The Evils and Penalties of Starvation

[Fanny Brice]

A recent tread has got me thinking about starvation. I decided to start my own thread because I want to expand the topic and I don't want to "thread-jack."


I've often starved out cities... and I've often felt this is far too easy in getting rid of unwanted foreign citizens and the problems of unrest they bring. (But it sure is convenient!!).

I believe some sort of unrest penalty should be assessed for INTENTIONALLY starving cities. Perhaps you get increased "cruel oppression" unrest which lingers for a while and spreads among the targeted civilization. This "cruel oppression" unrest should quickly spread to cities that have similar citizens as the majority of the citizens being starved. (For example, if you are starving an Egyptian city, other Egyptian citizens in your own cities will begin complaining of "cruel oppression." In addition, cities you have not yet captured will already be angry at you making your future occupation that much more difficult.)

In addition, if you regularly use this practice for killing citizens of conquered cities... your entire civilization may begin complaining of "cruel oppression" to some degree.

This concept needs to be worked out in greater detail of course... but here are some additional thoughts:

* With Democratic and Republic governments, the cry of "cruel oppression" among your own citizens would be quicker.
* Such technologies as "Printing Press" and "Computers" could make this effect appear even faster or spread to a larger percentage of the population.
* Fascist governments would not have this problem.
* This is not "war weariness" -- it is it's own unrest problem (so if you wage war "morally" you will not suffer this problem.)
* This sort of unrest should linger even after peace has been declared. (How long? Maybe 10 to 15 turns.)
* This sort of unrest should linger even after the last city of the targeted civilization has been taken. (Always thought it was strange that wiping a civilization off the face of the earth solved your unrest problems with the citizens whose culture you just killed. Too easy.)

Related in genocidal massacres is the intentional bombardment of cities to greatly reduce populations. You should suffer in a similar fashion as above. In war, innocents will be killed... so the effect would not start immediately among your own citizens. But a threshold would be reached if you have too much blood on your hands.

Honestly, I don't know how the game engine generates "cruel oppression" unrest. It seems somewhat uneven among cities you capture. But as it currently stands, I don't think intentional starvation has an effect on it.

 

[Hornhelm]

Very good idea! Although, I think it would be fair to combine it with a reduced chance for culture flips, or a certain number of troops that eliminates the chance completely. You don't want to make war too annoying.

 

[Justus II]

Originally posted by Fanny Brice

Honestly, I don't know how the game engine generates "cruel oppression" unrest. It seems somewhat uneven among cities you capture. But as it currently stands, I don't think intentional starvation has an effect on it.

The "Cruel Oppression" you currently experience when capturing a city is based on how often the AI had used the whip on that city prior to your capture. It is the unhappiness remaining from their ownership which is transferred to you. I have always thought this is illogical, you are "liberating" them, but that's what it is!

 

[General Porkins]

how about starving cities can't support units?

 

[robcheng]

I agree that 'human rights violations' like starving people, abandoning cities, etc. should result in greater penalties, both in terms of civil unrest and in terms of AI reputation/attitude. These penalties should be lower in the ancient era and higher as you progress up the tech tree (due to improved communication technology as well as greater 'enlightenment' of people and governments)...of course, it would be nice if we had better in-game feedback about what causes significant civil unrest and negative reputation (the foreign advisor is pretty useless right now)

 

[Slax]

You realize starvation penalties will cause increased razing?

 

[CyberChrist]

Razing cities gives heavy reputation hits with the AI.

 

[Fanny Brice]

Originally posted by Slax
You realize starvation penalties will cause increased razing?

Not really -- it would all be factored in. The razing wipes out the entire civilian population of the city. That is were the "cruel oppression" comes from. Of course, there is no more issue with that city but you still would have it with other citizens from that civilization and you would begin building up unrest among your own citizens. I would think that razing a city would have an added negative impact to the whole issue.

And yes, as people have mentioned, there is your reputation to worry about as well.

 

[CyberChrist]

Originally posted by Fanny Brice
The razing wipes out the entire civilian population of the city. That is were the "cruel oppression" comes from.

Cruel Oppression unhappiness is caused only by rushing with Forced Labor afaik.

 

[slothman]

I thought that AI liked you less when you starved. Anywho you could always create workers instead or starving. Plus the AI wouldn't like you less for "enslaving" his citizens.

 

[Slax]

Originally posted by CyberChrist
Razing cities gives heavy reputation hits with the AI.

Yes, but its a big rep hit between you and the AI razed (+12 according to Bamspeedy thread), but small between you and other AI (only +1). If you plan to weaken this AI significantly, the +12 rep hit is insignificant, as you'll never be friends again.

I am not saying its a bad idea to make starvation strategy less appealing, but noting one spinoff result, which is more razing. Maybe one small change might be to have resistors stay longer, and return whenever starving is being used to decrease foriegn population. This would mean having to keep more military units in the city to keep it from culture flipping.

 

[robcheng]

Having resistors return (or remain longer) when a city is starving is a good idea, slax -- although I also think razing should be a bigger rep hit for other AIs, not just the one whose city you razed.

 

[warpstorm]

I think there should be a penalty for starvation. Maybe even unhappiness.

 

[Dishpan_Hans]

I mostly disagree. There should be no penalty, maybe under Democratic and Republic governments. But that's it.

Always thought it was strange that wiping a civilization off the face of the earth solved your unrest problems with the citizens whose culture you just killed. Too easy.)

Yeah, I think there should still be the opportunity for those cities to flip back to their old civ. That's why the Civil War thing should be brought back. Enemy captures you capital, civil war is possible or the captured cities can flip back to their original owners. If the capture your forbidden palace, maybe a few cities flip back.

Or maybe you don't assimilate the city or cities fast enough, and a destroyed civ is ressurected by flipping back to it's original culture.


Or have Barbarian guerillas generate around the city and start pillaging. I miss Civ 2's uprisings.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

It would be nice if citizens, both in cities and workers, were modelled more as people with the attendant penalties for abuse and "ethnic cleansing". In civ4, I would like to see a system where any starvation, either accidental or deliberate, results in unhappiness and riots. This would require a new food system, of course, to eliminate unequal food production and allow for surplus trading to other cities/civs. Disbanding of workers would be thought of as killing citizens, and not permitted under Democracy. Fascist and Communist governments could indulge in this kind of ethnic cleansing, though at a price. I would like to see both increased unhappiness and a commerce reduction to model the citizens' fear after a disbanding, whether it occurs either in or near the city.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Hmmmmm, I just wiped out most of a standard sized map by razing all the cities, I guess I would be frowned upon as a "cruel murderer" under this system. I also took out the last civ using 2 nuclear weapons for each city, I guess that was naughty aswell. In SMAC you got economic sanctions for destroying cities, that worked quite well (although the eco-damage you also got was most unwelcome). As long as you can still play the "evil guy" without penalty under Communism or Fascism I don't mind.

 

[CyberChrist]

Once you start razing cities you can just about kiss goodbye any chance of a diplomatic victory - of course you might not care about that

Don't turn your back on even the most gracious of allies either, if you have razed a lot of cities.

 

[Fanny Brice]

Originally posted by Enkidu Warrior
Hmmmmm, I just wiped out most of a standard sized map by razing all the cities, I guess I would be frowned upon as a "cruel murderer" under this system. I also took out the last civ using 2 nuclear weapons for each city, I guess that was naughty aswell. In SMAC you got economic sanctions for destroying cities, that worked quite well (although the eco-damage you also got was most unwelcome). As long as you can still play the "evil guy" without penalty under Communism or Fascism I don't mind.

Well, you are a cruel murderer. But the question is who sits in judgement of you. Any civ that is left standing should be repulsed by your behavior. Your own citizens should be repulsed. But if you have conquered the world, the only one to judge is yourself. Win by whatever means you want. You can play evil, but no representative type govenrment would stand by your actions... then you need to be Fascist (and I guess Communist in the Stalin/Mao model... if there were another model to examine).

 

[Grey Fox]

Starving cities intentionally are almost like the death camps in WW2. Atleast if you do it against captured cities, which is what you mostly do. And especially as fascist civs, so you can get the culture.

 

[Bamspeedy]

There is a penalty for starving citizens. But this penalty is only a small one, and all it is, is that the AI civ who's citizens you are starving feels slightly worse towards you in attitude (+1 for each citizen). If you are going to be killing off this civ anyways, that penalty is insignificant. The penalty shouldn't be too harsh because of situations where you just can't prevent the starvation.

You can build workers instead of starving to get no 'attitude' hits, but this is a much slower process, and isn't really advisable if the city is under heavy culture pressure because you want the foreigners out ASAP (if you have the money, rush the workers or do a combination of rushing workers and starving for the fastest way to get the city rid of foreigners).
Building settlers will still give you an 'attitude' hit, because if both citizens used to make the settler was foreign, you lose one of them when you build a city (unless you 'join' the settler into some other city).