" If you want peace get ready for war "

" If you want peace get ready for war ". This was said by Mussolini and that stament stands true to Civilization 3.

The fast way to get yourself involved in a war with neighbors is by having a small and outdated army.

You can postpone war, never avoid it, by accepting their humiliating demands , sometimes they ask you for newly acquired advances.
So never get behind in the arms race, always be a belligerent nation.

That is the first of 2 things that Firaxis taught us with this game.
The second disturbing thing that Firaxis taught us was about the Ethnic Cleansing .
Ethinic Cleansing that is the first thing you should do when you conquer a city size 12 or above ( and of course install a gorvernor). If you really want to keep this city and prevent the city to flip back to its original Civ. you are going to have to starve this city down to a size 5 or even lower. By starving it down you will allow the city to breed or to produce citizens of your own civilization or of your own ethnic group.
So don't have mercy over foreigners, because they are a threat to the National Security of your Civilization, you should get rid off them as soon as you get the city and never trust them to live in your city as they are just wating the right moment to flip back.
That is the second terrible message that Firaxis taught us.

Actually , I have reached the conclusion that this game should be banned

 

Brilliant.

Indeed so. Firaxis HAS taught us that Ethnic Cleanising is the way to control territory. Razing cities is not only dumb and illogical it is evil. Being able to make a city (or metropolis) vanish into thin air, while processing all the corpses, is ludicrous. This is the results of the idiocy of Culture Flipping.

 

Oh come on: The game be banned? There are so many games out with suggestive themes. There's GTA 3. You can run over innocent civilians and do alot of inappropriate stuff.

Don't play the game if you think its that bad. What else should Firaxis do? Its a game.

I would worry about what Firaxis is teaching us, if you're some unstable pyscho.

Don't play the game if its so evil.

 

Actually, Civ never intended that. It is the PLAYER that is making the choice to ethnically cleanse. I never do. I just assimilaite them as part of my culture...

 

Yeah, that's true.

I always buy temple and cathedral to make them content,
instead of killing them.
(of cource you have to force some entertainers firstly to allow a stable city for hurrying production)

Those foreigners never make problems in my city.
I guess I am a good king.

Although I am not sure whether I will be more powerful if I had been evil.

BTW, does razing cities have any side effects? (like bad relation with the one been razed or other civs)

 

I wasn't serious about banning the game, that was just to take the thing to a ridiculous extreme.

Ethnic Cleansing is also advisable because if you ever go to war with that Civilization again all your citizens ( foreigners ) from that Civilization will go unhappy and that will cause the city that they live in to revolt.

Building culture in a recently conquered city is not a easy thing to do, because first you will have to deal with the resistors and that takes turns specially in a large city, then you will need to have a cash reserve , or use those foreigners to rush buy the builidings for culture. And even that is not flaw proof, your type of goverment also affects the flip back.
The only way to eliminate the threat of a city to flip back to its original Civ. is by making the foreigners a minority within your city. The fast way to achieve that is by starving the population.
Firaxis message is very clear: Having foreigners in your cities is bad deal, will only cause you trouble and bring you grief, because so many are the problems that they can cause.

 

I tend to raze all cities larger than size 10. Not that its much better than ethnic cleansing.

 

Course a more humane fashion (which takes longer) is to build workers out of a pure captured city rife with your opponents civilians, then sell the workers back to the nation you took them from (or not).

 

Ethnic Cleansing is for barbarian people with no culture. That is what I learn.

And it is true that to avoid being bully, you need to be strong. Not just nice!

 

Wow! This is cool. I never thought of this.

I guess the reason that foreigners in my city never flip back is that I seldom declare war on a race twice. <I beat them to half-death at my first attack, so they will no longer be a problem >

 

LOL. I'm hoping this guy is joking. But in case he's not.

Civ3 should be banned because it accurately portrays/teaches the dark side of our progress through the ages? Well, guess what. . . so does the study of HISTORY.

So. . . ban history?

H

P.S. I see above that he was indeed joking. But still, I'm sure I could find a few people at work here (on a University campus) who would gladly ban this game because it "teaches hate".

 

marshal zhukov, I know this has nothing to do with this post but, you are the person i have chosen for this question I have.

How did you change your status to "Supreme Soviet Commander"?
Because I want to put something other than "Cheiftain" on mine.

NEVERMIND I FIGURED IT OUT!!! THX ANYWAY

You can delete this post if you can because I cannot

 

THAT IS INHUMANE.
That would be just as inhumane. Because you are forcing people to move away from the land that they grew up in, not only that, you would still be dislodging people based on their nationality and ethnic group.

There is a person that did what you are suggesting, and he was STALIN, the monster.

 

What the heck!!! These people are not real!!! You people take this game too seriously (no offence). Whoa. I need a break from this computer.

 

i just turn every non-resisting citizen into entertainers. The city starves down about 50%, the resisters usually are the first to go. The rest become happy and die willingly. Once the resistance is quelled, I rush a temple and go back to normal production. The city quickly replenishes population with my own people.

Is it really any different than bombarding units in a city? No different than our carpet bombing of Dresden in WWII. You do that and civilians usually die in the process.

Am I a monster? Perhaps. But those are zeroes and ones, not people. This is a game, not real life. That is the difference.

 

The most irrating thing about have foreigns civilians in a captured city that produce your own civilians when the city growth. Is like having chineses get french babies

I always try to concerve the original foreign population but it impossible to allow this except by not make those cities growth.

Maybe the thing I hate the most about captured cities but yes it only a game... but common

Indian population give english babies.....let me laugh

 

Have you read about the great immigrations to america after the civil war? Many Dutch, Polish, Greek, etc people moved to the United States. The original immigrants retained their foriegn culture, while their children thought of themselves as americans. They often did not even learn the languages of their home country.

Think this is not true? My parents are indian immigrants who moved to Canada. I was born in Canada and proudly called myself Canadian, not Indian. Heck, I don't even know Hindi or Punjabi. I'm not even Hindu.


EDIT: Lol, quoted wrong post.

 

Sorry but I don't talk about immigration here. Example, when England take India has a colony the population never produce little england babies but native indians babies with their own culture. The difference is immigration not the same thing then conquest a country with foreing civilians. Two different things here


Edit: LOL, I have it all right

 

What about influx of your own population into the city? Remember these wars drag on for many many more years. Ever finish a war in 5 years in Civ? No.

The conquored cities are occupied for usually three generations before the end of a conflict. New citizens would be educated in your schools, and experience your infrastructure and government. Remember,"Build the Cathedral in all our cities and watch the people flock to us."

I'll tell you this, if you had to have the indigenous population procreate its own for all those years, subject to their own attitudes and higher resistance, it would make it all the more likely you'd simply raze the city rather than add it to your empire.

 

Yes but foreing civilians need to have their racial origin. If I take China I want see cities with chineses not with frenchs (I always play has the french). Cities can flock to France but not change ethnical origins. That the point that make me hate how foreigns cities work in civ3.

Why not changing completely the concept of colonies. Why not when we take all cities of a civ simply install a new leader that will control the new territory has a colony for your main country.
Example: if in the past England taked the entire world (not very possible) , she will have colonies not territories being part of England herself... ... ...

What the subject of the thread already?