WC/UN warfare resolutions?

Joe Hoofer · May 21, 2013

I had an idea: make a WC/UN resolution available that establishes rules of humane warfare (real life counterpart, the Geneva Conventions).
Said resolution would forbid all players from razing cities and capturing/killing civilian units, either under threat of a diplomatic penalty (like atrocities in Alpha Centauri) or by making it impossible outright.
What do you all think?

Eagle Pursuit · May 21, 2013

Try this forum:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=119

JtW · May 21, 2013

Eagle Pursuit said:
Try this forum:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=119

Why do you send him there? This is purely BNW-related.

kingchris20 · May 21, 2013

I chose that it should make it impossible to kill/capture civilians and raze cities.

No other resolution is able to be defied, so I don't think it would fit the whole WC/UN resolution theme, if only one of them could be defied

Aussie_Lurker · May 22, 2013

kingchris20 said:
I chose that it should make it impossible to kill/capture civilians and raze cities.

No other resolution is able to be defied, so I don't think it would fit the whole WC/UN resolution theme, if only one of them could be defied

Ah, I voted the diplomatic penalty one, but you're probably right. Someone pushing towards a domination victory probably won't care much about diplomatic penalties, so a ban on capturing civilian units and cities would be just as good. You could even call it "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" or "The (City Name the Congress is currently held in) Convention"

Aussie.

Veneke · May 22, 2013

I like this idea quite a bit and voted for option number one but what would stop a human player from having his front line consist entirely of civilians and his second line of ranged units? It's rather ironic that what you're proposing could actually encourage the use of civilians as a kind of shield for your military units. I suppose you could have units from different civs on one tile but I don't think that's a realistic prospect. It might also potentially interfere with the trading mechanics, particularly with how they relate to destroying a trade route/cargo ship.

As I doubt that we're getting more resolutions I'm really hoping that WC/UN resolutions will be relatively easily moddable, not only in terms of changing specific ones but adding new options.

AriochIV · May 22, 2013

I've never seen any warfare that was "humane."

(rummages around in my quote pocket...)

"The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility." -British Sea Lord John Fisher

But seriously, razing cities already does carry a diplomatic penalty.

kingchris20 · May 22, 2013

Veneke said:
I like this idea quite a bit and voted for option number one but what would stop a human player from having his front line consist entirely of civilians and his second line of ranged units? It's rather ironic that what you're proposing could actually encourage the use of civilians as a kind of shield for your military units. I suppose you could have units from different civs on one tile but I don't think that's a realistic prospect. It might also potentially interfere with the trading mechanics, particularly with how they relate to destroying a trade route/cargo ship.

As I doubt that we're getting more resolutions I'm really hoping that WC/UN resolutions will be relatively easily moddable, not only in terms of changing specific ones but adding new options.

And sadly, here lies the problem with this idea......this resolution cant make it in. It's something you don't really think about, but what Veneke said is true.

I_qua_I · May 22, 2013

kingchris20 said:
And sadly, here lies the problem with this idea......this resolution cant make it in. It's something you don't really think about, but what Veneke said is true.

This is easily solvable. Civilian units would simply be able to stack with enemy military ones in the same way they can with their own civs military units. They (civilians) just become a pseudo-invisible unit layer.

kingchris20 · May 22, 2013

Idk, he's talking about human players "blockading" their troops (with ranged following behind) where AI defense can't do anything about it because they wouldn't be able to move on civilian units. Essentially and inpenatrable human shield moving on other cities. Or using civilian units to blockade your cities borders so that no military can penetrate. That is something that would ruin the game.

Veneke · May 22, 2013

I_qua_I said:
This is easily solvable. Civilian units would simply be able to stack with enemy military ones in the same way they can with their own civs military units. They (civilians) just become a pseudo-invisible unit layer.

That might be technically possible in that they could just copy over the trade unit mechanics, as they can, I think, occupy the same space as an enemy unit. As I said though, I don't think that's a realistic prospect for all civilian units, especially as it's being activated mid-game.

Biologist · May 22, 2013

Wouldn't making it impossible to attack civilian units effectively make Great Generals invincible? They have the same unit type as workers.

AlazkanAssassin · May 22, 2013

Simple make it that when you move your soldiers into the tile occupied by an unguarded enemy worker the worker is ejected from that tile. No silly attempts to slow you down with workers are possible.

The worker would go to either:
The nearest available tile;
The nearest friendly city, or tile next to city;
Their capitol, or tile next to their capitol;
Be captured as a POW, which disapear from the map until the war is ended, then they reappear near their capitol.

Which of those to pick is a design choice, but I think any of them would work.
Personally, I prefer the POW option, since that still denys the use of the worker to the enemy.
But option one, bumped to nearest tile, may be easiest to implement.

Biologist said:
Wouldn't making it impossible to attack civilian units effectively make Great Generals invincible? They have the same unit type as workers.

They may have the same unit type, but generals/admirals are NOT civilians. They should still be destroyed like any other military unit.

Workers, workboats, missionarys, and all great people other than generals and admirals should be protected by this resolution.

kingchris20 · May 22, 2013

That could work.......but, (and this may not be a problem by the time these resolutions start passing) what would happen to a barbarian trying to take a worker? Not sure if they will be affected by resolutions, or if it would matter that much at all.......

But auto-moving away civilians when a military unit moves on top of them could work

albie_123 · May 22, 2013

Razing cities would be a nice touch, but civilians would be far too difficult.

Although, doesn't razing cities get you negative points regardless?

Joe Hoofer · May 22, 2013

Great discussion! I love how you're pointing out flaws I wouldn't have noticed on my own and then coming up with creative solutions for them.

I was not aware that razing cities already carried a diplomatic penalty, it's good to know.

And as for the "human shield" problem...I like the idea of civvies (Great Generals nonwithstanding) being invulnerable, but not impassable. Civilians could be still affected by Zones of Control, but would be able to pass through enemy units. Having them be displaced every time an enemy unit moves on top of them would be annoying.

werothegreat · May 22, 2013

I want to be able to form a NATO-like organization in the late game that can gang up on warmongering civilizations.

AlazkanAssassin · May 22, 2013

kingchris20 said:
That could work.......but, (and this may not be a problem by the time these resolutions start passing) what would happen to a barbarian trying to take a worker? Not sure if they will be affected by resolutions, or if it would matter that much at all.......

But auto-moving away civilians when a military unit moves on top of them could work

I'd say barbs don't listen to the resolution at all. They can still enslave and murder all they like.

Joe Hoofer said:
And as for the "human shield" problem...I like the idea of civvies (Great Generals nonwithstanding) being invulnerable, but not impassable. Civilians could be still affected by Zones of Control, but would be able to pass through enemy units. Having them be displaced every time an enemy unit moves on top of them would be annoying.

They wouldn't get displaced by unit of ALL other civs, just ones you are at war with. I don't see anything about that which would be annoying. Right now you don't sent your civilian units unguarded anywhere close the enemy (at war) forces, so this is pure gain.

Babri · May 22, 2013

AriochIV said:
I've never seen any warfare that was "humane."

(rummages around in my quote pocket...)

"The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility." -British Sea Lord John Fisher

But seriously, razing cities already does carry a diplomatic penalty.

This. Even today genocides & massacres happens (even by those who call themselves to be fighting injustice & terrorists).

From gameplay perspective I don't think giving even more penalties to conquest player is sensible. You can already put enough pressure on conquerors by issuing army tax & other World congress decisions such as banning luxuries, trade embargo etc.

Joe Hoofer · May 22, 2013

Babri said:
This. Even today genocides & massacres happens (even by those who call themselves to be fighting injustice & terrorists).

(Yeah, I couldn't think of the proper word at the time, so I just said "humane," knowing full well it was oxymoronic.)

Babri said:
From gameplay perspective I don't think giving even more penalties to conquest player is sensible. You can already put enough pressure on conquerors by issuing army tax & other World congress decisions such as banning luxuries, trade embargo etc.

Yes, but how many of those proposals do you think any one player will have at the same time? I think the "<Host City> Conventions" resolution merely offers more diversity and an answer to a nagging little question: what about the little guy? I think that by showing that civilians are worth protecting, it'd give a bit more flavor to what you're fighting for.

Plus, there's Video Game Cruelty Potential if you want to be a Jerkass who crosses the Moral Event Horizon by Kicking the Dog.

WC/UN warfare resolutions?

Would you like to see a World Congress/UN resolution for humane warfare available?

Yes, it should make killing/capturing civilians and razing cities impossible.

Yes, it should make killing/capturing civilians and razing cities carry a diplomatic penalty.

No, this doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Chieftain

Per Scribendum, Volo

Prince

Wisdom Seeker

Deity

King

Colonial Ninja

Wisdom Seeker

Prince

Wisdom Seeker

King

Emperor

Engineer

Wisdom Seeker

Modding In Secret

Chieftain

Warlord

Engineer

Emperor

Chieftain

Similar threads