Liberation

[Goonie]

This has always bothered me since Civ 2 in the WWII scenario. The Editor should allow for certain cities to be liberated and not captured that way once you capture Paris, it would go to the Free French, instead of the British.

 

[searcheagle]

No. The option to capture cities must exist for EVERY city. There should, however, be incentives to liberate cities.

 

[Haradrim]

Only liberate if the majority population is an ally's city. Your capturing unit would stay in the city for the remainder of the turn, where it would be fully healed (maybe).

If the city has a majority of enemy nationals, but a few ally's, then capture, but soured reputation if not given back when allied majority is assimilated(with accelerated assimilation).

 

[dh_epic]

I don't think you should be forced to give back a city.

Also, I don't think it's as simple as calculating nationals and attributing alliances. This isn't a bad idea, but I'd rather see the user given a choice than to automatically calculate what would be more profitable.

I've suggested, in the past, a "Historical Victory". I use the word "Historical" because the idea is that it makes for more interesting history books. "Then we conquered France" doesn't sound as good as "Then we liberated France" and "Then we were liberated by the British!" But really, all I'm talking about is getting points for altruism.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=92201&page=1

Really, the idea is that you get points for doing all kinds of interesting things that aren't necessarily profitable. One of these things could be "liberating" a country and giving it back to its people. If you act as the world's liberator, you could end up the winner of the game without having particularly huge borders or reknown culture!

 

[sir_schwick]

1) You shoudl be able to share spaces with allies.
2) Hopefully cooperative wars involve and idea of a coalition. Coalition partners agree that land goes back to the partners who owned it first. Captured territory will be split up later on.

 

[Stid]

there should be more consequences for losing a war ie signing a peache treaty not complete destruction. a good example would be to give back all taken territories and liberation should always be an option not just a turn on/off or scenario thing.

 

[kokoras]

I agree with Goonie,there sould be such an option,how exactly i don't know,maybe when you make an alliance against a third civ the cities that you take from him and previusly belonged to your ally sould return when the war is over to the original Civ.
However i think that this kind of option must be supported by a great AI on Diplomacy matters.I mean ending a war with such terms that not only have to do with your Civ but also with your allies.A combination of things...am i asking too much???...

 

[10lire]

I like this idea, but what do you think about making the same with the former enemy cities? I explain me better: I don't like so much conquer ALL the enemy cities and expand my territory to be a huge empire. I prefer cultural and militar supremacy instead political. When a war ends, maybe the cities i conquered to return to enemy (obviously if I want) in change of:
- lots of money AND/OR
- disarming (destruction of a number of his units and impossibility to build others for a number of turns) AND/OR
- overthrown his government forcing the new government to be polite toward me AND/OR
- split his empire/nation in two or more (does someone among you remeber civ1 ?)
This last option (very cool for me!!) opens some problems and opportunities, I know, and, perhaps, it needs a new thread!!

 

[dh_epic]

I think you're onto something, 10lire. Not so much in terms of "liberation" but in terms of "surrender". It offers a real incentive to not just wipe someone out. A lot of times in history people have had their capitals sacked or their armies surrender, but without getting wiped off the face of the earth.

I'm particularly thinking about lesser Civs sacking Rome in the 6th century for lots of cash.
Or Germany getting conquered, and then split into East and West Germany.
Or Japan getting knocked around, only to have strong policies against an international attack force (only a National Guard).

I guess some of these would make more sense in the modern age than in the classical age.

 

[Dwarven Zerker]

I think you're onto something, 10lire. Not so much in terms of "liberation" but in terms of "surrender". It offers a real incentive to not just wipe someone out. A lot of times in history people have had their capitals sacked or their armies surrender, but without getting wiped off the face of the earth.

I'm particularly thinking about lesser Civs sacking Rome in the 6th century for lots of cash.
Or Germany getting conquered, and then split into East and West Germany.
Or Japan getting knocked around, only to have strong policies against an international attack force (only a National Guard).

I guess some of these would make more sense in the modern age than in the classical age.

I'd like to see something like this. What about having options when you "conquer" a city...

1) Raze it
2) Keep it for yourself
3) Gift it to a civ of your choice
4) Liberate it (give it to the civ that founded the city)

Granted there's a mechanic for options 1-3. Option 4 allows the game to "resurrect" dead civs. Anyone remember Israel in 1948? The world basically gave a small portion of land to Israel even though they had been homeless for nearly 2 millenia!

 

[dh_epic]

I think another important aspect is LOOTING it:

Taking apart the cathedrals, sucking up resources, robbing the individual citizens, and grabbing the silverware from the palaces.

As opposed to taking what's in the bank vaults and trying to sway the citizens to your side. Maybe you don't WANT more citizens.

I also think liberation could be to create a new niche spinoff civilization. A new Civ is born with its own issues and what not. Not just an old Civ, but a new breakaway republic.

 

[Dwarven Zerker]

I think another important aspect is LOOTING it:

Taking apart the cathedrals, sucking up resources, robbing the individual citizens, and grabbing the silverware from the palaces.

As opposed to taking what's in the bank vaults and trying to sway the citizens to your side. Maybe you don't WANT more citizens.

Actually there's a way you can currently do that. You automatically take what's in the "bank vault" and gain possession of the city. That "vault" could be considered the treasures of the city (silverware, citizens wallets, etc...) or you can take the city, sell of any improvements in the city and then abandon it.

I also think liberation could be to create a new niche spinoff civilization. A new Civ is born with its own issues and what not. Not just an old Civ, but a new breakaway republic.

I thought that could be included in the "gift to another civ" option.

 

[Alafin]

Wow! so many possibilities that I had never thought about!

The inability to do anything other than outright capture of another city in CivII(the only civ I play for now) has been frustrating. I probably play a much more peace-loving way than most and there have been times where one of the enemy civs captures the city of an ally. The AI being what it is, my ally isn't able to recapture it easily, but I am. Having the option to liberate the city on behalf of my ally is an option I would like to have.

I also like the idea of pillaging, which should only be doable under some forms of government and/or in the earlier stages of the game. During the modern era, pillaging is unacceptable, but in the bronze age might makes right.

A list of options when conquering a city would be a great addition to the game. It would also be good to be able to pass through an allied player's cities or post some troops to help defend your ally's cities.

Alafin Bahahotep

 

[sir_schwick]

Yes, you can very indirectly pillage, but the option should already exist. The Vikings made a considerable fortune during britain's Dark Ages by raiding Catholic factions.

 

[dh_epic]

I want to be a civilization of maurauders, dammit! Take, take, take, and let them pick up the pieces. ... maybe get a little bit of my ethnicity in there. ... what?

 

[sir_schwick]

"I used to be a farmer, and I made a living fine,

I had a little stretch of land along the city line

But time went by and though I tried, the money wasn't there

And bankers came and took my land and told me "fair is fair"

I looked for every kind of job, the answer always no

"Hire you now?" they'd always laugh, "we just let twenty go!"

The government, the promised me a measly little sum

But I've got too much pride to end up just another bum.

Then I thought, who gives a damn if all the jobs are gone?

I'm gonna be a PIRATE on the river Saskatchewan!!!

Cause it's a heave-ho, hi-ho, comin' down the plains

Stealin' wheat and barley and all the other grains

It's a ho-hey, hi-hey farmers bar yer doors

When ya see the Jolly Roger on Regina's mighty shores "

-The Arrogant Worms

 

[10lire]

I guess some of these would make more sense in the modern age than in the classical age.

I also like the idea of pillaging, which should only be doable under some forms of government and/or in the earlier stages of the game. During the modern era, pillaging is unacceptable, but in the bronze age might makes right.

I agree with you; the "options" when you conquer a city have to change depending the "tecnologies" you have discovered.
In the ancient and middle ages is more historically correct to select only 2 or 3 possibilities:
- Conquer the city to create an huge empire (think about Persian, Macedonian, Roman, Arab, Mongol..)
- Sack/Pillage the city.
- Bring back the city to the enemy overthrow this government and disarming it (think about Austria-Hungary after WWI or Germany after WWII).

Some "modern" option (gift indipendence to the city creating a NEW Civ, split the enemy empire refounding ancient dead civs conquered by your enemy and/or creating new ones etc.) can be available after, I guess, Nationalism.

The possibilities are infinite! I think about the concept of "subcivilizations" (like Etruscans, Padanians, Sardinians for Italy/Romans or Catalonians for Spain or Circassians, Ukrainians for Russia or Sri Lanka for India). These subs' can rise to the 'civ' status when you give indipendence to a conquered city..

The problem is to make all of these options strategically useful.. why give indipendence to a city after a long and hard war to conquer it?

 

[sir_schwick]

One reason could be operational and logistical constraints with trying to maintain and occupation force of non-culturally linked cities. Another could be the built in contacts and intelligence you recieve from having helped establish the current regime. Also, these new independents would likley be good allies or at least good enemies of their former masters.

 

[dh_epic]

Sir Schwick is right, sometimes there's a breaking point where your empire is unstable enough already, and to add another huge province or region would only tear it apart even more. So you pick stability over expansion, but try to profit from sacking the nearby enemy capital repeatedly. And sacking their capital could slow them down -- so it still benefits you from a competition standpoint.

But I think its effects become more interesting only if you introduce new concepts.

Economic interdependency: international trade IS the foundation of modern wealth. If America isolated itself, it would seriously go to ****. But in Civ, it could isolate itself and STILL be the richest. Civ 4 would need to make international trade give you an extra special benefit -- one that you'd be foolish to go without. This way, having an independant friend across the world would really help you.

Growing pains: anyone who's ever studied history will tell you -- there is such thing as bad growth. If you grow too fast without keeping the masses in check, you run the risk of seeing your nation fall apart. For this reason, Civ 4 would need to have increased dissent in empires that grow, with more subtle and lasting effects than "resistors" and "foreign nationals".

This would encourage some people to say "you know what, I don't need to start ANOTHER occupation, I think I'll just liberate them and let a new AI Civ figure out how to handle things".

Rewards for Altruism: I've sometimes called this "Historic Victory", because the history books around the world in many languages remember you as glorious and, well, civilized. Imagine you needed 100 of these points to win. To liberate another city and give it to a new/old AI Civ would gain you significant points, particularly if they managed to survive without being occupied for a long time. 5 points for liberation, with 25 points if you can really get them on their feet and turning out okay.

For example, Churchill would get 30 points, whereas George W. Bush would get 5 points twice. All of the sudden you'd get people tripping all over themselves to "bring justice to the world" -- which isn't all that unlike how the world is now.

International Culture: I still think it's pretty silly that in Civ 3 you can have a glorious culture when every opposing nation HATES you and refuses to trade or interact with you. People can be tense and still be in awe of your culture, but they need to have their borders open to your ideas, your television programs, your musicians and philosophers, your missionaries, your clothes and wines and silks. In other words, you would actually start measuring the amount of culture that you managed to transmit *outside* your borders, and give you an extra bonus for that beyond what you'd get for culture *within* your borders.

Think of it as a "glass" which might be 90% full with your own culture, but contains 9 drops of Greek culture from the missionaries and philosophers they send your way, and 1 drop of Indian culture from the silks you import from them. This would be very good for Greece and India, with extra special benefit to their cultural victory. In this way, there would be a lot of benefit to liberating another Civ, since they'd immediately have a whole ton of YOUR culture within THEIR borders -- language, customs, values, symbols, ideas.

Nationalism: As much as people can be irritated when their leaders take it upon themselves to be the world's keeper, when things finally go well and are over, people are proud. The way Americans talk about having helped France is something that's a part of their National identity -- that we can fight for freedom, and we HAVE faught for freedom, and that justice is on our side. This kind of national pride manifests itself as actually increasing stability within your borders -- since it helps for forge a national identity.

Suddenly people from Mobile, Alabama feel an intimate connection with the people from Sacramento, California, and the people from Flint, Michigan. You feel like a Nation, because you all have a common thread, a common value you all share: you will stand up for what's right. This feeling in the people is worth its weight in gold. (In fact, next time you go to war, people will remember this reputation for justice, that is if you don't squander it and mislead.)

 

[sir_schwick]

Trade did virtually in Civ 3, since maintainign trade was not as important as tech trading.

Altruism does not exist in international politics. If America really was the perfect "defender of justice" then they would have stepped in when Hitler invaded Poland, the first signs of the Rwandan genocide, earlier in Bosnia, and would be involved in the Sudan. Also, the US woudl not have supported terrible despots like Peron, Diem, Noriega, Hussein, and our favorite man, Osama Bin Laden, for political gain on 'moral grounds'. Interference is usually for some kind of gain and interferring with that interferrence is to prevent a loss(France objecting to Iraqi Freedom; they probably thought Saddam was a dirt-bag as well, but it helped French people more then if they tried to replace him).

On culture, the current model is stupid and needs major improvement, but that is for other threads.

Nationalism is about great feats of national identity. Liberation could be among them, but any including fending off former masters or a great threat. Thinking on this should be done.

Mercantilism was a much more profitable system then controlling territory. Creating economic dependance for your nation will save you money because you will not have to pay maintenance, just initial capital. The same goes for creating militarily dependant states.