Occupation

[bg2soatob]

I thought of occupation when thinking of the historical Roman system, whereby they would make provinces under them that had limited autonomy but were nonetheless part of Rome. Translating this into civ, I realized that conquered cities were too quick to give up their nationality. I believe that a conquered city that was originally that of another civ never truly becomes part of your civ. The workers are always of the old civ's (as in half efficiency), and new populations are always of the old nationality. Additionally, I believe that you should only get part of their resources, translated as an extremely high level of corruption.
This could be fixed in one way: by moving a settler of your civ's nationality into the city. From then on, new people are of your nationality, etc. This idea also makes historic and realistic sense.

Note that the specifics are not that good, and could very well be quite jumbled. But the basic concept I believe is interesting.

 

[Nobody]

sometimes in civ 3 after a particulary horriable war, i will force them to sign a Right of Passage with me and i will swam them with tons of military,

 

[bg2soatob]

Yes, but they're not paying tribute. They're independant.

 

[Hyronymus]

Then force them to a Right of Passage and a tribute of xx gold per turn. The tribute per turn is something to weak in Civ3. It's always an option when negotiating but you hardly ever succeed in making them pay.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think what you are looking for is the ability to create a Vassal/Protectorate. They still retain their identity, but you control their domestic and foreign policies-especially their foreign policies (who they ally or war with, who they can trade with). You also have a 'permanent' RoP agreement with them, and can seek cash from them on a regular basis-and can garrison troops in their cities.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Hyronymus]

Yes, that's the proper term . It's definetly interesting and isn't it always good to have some spare money? If you could trade luxuries too it would be even better.

 

[mastertyguy]

I agree. In civ3, there is only unofficial to get some kind of weak occupation. Winning battles in open ground should also give more than just kill the other unit. Maybe, if you can claim single tiles, you get control of these tiles, or the ennemy "fears" you. It could reduce their strenght, or increase your power. Battle in cities are supposed to be really difficult to win.

 

[DoTheMath]

Then force them to a Right of Passage and a tribute of xx gold per turn. The tribute per turn is something to weak in Civ3. It's always an option when negotiating but you hardly ever succeed in making them pay.

I wish that was a more viable strategy in civ3. I excitedly read about a "vassal strategy", but found it of very limited use.

Occupied cities should not be as productive, this would balance the game by weakening a war straedgy.

 

[ph_173]

I think Civs should really be allowed to destroy eachother, but instead of taking their land, they demand tribute, take slaves, tahe resources, or set up sweat shops (in the modern era). These would not only gain gold (which is useless except for support and hurrying/upgrading) but also make citizens in your country happy (cheap gas).