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

[Dominico]

You all seem a bit confused to think destroying a city is only thought of as a bad thing in modern times. What everyone had a Hitler mentality before then?

Ohh Caeser has just wiped out 2/3 of the Gallic youth, never mind hey!

In fact if you study history it has been frowned upon since records begane. Rome was hated for destroying Cities like Carthage, and for the attacks in Gaul by Julius Caeser he was actually called back to Rome to face warcrimes!! (No doubt people in england who watch the Rome program tonight will see this! BBC2 )

Of course he didnt face them because he came back with an army, and though other civilizations hated Rome or more accurately feared them they could do nothing. So they had to bow to Rome or be annihilated. If there had been other superpowers at the time though no doubt they would have stood against Rome for what she did (as many smaller powers tried).

This continued into the medieval ages when the pope and other religious leaders would call for a stop to sieges, or a stop to large wars as citizens were dying needlessly. Again this is a type of loss of standing for civilizations practicing annihilating cities, and again all the other cultures would stand against them (As they did with Atilla, gathering armies to defeat him under Roman leadership)

Heavy handedness of Christians in Jeruselum gave them a bad name and caused Saladin to slaugher the whole city. After this the slaughter of the city brought together a sort of coalition of Europe to take the city back headed by Richard the lionheart. So again the attack brough bad standing on a global level.

So in short those who say it should only apply with the talking shop for old men, i mean the UN are wrong. It has always had a stigma attatched and always affected the standing of nations. The difference is in old times the nation was powerfull enough to ignore it, as you could be in game, in contempory times no nation is strong enough to take on many though some nations still try to flaunt the rules and do take loss in standing with all the other nations.

So i agree with the posters first point, it should take a global hit for sure.

 

[Blazer6]

When is take a pop 1 city in Civ, I remove all the buildings and the population voluntarily travels elsewhere. I view pillaging and razing as a less violent means to avoid negative opinion.
I use that reasoning to avoid compounding the negative effects I incur on my defeated rivals as they will be mad at me, but only because they failed defending and not also sheer brutality.

 

[King Jason]

If you raze a holy city, any nation that's of that religion will have a negative diplo stat saying "you razed a holy city!"

I did it to the budhist one, and mongols were budhist with chinese not being, after it happened, the mongols had the modifier and the chinese didn't.

My point in that is I'm sure there would be a way to mod it so that where X would normally be the holy city, X is now any city, and where Y would normally be the civs who have the religion, Y is now the Civ tied to the city.

Thus every time you raze a city, it'll produce a negative effect towards that civ. If you want to go global, you could probably make Y a 'religion' that all nations have by default, and where X (the holy city factor) now counts for every city in the game... that = when a city is raze, the world gets mad.

Now, I'm not saying I know how to do this... I'm just saying... I'm sure it could be done. I'll throw it on my list of things to check out though

 

[Olleus]

In fact if you study history it has been frowned upon since records begane. Rome was hated for destroying Cities like Carthage, and for the attacks in Gaul by Julius Caeser he was actually called back to Rome to face warcrimes!! (No doubt people in england who watch the Rome program tonight will see this! BBC2 )

Of course he didnt face them because he came back with an army, and though other civilizations hated Rome or more accurately feared them they could do nothing. So they had to bow to Rome or be annihilated. If there had been other superpowers at the time though no doubt they would have stood against Rome for what she did (as many smaller powers tried).

1) julius Caesar only destroyed cities if they failed to surender to him. This is roman military policy and only his opponents who were jelous of him said that he should face war crime.

2) People didnt hate the romans they loved them. None of the barbarians actually wanted to destroy the roman empire they wanted to be part of it.

btw why doesnt ceasar have the agressive trait

 

[Janos]

I'm completely anti-war in real life. But as it's only a game, it shouldn't be a problem. And if i have to take penalties in my game because someone else feels something is wrong (it is, in real life, but in a game it isn't), then i won't be amused. Mod it in using the versatile editor if it annoys you so much.

 

[Dominico]

1) julius Caesar only destroyed cities if they failed to surender to him. This is roman military policy and only his opponents who were jelous of him said that he should face war crime.

2) People didnt hate the romans they loved them. None of the barbarians actually wanted to destroy the roman empire they wanted to be part of it.

btw why doesnt ceasar have the agressive trait

The senate said he would stand for warcrimes.

2) The gauls loved the romans as they fought almost to their annihilation?

The germans loved romans and showed this by hugging Varus' legions?

The huns loved the romans litterally as they raided their towns and raped their women?

The Britons and Boudicca loved the romans as they massacred the population of London and sewed the womens breasts into their mouths?

The Celts loved the romans as they were exterminated and pushed into the extremities of Britain?

The Sassanids loved the Romans as they captured the roman Emporor Valens and Used him as a footstool for his natural life and to climb onto their horses, then had him stuffed and hung on the wall of their temples?

The Carthaginians loved the romans as Hannibal gathered his...

 

[King Jason]

btw why doesnt ceasar have the agressive trait

Because Alexander TOOK it!

WIN. GREEKS RULE!

 

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

You all seem a bit confused to think destroying a city is only thought of as a bad thing in modern times.

Of course no one was fond of anyone wiping out large parts of there population.
But the idea that there would be a global response and an alliance forming against because they razed X city, instead of because Y was also a danger to themselves have only come around recently(ish).

 

[Mastiff_of_Ar]

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...

Not exactly true... When the war started, Hitler was very careful, especially in England, to bomb away from populated areas. It was a bomber pilot error over London that started the "bomb anything" strategy, as the RAF also did not hit targets in cities.

Once London was hit, all bets were off.

 

[khakhan007]

I dont agree. War crimes as we know them is a relitivly new idea... so if it is even considered it should only come into play with the modern era.. otherwise rape,pillaging and slaving was the status quo of warfare. Read some history It's all in our bloody past. Hey can we put Custurd up on warcrimes? oh and in WWII there was nothing stratigic about stratigic bombing... Well i guess if you count a few square kilometers as stratigic... again a late modern thing.

 

[Mujadaddy]

All is fair in love and war.

 

[Zhahz]

I think razing cities should give you a negative hit with all other civs. That doesn't mean they'll gang up on you, it just means they aren't supportive of mass murder.

 

[Crosby 87]

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.

Dude, lighten up, really. This is only a game, it's not my life nor how I conduct my daily business. I'm here to discuss the aspects of this game, anything I say about the game should not be used to build a basic picture of me. So excuse me if I get a little annoyed when I'm being compared to Hitler. This is only a GAME.
I paid $50 for this game so I play it anyway I wish.

 

[neriana]

War crimes are not a new idea, actually. It's just that we finally have a separate term for them, and a (sadly de-fanged) international court to try them in. If you actually read histories from the beginning of when history existed, the "bad guys" are the ones who treated populations badly -- i.e. rape, slavery, murdering innocents. And those portrayed as the "bad guys" are not always the losers in the conflict, or on the opposing side to the author. Morality is not a new invention. Just because people behaved horribly, doesn't mean it was looked on as all right for them to behave horribly.

I think razing cities should count as a "war crime" of some kind. Have it make other cities hate you, and if it gets really bad, make the other civs go to war with you. Trade blockades would be a good step in-between. Not pillaging though, especially not pillaging roads and such. Heck, many peoples have pillaged their OWN infrastructure so the enemies couldn't get it, and I don't really know of a time when strategic military pillaging was considered wrong. Burning crops and such often is, of course, but -- well, pillaging (as the term is used in Civ) is an issue that's too vexed for me to want it to count against anyone in the game.

 

[Daniel Jackson]

Why should pillaging give you a negative reputation hit? Pillaging is *still* practiced in modern warfare, what with the destruction of oil wells, roads, etc.

Now razing, that's a different story. Several posters above me have made some excellent points. However, might it be feasible to have the severity of the negative AI response scale up as you progress through the ages? I'm thinking, -1 in the Classical age, progressing to -4 or -5 with the UN.

 

[CaliSurfer]

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.

I agree with this, but I think it should take effect when any civ has researched a certain tech or built a Wonder in the late industrial or modern era.