Annexation vs. Occupation

[Teabeard]

I think there should be a distinct difference between occupying a city and annexing it. When you are in the middle of a war you should not be able to build or rush ANYTHING, nor should you collect gold (taxes) from the citizens. Annexation is different because annexation means the war is over and your control over the city is internationally recognized and then you can start using the city and it's productive power.

Thoughts?

 

[eromrab]

hmmm... makes sense...

but at the same time... many of the wars take place over many years... so i think that's what the "resistance" represents is the fact that before that country will be annexed, you have to have an occupying force there... a country that you've had occupation of for a year or 2... should be able to start producing...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

You are right, eromrab, but in that case I think that they need a better 'resistance' model. If happiness were based on a % system, then a recently captured city could have a very low % happiness-in which case production, culture and income from that city would be VERY low AND their would be a high chance of the city spawning 'geurilla' or 'partisan' units-who could take the city back. Also, there would be a bad chance of the city breaking away if a civil war were somehow triggered. If these things were done, I think it would seriously help to reduce both snowballing and warmongering!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[eromrab]

i wouldn't mind seeing the native citizens being unhappy until you are no longer at war with "their people"... or until like 10-20 turns have gone by and they're "assimilated" into your nation...

 

[frekk]

That is already more or less in place in Civ3. Some of the citizens are unhappy if you are at war with their mother country ("Stop the aggression against our mother country!" if you click on them) and of course, assimilation is already in the rules.

 

[eromrab]

yeah, but it happens way too fast... i station some troops and they're all "happy" again... i think there should be more resistance when you take over a city and are still at war with it's people...

and i know assimilation is already in the rules... i was saying that they should remain unhappy until you are no longer at war with their people, or they are assimilated... whichever happens first.

 

[frekk]

Maybe resistors should be able to damage the troops in garrison.

I don't think everyone should stop resisting no matter how many troops you have there - I think there should be an optimum number of garrison troops, which will quell a maximum amount of the population. Too many troops should produce more resistance as well. And I agree that resistance shouldn't completely end until the war does. Also, if you don't quell it, it should be possible for the resistance to grow.

But, I don't think *everyone* should be unhappy or in resistance until the war is over. Some people always side with the occupation.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, I once put this down in another thread, but I will see what I can remember at put it all down here.

In my happiness model, a city's happiness runs from 0-100%. Each 10% increment also has an 'adjective' to describe that mood-so 0-9% might be rebellious, 10-19% might be riotous, 20-29% might be defiant, 30-39% might be angry, 40-49% might be unhappy, and so on up to 100%. The interesting thing is that you would never KNOW eaxactly how happy the people in the city are, just their overall 'mood' (so you might know the people are Defiant, but are they almost riotous or are they merely VERY angry?) In addition, a city's OVERALL mood would be made up of the mood of each 'group' in that city-its labourers, farmers, civil servants, entertainers, merchants and scientists. So, for instance, the merchants may simply be unhappy with you, but the workers might be downright rebellious. what degree each groups mood contributes to the 'city mood' will depend on the 'degree of specialisation' of said city. So, for instance, if your city is an industrial heart, then it is highly likely that you have greater than 50% workers in that city. Thus, their happiness will have the greatest bearing on the city's mood. Lastly, the mood of each 'social caste' will have a bearing on how the city functions and the nature of any revolt (if it occurs), wheras the overall mood effects things like the chance of improvements or units getting damaged, the chance of a civil war or the chance of geurilla units being spawned. So, for instance, if your workers are angry with you, then shield production will fall accordingly. If the scientists are angry with you, then the beaker output of the city will be lower etc.
I agree with Fekka that placing units in a city should only work in improving mood up to a point, wheras too many would push mood back down! Your culture, culture group and government/religion type should also have a strong effect on how quickly a captured city's mood improves.

Anyway, hope that makes sense to everyone. Any thoughts, ideas? I'd love to hear them!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

 

[Shevchenko]

The resistors should be able to damage the units garrisoned or destroy bulidings, like the french resistance.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, now that I think about it, having a distinction between occupation and annexation would have the result of limiting the Snowball effect-especially with warmongers. After all, if a city remains in an effective state of 'resistance' until such time as the current conflict ends (thus denying you the city's wealth and unit/improvement building capacity) then it would be almost impossible to have military success feed in on itself!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[GoodGame]

The only overall idea I see here is maybe the "resisting laborers" can be bribed, instead of subdued. With the result perhaps being that the citizens culture flip at a much slower rate as a cause of that difference.

Additionally, whole sections of territory, not just individual cities could be demanded in the Diplomacy screen---as "Annexation".

Teabeard
Prince

Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 360

Annexation vs. Occupation
I think there should be a distinct difference between occupying a city and annexing it. When you are in the middle of a war you should not be able to build or rush ANYTHING, nor should you collect gold (taxes) from the citizens. Annexation is different because annexation means the war is over and your control over the city is internationally recognized and then you can start using the city and it's productive power.

Thoughts?
Teabeard is offline Report Bad Post Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Teabeard
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Teabeard
Send email to Teabeard
Find More Posts by Teabeard
Add Teabeard to Your Buddy List
Old Nov 19, 2004, 09:31 AM #2
eromrab
Warlord

eromrab's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Jacksonville, NC
Posts: 106

hmmm... makes sense...

but at the same time... many of the wars take place over many years... so i think that's what the "resistance" represents is the fact that before that country will be annexed, you have to have an occupying force there... a country that you've had occupation of for a year or 2... should be able to start producing...