I was playing a bit yesterday and thinking about the whole Roman UP debate in the Pax Romana thread between turns, when I started thinking... Shouldn't each civ be able to decide how they treat conquered territories? After all, this has changed a lot through history and between different nations. Rome subjugated conquered lands and used them as economic leverage to fuel their enormous empire but the Allies, after WWII, tried to just restore order and create democratic sovereignty in Germany, with no thought of direct and immediate gain for any of the Allied nations. This difference can't be mirorred very well in-game so far. I've already thought of a few options for this column of civics (in no particular order):
Subjugation: Slow national assimilation in the population of conquered cities, cities more likely to riot or flip, but every city with less than 50% of citizens on the occupiers nationality receives +1:commerce: for each 10% foreign nationals in the city. 2:mad: for every 20% foreign nationals in the city.
Ethnic Cleansing: Every time city nationality is assimilated, as many percent as were assimilated turns Barbarian (so if a Russian city was 100% Russian but is then conquered by Germany, when 1% of the city nationality becomes German, another 1% becomes Barbarian). At the same time, as long as city nationality is less than 50% assimilated, each turn has a 5% chance of the city losing 1 pop point. Conquered cities experience no initial civil unrest, but still start with no cultural border until culture reaches 10 points. Civs that are not allied with you against an enemy will have a diplo hit with you because of your barbaric ways. All cities with 50% your nationality or more receive +1 happy, "We're glad to be among our own kind". For cities 100% your nationality, this bonus is +3.
Temporary Occupation: City receives 5% your nationality initially but no further assimilation occurs. Until the war ends, the city is under AI control but you receive whatever it produces. One turn after the war ends, you receive a popup: "Mr. President, the war has ended and we are preparing to return the cities of Berlin and Hamburg to their previous owner, Germany. Should we go ahead as planned, or perhaps keep the cities under American control for good?". If you let go, the cities become (in this example) German, no matter what (even if Germany died - there will be a special message that German sovereignty has been restored). The civ you gave the cities back to has a 50% chance of forgetting each diplo hit they have against you, and receives a +5 diplo bonus "We're so glad you helped us restore sovereignty after the war!". At the end of the war, each civ that doesn't hate you (-5 or worse) gets a +1 diplo bonus with you. When you've resored sovereignty, Open Borders is signed automatically at that moment. If you refuse to give the cities over, everybody hates you a little but the cities become yours just as ever before. If you refuse once you immediately have to choose a new civic in this column and you aren't allowed to use Temporary occupation until your next revolution. (The popup should warn about the dangers and mention the benefits.)
Enslavement: When a city is conquered, half of the population of the city (rounded upwards) is removed, and workers spawn under your control in the city, (1*PopRemoved-2), but at least one worker no matter what. Every time a city is conquered the enemy you conquered it from gets a -1 diplo hit with you, "You've enslaved our citizens!". Assimilation in conquered cities is normal, but reverse assimilation occurs in your own cities for a few turns after each conquest as well (if you conquer an Aztec city, your cities will receive Aztec nationals for the following 5 turns, rather rapidly. No population growth is experienced when this happens.)
Pillage and Rapine: When a city is conquered, you receive a triple amount of gold, all buildings in the city are destroyed, and the pop goes down to 1. Reverse assimilation occurs in all of your cities, but only immediately and to a small degree (say 10% chance of each city receiving 5% conquered nationality). The conquered city's nationality has 25% chance of immediately assimilating in its entirety, and 50% chance of becoming completely Barbarian. Further assimilation is as normal.

These ideas are enough to implement the whole thing but they're just a few suggestions. I'd like to hear what others think of the whole idea, and of course whether Rhye thinks this can and should be implemented at some point in the future.

Blasphemous, your ideas are, as always, good and complex ;)

This could become a very feasible idea if some of the variables are toned down a bit. Excelent post!

Shouldn't each civ be able to decide how they treat conquered territories? After all, this has changed a lot through history and between different nations. Rome subjugated conquered lands and used them as economic leverage to fuel their enormous empire but the Allies, after WWII, tried to just restore order and create democratic sovereignty in Germany, with no thought of direct and immediate gain for any of the Allied nations.

Yeah, exactly that romans said to Greece population when «liberate» them from Macedonian «occupation». ;)

Temporary Occupation: City receives 5% your nationality initially but no further assimilation occurs. Until the war ends, the city is under AI control but you receive whatever it produces. One turn after the war ends, you receive a popup: "Mr. President, the war has ended and we are preparing to return the cities of Berlin and Hamburg to their previous owner, Germany. Should we go ahead as planned, or perhaps keep the cities under American control for good?". If you let go, the cities become (in this example) German, no matter what (even if Germany died - there will be a special message that German sovereignty has been restored). The civ you gave the cities back to has a 50% chance of forgetting each diplo hit they have against you, and receives a +5 diplo bonus "We're so glad you helped us restore sovereignty after the war!". At the end of the war, each civ that doesn't hate you (-5 or worse) gets a +1 diplo bonus with you. When you've resored sovereignty, Open Borders is signed automatically at that moment. If you refuse to give the cities over, everybody hates you a little but the cities become yours just as ever before. If you refuse once you immediately have to choose a new civic in this column and you aren't allowed to use Temporary occupation until your next revolution. (The popup should warn about the dangers and mention the benefits.)

this idea i very much like. in other threads, i have heard of people wishing to make a "glory" victory, whereby you gain glory points for giving back cities, having free speech, etc.

Blasphemous, your ideas are, as always, good and complex ;)
Haha, sometimes I think Blas will not rest until he changes the whole Civ4 game. :D

I like these ideas, they are creative and they enhance the gameplay of Civ. However, I am VERY leery about having game mechanisms--and bonuses--for such specifically violent acts like ethnic cleansing or rape. :( Civilization as a game strives to make choices like war and slavery--both represented in the game in a quite macro sense--strategic, impersonal choices. When you declare war on a civ and send your units into battle, even though you watch them fight and fall in combat, the representation isn't graphic at all (i.e. no blood, no POWs, no wounds, etc.), it's simply win or lose combined with damage.

And yes, I understand that these things occurred in real life and the difference between them has had a massive historical impact on the actual nations involved. And no, I am not simply averse to being confronted with the topics of rape and murder, as it's a sad fact of life everywhere. I feel I would be the LAST person to censor anything, let alone my favorite game. But following the pattern of the game itself, I would like to implement these ideas, but modified so that they are a bit less personal and graphic. I don't even want the option of creating my own Holocaust or Rape of Nanking, etc.

SilverKnight

P.S.- As I've stated, I understand that both war itself AND slavery are already in the game. At various times, I have found both to be beneficial to my Civ. But the Slavery civic doesn't take population points away from another civ; it doesn't simulate relocation of foreign slaves SPECIFICALLY; it's left unmentioned where the "slaves" in your Civ come from, and I like that. War in Civ feels more like chess (strategy and planning) plus resource management than mass murder, and I also like that. I hope I got my point across without sounding like a troll, these really are good ideas, and I'd like to see something of them in RFC. :goodjob:

Hm, would anyone use temporary occupation? It doesn't sound very useful, if you can't even choose what it produces. Also, I can't imagine wanting to give back a city I captured in war. Maybe if it had been captured by an enemy from an ally I would want to give it back to the ALLY, but certainly not to the guy I was just fighting!

Also, I think an option like benevolent conquerer is missing, which I suppose is more like the current one. Maybe have a higher chance of revolt, since being benevolent instead of cracking down increases the ability of the citizens to plot and prepare to return to their civilization.

But following the pattern of the game itself, I would like to implement these ideas, but modified so that they are a bit less personal and graphic. I don't even want the option of creating my own Holocaust or Rape of Nanking, etc.
Well I don't think this is particularly a problem here. You certainly don't have to do it in your empire ;)
I don't think it's too personal, it's not actually describing acts like whipping the slaves or anything like that.

Well, the idea of Temporary Occupation was that it's a diplomat's choice - if you use it, your enemy will be your friend after the war, and everybody else will like you as well. If you don't use it (or use it but then back out of the deal) everybody will hate you. It can also get the same effect as Emancipation.
Anyhow, it's realistic to have a diplomatic option in wars - the war's goal may be to simply solve a situation, not to actually gain territory.

Well, I've said my piece, so now I'll try to be helpful. :)

I'd at least argue for no pillage option since historically, IMHO, excessive destruction served no strategic, military or diplomatic purpose whatsoever; it was merely an event based on the conditions at the time. If no specific orders were given to siege-weary troops, finally elated to breach a city's defenses, chaos ensued. Something tells me that soldiers would be more prone to loot for themselves and not report it, rather than find much more treasure for their nation.

Ethnic cleansing could be seen to serve a cultural purpose, even if the population doesn't know it's happening. Less minorities means less unhappy faces, and a higher percentage of the civ's national population. But how would other civs react to knowing that another civ has the ethnic cleansing civic? Wouldn't this be a HUGE diplomatic malus? Germany was ganged up on in WWII by the Allies for other reasons, but it could help simulate this if the malus was quite large (-5 or more) simply for this civic.

Enslavement seems like it's on the right track (reverse assimilation, free workers), but needs to be improved still. This is just a general feeling; I'd have to test it to see what could be added.

Subjugation seems like an unnecessary rework of the current system; this should be the default and the same as it is now.

I'd like to see temporary occupation fulfill the role of the Allies during WWII more than anything. In each game of Civilization, there has hardly ever been a distinct advantage to giving a city back to a previously invaded ally, unless it would flip back anyway. Assume that a situation very much like WWII breaks out in RFC: Germany partially invades France and takes both of its colonies in South Africa. England, allied with France, retakes the French mainland AND the South African colonies. After a peace treaty is signed, England gives France back its mainland territories--since there is still overwhelming French culture in the area and they would have flipped back anyway--and ONE of the South African colonies, the rather useless one. For these they get a diplomatic bonus ("You liberated our cites!" +3 per city), but NO MALUS for keeping the other liberated colony. This would make the new large wars very fun and interesting, and with a rather simple mechanism.

The civic tree (or whatever it's called) would look something like this:
Civic Maintenance
Subjugation None [default]
Enslavement Medium Captured populations become workers, reverse assimilation in cities
Pillage (or equivalent) None []
Ethnic Cleansing High Non-nationals in cities dwindle, diplomatic malus with all civs that do not have Ethnic Cleansing
Temporary Occupation Low Units heals 2x faster in liberated ally cities during war, returning cities to sovereign ally gives diplomatic bonus
All maintenance costs apply ONLY in times of war.
Whew! That was a page-full. Thoughts, Blas, others?

SilverKnight

I'll say straight up I think this idea gives way too much sophistication to a part of gameplay that isn't well thought out. In real life, occupying and subjugating a people is WAY harder than it is in Civilization. Heck, in real life, no empire has ever controlled more than 25% of the world's territory or population. (But don't ask me about that, ask Iraq, ask Vietnam. Heck, ask Greece, ask India, even ask the Aztecs or Ethiopians.)

Making a realistic civics system for an UNrealistic part of the game doesn't add anything to realism -- it only takes away. (And not all of these suggestions are all that realistic anyway.)

There are better ways for Rhye to spend his time.

(But don't ask me about that, ask Iraq, ask Vietnam. Heck, ask Greece, ask India, even ask the Aztecs or Ethiopians.)
I'm not sure what you mean... :confused:
Making a realistic civics system for an UNrealistic part of the game doesn't add anything to realism -- it only takes away. (And not all of these suggestions are all that realistic anyway.)

There are better ways for Rhye to spend his time.
Maybe for later then.

SilverKnight

A simple way to achieve somewhat similar ends might be to have city trading be actually functional.

My point is that in many cases (Greece, India, the Aztecs) these civilizations were able to be subjugated by a powerful empire with great might. but at the end of the day, they are ALL free nations today -- even if Greece has taken on some Turkish aspects, India has taken on British aspects, and the Aztecs have taken on Spanish aspects.

What makes things even MORE complicated... In other cases (Vietnam, Iraq, Ethiopia), powerful civilizations were able to successfully invade, and yet, they did not win the war, did not acquire the territory, and did not keep the people.

Even the Nazis tried to eradicate an entire religious/ethnic population, but only succeeded in taking out a quarter. A quarter is a lot, but it just goes to show you that ethnic cleansing is pretty much impossible.

The game just doesn't deal with the difficulty of subjugating a people. In Civilization, you can do it in a single turn.

I see what you mean. The whole mod is set up to make that harder, though I think it's just an indirect effect of how realistic it is. See, we crowd the map, we give each of the civs an (almost) equal chance to dominate, we balance the game SO well, that's it no wonder world domination is impossible. In fact, I say right now that it is IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate all the other civs in a normal-difficulty game. No matter what civ. Domination maybe, but conquest, no way; it should be taken out of the mod as a victory option. Thoughts?

SilverKnight

I think playing with the domination threshold is a good idea. If you take a look at this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires), you realize that nobody ever broke the threshold of 30% of the world's population, and nobody has ever covered more than 25% of the world's land area. Setting both thresholds at 35% for victory would be very accurate.

But if you really wanted the ULTIMATE in realism, you'd make it impossible to hold and conquer an enemy capitol city for longer than 75 turns. (There are dozens of way to do this, with varying degrees of realism.) But that's not to say we want the ultimate in realism.

What kind of victories are people getting, anyway? I'm getting culture, but haven't really played far enough to aim for another kind

I think playing with the domination threshold is a good idea. If you take a look at this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires), you realize that nobody ever broke the threshold of 30% of the world's population, and nobody has ever covered more than 25% of the world's land area. Setting both thresholds at 35% for victory would be very accurate.

But if you really wanted the ULTIMATE in realism, you'd make it impossible to hold and conquer an enemy capitol city for longer than 75 turns. (There are dozens of way to do this, with varying degrees of realism.) But that's not to say we want the ultimate in realism.
Agreed, the flexibility to actually create large empires in the game is more fun than the constraints that would limit that.

Where did you get the 75-turn figure?

SilverKnight

If you think about it, 75 turns is longer than any Civilization was ever out of the game in "real life". That's 4000 years at the beginning of the game, and 100 years towards the end of the game.

Persia never stayed down that long. Greece came back twice (after Rome, with Byzantium... and after Turkey). The Aztecs were down for maybe 300 years before the industrial era, which is probably less than 75 turns from 1500 to 1800.

Why do Civilizations come back after 75 turns or less? Because no empire has ever lasted more than a couple hundred years. (And there haven't been any huge modern empires with huge land masses, unless you count the soviet union. And even they collapsed after 70 years.)

I think we are confusing here colonization and the treatment of conquered cities.

The civic column should have been about the way to treat colonies, regardless if conquered or founded (but this can be distinguished in the civic effect).
So, there have to be:
1 basic civic - subjugation can be the name of the base rules
2 civics like pillage and temporary occupation for conquered cities only
2 civics for distant founded cities only. They could be "population" or something like that, which would make cities grow for free, and "Commonwealth", with blind production but many extra trade routes

Rhye, I think the Colonies column should be separate from the Conquest column, and I think the Colonies column should come first because colonization occurs more in this mod than conquest does.
I think we really do need to work hard on making conquest and subjugation realistic, but it's such a big job that we need to do many of the other planned changes first. Rhye, do you have a detailed development map detailing the order in which you intend to implement all of the planned features?

1 basic civic - subjugation can be the name of the base rules
2 civics like pillage and temporary occupation for conquered cities only
2 civics for distant founded cities only. They could be "population" or something like that, which would make cities grow for free, and "Commonwealth", with blind production but many extra trade routes

It´s a nice idea Rhye!

Although scary, not having total control of production in a colony. Still, if that is offset by more trade, it could be worth it. Sounds good, I'd like to try it. :)

So... can you have a conquer civic AND a colony civic, or only one of them? Either way would be very interesting, but I think I would prefer (mostly for aesthetic reasons) only 1 civic column.

SilverKnight

I would make just 1 column. We need too many ideas to make two, the risk is to lose quality.

The international stance would actually be a pretty good column.

Unification would be the guise under which several empires were assembled -- the idea of claiming territory that rightfully belongs to them. The unification of China, the unification of Greece, the unification of India, or the Islamic caliphates.

Isolationism would be like China for most of its history -- taking a mostly defensive position, and not really concerned with expanding its territory.

Imperialism would be more like Mongolia, Alexander, and so on.

Colonialism would be like Britain, Spain, France in the latter part of the game.

Those would be my four main civic choices. I wouldn't have them deal with military specifically so much as tradeoffs between expansion and maintainance.

Perhaps, since a full civic column is simply too much to represent millitary conquest, we should instead expand the options you have when you conquer a city. For instance, I believe it was Blasphemous who suggested having three options:

Burn the city
Install a new Governor
**Give the city to one of our allies.
(Blasphemous' original idea, I know there's a thread about it somewhere...)

Perhaps we could represent the occupation only with an option like:

"We aren't keeping the city, occupy it only until the war is over."

This would be almost the exact same as what Blashpemous suggested for the Temporary Occupation civic, except it wouldn't necessitate a full civic option, and would allow flexibility in what you did.

We could probably do this with a building, possibly a set of 18, one for each civ. When the city is 'conquered' and you decide to just keep it until the war ends, it adds the civ you conquered it from's specific 'occupation buildin' that will simply by its existence register that the city technically belongs to a certain civ. Then, every turn, a python script will check to see if the civ that currently 'owns' the city is still at war with the civ that they took it from. If they are, then the city stays theirs, if they aren't, the city is returned to the civ, the building is removed, and the civs get a small diplo bonus, probably a +1 "You returned our city" bonus.

The Building could be called "Occupation Force HQ" or something along those lines.

Also, a potential way to make this more favorable to simply burning the city is not only the diplomacy bonus, but also possibly giving a diplomacy Penalty for each city you conquer and keep towards civs with the Emancipation civic.

Great idea, Vishaing, I like it! :thumbsup: Also something I'd like to try. WWII-type occupation is certainly what I would like to see most, but the above mentioned colony/conquer/isolation options are also very good. Hmm... still thinking about this one...

SilverKnight

I would make just 1 column. We need too many ideas to make two, the risk is to lose quality.
Rhye, there's not yet much I can claim about myself, but I definately can just sit and poop out ideas like a maniac if the subject matter is interesting to me. If you worry about a lack of ideas, worry no longer, I can produce ten ideas for each column so we can mix and pick until we get five good ones for each.
It just seems weird to have one column for two different subjects, if we don't generalize enough to make it one subject.
...
Perhaps we could represent the occupation only with an option like:

"We aren't keeping the city, occupy it only until the war is over."
...
Very, very good thinking Vishaing! That's way way more elegant than my way!

As an aside, I think we should start again to discuss the model of colonization, with colonies as a special type of city and not just cities far away from home. While we're at it, we should discuss making a special status "occupied territory" in addition to regular settlements and colonies. In other words, let's expand this discussion in another thread and discuss how we should differentiate cities by their purpose and they way they came under a civ's control.

Colonies should not be calculated by distance only, but perhaps without border connection to the capital also.

I think they should be founded as colonies and not be mere cities marked automatically as colonies. And they should be set up so they only make sense to set up far away for strategic purposes.

Rhye, there's not yet much I can claim about myself, but I definately can just sit and poop out ideas like a maniac if the subject matter is interesting to me. If you worry about a lack of ideas, worry no longer, I can produce ten ideas for each column so we can mix and pick until we get five good ones for each.
Yes you certainly can. ;) What a great way to word it, too! :rotfl:
It just seems weird to have one column for two different subjects, if we don't generalize enough to make it one subject.
This way a civ can specialize in militaristic conquest or colonial expansion. Both are forms of imperialism, and each has two settings. I look forward to this! :D

SilverKnight

yes, the column could be "Colonial management", or "Expansion", whatever.
7 columns would mess up the interface

Shouldn't it be possible to split one column into two mini-columns one over the other?
By the way, once this feature is officially under way, I promise you I will post at least ten different ideas for Civics under this subject/these subjects. It can do no harm.

Are we assuming vanilla civ, or warlords for these changes? A good civic option for military/expansion in warlords would be a boost to great general creation.

In terms of timeframe, I'm guessing this feature won't be very high on the to-do list until RFCW.

As a followup on the talks of extra options when conquering a city, shouldn't the victor in a siege have the option to simply leave the city to the enemy? This would represent just coming in, fighting the enemy's military, and moving on. To make it worthwhile for the conqueror, it should trigger an instant riot in the city, kill 10% of pop (with a min. of 1 pop), net the conqueror some extra gold, and give 1 XP bonuses by random to the conqueror's units in the immediate vicinity (within one tile of the city). This would be another way to have wars without elimination. It would make the point, by doing damage (and would help an assault on by temporarily shrinking the enemy's border and production), but it wouldn't cause expansion and irreversable damage to the vanquished. Of course, this option can be Civic-dependant when we have expansion columns.

Hey, that sounds cool! Any specific references to history?

SilverKnight

That would be great, it would be a great representationn of the Viking raids on Europe. With this you could finaly build an actual raiding civ.
Hm,, here's an idea for the Viking UP if there will be Vikings in Warlords. Like how Mongolia can pillage and move in the same turn, getting off boats doesn't cost a move point for the Vikings, so they can get off and then pillage.
TO be historically accurate they would have to be able to get off, pillage, and get back on their boats in a single turn however that might be overpowered.

As a followup on the talks of extra options when conquering a city, shouldn't the victor in a siege have the option to simply leave the city to the enemy? This would represent just coming in, fighting the enemy's military, and moving on. To make it worthwhile for the conqueror, it should trigger an instant riot in the city, kill 10% of pop (with a min. of 1 pop), net the conqueror some extra gold, and give 1 XP bonuses by random to the conqueror's units in the immediate vicinity (within one tile of the city). This would be another way to have wars without elimination. It would make the point, by doing damage (and would help an assault on by temporarily shrinking the enemy's border and production), but it wouldn't cause expansion and irreversable damage to the vanquished. Of course, this option can be Civic-dependant when we have expansion columns.

This is great! The only point I would change is the experience to the units in the vecinity, as that would "force" the player keep units together if he wants to maximize his units XP. I think that the reward XP for fighting is enough. Also the gold should be the same as if the city was conquered. But overall, I think this option is perfect!

Here they are, 7 ideas for Civics in a potential Occupation/Conquest column (even though I realize we will probably have one unified Expansion column; this is to demonstrate that a shortage of good ideas is not a problem.)
I know I said I'd produce 10, but I'm busy and I think the first four are so good that it's only a question of which of the other ones to get rid of.
First, the one idea that I think is actually necessary for the mod to function correctly.
Justification: This is what Rome did and why Rome was so rich in the high days of the Roman Empire. It will actually make sense for a civilization to rapidly conquer large areas under Subjugation, but there will be a fast pace to maintain to keep it profitable (unless combined with National Property.)
Effect One: Increased commerce in conquered cities: Any city without the controller's majority in nationality gets +1:commerce: per 10% foreign nationality in the city (rounded up).
Effect Two: Unhappiness in conquered cities: Cities without controller's majority in nationality receive +3:mad:
Assimilation rate: 1.5x normal speed, reverse assimilation for ten turns at 0.5x normal speed.
Riot/flip risk: High

Justification: Will allow better modelling of racist totalitarian regimes in Industrial Europe, and has often been a major event in real history.
Effect One: Brutal takeover: Conquered cities lose 2 pop upon conquest but suffer no initial unrest (no cultural border until culture reaches 10, which will restore normal border)
Effect Two: Happiness in the homeland: Cities with controller's majority in nationality receive +2 happy, "We're glad to be among our own kind" (bonus is +3 for cities with 100% controller nationality)
Assimilation rate: Normal; 1% turns barbarian for every 1% assimilated
Riot/flip risk: Tiny
Diplomacy: hit, -3, with all non-allies that don't have Ethnic Cleansing, "We are disgusted by your murderous ways."

Justification: Nothing specific in mind, but I do believe this has been done often in history, especially in the ancient world, and it reflects some important effects military expansion had on some ancient civilization (I recall that the Greeks saw manual labor as below them and left most of it to slaves, and they had many of them.)
Effect One: Conquered population is converted into workers: When a city is conquered, half of the population (rouded upwards) is removed, and workers spawn under your control in the city. You receive (PopRemoved-2) workers, with a minimum of one worker.
Assimilation rate: Normal, but for ten turns after each city conquered, reverse assimilation occurs at random in a city with your majority every time regular assimilation occurs in a conquered city (1% for every 1%)
Riot/flip risk: Low
Diplomacy: diplo hit with enemy every time a city is conquered from them, -1, "You enslaved our citizens!"

Justification: This obviously happened on several occasions throughout history, and should enable some of the more brutal conquests in history (the Mongols come to mind).
Effect One: Increased loot from conquered cities: gold received from conquered cities is 4x the normal amount.
Effect Two: Conquered cities are partially destroyed: when a city is conquered its population goes down. Size becomes 1 if it was below 10, becomes 3 if it was above 10. Each building in the city has 75% of being destroyed.
Assimilation rate: Upon conquest of a city, it has 25% chance of becoming 100% assimilated, and 50% chance of all nationality becoming barbarian in that city. Reverse assimilation has a chance of happening in all the rest of your cities on that turn. After this assimilation is normal.
Riot/flip risk:
Diplomacy: -3 with anyone you are at war with and have conquered cities from, "We can't accept what you have done to our cities!"; -1 with everybody else who doesn't have this civic, "We are disgusted by your brutality!"

Justification: I'm pretty sure this has happened a few times in history. At the very least, it's pretty much what was done to the Palestinians in 1948 and later when Israel conquered the Palestinian territories.
Effect One: No resistance: initial unrest in conquered cities is five turns less than normal (i.e, only exists in very large cities).
Effect Two: Forced exile: population of conquered cities reduced to 1 automatically. The city's former pop, is reduced by 2 and redistributed to the three nearest cities belonging to the enemy (if America has contact with you or the conquered enemy, American cities are also available for this random redistribution, as immigration).
Assimilation rate: All conquered cities are assimilated completely upon conquest, ten turns of low reverse assimilation follow each city conquest.
Riot/flip risk: None
Diplomacy: -2 with enemy for each city of theirs conquered, "You have forced our people into exile!", -1 for each city with all but your close friends, "You have forced innocent civilians into exile!"

Justification: I'm not completely sure, but I do believe this has occurred on occasion.
Effect One: Initial unrest upon conquest is halved.
Effect Two: +10 :culture: in conquered cities when unrest ends.
Assimilation rate: Double the normal rate
Riot/flip risk: Medium-High

Justification: I'm pretty sure the Romans did this to an extent. It's something that could be done and makes sense, anyhow. It would be great for fuelling rapid conquest.
Effect One: Forced Conscription: each turn from the moment of conquest, until the conquered city's population is halved, one population point is removed and one unit is conscripted as if you had Nationhood in the city.
Effect Two: Rapid Takeover: initial unrest is always 1 turn, and is followed by +2 :mad: for ten turns.
Assimilation rate: Normal, high reverse assimilation for 10 turns after each conquest.
Riot/flip risk: Low
Diplomacy: -2 with enemy you have conquered cities from, "You have taken our citizens into your barbaric army!"

I'll see if I can squeeze in the time for Colonization ideas sometime this week. Feel free to start pouring in thoughts and ideas for that.

Good ideas Blas! But I think that most of them having negative modifiers is a little harsh, as it can lead up to LOTS of negative modifiers.

The problem is that all of these make war less horrible, and one of the best improvements in cIV was that War is Hell. So this has to be balanced out.

Truthfully, I'm not crazy about a bunch of occupation/conquest civics. They just don't seem to suit the civics mechanism at all, as a major overall direction for your nation.

A more colonial-organizational spin and less militaristic spin would be more historical, IMO.

I actually think some of these could be way better-implemented as options upon conquering a city (like Temporary Occupation should be). But it's better to have Subjugation in as a Civic than not at all. (And btw, I just edited the assimilation part on Subjugation since it didn't make sense before.)

Options upon conquering would definitely be the better way to do it, IMO.

I agree too.

Since we can't have 7 civic coloumns and I want for there to be Colonization civics too, I think it would be better for these to be options upon the conquering of a city.

Colonization civics would apply to cities that aren't connected to your mainland, right?

I think options for conquoring is just fine however, why combine 2 completely unrelated things?

Colonization civics, I'd probably tie it into some broader sense of organization or empire building to give it some versatility. (Colonization tends to conjure up the Age of Discovery.)

It's time to revive this thread.

The "Expansion" civic column should comprehend both conquering and colonization civics.


My current 5 is the following:

Subjugation(the default one)
Pillage
Resettlement
Commonwealth
Temporary Occupation


Please propose what you would like them to be - required tech, effect, and maintenance.

Subjugation(Low)

Pillage(Low) - Double gold upon capturing, city takes a population hit (half?)

Resettlement(Medium) - % of foreign population and culture removed

Commonwealth(High) - % of foreign culture/population flips to that of the conqueror

Temporary Occupation(Low) - no resistance, 10(#?) turns of occupation

I didn't include any No-Maintenance civic options because I would think it would be taxing to manage any city that isn't razed.

I haven't been following this thread so I don't know if any of these have already been thrown out or if I have even captured the thrust of this Civic.

I personally think some could be best implemented in on conquest options, for instance the temporary occupation, in fact I think all but hte Commonwealth would be better for conquest options; pillage is the raze city option, which could instead of completely destroying the city like it is now, lower its population and destroy buildings, perhaps completely destroy cities beneath size 4, subjugation is the install new governor option, and temporary occupation is what I proposed a while back.
I think Resettlement could instead be a sort of 'sub option' available to civs with the Slavery civic selected, alongside an 'enslave the population' option. Slavery could reduce population and give you extra workers, but a bit of foreign culture in your cities, thus giving you a 'we yern to join our motherland' happiness penalty and possibly a 'you enslaved our people' diplomacy penalty. Resettlement could relocate the people to foreign cities and give your enemies a small unhapiness penalty of 'we are sad that we have lost our homes' and igve you a smaller diplomacy penalty of 'you displaced our people'. It would be good for weakenning your opponents when still in a war and aslo good for wars where you need to weaken someone but cannot support a larbe occupation program. This would be more usefull if we imade cities unhappy about being conquered, and put in a diplomacy penalty for civs who occupy another civ's homeland, in addition to hte AI wars program already in place.

(Also, to revise my original idea for temporary occupation, instead of using buildings, I know the 'raze city mod' appends 'R' to the name of the city to tell cities being razed apart from cities not being razed, and we could use a similar system)

Instead, I would propose these ideas;

City States (Default, now upkeep cost);
The basic one, like ancient greece, or mesopotamia

Imperialism (With Writing, Low Upkeep);
Like Ancient Rome, available with writing to represent how real treaties and provinces could be legally created and put into writing. Its what I would do, another option is to give it at Code of Laws, but that is a fairly late tech for the period that Rome was Imperialistic, and might not do the practice justice. i liked Blasphemous' idea about more commerce per more foreign culture, as it would give the aforementioned Rome the boost it might need to conquer its Emprie, if used correctly.

Commonwealth (with Guilds, );
I liked the Blind Production option that was proposed a while back, but am not sure about how easy it would be to code. I feel it should increase trade routes and in general financial power. Overall however I'm not sure of any real instances in history, perhaps the Hanseatic League of Mideival Germany?

Colonialism (with Economics, High Upkeep);
The best example has always been the British Empire upon which the sun never set. I would give this an increase to commerce for Plantations, Mines, and possibly farms. It should enable the founding of colonies (perhaps a civic specific unit?). Colonies in my oppinion should be restricted in what they can build, perhaps all untis built in a colony get a 'militia' promotion that lowers their strength, furthermore colonies cannot produce thier own workers or settlers. However receive no distance maintanence, and contribute no city number maintanence if they are working a tile with a Luxury resource in it.
An interesting penalty would be that it does NOT let you found new cities? thus your current homeland will always be your only real cities. Also, perhaps units with the militia promotion should not contribute to the hapiness provided by the hereditary rule civic? This might now just be making this too big of a fish in an increasingly small pond, so I'm going to shut up about Colonialism. Also, perhaps a diplomacy penalty towards civs with 'Sovereign Nation'

Sovereign Nations (with ?, Low Upkeep, perhaps none);
Can only select the 'Temporary Occupation' option on conquest, but gains a large diplomacy bonus with small civs 'You respect our Sovereign Rights!' It should also get something else to make it more powerful. Perhaps when you units are in any of your allies borders during a war, they again a large combat boost to making it very difficult to invade a 'Sovereign Nation'.
As for what it goes with, I'm pretty sure the first time a philosophy like this was used was following WWI, so perhaps with Mass Media, but that seems REALLY late. It could go with Liberalism, but that already enables 2 civics, so we should spread the civics love around. Plus with the free tech, its very powerful. Perhaps with Nationalism?

I hope this isn't too much of a divergence from the current system, but hey, putting out ideas can't do more than make me look like a fool right?
But I guess Blasphemous isn't the only one who can poop out ideas...

I think all of the ideas here are good, except I have a question about the "Temporary Occupation" that is bugging me...

Here's a scenario to consider... Say a peace loving civ (I'll use WWII America as an example) was using temporay occupation on Germany. At the same time, another civ (I'll use Russia) is also at war with Germany. America takes most of Germany's cities and Russia cleans up a the rest, but Russia isn't giving them back. Once America gives the captured German cities back to Germany at the end of the war, and Germany is revived, what's to stop Russia from continuing the war and capturing the German cities I just returned? This doesn't seem realistic to me.

I guess what I am saying is, that once Germany loses all of it's cities to war, and it is revived due to America returning the occupied cities, is there a way to FORCE peace with all other civs (Russia) for a number of turns? Or, another idea I think I read somewhere, was that the conquering civ that gave the cities back (America) would get an instant open borders agreement with the revived Germany. This would allow America to keep units in the cities that were just gave back, so in a sense, America could maintain an occupying force until Germany could defend itself again. Another option, aside from an instant open border agreement, would be an instant alliance, but again, some sort of "peace with everyone" would seem appropriate since I don't think America should be made to defend Germany against the other civ's armies that were just helping America to win the war in the first place...

I've only skimmed through this thread, so I'm not sure if this scenario has even been discussed yet. I think the idea of a temporary occupation option is great, and adds to the games realism, but I wonder if it could really be made to work in the way it is intended... And I honestly can't imagine the AI being made to use it at all, but you never know...

Shouldn't we wait until the Warlords version comes out? Because then we have the Vassal states which will make things more complex.

Maybe the temporary occupation would last until peace. That way Nitrojays WWII scenario wouldn´t happen.

For temporary occupation, how about an open border AND a defence pact when they give the cities back, so if russia in your example invades america would defend them, either that or a vessal state, you guys know more than me :)

Subjugation(Low)

Pillage(Low) - Double gold upon capturing, city takes a population hit (half?)

Resettlement(Medium) - % of foreign population and culture removed

Commonwealth(High) - % of foreign culture/population flips to that of the conqueror

Temporary Occupation(Low) - no resistance, 10(#?) turns of occupation


if this suggestion gets implemented, i'd say make changing in this column free... the benefit is just to temporary ( certain conquest wars only) to justify anarchy

Good point. Perhaps provide +1 culture for each foreign population in city. This may seem counter-intuitive at first, but I believe minorities(foreign nationals) contribute to the uniqueness of a society. Of course, these (minorities)foreign nationals have a habit of being unhappy and yearning to join their "motherland." :)

This would work well for each civic (except maybe "Subjugation"). The +1 can be tweaked (i.e. +2 for Commonwealth) and if the effects are "similar" then there would be no need to change often.

If you don't do a lot of conquering then you may have "Subjugation" (a cheep civic) and would thus not reap too many rewards when finally conquering your first city. Your civ is not a warmongering civ so you are not as adept at making maximum returns from new cities.

Shouldn't the be one that is free, in case you dont want to capture any cities, so shouldnt have to pay upkeap for a trait you wont use?

Good spot. Now "Subjugation" is FREE!!! Should there now be an additional penalty for conquering cities under "Subjugation" or do you think the current system is effective enough?

After "Temporary Occupation" ends the city should be given the base garrison, correct? And perhaps upon a peace treaty, all cities are given back in the same manner. Should conquering troops be expelled or given open borders? Also, should cities be given back to a civ that collapses during the war?

I think when you give them back the should be an open boarders, possably a defence pact, and yeah I think they should go back to a collapsed civ, remember Germany? Also do you give them back after X number of turns or after a peace settlement/Civ Collapse?

We could give temporarily occupied cities back only after the civ they are being returned to has ended all of their wars, and, should the civ collapse, all wars are immediately ended, so they will get the cities back maybe a turn after they just collapsed, returning them to life but also giving them peace for a little while at least.

Perhaps when a civ is reborn in this manner they should have 10 turns of forced peace like after a peace treaty is signed.

Another cool idea inspired by the germany scenario is if the civ returning the cities is given the opportunity to 'support' the civ being returned to life. This would be a good way of starting cold wars, as if Russia refuses to give up their German cities, you can either demand they leave, and if they still refuse, one could go into an 'open war' where you are actively at war with them, or into a 'cold war' where unites brought into German Territory are 'loaned' for free to Germany to help them fight the war. Once they are no longer at war with Russia the units would be returned to America, or whoever gave them. We could denote a unit from America by adding a 'A' to the end, or some other code for each civ. Perhaps we could but American in front of the name to make it more realistic, so you give an Infantry unit to Germany to help fend off the Red Army and it becomes 'American Infantry' to denote that America sent it. Unique units should not be allowed to be gifted in this manner.

Perhaps we could replace the unused 'permanent alliance' with a 'cold war' option, to allow such things to happen with any civ the other civ is currently at war with.

Also, I understand if everyone simply hated my idea, but I would like to at least know what people thought of it. Either way my suggestion still stands, and I still stand behind it. Most of these ideas wold seem to restrictive to me as civics. Furthermore, if they are made into simple on conquest options, we won't have to make Rhye work out a way of making just one civic category instant change.

Well, whereas I think the idea of a cold war would be pretty cool, I think it's able to happen without adding any additional features... Here's MY version of the plan, I'll try to keep things as simple as possible...

Using the same WWII scenario, Germany is defeated by the allies. All of Germany's cities are captured by America and Russia. America is given the option to return the cities to Germany, getting the diplo bonus and in turn, resurecting Germany from the grave. I think that once Germany respawns, it will obviously be in love with America, being that they just gave their cities back and all of Germany's previous relations with other civs would be reset, to reflect their new government. (Just like what happens when a civ revolts from barbarians or a respawn from unhappy cities...) American units inside the german cities COULD stay there, since I believe when the cities are given back, an instant open border agreement should be signed. However, I don't agree with a complete alliance. That leaves the conquering civ no "out" if they want to... Say I was playing America and Germany resurects and pisses off England right away... I don't want to be forced into a war there... IDEALY, I think a 10 turn time limit with peace and/or (in a warlords version)as a vassal state (or something similar) would be best, but we'll have to wait for warlords for the latter...

As for Russia, they aren't giving any cities back to Germany. This is going to start their NEW relations with Germany off to a bad start. It might even do something to America-Russia relations. Maybe have the allied civs break their alliance/defense pacts at the end of a conflict unless they all share the same conquering civic in place by the end of the war. Should Russia want to continue a war with Germany, I guess that's their call, but it would be after the 10 turn forced peace/vassal state is up.

As for the cold war scenario, it's already made into the game. If America didn't want a direct war with Russia, American units are probably already inside the German cities from the last war, and there's already an option to give the units as a gift to Germany if America wanted to indirectly help them out... I've had plenty of games where I choose my sides without declaring war. I make sure I help out the civs who are at war with the civs I don't like, without getting myself directly involved, by donating units, gold, trade, tech etc. I don't think that cold wars should be "declared" in dimplomacy...

can the ai handle this civics column??

Good Question. By default the AI will assess each civic based on their bonuses and maintenance. Most of what we have proposed includes effects that can not be meassured by the AI.

One way around this would be to attempt programming AI likes and dislikes ('never at war' => +2 'civic subjugation' or 'long distance war' => +1 'civic temporary occupation'). This would require semi-substantial efforts and possibly another python file. The second way would be to include these "Expansion" civics among certain leaders' favorites.

the question is though, if they will keep high maintenance civics though not at war, because it would give them an advantage if they conquered cities....

Making these civics leaders' favourites means that they won't change from one civic to another. So if they prefer temporary occupation, then they will never really expand through war. The former solution sounds better to me.

I reckon that the temporary occupation and slavery ones are a good idea. Subjugation should just be a default, as it is now, and I don't really see much of a need for pillage, except maybe increasing gold when you raze a city. Ethnic cleansing? No, because it's a). too complicated, b). not that realistic (not many people other than the Nazi's actually did that, ethnically wise) and c). it's too controversial, and this forum could start getting seriously flamed.

Once America gives the captured German cities back to Germany at the end of the war, and Germany is revived, what's to stop Russia from continuing the war and capturing the German cities I just returned?
You bring up a very good point, and I think Vassal States are the answer.
I also strongly agree with Vishaing that most of these should be options upon conquest and not civics. It just makes way, way more sense that way, on so many levels.

As for the cold war scenario, it's already made into the game. If America didn't want a direct war with Russia, American units are probably already inside the German cities from the last war, and there's already an option to give the units as a gift to Germany if America wanted to indirectly help them out... I've had plenty of games where I choose my sides without declaring war. I make sure I help out the civs who are at war with the civs I don't like, without getting myself directly involved, by donating units, gold, trade, tech etc. I don't think that cold wars should be "declared" in dimplomacy...
Agreed, and I hope it's not too OT, but is there a way to encourage this kind of play in the game without adding unnecessary components, or should this be up to the player?

SilverKnight