IT SHOULD BE A WARCRIME to......

[Ravinhood]

PILLAGE and RAZE other civilizations.

Players should take a hit (including other ai players) to their standing with other players/ai when they pillage and raze other civilizations cities and areas. To me it's like being Adolph Hitler if you pillage and raze cities.

Humans that do it should get hit double damage to their standing with all other civilizations. To the point the whole world will hate them if they do it often enough. Then they all declare war on the human player and ally with one another and then you can have a World War for real.

I'd love to see that and also love to see the look on the face of the player who thinks he can do it and take on the whole world of AI civs on at once. I can handle 2 or 3 civs, but, when you play games with 14+ CIVS and they all coming at you in droves. lol you gonna lose.

To be fair and give the human player a "crying chance" each city that any of the AI's take bring his standing from pillaging and razing back up towards zero. If he/she's lucky they might leave him with 1 or 2 cities left. hehe

EDIT: Oh something else I would add to this would be the ability to "strategically" destroy production in a square without taking out food. Then would need workers to repair only the production values of the square. Of course a player would have the option to wipe out the entire square or just go after the production or income portion of the square. Probably something/idea for an expansion or CIV V. Having this would allow the strategic bombings and raids as in WWII, though in more ancient times I don't think this was much thought about or a big issue. Killemall was probably the word of the day.

 

[Sati]

Sounds like a great idea, but I don't think that would work in classical age or like that, from maybe 1500A.C, but that depends how cruel you are.

 

[Crosby 87]

Oh lighten up, pillaging and plundering is half the fun. I'll see you in the world court

 

[chris8b]

I don't understand your reference to Hitler. As evil as he was, he wasn't particularly known for destroying infrastructure and burning whole cities he captured, was he? I could certainly think of better examples of those who did.

The concept of this kind of act being a "war crime" is a fairly modern one regardless. Razing, enslaving, and pillaging were common and accepted rights of the victor for most of recorded history.

I'd hate to see this ahistorically implemented simply because of our current sensibilities. (Perhaps a relations hit for razing once the United Nations is built? Certainly not before then.)

-C

 

[Ravinhood]

Oh lighten up, pillaging and plundering is half the fun. I'll see you in the world court

Perhaps Hitler thought that way also. Isn't it funny how in a game something that is so evil is now called FUN? And by some people even called HALF THE FUN of the whole game. lol But, even in that respect WAR is evil as well, but, it is a "necessary" thing when it comes to solving issues with other nations as the past history shows. BUT, pillaging and razing isn't a necessary thing except for sustanance but, that would be called foraging.

I wouldn't call "starving" an entire city just because you had issues with the military units inside FUN!! hehe

That's why I suggested that one could pillage just the production and/or the income of that particular city without hitting the food values. But, burning a city to the ground, tisk tisk tisk, that's "barbaric" (not civilized) And this is a game about CIVILIZATION, not about Barbarianism. hehe

I think having the whole world goto war with you for pillaging and razing would be HALF the FUN.

 

[Dagoth Ur]

People didn't really begin to care about warcrimes until the 1940s, unless the crime happened to their own people.

The Ottomans did their own genocide in the 1920s with 3 million+ dead, and no one in the west cared.

So if you raise a city in the game, it should give penalty to the civ you attacked, but not to anyone else.

 

[Silica_Pathways]

Well, but pillaging is used even nowadays, as long as there will be war, there will be other things that comes together with war

 

[Ravinhood]

I don't understand your reference to Hitler. As evil as he was, he wasn't particularly known for destroying infrastructure and burning whole cities he captured, was he? I could certainly think of better examples of those who did.

The concept of this kind of act being a "war crime" is a fairly modern one regardless. Razing, enslaving, and pillaging were common and accepted rights of the victor for most of recorded history.

I'd hate to see this ahistorically implemented simply because of our current sensibilities. (Perhaps a relations hit for razing once the United Nations is built? Certainly not before then.)

-C

Yeah you're right Chris, it is my thinking in Modern times that look back on what was "normal" in history really up until Hitler himself. His was more broadcasted and views were universal instead of hearsay, with the advent of newspapers and radio and tv many things changed and continue to change. Ghengis Khan probably ranks right up there with him. I wonder how many died in the games of Roman History as well?

I like the idea of it being more extreme once the United Nations is built, isn't that sort of what happened to Saddam ? and that guy in Croatia/Yugoslavia?

 

[Crosby 87]

You seem to have confused pillaging with genocide, they are not the same

 

[Richosh]

Perhaps Hitler thought that way also. Isn't it funny how in a game something that is so evil is now called FUN? And by some people even called HALF THE FUN of the whole game. lol But, even in that respect WAR is evil as well, but, it is a "necessary" thing when it comes to solving issues with other nations as the past history shows. BUT, pillaging and razing isn't a necessary thing except for sustanance but, that would be called foraging.

I wouldn't call "starving" an entire city just because you had issues with the military units inside FUN!! hehe

That's why I suggested that one could pillage just the production and/or the income of that particular city without hitting the food values. But, burning a city to the ground, tisk tisk tisk, that's "barbaric" (not civilized) And this is a game about CIVILIZATION, not about Barbarianism. hehe

I think having the whole world goto war with you for pillaging and razing would be HALF the FUN.

I get the feeling you just didn´t read those posts above.
And why should this game not be about non-greeks (aka. barbarians in the original term)

 

[Varelse]

Perhaps Hitler thought that way also. Isn't it funny how in a game something that is so evil is now called FUN? And by some people even called HALF THE FUN of the whole game. lol But, even in that respect WAR is evil as well, but, it is a "necessary" thing when it comes to solving issues with other nations as the past history shows. BUT, pillaging and razing isn't a necessary thing except for sustanance but, that would be called foraging.

I wouldn't call "starving" an entire city just because you had issues with the military units inside FUN!! hehe

That's why I suggested that one could pillage just the production and/or the income of that particular city without hitting the food values. But, burning a city to the ground, tisk tisk tisk, that's "barbaric" (not civilized) And this is a game about CIVILIZATION, not about Barbarianism. hehe

I think having the whole world goto war with you for pillaging and razing would be HALF the FUN.

Hmmmmm....Civ for Flowerchildren. I'm not sure it would be practical from a gameplay point of view. Just try to keep in mind when you are crushing your enemies that they are not real people, and maybe you won't have to play with such a heavy heart!

 

[elderotter]

I agree with the UN idea, but think a no looting/razing resolution should be passed before penalties start being given out and reemember that right now economic still comes first so - first penalty should be other civs boycotting you .

 

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

Having this would allow the strategic bombings and raids as in WWII,

Errr, the Strategic bombing in WW2 wasn't exactly re-known for being very specific about what it hit. If it was in Germany it was a valid target. It was targeted at production and infrastructure, but it was hardly limited to hitting that.
In fact, things like the firestorms in Hamburg and Dresden is closer to raising the city than just blowing up a few roads...

It's really a very modern concept, and I don't really see how it would fit into the game. It certainly shouldn't be in the game until much later(although negative effects on the Civ who owned the city would be fine), and possibly make it a part of an expanded UN.

Lets face it, nasty stuff happens all the time even today, and mostly we don't really care that much. Being able to pass a resolution in the UN that caused negative diplomatic effects would be quite interesting though.

 

[Anima Croatorum]

The ICC world 'wonder'?

In love, war and computer games all is fair. Except if you're playing an MP game, then you gotta stick to certain rules.

 

[highstreet]

If Civ's ever changed so that the UN/global community comes down hard on war criminals, I hope there will be an option to hire contras to do your dirty work for you.

 

[ceiph]

i know the other civ gets pissed when you raze there citys, i will normally do one small one just to tell them i mean business.

 

[Snall]

Should only happen after the UN is built or somthing.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I would love a UN Resolution, something like "Geneva Convention" that prevents raizing cities. Personally I think pillaging is fair game, though.

 

[Branoic]

It would never work in game - it would be either too universally applied to the extent that it makes the game boring, or the process of deciding whats a war crime and what isn't would be far too complicated.

<snip>

Moderator Action: Let's keep current real-world geo-political opinions out of it. --Padma
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

You could just make it so that if you did X action(say raze a city), a new option appears in the UN where you can be condemned for Warcrimes and gets a negative diplomatic modifier.

Might not do very much, but it might also just tip the scale and put someone against you.