1)Refugees: The creation of refugees is an unfortunate outcome of almost all wars. It is also an issue that stirs a lot of passion and draws further attention to a war (just look at NATO's recent war in Kosovo where the flow of refugees was the image that sparked the West into action; similarily in Rwanda). Furthermore, it is something that complicates the act of war, moving away from the idea (in civII) that war is a clean, clinical affair that only effects military units, with citizens only suffering through the destruction of city amenities or the loss of the odd population unit (excepting of course a nuclear strike). In the game, a refugee unit could be created when a city is taken perhaps at the cost of a population point(like partisans, but not as many). It would have no defence points and would be controlled by the computer. However, if attacked, it would be treated as an atrocity and effect the civ's reputation accordingly and could spark the entrance of other powers into the war. The refugee unit would head for either the nearest home city or a close city of an opposing civ (but not the attacking civ). It would be particularly likely to move to an opposing city if that civ was bigger, happier or more powerful than its home civ. On arrival, the refugee could maybe turn into a population point. If entering an opposing city, that civ could choose whether to accept the refugees or not. If they do, they get a population point, but it could maybe affect happiness (just look at how unhappy some Brits are about refugees at the moment) or reduce money (housing, social security,etc). If they don't, the refugees could either move on or camp outside the city (in a makeshift shanty town) that would reduce production in that square. If religion plays a bigger role in civ III (as suggested in other posts), this could be a factor in where the refugees go too.

2)Immigration: Immigration/Emigration has been a powerful factor in the development of many civilisations in history (British convicts to Australia, Spanish to South America in later colonial period and absolutely everyone to the US). The pulling power of a rich, powerful or happy nation is ignored in civ II. It seems inevitable to me that citizens in a small, weak and poor nation that borders a large, civilised and rich one will be drawn towards it. Immigrants would work like refugees, but would not be created by capturing cities, but rather as a probability based on the civ's happiness, wealth, power compared to other civs, especially if the civs are close together. Immigration could cause unhappiness or money loss in the recipient city, but would cost population in the donor city. Thus, if you don't keep a city happy, not only do you lose production through rebellions but also population through immigration.

3)Governments: The system of governments should be expanded beyond that in civII (or for that matter SMAC with its extra SE options). Within democracy for instance, you could choose to have a federal or unitary government - if federal or devolved, perhaps the central government gets less money (because state governemnts are spending more themselves), but cities get happiness advantages. Under a untary government, it would be the opposite, with citizens unhappy under the stifling control of the central government, especially if far away from the capital or if a different culture, religion etc (again see other posts). I can tell you for nothing that us Scots are a lot happier with a devolved parliament in Edinburgh than we ever were under the tyranny and oppression of Westminster. Just an example...Also, communism could be divided - Maoism, with its concentration on the countryside over the cities could give food bonuses but lose shields, while Marxism, with its urban, industrialised focus, could give more shields at the expense of food.

The Statue of Liberty would attract immigrants and refugees. There should be an Iron Curtain wonder too, that would prevent emigration from the possessing civ if it is not democratic.

quote: The Statue of Liberty would attract immigrants and refugees. There should be an Iron Curtain wonder too, that would prevent emigration from the possessing civ if it is not democratic.

Great idea!

quote: Originally posted by the_orange1 on 02-28-2001 09:31 AM - Maoism, with its concentration on the countryside over the cities could give food bonuses but lose shields, while Marxism, with its urban, industrialised focus, could give more shields at the expense of food.

It alreasy has this, to an extent. You could choose to irrigate the land so that it will produce more food, or you could choose to mine the hills, etc. and improove the production.

I like your ideas about unitary vs. federal gov. You could choose your main type of gov(democracy/monarchy/communism/etc.) and then you can choose whether it is unitary or federal (maybe you could have different degrees of federal gov.) The more federal, the more happiness, but less money to spend. If you federate it completely then you get anarchy

I think there should also be room for more authoritarian governments too. For instance, what would Saddam's Iraq come under in civ II - fundamentalism? Despotism? Does that really reflect what kind of system it is? I don't think so. Also, there is no way anyone will play despotism after the discovery of monarchy. There should be some authoritarian forms of government that offer advantages to playing. Much as the West dislikes Saddam, he has been fairly succesful in his own country and in the region. Similarily, what would the military regimes of Latin America in the 1960s-80s come under?

quote: Bah, There is nothing more fun than bombing refugees. Much like the colony pods in SMAC. Maybe if the refugees were completely destroyed it would compel the opposing goverment to surrender.

I say things that don't even sum up to this on the OT forum and get slaughtered. You say it and nothing happens.

Besides, the whole "Bombing retreating refugees" might work, especially if the country you're fighting is weak. Like Poland...or Mississippi.

------------------
"People should know when they're conquered."

"Would you Quintis? Would I?"

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 03-02-2001 04:07 PM The problem with that is that Everyone will delare war on you for such atrocities. For what profit is it to a leader if he gains poland and looses his entire nation?

Well, if you have the Great Wall or the UN, then that shouldn't be too much of a problem (after a couple of skirmishes, enter negotiations, and voila', no war).

------------------
"People should know when they're conquered."

"Would you Quintis? Would I?"