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?

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!

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?

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.

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-13-2001 10:02 PM 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.

I agree! That is why I can't see attrocities as a part of Civ III. In the past they have been because of one type of action i.e. the bombs in SMAC.

How though can you simulate the changing of an entire world against a certain action in a computer game? I certainly do not want to just have things like slavery or fire bombs be an attrocity if they have not been used before.

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

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.

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.

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 04-15-2001 06:11 PM How in Civ would you simulate a nation going against another due to attrocities only when such a war would benefit that nation?

I suggest that an atrocity is simply a valid pretext to declare war. Ofcourse this only applies to the really big atrocities. This means that if you don't make any atrocities a civ can't start a war against you without some happiness penalties and reputation penalties. The same is true with your civ. If you start war with a civ that has done very few atrocities youre population will be more unhappy than they would if you started a war with a really bad ass civ. Also, atrocities dissappear with time. The happiness-in-war factor should disappear within 50-200 years and the declare-war-without-getting-bad-reputation-factor should only be possible during the turn when the atrocity is done.

Different societies will have different ideas on what is an atrocity (except the universal atrocities that someone mentioned). I suggest that every atrocity gets a value and how they change with different kinds of society. If the value gets under zero it's no longer considered an atrocity and vice versa. Universal atrocities will always be big enough for being able to start a war without happiness and reputation penalties.

• Any use of nuclear weapons. (Possible exception: using nuclear weapons against a nation that made the first nuclear strike against you)
  
• Certain spy abilities: plant nuclear device, poison water supply, anything involving chemical warfare (but not including bribes, sabotage or tech stealing)
  
• Ethnic cleansing. A new ability, much like the "Nerve Stapling" in SMAC, which eliminates all unhappiness in a city based on culture, at the cost of 2 or 3 population, for example, when you conquer an enemy city and it doesn't "assimilate" entirely.
  
• Razing a conquered city.
  
• After construction of the United Nations, any sneak attack.
  

These are mostly just translated in some form from Alpha Centauri. There may be others made possible by the Culture rules.

I hated the atrocities in SMAC. I happen to like waging a ruthless war against my opponents. What I dont like is the other factions opposing my way of fighting - that's none of their damn business!

Also, the way how the factions would refuse to surrender if you commited atrocities against them doesnt make a lot of sense. The Japanese didnt get a grim determination not to surrender after the US nuked them, did they?

------------------
"Now Lone Star, you will see that Evil will always triumph, because Good is Dumb!"
-- Dark Helmet

quote: Originally posted by Xuenay on 04-21-2001 12:37 PM I hated the atrocities in SMAC. I happen to like waging a ruthless war against my opponents. What I dont like is the other factions opposing my way of fighting - that's none of their damn business!

There is nothing to stop you from waging war the way you desire. Hell, I loved using nerve gas in SMAC - it was a delightfully brutal touch. However, realistically, there would be some out there who would protest at that extra touch of ruthlessness. Some nations (depending on the characteristics of the leader, style of government, etc.) may actually like you more (this would be cool to enact, if feasible), and some may not give a damn one way or another. But some nations recognize the concept of human rights, and would protest a truly excessive action as a violation of those rights. It comes down (I suppose) to a matter of character. IRL, if someone you know commits a serious act, you have the option of supporting it, remaining silent, or denouncing it, and everyone else you know has that right as well. It may not necessarily prevent such occurrences in the future, but you have the right to speak your mind.

quote: Originally posted by Xuenay on 04-21-2001 12:37 PM Also, the way how the factions would refuse to surrender if you commited atrocities against them doesnt make a lot of sense. The Japanese didnt get a grim determination not to surrender after the US nuked them, did they?

This should be a variable, again depending on the characteristics of the civilization, its leader, and perhaps its culture rating. Civs with a high culture rating may develop a strong resolve to fight to the finish in the face of adversity, while others with feeble culture ratings may just lose morale, fight less effectively, or surrender outright. But it should have more factors than that. It shouldn't be so formulaic that you can say, prior to committing an action, that Civ A will definitely fight to the death if I do this. I want to be surprised if they choose to fight that way, or if they choose to suddenly surrender. Civ3 should try to resist any deep predictability. And, OT, it would be nice if, out of the blue, a civ chose to surrender when half its cities had been taken, as opposed to always, always fighting to the very last damn city.

Less predictability!! Keep me guessing!! Though I suppose that I'll be able to experience the uncertainty of my opponent's actions in multiplayer, it would still be nice.

Of course we can say that each age, each gouvernment (they are both game concepts) could have is notion of atrocity of course.

The definition of atrocities is something which has evolved over time. As far as I've read I've only read about the moderntime atrocities like ethnic cleansing and atom bombs.
Things which were taken for granted in the past or even nowadays in large parts of the world, are considered to be atrocities nowadays.Enslaving your POW's was a common thing in the antique world, sacrificing them to the gods was accepted in some older cultures. Nowadays you would have to build a POW-camp (=stalag in german, the last part of word comes from "lager" (in dutch = leger) which means "camp" in anglo, I can't remember right now what "sta-" stands for).

The definition of martial atrocities has been the subject of Law of war over the last 400 years. The first international publication on this subject was written by a dutchman, Hugo de Groot (the Great, a rather common name in NL) or Hugo Grotius, somewhere around 1620 (he was also the first to publish internationally on "naval law". The term Law of War derives from his publication which actually was a very technical juridical work. But before this work (first published in latin, nowerdays that would have been anglo), which somehow is a sign of its time, you had the chivalrycode, the code of the Bushido in Japan, and even Sun Tzu, who we all know, has put forward his idea's on what do and not to do during wartime. Every time has had it's own martial code.

So coming down to the game.
I think it is very well possible to add an "extension" to the diplomacy- and battlemodel with parameters for the effects of atrocities on international relations and battlestrenght of troops. Same goes for the happinessmodel.
The settings of these parameters should change over time with the development of new advances/idea's in your CIV. And this ongoing proces should start in the beginning of the game. And it might end up with the building of an international highcourt for warcrimes (which is about a 30 minutes walk from my work in Den Haag (the Hague)).

i agree, that after some stage it should be difficult, but hey it could be done and could even be blamed on someone else!

No one bugs china or turkey or india! No one really did anything to pakistan or usa! No one remembers britains rule of terror!

[rant]
If we will be realistic and ahve predetermined history, I think germans mongols iraqis and chinese should all be laid sanctions upon in some stage[/rant]

But most other nations get away....