Military Occupation

E

Eric The Fish

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 14, 2002
Messages
68
I always thought sort of a one way "Right of Passage" would be a good idea wherein you could enter a foreign civ's territory but they can't enter yours. It would be used on those pesky civs who you keep beating up on but they keep coming back at you and declaring war. You don't want to use the resources to take over the entire civ but you're tired of having to defend yourself every few turns. This way you can maintain a force within their borders to keep them in line for a while.
 
in civ4...if a civ doesnt have an rop..entering the teritory is an act of war..so i dont think the issue will be the same...and occuping would be hard to implement...how are you gonna fight a limited war in civ?
 
Personally I think it would be nice to have other acts of aggression besides merely war (or things that automatically mean war) and trade embargoes. Occupation of areas would be one thing. There are others too I guess. I mentioned in another thread I really want to see cease fire again, like in Civ2, which falls in somewhere in this category I guess.
 
TheBB said:
Personally I think it would be nice to have other acts of aggression besides merely war (or things that automatically mean war) and trade embargoes. Occupation of areas would be one thing. There are others too I guess. I mentioned in another thread I really want to see cease fire again, like in Civ2, which falls in somewhere in this category I guess.
Click to expand...

Well, a peace deal with a per-turn agreement in it is kind of like a cease-fire...

In any case, I don't want a return to having to conclude a cease-fire first. Because too often in Civ II I'm willling to go on fighting or to make peace, I just can't allow the enemy to freely position forces in my territory.
 
Superkrest said:
in civ4...if a civ doesnt have an rop..entering the teritory is an act of war..so i dont think the issue will be the same...and occuping would be hard to implement...how are you gonna fight a limited war in civ?
Click to expand...

I just hate whooping up on a civ, declaring peace and then all my units have to leave their territory. There should be someway that I could maintain a presence within their borders for a while, both to keep an eye on them and to be in a position to levy a counterattack if they start up again. My military has advanced to a postition deep within their territory, they shouldn't have the option of asking for peace in order to get some breathing room.

It would of course not be an easy thing to get the AI to sign off on. You'd have to be all over them in order for them agree to it.

OR perhape you could force the AI to agree not to build military units for a set number of turns.
 
Either as part of a cease-fire as you mentioned, or as part of military campaign. For example, in RL, the US negiated ROPs with Turkey and Saudi Arabi in 2002 for uses of bases by US troops. The one in Turkey failed (partially) and the one in Saudi Arabia succeed. There is no way to replicate this in Civ- to use opponents land without exposing yourself.
 
searcheagle said:
Either as part of a cease-fire as you mentioned, or as part of military campaign. For example, in RL, the US negiated ROPs with Turkey and Saudi Arabi in 2002 for uses of bases by US troops. The one in Turkey failed (partially) and the one in Saudi Arabia succeed. There is no way to replicate this in Civ- to use opponents land without exposing yourself.
Click to expand...

Well I think allies will be able to travel through each other's land. I'm speaking more of an occupation, the US in Japan after WWII for example. Or the Soviet Union and the eastern block countries.
 
What would be the goal of such an occupation? It sounds like you want something more like a vassal or tributary. Additionally, you don't have to take over the whole civ, you could just destroy it. Finally, this sounds more like a flaw in the AI than anything else.
 
Eric The Fish said:
I always thought sort of a one way "Right of Passage" would be a good idea wherein you could enter a foreign civ's territory but they can't enter yours. It would be used on those pesky civs who you keep beating up on but they keep coming back at you and declaring war. You don't want to use the resources to take over the entire civ but you're tired of having to defend yourself every few turns. This way you can maintain a force within their borders to keep them in line for a while.
Click to expand...

Why would ANY civ sign an agreement that would allow you to move your units in their territory without getting that same right themselves? Would YOU sign such an agreement? ;) I don't see this adding anything to Civ4 other than giving a human player another way to exploit an AI civ.
 
i think he means if an aggresor civ was losing the war then you would force them to sign the occupation or they would be destroyed. Also if a weak civ needs protection they would sign one of these so your units can help
 
Poseidon_55 said:
i think he means if an aggresor civ was losing the war then you would force them to sign the occupation or they would be destroyed. Also if a weak civ needs protection they would sign one of these so your units can help
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's a way of keeping agresive civs at bay for at least a few turns after you've beaten them. Again, this would be something that would be cancelled after a few turns.

And a civ might agree to it in order to keep you from completely wiping it out. Such a thing can be easier said than done. Sometime you don't want to waste the resources on wiping out an entire civ. But you want some assurance that they won't just regroup and attack your ass again in a turn or two.

A soundly defeated civ does in a way become a tributary. Often you'll force them to pay you per turn and demand any techs they have.

I'm not sure, but doesn't destroying cities damage your cred with other civs?

Fact is this kind of thing HAS happened in rl. So has forcing a defeated enemy to agree to not build a military (though not always successfully). So it's not as if these ideas are totally off the wall. They're based on stuff that has really happened.
 
Using the word occupation implies something other than a one-sided Right of Passage. To me, it means commanding their internal politics through force. Given that civ games don't model internal politics, I suggest not using that term. Civ games already have the whole "do what I want or else" part down, so if you wanted another civ to change its social engineering, you wouldn't need to occupy them. Finally, there are times a civ might agree to a one-sided RoP that are completely different than an occupation, especially if you offered something valuable for the privilege. After all, being able to move through your territory might be worthless.

I don't see how you could make an enemy disarm by occupying their cities. There should be arms control treaties in the game to do that, but the implication of occupying their cities is that you control their builds like you would your own cities, in which case I would call that a conquest, not an occupation.
 
apatheist said:
I don't see how you could make an enemy disarm by occupying their cities. There should be arms control treaties in the game to do that, but the implication of occupying their cities is that you control their builds like you would your own cities, in which case I would call that a conquest, not an occupation.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to disarm by occupation. Disarming your enemy is a totally different idea from occupation. It would be part of the armitice agreement after a war.

You do make a good point, that military occupation usually comes with government change by the occupying force. And that actually brings up an idea. Sometimes conquering other civs is too much of a pain in the ass. You end up with all these useless cities that are hard to defend and really far from your capital. But what if you could conquer another civ and replace its government with one amenable to your cause. The new civ government would be your ally, with all the benefits that comes with having an ally. But it would have come to be through force. Not at all unlike the US and Japan or the USSR and the eastern block countries after WWII.
 
That can expressed through the real world and proposed game concepts of vassaldom, of which there has been previous discussion on this board.
 
Occupation and annexion SHOULD be divided.
If you liberate your ally's city that was formerly captured by your common enemy this city should be returned to your ally while your units can be stationed there.
 
city should be returned to your ally while your units can be stationed there.
Click to expand...

Maybe that should just be built into the alliance. If you have a weaker civ as an ally and their city is about to fall, why can't you move in and bolster their forces? While there you can also enjoy the benefits of their barracks and other improvements. The AI could have the choice whether to accept it or not (in multiplayer this would be more functional) and air units would be very easy to return to their home city. But maybe this discussion should take place in another thread?

I'd say an occupation of a sort could happen with a 5 or 10 turn limit. After which it would be as it is and be expelled. The mechanics would be difficult to organize. Maybe their forces couldn't attack yours and you station your forces in cities to monitor production, or no military production could be done, just religious and commercial.


Whatever the case, a game is never going to simulate Real Life. There are just far to many complexities. Maybe when Civ44 comes out...
 
the occupation should happen this way.
after capturing a city (no matter if formerly allied or hostile), you install military government in the city.
1. you can use their barracks
2. you can manage city production
3. if "liberated" (formerly allied) you receive money from city one gold per unit or so. if any more trade remains the original owner of the city can use it as luxury or science
4. if formerly hostile: you got all the trade from the city. in this case it seems the the sum of points 1, 2 and 4 equals city annexion, BUT
5. assimilation does not begin at once.
6. popular unrest is not so high (because they hope to be returned to their original nation)
7. you can cease military goernment and return to civil government - in this case only the cost of occupational troops are counted.

after a while 10 or 20 turns populace of the city loses its confidence in returning to their orig civ and become upset. at the same time your civ's public oppinion expects you to annect the city.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Actual Trains, Better Modern Econ Victory
Replies
7
Views
632
tman2000
T
Z
Dear Devs! Make civilization more sophisticated again, please.
Replies
1
Views
656
MutilationWave
MutilationWave
SupremacyKing2
Where does civ go after civ7?
Replies
18
Views
2K
Eddie Verdde
Eddie Verdde
GeneralZift
CCS: Alternate Victory Conditions
Replies
0
Views
340
GeneralZift
GeneralZift
MutilationWave
Open borders invalidated by refusing alliance
Replies
3
Views
437
sixty4half
S
Back
Top Bottom