlier in the Eastern parts of the empire, specially the border. The border was stressed due to invaders from east. The reason for theire advance was the rapid groth of the Mongolian power. People flew away (=west) and Roman territory was on the way.

Both of these events can bee seen as refugee problems, just like todays political (and people locking for better living) refugees. People do flee and/or look for theire part in this big mess.

---

I also realised yesterday that I have becommed obsessed with this hole refugee idea . Got to have it in CivIII, Must have it!!... (So please try to bear with me. I'll promise to return to this topic over and over again )

[Nikolai]

Just as you people know it; I do like idea, if anyone thougth something else. I just linked the other threads so we had something to look back on.

[Jeje2]

Nikolai:
Thank you for your help.

---

Another thing I also remembered from this documentary is about Rome itself. Rome as a city had about 1 million inhabitants at 1AD and it remaind at 1 million for the next twotreehundred years. (After this a millioncity araised next time during the industrial revolution IIRC the program)

Now a city this big at that time required a lot of space to feed everybody. Acording to the documentary, for example most of sisilia was producing grain/corn for the city of Rome. Goods were coming from everywere in boats that mostly returned empty.

This could be utilised somehow in the game. The cities were small and not so close to eachother as today.


Damm, I should have wached the documentary thinking of CivIII all the time. Well, for a stupid head the whole body suffers...

[Wazell]

Exactly. Also you might remember that Rome wasn't able to grow real large before they conquered Egypt 30BC. Because Egypt was the biggest grain-producer in Mediterranean area, most of the food which was consumed in Rome came from Egypt by ships. You should build a whole lot of food caravans in Civ2 to achieve that! So a better system is needed for Civ3.

Actually the growing power in East was Huns (not Mongols) who invaded Europe in 375AD and pushed those small German tribes over the Roman borders, leading to the quick Fall of Roman Empire. In this case, I think, germans weren't so much refugees but simply small tribes which didn't have real cities and that made it relatively easy to flee away. (Yes, I watch historical documentaries too .)

Anyway, shoudn't the refugee unit belong to the civ which LOST the city, and not to conqueror? Makes more sense to me. But refugees are a great idea and must be in the game.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

quote: Anyway, shoudn't the refugee unit belong to the civ which LOST the city, and not to conqueror? Makes more sense to me.

I don't think so. What gives the losing civ control over those people? They don't have any military units left in the city, or they wouldn't have lost it. The city itself is no longer a part of the previous civ, and the land around the city is conquered when the city falls. Maybe the citizens would be loyal, but that's already represented in unhappy conquered cities and partisans. There's not even any way for the previous civ to communicate with or take care of the refugees usually. I think any refugees would be considered under the control of the conquerors, just by force of martial law.

Besides, for gaming purposes, I think it's better to reward the conqueror than the conquered...assuming you consider your new refugee unit a reward, and not just a drain on your resources.

[Jeje2]

Wazell:
Thx, for the correction of my faults. I think you and I watched the same documentary , do you happen to remember it's English name?

---

I think it is time to shake the apple tree and see what rumbles down…

Refugee/wanderer unit

Why?

Take a look at this thread and the links Nikolai gave.
One point I'd like to point out is that it is a way to force defence out of cities in game.

When should unit appear?

Now I see many possibilities

1. City is attacked/concurred

Now let's say we require a minimum size of 3 for a unit to be created. They are people fleeing battle. Risk of unit forming is proportional to size. So a city of 3 has a very small probability and a city of size 15 has big, even more than one unit/turn possible. (When one knows that if the city of size 20 is attacked one will get a massive population flee the temptation to defend outside city gets bigger. And if we add the risk of destroyed city improvements…)

2. Neighbouring city is attacked/concurred

As in previous, but now let's say minimum size is 12 and Max 1unit/turn.

3. Wanderers??

Now we get to the revolutionary thinking that makes this so appealing to me
First take a look at a thread titled: A third state between anarchy and order.

OK, I'll try to solve it my way. So before total anarchy of city let's say people leave it locking for a better place to live. This can be another of your cities or even in another country.

Let's take the idea even further by combining it to the fall of west Rome mentioned earlier in this thread. People in the northern parts were unhappy and tried to come to Rome asking for their part of the cake. How do you do this? One way is to limit city size. The city can't take the unit => the unit gets mad and rest is history… Or we could have a civil war and then rest would be history

Definition of unit?

General

Something like settler, but not able to build new cities nor to do terraforming

Movement

They are normal walkers, but all squares are treated as roads.

Defence

Like settler, very poor.

Attack

NO (But, take a look at the Wanderer part…)

Special abilities

- They aren't affected by ZOC and they don't create one.
- Can't use railroad
- Unit is something like helicopter in SMAC, takes damage each time it doesn't end turn in a "friendly" city. Starvation.
- When created it should be computer controlled 1-2 turns, during what time it should not take the damage at end of turn.
- Unit is to be taken to a friendly city, not the city it left from, and dissolved. (Note. The city must have limit to accept newcomer)
- Finally unit can die of starvation

Who owns the unit

- If wanderer then the player from who it left, unless the unit cross border before end of computer controlled 1-2 turns.
- If fleeing from neighbouring city or while the city is defended => unit belongs to the nation of the city
- If fleeing a concurred city, ??? (Have to think more on this topic)
- A unit could be easily conquered. (Like alien artefact in SMAC)

Effect

- The more wanderers the bigger risk of government falling and lower popularity (=> cheaper for others to buy cities)
- A unit would bind the cities food reserves. This so the city wouldn't grow back to its size at once.
- A starved unit would cause big negative effect on overall happiness.
- A killed (Attacked and destroyed) unit would lead to atrocities
- The city accepting the unit would have one to two turns more unhappiness than normally

Some bad effects of implementing the unit in CivIII

NONE! None what so ever
Seriously I see this leading to bigger micromanagement and balancing the unit isn't that easy task during development either.


Jeje2

[Deathwalker]

This could be a very good adition to the game.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[Waku]

Nomadic civilizations, as Lapps, Gipsy, Bedouins, american indians, tuaregs, etc. can be emulated using these refugee units.

Think of an unit using a single square of land acting as a city.

[Grrr]

Have you ever played CTP and edited the cities in Units.txt, giving them movement? This is what the Civ III nomads should be like

quote: Originally posted by Waku on 01-09- 2001 05:19 PM Nomadic civilizations, as Lapps, Gipsy, Bedouins, american indians, tuaregs, etc. can be emulated using these refugee units. Think of an unit using a single square of land acting as a city.