[R&F] The Darker Side of Warfare

[OldCivDog]

I was thinking about aspects of warfare and how they relate to Civ, and realized that two items that have been used during warfare throughout history are sorely missing from the game. Specifically, there are currently no provisions for chemical or biological warfare in Civ. Probably a very dark topic, but if the game includes nuclear weapons, then these two aspects of warfare should probably be addressed as well.

1) Chemical Warfare Units - Chem warfare units would stack with regular military units and air units. The first time a civilization has chem warfare used against it, that unit being attacked suffers a 50% reduction in combat strength. On subsequent uses, the target only suffers between a 0 - 20% reduction in strength, which reflects better training, improved tactical doctrine, etc. to combat the effects of chemical warfare.

2) Bio warfare - would work in a similar manner, except the target would be civilian population of cities.

Naturally, the use of either of these units would incur major warmongering penalties, and varying diplomatic penalties (its quite possible that warlike civs might be OK with you gassing the enemy - raising your reputation in their eyes, while pacifist civs would definitely be opposed to you)

Thoughts, suggestions, improvements?

 

[Arms Longfellow]

They had this feature in Alpha Centauri. You could equip your units with nerve gas pods to deal extra damage at the cost of committing a U.N. Charter "atrocity". There were other atrocities too like nerve stapling (stops your citizens from rioting) and planet busters (nukes). These were great features for adding diplomatic complexity to the game.

 

[Greywulf]

After seeing real life footage of such things, the idea makes me feel sick (these weapons are really horrible), and so I'm not sure about adding them into the game. The fact is however that this is part of history, and also part of the contemporary world, so deliberately not including this sort of thing would not be honest. With great power comes the ability to commit great atrocities...That being said, it could also up the game's rating, which the devs may not want to do, as that can effect sales. If they do add this then there should be negative diplomatic/social effects for using such weapons. Perhaps they could add the equivalent of the Geneva Convention at some point, roughly around the time that such weapons become available, and that would introduce negative effects for them, although even before that you might get some negative effects anyway.

 

[OldCivDog]

After seeing real life footage of such things, the idea makes me feel sick (these weapons are really horrible), and so I'm not sure about adding them into the game. The fact is however that this is part of history, and also part of the contemporary world, so deliberately not including this sort of thing would not be honest. With great power comes the ability to commit great atrocities...That being said, it could also up the game's rating, which the devs may not want to do, as that can effect sales. If they do add this then there should be negative diplomatic/social effects for using such weapons. Perhaps they could add the equivalent of the Geneva Convention at some point, roughly around the time that such weapons become available, and that would introduce negative effects for them, although even before that you might get some negative effects anyway.

Yes, absolutely agree that these weapons are extremely gruesome, which is why I was trying to abstract the use to a pair of optional units that incur exceptional diplomatic and reputation penalties if used. Certainly did not want to add painfully detailed effects of chem and bio (Yep, I've seen them used too - not pleasant), but rather a representation in game to allow for a wider range of military options without affecting the game rating. Just food for thought

 

[Greywulf]

Yes, absolutely agree that these weapons are extremely gruesome, which is why I was trying to abstract the use to a pair of optional units that incur exceptional diplomatic and reputation penalties if used. Certainly did not want to add painfully detailed effects of chem and bio (Yep, I've seen them used too - not pleasant), but rather a representation in game to allow for a wider range of military options without affecting the game rating. Just food for thought

However we feel about it, it is something to be discussed, being that it is entirely relevant to the theme of the game, since it is as a significant feature of modern human history. We cannot, and really should not forget the darker side of our history, so inevitably this topic was going to appear, leading to some rather philosophical debates. For example, by adding such features and not being able to see the full realities of the effects of such weapons, are we not forgetting the atrocities of history, and developing a light hearted view of such things? And isn't this heading down a rather sadistic path for a game that is meant to entertain us? Granted, we already have something like this in the game (i.e. nuclear weapons), and you never get to see the full realities of what it would actually be like to drop a nuke on a city of millions of people...that would rather spoil the game for most of us, and the rating would hit the roof. Perhaps there is a balanced view of all of this, but I'm not sure how one could implement this in a way that would make everybody happy. I think this is always going to be controversial.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

To step back a bit from the specifics of the Original Post, there are two aspects of Conflict that are not well-covered in the game:
1. Atrocities
2. Generally Understood International Rules or Conventions

The first is frequently defined by the second, and both long predate the advent of 20th century WMDs like chemical or bio-weapons (note that both were used much, much earlier, as in poisoning wells, sending diseased bodies into towns, etc).

Right now, the game will give Warmongering Penalties for taking and razing cities, but it doesn't matter much how you take them, or what kinds of battles and sieges you fight. Historically, it mattered a LOT, and in fact, 'Warmongering' penalties almost never attached unless the subject violated the 'Laws of War' as they were understood at the time.

International Norms of Behavior in conflict included things like the Law of the Sea which started to be written out in the late Medieval/early Renaissance, and the Conventions of Siege Warfare as understood all over Europe and the Middle East, at least, from the 17th century on: you could surrender a fort or a fortified city under 'terms', and the defenders marched away unscathed and the city Could Not be razed or sacked without severe diplomatic penalties. Anybody violating these 'rules' could find themselves being treated the way Barbarians are treated by every other party in the game today - under constant attack without friends.

Even Barbarian activity, in fact, could be carefully regulated by Norms of behavior. Piracy from at least the Classical Era in both the Mediterranean and the Far East was very much a Financial Affair: people were captured in raids, then carefully protected and ransomed back to their families/governments with procedures very precisely laid out. When those weren't followed, you got massacres on both sides, populations sold into slavery (either civilians or ex-pirates!) and increased nastiness for all concerned.

The game, in other words, needs something akin to International Law/Norms of Behavior from nearly the beginning, or at least the Classical and Medieval Eras. Possibly start them when enough civilizations have 'discovered' the same Civic. Eventually, we need some International Institutions in the game. Either formal, (semi) permanent ones like the League of Nations or United Nations, or even temporary but powerful ones like the Congress of Vienna which pretty much 'wrote the rules' in Europe that lasted for most of the 19th century.

Not to 'hijack' the Thread, exactly, but I think the Subject is much broader than simply the modern Atrocity Weapons like Chemical, Bacteriological, Radiological ones. Especially since they would only apply in the Modern Era and later, and, frankly, probably a majority of Civ VI games are essentially over by then.

 

[TyrannusRex]

However we feel about it, it is something to be discussed, being that it is entirely relevant to the theme of the game, since it is as a significant feature of modern human history. We cannot, and really should not forget the darker side of our history, so inevitably this topic was going to appear, leading to some rather philosophical debates. For example, by adding such features and not being able to see the full realities of the effects of such weapons, are we not forgetting the atrocities of history, and developing a light hearted view of such things? And isn't this heading down a rather sadistic path for a game that is meant to entertain us? Granted, we already have something like this in the game (i.e. nuclear weapons), and you never get to see the full realities of what it would actually be like to drop a nuke on a city of millions of people...that would rather spoil the game for most of us, and the rating would hit the roof. Perhaps there is a balanced view of all of this, but I'm not sure how one could implement this in a way that would make everybody happy. I think this is always going to be controversial.

I remember the first time I ever dropped a nuke in Civ 6.
I was the Aztec, and fittingly, Spain had been antagonizing me for a long time now.
Finally, I couldn't take it any more, and developed a dire plan...
After I had the bomb ready, I sent a nuclear submarine across the Atlantic, got it within range of the capital (as fighting raged on the South American continent), and gave the order to fire... I watched the explosion, the mushroom cloud, the health and defense bars bottoming out, but what stood out most to me was that the music just cut out, and stayed silent for a good minute or two. It kinda disturbed me. The weight of what I'd just done hit me at that moment... call me weak-willed, but I never touched that save file again.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I remember the first time I ever dropped a nuke in Civ 6.
I was the Aztec, and fittingly, Spain had been antagonizing me for a long time now.
Finally, I couldn't take it any more, and developed a dire plan...
After I had the bomb ready, I sent a nuclear submarine across the Atlantic, got it within range of the capital (as fighting raged on the South American continent), and gave the order to fire... I watched the explosion, the mushroom cloud, the health and defense bars bottoming out, but what stood out most to me was that the music just cut out, and stayed silent for a good minute or two. It kinda disturbed me. The weight of what I'd just done hit me at that moment... call me weak-willed, but I never touched that save file again.

'Way back in the late 70's there was a board game published by the Simulations Publications people in Strategy & Tactics magazine which simulated a possible Future War in Europe between NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations. It was a 'conventional' war, with all the then-modern tanks and artillery and aircraft, but of course it always had the potential, as any real war would have, to Go Nuclear.
The suggestion from the game designer was that to simulate the outbreak of a Nuclear War in Europe, you took a can of lighter fluid or cleaning alcohol, sprayed it all over the game map, and set fire to it, destroying your copy of the game. That would, after a fashion, bring home to you the cost of any such war in reality.

Of course, every time you take a city in Civ VI and the population of that city drops by X 'points', what do you think you are simulating? Migration? A million simultaneous Summer Vacations?

To quote W. T. Sherman:
"War is cruelty and you cannot refine it."

 

[Greywulf]

I remember the first time I ever dropped a nuke in Civ 6.
I was the Aztec, and fittingly, Spain had been antagonizing me for a long time now.
Finally, I couldn't take it any more, and developed a dire plan...
After I had the bomb ready, I sent a nuclear submarine across the Atlantic, got it within range of the capital (as fighting raged on the South American continent), and gave the order to fire... I watched the explosion, the mushroom cloud, the health and defense bars bottoming out, but what stood out most to me was that the music just cut out, and stayed silent for a good minute or two. It kinda disturbed me. The weight of what I'd just done hit me at that moment... call me weak-willed, but I never touched that save file again.

I get that feeling actually...It's strange, because you know it is just a game, but it still triggers some kind of back-of-the-mind emotional response...Is it logical? Probably not, but it does show us that what it means is real to us, that we know that nukes are no laughing matter. Perhaps it's because we know that in the real world, our world, that sort of thing really happened. We know that it was dreadful, and we may even be aware of how the effects still carries on, and will keep carrying on.
It kinda feels necessary for a game about history to contain such things in it, but at the same time it's not something I like using in the game.

'Way back in the late 70's there was a board game published by the Simulations Publications people in Strategy & Tactics magazine which simulated a possible Future War in Europe between NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations. It was a 'conventional' war, with all the then-modern tanks and artillery and aircraft, but of course it always had the potential, as any real war would have, to Go Nuclear.
The suggestion from the game designer was that to simulate the outbreak of a Nuclear War in Europe, you took a can of lighter fluid or cleaning alcohol, sprayed it all over the game map, and set fire to it, destroying your copy of the game. That would, after a fashion, bring home to you the cost of any such war in reality.

Of course, every time you take a city in Civ VI and the population of that city drops by X 'points', what do you think you are simulating? Migration? A million simultaneous Summer Vacations?

To quote W. T. Sherman:
"War is cruelty and you cannot refine it."

That's an impressive idea...Destroying your own copy of the game by literally setting fire to it, that would really help with showing the gravity of it all. Bet players who actually did that never forgot that experience! What is that game called?

Good quote too, by the way. So true.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

That's an impressive idea...Destroying your own copy of the game by literally setting fire to it, that would really help with showing the gravity of it all. Bet players who actually did that never forgot that experience! What is that game called?

I believe that one was 'Fulda Gap' after one of the main invasion routes between East and West Germany. Finding a copy might be a challenge, since most of the old 'magazine' games were not sold separately from the magazine and the original company and magazine went out of business years ago, and Strategy & Tactics magazine had to be resurrected by a new group and company. I'm not even certain who would hold the copyrights to those old games at this point.

Good quote too, by the way. So true.[/QUOTE]

American Civil War Generals, no matter how good or bad they were on the battlefield, have produced a lot of good Quotes. My father, who was born and raised in Texas, had a favorite from Phil Sheridan, who was stationed in southwestern Texas before the Civil War:

"If I owned both Texas and Hell, I'd rent out Texas and live in Hell."

 

[TyrannusRex]

Then there's this classic.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Then there's this classic.

More interesting is the entire quote: Sherman was speaking to a graduating class at West Point, of young would-be army officers:

"There's many a boy here today who thinks that War is all glory and honor: well, I'm here to tell you that war is all Hell..."

 

[Greywulf]

I believe that one was 'Fulda Gap' after one of the main invasion routes between East and West Germany. Finding a copy might be a challenge, since most of the old 'magazine' games were not sold separately from the magazine and the original company and magazine went out of business years ago, and Strategy & Tactics magazine had to be resurrected by a new group and company. I'm not even certain who would hold the copyrights to those old games at this point.

Good quote too, by the way. So true.QUOTE]

American Civil War Generals, no matter how good or bad they were on the battlefield, have produced a lot of good Quotes. My father, who was born and raised in Texas, had a favorite from Phil Sheridan, who was stationed in southwestern Texas before the Civil War:

"If I owned both Texas and Hell, I'd rent out Texas and live in Hell."

The irony is how much like the pagan idea of a burning hell this world really is. Sure, many of us in developed countries live in relative peace and comfort, but there's always wars and conflicts happening around the globe, and it's amazing how many people are murdered every year, and how much crime is committed ~ nowhere is completely safe. Some people think they live in paradise because their person life is going well, but I think they are delusional or self-centered to think like that...And really, it doesn't take much at all for all that peace and comfort to disappear.
We are all already in hell, but we do our best to keep ourselves out of the fire.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The irony is how much like the pagan idea of a burning hell this world really is. Sure, many of us in developed countries live in relative peace and comfort, but there's always wars and conflicts happening around the globe, and it's amazing how many people are murdered every year, and how much crime is committed ~ nowhere is completely safe. Some people think they live in paradise because their person life is going well, but I think they are delusional or self-centered to think like that...And really, it doesn't take much at all for all that peace and comfort to disappear.
We are all already in hell, but we do our best to keep ourselves out of the fire.

Statistically, the world is actually safer, in the sense that a smaller percentage of its human infestation are in constant and immediate danger of starvation, fatal disease, violent death, slavery, etc. than ever before in human history. That, of course, is of no relief to those still under threat of all those things. Additionally, the reason that the statistics do not seem true, is that unlike even 20 years ago, now you can in a few minutes from anywhere on earth learn about any and every bad thing that is happening anywhere, whereas before the majority of people remained blithely ignorant of most of the nastiness as long as it happened Somewhere Else.

As for Hell, I have always believed that it was entirely within your own mind - if you feel you are in Hell, then you are regardless of the real life situation.

Civ VI, in fact, is a ridiculously Optimistic Game: everybody almost constantly grows and improves the technical, social and religious society of their citizens and nation throughout history, with only the briefest and mildest of 'setbacks' from Dark Ages - or Slightly Less Bright Ages, to be exact. Even in a civilization that is conquered and disappears from the game, their cities start right on growing again, and in a relatively short time every population point is a full member of the new Civilization, prospering without discrimination or hinderance right alongside their conquerors.

We should all have it half as good...

 

[Greywulf]

Statistically, the world is actually safer, in the sense that a smaller percentage of its human infestation are in constant and immediate danger of starvation, fatal disease, violent death, slavery, etc. than ever before in human history. That, of course, is of no relief to those still under threat of all those things. Additionally, the reason that the statistics do not seem true, is that unlike even 20 years ago, now you can in a few minutes from anywhere on earth learn about any and every bad thing that is happening anywhere, whereas before the majority of people remained blithely ignorant of most of the nastiness as long as it happened Somewhere Else.

As for Hell, I have always believed that it was entirely within your own mind - if you feel you are in Hell, then you are regardless of the real life situation.

Statistics show us one thing, but I don't know if basing things on population percentage is the best way to understand things. For example, statistically we may have a smaller percentage of slaves to population now than before, but the actual number of slaves around the world today is a lot larger than it has ever been, as now we have more slaves than we have ever had before. Granted, if the laws were the same as they were hundreds of years ago, no doubt we would have even more slaves again, but it just goes to show you that it's still a massive problem, and it's not quickly going away.
My personal situation might be quite peaceful and comfortable, at least for the time being, but somewhere else they are using chemical weapons on children, somewhere else a species of animals has just become extinct, somewhere else they are cutting down the last trees of a rainforest, somewhere else they are on the edge of nuclear war...These things are real, and just because my life is going ok now, doesn't mean that this planet is not hell. There is so much suffering in this world it's incredible, and cannot be quantified.

Civ VI, in fact, is a ridiculously Optimistic Game: everybody almost constantly grows and improves the technical, social and religious society of their citizens and nation throughout history, with only the briefest and mildest of 'setbacks' from Dark Ages - or Slightly Less Bright Ages, to be exact. Even in a civilization that is conquered and disappears from the game, their cities start right on growing again, and in a relatively short time every population point is a full member of the new Civilization, prospering without discrimination or hinderance right alongside their conquerors.

We should all have it half as good...

The thing is that if this game was more true to history, it might take a lot of the fun out of it. Imagine if you went into a real Dark Age...the prospect of winning the game would be gone. The way they have it now may not be that realistic, but it does mean that you can pull yourself up again and have a shot of success. The real world isn't fair, but we do like our games to be.