Genocide... sort of

[lissenber]

Do i get a rep hit for taking over an entire civilization? I`m not razing anything here, just annexing all of their cities. However if i take their final city, do i get a rep hit from the other AI`s?

 

[Nunya]

You get bad rep already for capturing cities (annex, puppet, or raze - it doesn't matter), but I'm not sure if you get extra bad rep for finishing them off.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Annexation is now genocide?

 

[KingMackem]

On a similar note, do you get negative rep for using nukes? Nuked the shi-ite out of my neighbour last night but didn't notice anything out of the ordinary. In previous civs everyone instantly hated you if you used nukes...

 

[lissenber]

Annexation is now genocide?

...sort of. Not really. Point is there is a civilization and i`m removing them from the game.

 

[Slowpoke]

It seems you get a bad rep just for declaring war. I declared war against japan, made two puppet cities, and I declared war against the iroquio when I found a large mass of them coming towards one of my cities. Now two civs declared war on me for being a warmonger :/

 

[Marshall Thomas]

Civs that have social policies from the freedom tree shouldn't be able to raze cities.

It's a bit odd that the autocracy tree has a social policy (police state) which actually makes razing a city less useful, because police state gives a bonus to occupation happiness. This isn't suppose to reflect real "happiness"; rather it's suppose to reflect the captured population being controlled by a state police force (like the Gestopo or SS).

So the police state country has less reason to raze, which is the opposite of what happened historically.

 

[H4run]

Civs that have social policies from the freedom tree shouldn't be able to raze cities.

It's a bit odd that the autocracy tree has a social policy (police state) which actually makes razing a city less useful, because police state gives a bonus to occupation happiness. This isn't suppose to reflect real "happiness"; rather it's suppose to reflect the captured population being controlled by a state police force (like the Gestopo or SS).

So the police state country has less reason to raze, which is the opposite of what happened historically.

Hitler not razing any city, but he do genocide, not base on regional population but more into specific racial.

am i wrong?

 

[Marshall Thomas]

Hitler not razing any city, but he do genocide, not base on regional population but more into specific racial.

am i wrong?

I think that razing can sometimes be thought of as an abstraction for genocide. Especially when cities are razed in the Industrial Era, and not in ancient times. Though many historians believe that Julius Ceasar's conquest of Gaul resulted in gencide; so it did exist in the ancient world.

Even though the nazi's genicide was mostly carried out in camps away from the large cities, for CiV purposes this is abstracted by city razing; which happens right after the city falls. The end result (the murder of civilians), whether it happens right after the city is taken or shortly after, is the same. And if a lot of razing is done to one CiV, I guess it could be considered a genocide.

For CiV purposes, many (if not most) of the cities the Germans took on The Eastern front were "razed." And if the Germans had won, these places would have been re-settled and populated with German people. The war in The East was a "different kind of war."

I remember that Civ 2 had some abstraction for fascism's murder or enslavement of civilians. Something that applied to having that type of government. I wish I could remember what it was...