WC/UN warfare resolutions?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Joe Hoofer, May 21, 2013.

?

Would you like to see a World Congress/UN resolution for humane warfare available?

  1. Yes, it should make killing/capturing civilians and razing cities impossible.

    22 vote(s)
    25.0%
  2. Yes, it should make killing/capturing civilians and razing cities carry a diplomatic penalty.

    50 vote(s)
    56.8%
  3. No, this doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

    16 vote(s)
    18.2%
  1. Joe Hoofer

    Joe Hoofer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2013
    Messages:
    42
    Location:
    WA, USA
    I had an idea: make a WC/UN resolution available that establishes rules of humane warfare (real life counterpart, the Geneva Conventions).
    Said resolution would forbid all players from razing cities and capturing/killing civilian units, either under threat of a diplomatic penalty (like atrocities in Alpha Centauri) or by making it impossible outright.
    What do you all think?
     
  2. Eagle Pursuit

    Eagle Pursuit Scir-Gerefa

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    15,961
  3. JtW

    JtW Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    575
    Location:
    Poland
  4. kingchris20

    kingchris20 Wisdom Seeker

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,343
    Location:
    Resident of Heaven; Currently in the Waiting Room
    I chose that it should make it impossible to kill/capture civilians and raze cities.

    No other resolution is able to be defied, so I don't think it would fit the whole WC/UN resolution theme, if only one of them could be defied
     
  5. Aussie_Lurker

    Aussie_Lurker Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    7,785
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Ah, I voted the diplomatic penalty one, but you're probably right. Someone pushing towards a domination victory probably won't care much about diplomatic penalties, so a ban on capturing civilian units and cities would be just as good. You could even call it "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" or "The (City Name the Congress is currently held in) Convention"

    Aussie.
     
  6. Veneke

    Veneke King

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    670
    Location:
    Ireland
    I like this idea quite a bit and voted for option number one but what would stop a human player from having his front line consist entirely of civilians and his second line of ranged units? It's rather ironic that what you're proposing could actually encourage the use of civilians as a kind of shield for your military units. I suppose you could have units from different civs on one tile but I don't think that's a realistic prospect. It might also potentially interfere with the trading mechanics, particularly with how they relate to destroying a trade route/cargo ship.

    As I doubt that we're getting more resolutions I'm really hoping that WC/UN resolutions will be relatively easily moddable, not only in terms of changing specific ones but adding new options.
     
  7. AriochIV

    AriochIV Colonial Ninja

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,963
    Location:
    Nehwon
    I've never seen any warfare that was "humane."

    (rummages around in my quote pocket...)

    "The essence of war is violence. Moderation in war is imbecility." -British Sea Lord John Fisher

    But seriously, razing cities already does carry a diplomatic penalty.
     
  8. kingchris20

    kingchris20 Wisdom Seeker

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,343
    Location:
    Resident of Heaven; Currently in the Waiting Room
    And sadly, here lies the problem with this idea......this resolution cant make it in. It's something you don't really think about, but what Veneke said is true.
     
  9. I_qua_I

    I_qua_I Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    562
    This is easily solvable. Civilian units would simply be able to stack with enemy military ones in the same way they can with their own civs military units. They (civilians) just become a pseudo-invisible unit layer.
     
  10. kingchris20

    kingchris20 Wisdom Seeker

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,343
    Location:
    Resident of Heaven; Currently in the Waiting Room
    Idk, he's talking about human players "blockading" their troops (with ranged following behind) where AI defense can't do anything about it because they wouldn't be able to move on civilian units. Essentially and inpenatrable human shield moving on other cities. Or using civilian units to blockade your cities borders so that no military can penetrate. That is something that would ruin the game.
     
  11. Veneke

    Veneke King

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    670
    Location:
    Ireland
    That might be technically possible in that they could just copy over the trade unit mechanics, as they can, I think, occupy the same space as an enemy unit. As I said though, I don't think that's a realistic prospect for all civilian units, especially as it's being activated mid-game.
     
  12. Biologist

    Biologist Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,095
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hurricane Central
    Wouldn't making it impossible to attack civilian units effectively make Great Generals invincible? They have the same unit type as workers.
     
  13. AlazkanAssassin

    AlazkanAssassin Engineer

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,310
    Location:
    Maryland
    Simple make it that when you move your soldiers into the tile occupied by an unguarded enemy worker the worker is ejected from that tile. No silly attempts to slow you down with workers are possible.

    The worker would go to either:
    The nearest available tile;
    The nearest friendly city, or tile next to city;
    Their capitol, or tile next to their capitol;
    Be captured as a POW, which disapear from the map until the war is ended, then they reappear near their capitol.

    Which of those to pick is a design choice, but I think any of them would work.
    Personally, I prefer the POW option, since that still denys the use of the worker to the enemy.
    But option one, bumped to nearest tile, may be easiest to implement.

    They may have the same unit type, but generals/admirals are NOT civilians. They should still be destroyed like any other military unit.

    Workers, workboats, missionarys, and all great people other than generals and admirals should be protected by this resolution.
     
  14. kingchris20

    kingchris20 Wisdom Seeker

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    Messages:
    1,343
    Location:
    Resident of Heaven; Currently in the Waiting Room
    That could work.......but, (and this may not be a problem by the time these resolutions start passing) what would happen to a barbarian trying to take a worker? Not sure if they will be affected by resolutions, or if it would matter that much at all.......

    But auto-moving away civilians when a military unit moves on top of them could work
     
  15. albie_123

    albie_123 Modding In Secret

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,380
    Location:
    Sydney, NSW
    Razing cities would be a nice touch, but civilians would be far too difficult.

    Although, doesn't razing cities get you negative points regardless?
     
  16. Joe Hoofer

    Joe Hoofer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2013
    Messages:
    42
    Location:
    WA, USA
    Great discussion! I love how you're pointing out flaws I wouldn't have noticed on my own and then coming up with creative solutions for them. :D

    I was not aware that razing cities already carried a diplomatic penalty, it's good to know.

    And as for the "human shield" problem...I like the idea of civvies (Great Generals nonwithstanding) being invulnerable, but not impassable. Civilians could be still affected by Zones of Control, but would be able to pass through enemy units. Having them be displaced every time an enemy unit moves on top of them would be annoying.
     
  17. werothegreat

    werothegreat Warlord

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Messages:
    290
    Location:
    Virginia
    I want to be able to form a NATO-like organization in the late game that can gang up on warmongering civilizations.
     
  18. AlazkanAssassin

    AlazkanAssassin Engineer

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,310
    Location:
    Maryland
    I'd say barbs don't listen to the resolution at all. They can still enslave and murder all they like.
    They wouldn't get displaced by unit of ALL other civs, just ones you are at war with. I don't see anything about that which would be annoying. Right now you don't sent your civilian units unguarded anywhere close the enemy (at war) forces, so this is pure gain.
     
  19. Babri

    Babri Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,450
    Location:
    Pakistan
    This. Even today genocides & massacres happens (even by those who call themselves to be fighting injustice & terrorists).

    From gameplay perspective I don't think giving even more penalties to conquest player is sensible. You can already put enough pressure on conquerors by issuing army tax & other World congress decisions such as banning luxuries, trade embargo etc.
     
  20. Joe Hoofer

    Joe Hoofer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2013
    Messages:
    42
    Location:
    WA, USA
    (Yeah, I couldn't think of the proper word at the time, so I just said "humane," knowing full well it was oxymoronic.)

    Yes, but how many of those proposals do you think any one player will have at the same time? I think the "<Host City> Conventions" resolution merely offers more diversity and an answer to a nagging little question: what about the little guy? I think that by showing that civilians are worth protecting, it'd give a bit more flavor to what you're fighting for.

    Plus, there's Video Game Cruelty Potential if you want to be a Jerkass who crosses the Moral Event Horizon by Kicking the Dog.
     

Share This Page