Ethnic Cleansing

[The Fishman]

Sounds like a good idea (in civ, not real life). It could be something that police state allows (like whipping with slavery), or there could be seperate 'minorities' civics (multicultural, intergration etc), but that might be getting a bit too political...

 

[Bigfoot3814]

I suppose it's not a terrible idea, but what purpose could it serve? Having foriegners in your city doesn't matter unless you are at war with that civ or might get culture flipped.

 

[The Fishman]

I suppose it's not a terrible idea, but what purpose could it serve? Having foriegners in your city doesn't matter unless you are at war with that civ or might get culture flipped.

Lots of foreign culture leads to revolts, war-weariness, unhappiness and even the odd culture-flip. If it gets to the latter, building theatres won't help at all because it will probably have flipped before they have had any effect. I had a city which I gloriously conquered off Egypt in war, only for it to be flipped by the Greeks! Talk about irritating!

 

[Bigfoot3814]

This could potentially work if they change it to "displace foreign nationals", and have it reduce foreign culture (with a diplomacy hit with the other leader).

Great idea. In addition, how about an bonus for the foriegn civ against you if you choose not to displace them. That way you have a choice between an espionage penalty or a diplomatic penalty. Maybe I'm looking too far into this.

 

[Infantry#14]

Just raze the city and rebuild your own... after all, you don't want the filthy buildings of the enemy still present in your glorious cities, do you?

even if you rebuild the city, the enemy's culture is still there


If you want to try ethnic cleasning, you can do so in civ 3 (build a bunch of workers, settlers and wait till that populace down to pop 1 and disband those foreign workers and settlers if you like)

 

[Stuck in Pi]

yea. That was fun. Of course, I would keep the city, make a settler, then procede to disband the city. But I would use the one pop of a settler to make a new city, unforunately it would be heathen.

 

[steerpike_swe]

Ethnic cleansing by starving a conqured city and/or building workers and settlers was actually both possible and practical in Civ III - often i found this beiing the only alternative to keep a big foreign city that i captured and not have it revolt and go back to its former owner. Its maybe a little less obvious in Civ IV but i think its still both possible and useful. First you starve the city and when its poupulation is low enough you give them back some food - the new citizens will then be of your own people and not your rivals. This should for example lower war unhappiness in the city if you continue your war against your rival.

Btw - how about a labour camp building? Converting unhappy citizens into hammers... Of course the use of this could also result in diplomatic penalties in the contacts with more humanistic/democratic civs.

 

[GIO888]

We don't need "ethnic cleansing" we follow the China-in-Tibet model don't we, in CIV?

Capture the city (much population reduction anyway, by default) build culture buildings/granaries, grow the conquering population, outnumber the indigenous, make the city truly ours......bruh..ha.ha.........

 

[TheLastOne36]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6535161&postcount=433

I worked out an entire "Immigration" idea for the Civ V topic. Which yes, includes Ethnic Cleansing.

 

[dutchking]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6535161&postcount=433

I worked out an entire "Immigration" idea for the Civ V topic. Which yes, includes Ethnic Cleansing.

*says the patriotic pole...*

 

[KaytieKat]

Hi

I dont think something like that would work well in game not for PC reasons but just because the game is supposed to be about choices. And choices having pros and cons and then you wiegh which is best. Like do I keep the city? cons it increases maintance, it can have culture and happiniess issues since many of the citizens will still be loyal to the civ I just took it from, raizing ends those problems but then there are cons for doing that as well so you have to chose. And there ARE ways to do will the citizens still feeling more loyal to their old civ than yours--you could keep waring and elminate the civ all together which would then eliminate that civs influence completely (that could even be considered THE ethnic cleansing there) or taking the time to build up that city to point that over the years a bigger and bigger part of its population feels loyal to you. So it's possible but you just have to work for it.

I think getting a quick and easy way to avoid a "con" of a choice is trying to have cake and eat it too and can take fun out of game--might as well just use world builder then hehe.

Kaytie

 

[bardolph]

I think it would be interesting to be able to remove religions from a city (with an Inquisitor unit, for example). That would allow younger religions a chance to overtake older ones.

I agree that using Slavery to "clean out" foreign culture from a city is a good enough solution for the OP's purposes.

 

[Ceritoglu]

It would require some serious coding, but I'm sure it can be implemented.

You would have the option of displacing an 'alien' community from one of your cities, and for each 2 pop of these 'aliens' a single 'refugee' unit would be represented, which the displacor would be able to do one of several things to:

a) Exterminate - this creates a -3 modifier with its native civ and any civs friendly to it, while destroying the 'refugee' unit.

b) Move the unit elsewhere in the invading civ's empire and add it to another city (adding 2 pop to that city in addition to bringing some of its native culture, although this would diminish if outside of the native civ's sphere of cultural influence over time), incurring a -1 diplomatic modifier with the native civ solely.

c) Take the refugee unit to the border with another civ and offer it to them. Benefits for taking in refugees would include a 2 pop boost and a +2 diplomatic modifier with the native civ. Disadvantages would include taking on some of the native civ's culture in the city the refugees join, in addition to 15 turns of +1 angry face due to tension caused by immigration. The invading country who forced this emigration would suffer a -2 diplomatic modifier with the native civ, while incurring a -1 diplomatic modifier with the civ that accepts the refugees.

I'm sure there are plenty of other facets to the refugee unit that could be hammered out...game balance and wider gameplay effects would be priorities when thinking about those changes to the unit, but I'm frankly too tired to work further on the idea (it's 2am here). This does seem modable, if a challenge - so if we're content with a finished product this might become a suggestion for a modder extraordinaire.

Not sure about the numbers involved in the effects...would a -6 modifier for exterminating 2 Refugee units be a game-breaker? If you think so, suggest alterations to the numbers involved - again I apologise, I'm very tired so a bit of thought on that would certainly be appreciated.

 

[Massaker]

It's a good idea in my opinion.

I had thought of something like this when people were bringing the "Hitler should be in the game" argument.
My idea is to have an option of doing tyrannical things.
Or propose reasons for war.
Now-a-days if a country invades another a reason is needed.
So I thought of this
<Alt> to declare war.
*Next screen*
Why?
To punish the infidels! (Works if you have an organized religion. +10 Hammer, No Angry)
To get rid of the scum of the earth. (Works if you have police state or lower Extra weariness for your opponent)
To gain what is rightfully ours. (Works if share borders against opponent)
To destroy their weapons of mass destruction (works with emancipation and universal suffrage, +3 Happiness for 3 turns then angry face every turn after.

 

[noto]

I agree with Kaytie. Civ is designed to be more complicated than Risk. It's not just about conquering the map, it's more complicated than that. Firaxis made war cost, and cost a lot, so you have to be sure you're willing to pay the price if you want to take land by force. I, for one, think it makes the game more rich and interesting. Oh, and by the way, to anyone that plays this game frequently (myself included), maybe it would be best if we were never actually in office, eh?

 

[noto]

It's a good idea in my opinion.
To destroy their weapons of mass destruction (works with emancipation and universal suffrage, +3 Happiness for 3 turns then angry face every turn after.

LOL...dude...that's really funny...was it meant to be funny? If it was, yeah, that's really funny .... lol ...

 

[Massaker]

LOL...dude...that's really funny...was it meant to be funny? If it was, yeah, that's really funny .... lol ...

Yeah, I was thinking up wars, and why they happened and my thoughts went like this

Crusades
World War 1
WW2
Vietnam
Iraq

ohhhhhhhhh!

 

[Yeshua]

I just wiped out the japs

 

[Leodavinci]

Why?
To punish the infidels! (Works if you have an organized religion. +10 Hammer, No Angry)
To get rid of the scum of the earth. (Works if you have police state or lower Extra weariness for your opponent)
To gain what is rightfully ours. (Works if share borders against opponent)
To destroy their weapons of mass destruction (works with emancipation and universal suffrage, +3 Happiness for 3 turns then angry face every turn after.

To save their citizens
...from tyrannic regime (if you are democratic yourself and they are not)
... from capitalist pigs (if you are state property, and they are not)
...from communist oppresors (if you are free market and they are not)
etc

 

[Elite]

I useally burn a city that culture flips(they instigate a war against me once they turn to another civ)

EVERYTIME a city flips from me, WITHOUT my permission, I proceed to capture it, and burn it to the ground.

It's all politics for me, simply politics, you either watch as one of youe neighbors gobble up the smaller ones and become more powerful, or you intervene thus making yourself more powerful weakening one nation, andkeeping the other weak.

I carefully balance out Who want strong, who I want weak, who I want in the middle, because they'll backstab you later if you don't control them, they'll get to much confidence thinking they can crush your mighty legions.