Occupation

[ThinRedLine]

I have been mulling this idea over in my head for a while now, basically it solves the problem of being able to rule the entire globe.

Although the Conquest fans and megalomanics out there will hate the idea, I feel a number of changes should be made to the city occupation game design.

Firstly game would have to increase the affect of a section of the game that is already in place, that of city "ownership". At present if you are under a democratic government and you are attacked your people will be very "gung ho" for a war with the civ that attacked you. However once you have recaptured all the cities you lost from the enemy then start occupying their citys, youre people become quite annoyed. I feel this is a very important part of the game, however IMHO I think that its effect should be longer lasting.

To implement this, firstly, the "founder" of the city (ie the nation who's settler decided to build the city) will always have a claim to that city. Also this will be the overriding claim to the city.

Now, when a war breaks out and that city is taken over by another nation it will be considered occupied territory. There will still be resistors same as before, and once eliminated by occupying forces these resistors will die out, just as they do now. Once resistance in the city is ended it will act like any other city within the nation, except for the "claim" on the city. This can be shown by a "greyed" colour to the nations colour (ie Red for Roman founded cities, but a faded grey for cities occupied by Rome).

Now, at a certain point in the game (either at any players chosing or when the decision becomes available by the research of a technology like "anti-colonialism") the occupying faction will be able to "hand over power" of any occupied nations cities back to its original founders. The benefits of this would be a much increased world oppinion of you (you are now seen as the freedom loving nation in the world) and you can decide the new government of the newly re-founded nation.

Also as an onlooker to all this, and to gain even more credit on the world stage you can choose to fight a "war of freedom". Once you chose to do this you can select a nation that has either been partially taken over or completely obliterated. Once the nation has been decided you are given a list of all the occupied cities of that nation which founded those cities. Then, you begin the war and, once all cities have been freed you must chose a "popular" government such as democracy or republic for the new nation.

From what I can make of the game mechanics this isnt all that hard to achieve, and, for those Conquest victory lovers out there, there could be an option in the map set-up screen like "foundation/occupation turn limit" which would set the amount of time (in turns) that the city remains occupied before it is considered completely assimilated into the attackers nation. This option could be set from "instant" (to provide the same game that exists today) to "permanent" (which would make the city always belong to the founders nation).

I realise this is quite complicated, and would love to hear any peoples views on the subject. But please, no silly remarks that will just ignite a flame war.

 

[ThinRedLine]

Oh and I forgot to mention about current governments:

Just as with war weariness, certain governments will dislike occupation of cities more than others. This would be quite devastating (as Dubya is finding out at the moment in Iraq, despite his good intentions IMHO) for Democracy while Facism would easily allow occupation of cities.

This means that it would be virtually impossible for a democratic state to occupy anything more than a single city (and even then they would be pushing it) while Facism would be one of the only means to occupy a nation. This would also resemble the real-world effects of government types on military policy (ie, almost all democratic states only have a military as a defense force, or to free up occupied cities from a regieme).

Of course I realise that technically Rome, at certain points, was a Republic, and that it managed to occupy most of Europe and North Africa. I have tried to come up with some ideas for this, the two I have come up with are:

1) Civ traits that exist at the moment or additional ones would allow for more occupied cities, (ie a Militaristic nation could occupy more cities than a non militaristic one). This could result in other traits such as Isolationist, Expansionist (which exists already), Agressive etc etc.

2) There could be different "themes" on a certain government type (anyone who has played Master Of Orion 3 will know what i mean). You could have a Republic government with a society based around the military, or a Democracy's such as "Monarchy/Parliament" like that which existed in Enland (and technically still exists) since before the English civil war. On the flipside this would allow a militarised nation with some of the benefits of a democracy (such as reduced corruption) while still having the ability (although limited) to occupy cities.

 

[Mewtarthio]

That's all well and good, but what if you're going to war with the intent to slaughter every man, woman, and child, then grind salt into the earth so that they will never rise again? Even if you eventually had to stop your homicidal rampage, it is very unlikely that you would ever return the city. Now, wars of liberation are a good idea. You could sign a "liberation treaty" with a certain Civ. When said treaty expires, the Civ will come and ask you for their cities back (Obviously, they won't make the request if you're really crushing their foe; they may even extend it!). You could refuse, naturally, but that would kill your rep worse than RoP rape. Ownership would be determined not by who first built the city, but by the percentage of foreign nationals (nobody would claim that Istanbul should really be Constantinople except guys who belong to groups with names like "The Neo-Byzantium Liberation Movement").

 

[ThinRedLine]

C'mon, the idea isnt THAT bad...or is it that its too long? I do waffle a bit to be honest...even if you just skim over it to get an idea, i can clarify anything you didnt read or think is rubbish.

 

[judgement]

Currently when you capture a city, you have the option to either "raze it" or "install a new governor"... what about instead having three options: "raze it", "occupy it", and "claim it as our own"

The second and third choices would result in differences in how the cities behaved, i.e., different levels of resistance, different rates of assimilation, different cultural point accumulation, etc. The details are open to debate of course. The point is, there would then be a new diplomacy option in the trade screen: "return occupied cities", which would hand over all occupied cities back to their rightful owners (which, of course, might not always be who you had conquered the city from). This action would frequently (but not always) be asked for in exchange for peace treaties (i.e., "return our cities and we'll stop our war against you!").

An alternative would be to make every city captured be merely "occupied" as long as the war is still on, and then, when the war ends, you must negotiate (as part of the peace treaty) which cities you'd return to their original owners and which the conquerors would keep.

 

[ThinRedLine]

Thanks for the questions, duely noted, to be honest i posted this idea on here so it could be moulded and shaped by everyone until it became good enough to be implemented into the game.

Anyways, my thoughts on your questions:

I had forgotten about sacking a city (i dont usually do it much in the game). In my opinion it should be restricted to only the most militant Civs and governments. This would stop a democracy govt. taking over a city then sacking it so that they are no longer occupying a city. It should also be MUCH MUCH more devastating (both at home and in foreign opinion of you). And there should be a limit to the size of the city that can be sacked (say beyone pop12 it becomes impossible to completely reduce the city to rubble and kill every last man woman and child). Or at least there should be a restriction like you need two military units to every population point in order to sack a city. At the moment its just too easy to sack a huge city of millions of people (in later game stages).

Also, you wouldnt HAVE to return the city, as it would act just as a normal city would. But once "anti-colonialism" is researched (ie, around about when the UN building is built) you begin to get adverse affects from occupied cities in terms of foriegn relations (particularly from democracies). This would be cumulative for each city is occupied. This would also represent how modern empires (ie British, French, Duch) have not "collapsed" but simply handed power back to the people they once occupied.

Additionally, Constantinople was named as such because it was occupied by the Romans, they didnt themselves found the city, it was named Constantinople after the roman emporer Constantine, another example of how, over time, the occupation of cities has, eventually, been handed back to the people.

And on the subject of foreign nationals, it should be a much more deliberate attempt to assimilate the city into the nation, this should only be done by a new unit, the "migrant" which can be build in a nations founded cities and can be sent to an occupied city to add a new population point that is say "Roman". This would be almost exactly the same as worker/settler units, except a migrant cannot do anything except "join a city".

 

[ThinRedLine]

Currently when you capture a city, you have the option to either "raze it" or "install a new governor"... what about instead having three options: "raze it", "occupy it", and "claim it as our own"

The second and third choices would result in differences in how the cities behaved, i.e., different levels of resistance, different rates of assimilation, different cultural point accumulation, etc. The details are open to debate of course. The point is, there would then be a new diplomacy option in the trade screen: "return occupied cities", which would hand over all occupied cities back to their rightful owners (which, of course, might not always be who you had conquered the city from). This action would frequently (but not always) be asked for in exchange for peace treaties (i.e., "return our cities and we'll stop our war against you!").

An alternative would be to make every city captured be merely "occupied" as long as the war is still on, and then, when the war ends, you must negotiate (as part of the peace treaty) which cities you'd return to their original owners and which the conquerors would keep.

This was my first idea (the one in my head) but then I thought (IMHO) that it wasnt permanent enough, for me anyways. But yeah your concept of three options definitely a good idea for doing a reigeme change (like the one thats going on in Iraq). This option would be necessary as Iraq wasnt technically occupied by anyone (so it would be impossible to my idea to apply). However a democratic nation could deem it necessary to give power back to the people by invading a country but not taking it over (by selecting "occupy" on every city). Once every "Iraq" city was captured you could then have a new option to "give back power" and install a government of your chosing.

This would be beneficial as you would gain certain "priveleges" such as trade negociation *cough* oil *cough*. This could also be done by other government states such as communism (they do the same and install a communist state). This could result in two large nations, one a democracy, the other a communist state, continually handing power back to recently occupied nations. A kind of cold war as the two nations wouldnt be at war with each other, but would be trying to get as many nations on their side as possible to gain as much "priveleges".

Also for democratic states to be able to do this there would need to be a fourth option such as "prepare for handover" when capturing a city. This would cause some resistance but once eliminated you would not gain anything from the city (like a city under anarchy). That way, a democracy wouldnt gain anything from occupying a nation but would not recieve any adverse affects back home for occupying that city.

 

[Stid]

some people i real life prefered being conquered to living under the current ruling and they werent liberated.Many eastern european such as the ukraine were conquered (not liberated) by the USSR and the ukrainien citizens were happy to be part of a strong empire.therefore in ur approach citizen unrest levels should be due to the current goverment of their original civ and the civ's charecterisitics eg. religious. some of these countries however were happy at first beliving things would change for the better in their country and infact got worse.i think it was estonia or countries around that region.anyway maybe this could be implimented into civ4 maybe not

 

[ThinRedLine]

some people i real life prefered being conquered to living under the current ruling and they werent liberated.Many eastern european such as the ukraine were conquered (not liberated) by the USSR and the ukrainien citizens were happy to be part of a strong empire.therefore in ur approach citizen unrest levels should be due to the current goverment of their original civ and the civ's charecterisitics eg. religious. some of these countries however were happy at first beliving things would change for the better in their country and infact got worse.i think it was estonia or countries around that region.anyway maybe this could be implimented into civ4 maybe not

Sorry I havnt been able to reply in a while, iv been busy since thursday. Anyways this affect could be taken into account with my governments idea, in which governments such as Facism and maybe Communism are able to occupy more cities without suffering (or at least suffering less effects) from occupied territories.

 

[Exel]

An alternative would be to make every city captured be merely "occupied" as long as the war is still on, and then, when the war ends, you must negotiate (as part of the peace treaty) which cities you'd return to their original owners and which the conquerors would keep.

Me likes.

 

[ThinRedLine]

Ok, so to consolidate so far:

1) Once a city is founded by a nation, that nation will have a claim on that city, even when attacked and occupied by enemy forces.

2) Once occupied, a city will be under the oppressors control just like a regular city. An option is selected at the beginning of the game in the setup screen to say how long the city will remain occupied before it becomes assimilated into the attackers nation. This can be anything from "never" to "instant" and anything in between.

3) While occupied, the city (as stated earlier) is effectively controlled by the oppressor, food is still gathered and commerce is given to the treasury. However, while the city is occupied it is still "claimed" by the original nation that founded the city (even if that nation has been destroyed). For each city that is "occupied", that oppressing nations suffers from a number of negative affects, these being:

a) The oppressing nation suffers a little unhappiness and corruption for each city occupied. This varies from limited effects with govts such as Facism and Communism to catastrophic with govts such as Democracy and Republic. This is also nationwide, not just in occupied territories, and is still taken into account when the war is over and/or the enemy destroyed.

b) The oppressing nation is seen as just that, and consequently suffers from harsh detrimental effects in the world stage. Particularly from the "freedom loving" nations under Democracy and Republic.

4) While occupied, a handover of power may take place. This can either be by the oppressing nation (in order to recieve a large boost in world opinion of you) or by an outside force (to recieve the same benefits).

5) As an oppressor to handover power, you simply press a button which displays a screen of all current occupied cities, organised by nation. By selecting a particular nation you can then chose a new government for the renewed state (if there is not any cities still owned by that nation left).

6) As an outside force to handover power, you must first state what you wish to achieve in the war to your public. To do this you can press another button on the military advisors screen which shows all cities currently under occupation, again organised by nation. Lets say the romans have been wiped off hte map by the pesky russains. You simply select "Rome-nation" from the menu. At this point you are advised that this will cause you to declare war on the russains, you select "okay, lets do this thing", at which point you are taken to the war room. From here you can rally allies to your cause either in the form of military or trade alliances.

7) You then move in and take over each city just as you would with any other war, except this time the recaptured cities are completely neutral until the war is over. The war is declared over once all cities have been recaptured and the oppressors have been forced to the negotiations table. At this point you select which cities now come under various nations control, either yours, theirs, or the renewed nation. Once this has been done the handover is official and you select the government for the "new" nation. This then transfers all neutral cities and negotiated cities to the new nation as well as any other cities that have been negocitied to third parties.

8) The liberator now recieves a large boost in world opinion and has favourable ties with the new nation.

9) Other factors may also affect the entire process. Particularly government types and civ traits. These work as follows:

Democracy - Suffers greatly from even occupying one city, however recieves the most benefit from liberation wars. Detests other nations occuping large territories.

Republic - Recievies slightly less benefits from wars of liberation, however may occupy a few cities. Looks unfavourably on nations that occupy other peoples.

Feudalism - Allows limited occupation of a number of cities. Neutral towards those who occupy other lands.

Monarchy - Allows greater occupation of cities although corruption due to larger territories is suffered more than most govts.

Facism - The conquerers government of choice, allows maximum occupation of cities, very limited affects due to occupation itself. However a number of factors also affect this government: No culture or unit supports are counted towards the nation from occupied cities due to the belief in the superiority of their nation.

Communism - Similar to Facism in occupation limits, although culture and unit support is counted towards the nations. However commerce is severly reduced (causing less scienece output) and curruption is rampant in occupied territories.

Other factors may include new techs such as Anti-Colonialism, and civ traits such as Oppressive and Militaristic.

Anyways that was supposed to consolidate ideas discussed so far, although iv waffled, yet again. Anyways its there for anyone to read. Any comments on variations/new ideas on this would be appreciated.

 

[Exel]

A good way to determine the lenght occupation period before the city becomes assimilated could be the population. Say Germany occupies a French city. Now the city is regarded as occupied as long as the French are a majority in the city, but when the Germans outnumber the French, the city is considered assimilated. France would still have a claim to the city, but it would not be recognized by other civs. Ie. the French population would support a war to liberate the city even after a long period of time, but other civs would simply see it as an offensive war of conquest. Also, after the occupation period the Germans would consider the city as their own and would be much less willing to negotiate about it than during the occupation. After assimilating the city Germany would also get a claim to the city in case France ever takes it back.