Firaxis Rewards Genocide

[Jason Fox]

I think the term "rewarding genocide" is a little inaccurate. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say genocide isn't punished properly.

Is it a no brainer that all cities should be as easily razed as they are, a click and it's gone? Should size 20+ cities not have that option, forcing you to think twice about taking them or reorg your invasion strategy? It just seems like getting a city that size to just go away is a little too easy.

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Jason Fox
I think the term "rewarding genocide" is a little inaccurate. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say genocide isn't punished properly.

So you are a 'glass half-full' type.

 

[royfurr]

This thread is pretty funny!!

I voted, of course, as did most, that my highest scores were from conquest/domination. Which they are.

I think that "rewarding genocide" was not exactly what the designers, all the way back to Sid, had in mind. But as has been said, the combination of the corruption model and culture effects certainly makes razing cities the smart strategy to play ... and at harder difficulty levels, not just to have a high score, but to survive.

But more germane to the poll ... isn't this the way its been in RL, more or less, through the ages? He who has the biggest baddest military tends to assimilate the weaker ... swords kill much faster then ideas do. Yes, the power of ideas have grown able to tear down dictators today ... but only after the People have a direct personal interest, usually, in that happening ... like personal survival, avoidance of starvation, etc. Of course, if we look at some countries in disarry, like Liberia or Somilia, it isn't clear what ideas are in charge ... but if someone has a gun pointed at you, you KNOW who is in charge.

The funny thing about this thread is the way everyone (well, most anyway- not "everyone") rationalise these less savory concepts like city razing or starving of foreign nationals. No one wants to feel guilty, but they DO want to win the game. So they raze or starve, and rationalise it. (Of course, some glory in it: phillipe, more or less: "When my cities are in rebellion, I nuke the city ..." LOL!! ROTFL!!!) ANYWAY, let me comment the way a friends cousin did. This was many years ago, in the late 60's, and my friend and I were busy raging blitzkreig with an old Avalon Hill board game when his older cousin, a honest to goodness hippy and war protester, walked in. Stricken by guilt, we tried to ratioanlise playing a "WAR" game. He laughed and said no big deal ... he didn't see any blood anywhere ... and went on his way.

So my point folks, is its a game, and let's enjoy it ... if your significant other will let you ... without guilt.

Civ ON!

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by Moonsinger


I agree. Razing city is not genocide. In fact, I'm very sure that when I give my troops an order to raze a city, they first round up all the citizens that live there and tell them to go live somewhere else. After they get everyone out of the city buildings, they will set fire and burn the city to the ground. My troops just burn the city, they didn't kill anyone.

Wow!! Talk about a creative imagination.

First of all, razing cities was extremely rare even in the Ancient period. The best known example of those FEW examples of razing was Carthage at the end of the Third Punic War. The population was not told to "go live somewhere else"; they were either killed or enslaved. So razing a city should at least result in some free workers. Additionally, the location Carthage was on did not overnight become a nice piece of empty grassland ready for irrigation; it was filled with destroyed buildings, walls, and other debris.

But in Civ 3 a single damaged unit can make a city of millions vanish overnight and turn the tile into grassland.

But if the population did "go live somewhere else", WHERE? If you raze a city of '10' where do they go?? Back to their own civ's territory? Why would the victor permit that? If they DID go somewhere else where does the food come from to feed them? The U.N.?? If they went back to their original civ shouldn't it get some free settlers?

Razing cities by the Medieval period became more difficult for political and practical reasons. They were PILLAGED plenty by invading armies, but not razed. Unfortunately, pillaging by a civ's army is NOT an option with the game; only barbarians can do that, which is dumb.

Razing became impossible by the Industrial period as cities were too big and too filled with buildings, sewers, roads, etc.; people, too. It would also have been IMPOSSIBLE for political and religious reasons.

The Nazis, the exception to the above constraints, did their very best to raze Warsaw after the huge 1944 Revolt (not the small Jewish revolt of April, 1943), and even they couldn't do it. It is not possible.

Razing, a part of Culture Flipping, is a big crock.

 

[Barenziahlover]

The only ways to total destory than city today is with bioagents, chemical agents , or nuclear exploxion or use all three.
Once you destory than city that way you cannot use it yourself for than long time.
I than talking in real world tern. Israel is the only nation dumb enought to do just
than thing. The jesuit order witness and video tape Israel totaly destory than city they have to hand back to preaceful Syria. Syria today still refuse to rebuilt the city today. Why do you think the pope went there on his papal
visit. The Pope know the truth about Israel evil past. Why do you think that Israel try to discredit the Pope with false stroy that he sell nerves gas components to the Nazi. Why do you think the Christian function try to discredit the RC church. Than while back than Baphtic ran ad on bill board calling the Pope than war criminal.

 

[bobgote]

To Barenziahlover:
O....K....
feel better now?? I always do after a good rant about what's wrong with the world. I advise you not to do so on this site, people tend to get irritated.

Originally posted by Zouave

Razing, a part of Culture Flipping, is a big crock.

I was waiting to see CF brought into it

Originally posted by royfurr

Of course, if we look at some countries in disarry, like Liberia or Somilia, it isn't clear what ideas are in charge ...

Liberia and Somilia? Are these even places? I guess Somilia is Somalia, but what/where is Liberia? Can I start inventing history to back up my opinion? If so, the whole concept of evidence goes out the window!!!1

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by bobgote
Liberia and Somilia? Are these even places? I guess Somilia is Somalia, but what/where is Liberia?

BRITANNICA
Liberia, officially Republic of Liberia, republic of western Africa. It has an area of about 38,250 square miles (99,067 square kilometres). Liberia is bounded by Sierra Leone to the northwest, Guinea to the north, Cote d'Ivoire to the east, and the Atlantic Ocean to the south and west. Monrovia, a port, is the capital.

Liberia is the only black state in Africa never subjected to colonial rule, and it is the oldest republic on the continent. In 1973 Liberia and Sierra Leone organized the Mano River Union for economic cooperation; Guinea joined in 1980.

CIA Factbook from CIA.gov
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/li.html

 

[royfurr]

Originally posted by Zachriel


BRITANNICA
Liberia, officially Republic of Liberia, republic of western Africa. It has an area of about 38,250 square miles (99,067 square kilometres). Liberia is bounded by Sierra Leone to the northwest, Guinea to the north, Cote d'Ivoire to the east, and the Atlantic Ocean to the south and west. Monrovia, a port, is the capital.
...
[/url]

Thank you, Zachriel. You saved me the trouble of posting the info.

Yes, Liberia is a real "country", I use quotes due to the extended state of Anarchy and totalitarianism there, and thats why I described it as "in disarray".

Please, bobgote, before you accuse/state that someone is just "inventing history to back up" their opinion, be sure it IS just "made up". It's basically accusing someone of lying. I don't mind people pointing out an error I make, but saying I just invented something to "prove" my point when you don't even know the information yourself I do mind- it is essentially doing exactly what your accusing me off. Information and facts are the coin of the realm in our world, so before you post accusations, be sure they are correct.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Monrovia, a port, is the capital.

Interestingly, Monrovia is named after U.S. President James Monroe.

 

[Barenziahlover]

I than quoteing fact I read than a mazine of middle east affair and I spoke
to than Jesusit Piresh about it. I not roman charch. but when than group of people try to carry out than attack to ruins the repurable of one of the better pope in along time. I read the history of
some of pope than some where real winner like one I beleive in who die of than heart attack while have sex with than marry woman in either the 5th of 6th cenurty. In fact one pope was even
than raper who many Itilian father want to kill for some unexplamine reason, the first holy roman emperor march on the city of Raman with than army an was greeted as than liberalore
of the people of the Pasaul state.

 

[Barenziahlover]

I didnot mean to hurt the feeling of Roman Cath. by stateing that some Pope where very far from being Godly man but
history report they misdeed and the people who elect the Popes are well awares of their deeds and misdeed while they held the office of Pope.

The idear or useing bioagents and chemical agents and nuclear agents to make than cities unhabitor again is found
in the writeing of NOSTRADAMUS. Than these methord are most likely being study by varus government right now.
The idear of useing poison gas in warfare
didnot start with WW1 , durning the America cival war some member of the Unionist want to use Clorine gas on the conf. military and civil. population. The idear was only drop when their realism if
the wind change direction the poison gas hit they own men who would have
no protection as gas mask where not
discover yet. Than if they use the South might use it back on then.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by royfurr

Yes, Liberia is a real "country", I use quotes due to the extended state of Anarchy and totalitarianism there, and thats why I described it as "in disarray".

sorry bro
If I researched everything i posted, i wouldn't get anywhere. Please accept my humble apologies, i was after a cheap laugh and it backfired.

But really, i've never heard of liberia, even tho i've heard of all it's neighbours, and i definitely haven't heard of anarchy nor totalitarianism there neither.

And to Barenziahlover:
I don't mind you bagging the catholic church, in fact i don't mind that sort of comment at all. It's just some people do, try not to get too political and bagging israel and labelling them evil etc. Just a head's up. that's all.

 

[royfurr]

bobgote: apology accepted.

Libera is suffering, I am sorry to say, due to the tyranny of a person I think is a former American (Charles Taylor). Chaos and violence basically rules there, and the poeple are suffering greatly. My point was that historically, although perhaps "might doesn't make right", it usually rules- and often despite the desires of the mass of the people.

My implication was that if in real life violence tends to dominate, Firaxis in attempting to "simulate" at least the feel and "flow" of history, is hardly to blame if violence, atrocity and so forth are a part of the game, as those things have been, lamentably, a part of the great majority of the human races history.

The question of the "reality" of entire citys being physically removed from the map, as Zouave has pointed out, is somewhat "reality challenged". IMO it shows that the issue has been abstracted for game play. I highly doubt that Firaxis approves of geneocide. I equally doubt that they approve of slavery ... yet a civ is "rewarded" with workers when you raze. Again, I suspect that this is part of their abstraction of the issues of conquest and subjection of one people by another througout history. I think its reasonable for most of history, but like a lot of the game, it begins to make less sense in the modern era.

It's unfortunate that the combined effects of corrption and culture flipping often makes it a wise play to raze a conquered city. Still, as I said in my original post, there's no blood on the floor, so let's play the game and not feel guilty. If one can't, then perhaps civ is not a game for them. Perhaps someone feeling bad about genocide in civ should play SimCity or one of that line of games instead.

I mean no offence in suggesting someone not play the game if they feel bad about it, just realistic. This Forum is, after all, for civ "Fanatics".

Civ on.

 

[dunk]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Interestingly, Monrovia is named after U.S. President James Monroe.

I don't know why Monroe was chosen as the capital's namesake, but the country was founded by the US as a haven for freed slaves to return to Africa if they chose to do so.

 

[Portuguese]

It's a game, so we don't kill anyone!!!

I would not kill a person, but in the game, I change to comunism and rush buildings at life costs every turns, I sometimes raze cities and I win by conquering (or domination, when I want a quicker game...)

It's a game...

 

[Barenziahlover]

Originally posted by dunk


I don't know why Monroe was chosen as the capital's namesake, but the country was founded by the US as a haven for freed slaves to return to Africa if they chose to do so.

He was the president who help found the
Nation with the help of England Anti-slavely Societry who have the America and England Navy help stop the exporting of slave to America and help protect that new nation from other imperlial power.

 

[kring]

Originally posted by Moonsinger


I agree. Razing city is not genocide. In fact, I'm very sure that when I give my troops an order to raze a city, they first round up all the citizens that live there and tell them to go live somewhere else. After they get everyone out of the city buildings, they will set fire and burn the city to the ground. My troops just burn the city, they didn't kill anyone.

If this is true, then the population of your civ would increase by the same amount as the number of citizens living in the razed city; factoring in the inherent pop value of the workers so acquired. Also, your troops killed the defenders of the city, unless it was unguarded; and if bombardment was used, pop may have also been killed that way.

I try for peaceful wins since they are a lot harder than defeating the AI in war, esp. since it is so predictable in its S&T or lack thereof.

I agree the system is set to reward military conquest; unintentionally or intentionally I don't know.

 

[Zouave]

"Razing is not genocide"???

Originally posted by kring


If this is true, then the population of your civ would increase by the same amount as the number of citizens living in the razed city; factoring in the inherent pop value of the workers so acquired. . .

Exactly. Razing is genocide.

What happens to the population? Sid Meier helps them colonize Alpha Centauri??

 

[Damien]

Razing or abandoning cities was very common in Ancient Times.Soldiers used to kill men n enslave women n children.Genocide always existed.thousands were killed when a city was razed.It was very easy to raze cities by setting fire.
Cities used to be destroyed many times by fires.If u re-create the city,with the irrigations around it,it will grow very quickly.Moreover,workers can be used to populate new cities.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

to be realistic: if you decide to raze a city in ancient times, it means sowing the fields with salt, and burning it down. If the next winter wasn't too hash, most would survive - and you do get workers out of it. So, harsh as it is, the game does fit history.