 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
connorkimbro
|
 |
Seoul Korea
Jan 1970
time: 23:12
|
|
I'm not so sure that child labor should be an atrocity. . unless it's FORCED child labor, thats something different. for children in some countries, they only way they can eat is by getting a job, so i don't think i those cases that getting a job is so horrible. thats more of a topic for the OT though. sorry 
but the atrocity thing in general, i like.
maybe according to certain factors in the game (like how rich they are compared to other nations, maybe how religious they are) can determine WHAT the nation considers an atrocity?
IE, a deeply religious nation would see, say. . abortion as an atrocity, but one with maybe over crowding wouldn't, but would instead see alot of reproduction as an "atrocity". . i guess these wouldn't be atrocities in the same sense, but could act to affect international relationships. .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
The one problem I have with attrocities is what exactly makes them attrocities.
Slavery now would be considered an attrocity or at the very least a human rights violation yet it was used in most of human history. Ditto for child labor.
And what makes the world look down on an attrocity. For instance the U.S. and most of the world following WWII believed that Hitler's answer to the "Jewish Problem" was unacceptable. Yet at the same time Stalin was killing off millions in Russia. The same goes at the end of WWI when the Turks had been killing millions of Christians in their country. What makes the world respond to these so-called attrocities? That is my main concern for this whole idea/thread.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SerapisIV
|
 |
Hartford, CT, USA
Feb 2001
time: 00:12
|
|
Something doesn't become an atrocity till people are able to see the horror of their actions. Gas attacks in WWI were common to both sides and only became an atrocity afterwards. Except for the few people at Trinity, few realized the full horror of atomic weapons until after their use. The fire bombings of Dresdin and Tokyo today would never be acceptable, though at the time they were considered deadly but strategic action. Also the use of child labor is a sticky one because the idea of when you are a man has grown in the past 2 centuries. You used to married and supporting your family at a much younger age (though people lived as extended families more then). Also, human and animal sacrifices to gods, which have gone in and out of acceptance depending on the culture/religion
However along those lines, some things should always remain atrocity, such as the wiping out of a town, unnecessary killing of civilians, for example, the Rape of Nanking, the killing of diplomats under truce. There are some fundamentally evil things.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ilkuul
|
 |
of Thame (UK)
Mar 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
I appreciate the points that have been made here; but I still like the idea of there being some kind of penalty in the later game against more 'primitive' forms of government. How would it be if atrocities are not defined - i.e., there is no list of atrocities (slavery, fire-bombing, etc.) - but they are assumed to occur, at least to some extent, under more primitive govt. types like despotism and monarchy (assuming, as we've been told, that fundamentalism is 'out'!)? Then if a given civ still has one of these govt. types after the UN appears, they run the risk of having sanctions placed on them for 'human rights violations' (again, undefined). How such sanctions would work is another question! This, IMHO, could provide a further useful disincentive to warmongers wanting to retain more despotic types of government.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
Ilkuul,
I am more open to this suggestion. However, attrocities as what have been defined above supposedely happen in Communist and Democrat nations around the world today. These are supposedly modern governments, yet are still mistreating their people. So to just say primitive governments take away rights just wouldn't be fair, realistic, or make good playable sense.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
A big part of the whole treatment of nations that the U.N. believes to be violating human rights and taking part in attrocities is the nation's size and power. Look at China who is believed to have done a great deal of human right's violations in the past 20 years. No one looks to punish them because their is little chance that a military operation would benefit the nation attacking and the U.S. and other nations needs the market that China provides.
During, the war in Chechnya, Russian soldiers are believed to have participated in some war attrocities in that region. Yet, no one is willing to attack Russia.
Meanwhile, the world is attacking Saddaam and Milosevic (not that they don't deserve it) because of their nation's lack of size and strength. The whole part of attrocities in the modern world is what to do about them. And then when to do something about them. The answer in the U.S. has been only when victory is secured and the politics of it are to the President's advantage.
How in Civ would you simulate a nation going against another due to attrocities only when such a war would benefit that nation?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
EnochF
|
 |
Seattle, WA
Jan 1970
time: 21:12
|
|
Suggested atrocities:
- Any use of nuclear weapons. (Possible exception: using nuclear weapons against a nation that made the first nuclear strike against you)
- Certain spy abilities: plant nuclear device, poison water supply, anything involving chemical warfare (but not including bribes, sabotage or tech stealing)
- Ethnic cleansing. A new ability, much like the "Nerve Stapling" in SMAC, which eliminates all unhappiness in a city based on culture, at the cost of 2 or 3 population, for example, when you conquer an enemy city and it doesn't "assimilate" entirely.
- Razing a conquered city.
- After construction of the United Nations, any sneak attack.
These are mostly just translated in some form from Alpha Centauri. There may be others made possible by the Culture rules.
If atrocities are implemented in Civ III, we should be careful not to confuse them with "pretext for war." Tech stealing is pretext for war. Enemy units within your borders is pretext for war. Hell, even failure to pay tribute is pretext for war. Atrocities are much different.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ajbera
|
 |
of the Cookieville Minimum Security Orphanarium
Apr 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xuenay on 04-21-2001 12:37 PM
I hated the atrocities in SMAC. I happen to like waging a ruthless war against my opponents. What I dont like is the other factions opposing my way of fighting - that's none of their damn business!
|
There is nothing to stop you from waging war the way you desire. Hell, I loved using nerve gas in SMAC - it was a delightfully brutal touch. However, realistically, there would be some out there who would protest at that extra touch of ruthlessness. Some nations (depending on the characteristics of the leader, style of government, etc.) may actually like you more (this would be cool to enact, if feasible), and some may not give a damn one way or another. But some nations recognize the concept of human rights, and would protest a truly excessive action as a violation of those rights. It comes down (I suppose) to a matter of character. IRL, if someone you know commits a serious act, you have the option of supporting it, remaining silent, or denouncing it, and everyone else you know has that right as well. It may not necessarily prevent such occurrences in the future, but you have the right to speak your mind.
quote:
Originally posted by Xuenay on 04-21-2001 12:37 PM
Also, the way how the factions would refuse to surrender if you commited atrocities against them doesnt make a lot of sense. The Japanese didnt get a grim determination not to surrender after the US nuked them, did they?
|
This should be a variable, again depending on the characteristics of the civilization, its leader, and perhaps its culture rating. Civs with a high culture rating may develop a strong resolve to fight to the finish in the face of adversity, while others with feeble culture ratings may just lose morale, fight less effectively, or surrender outright. But it should have more factors than that. It shouldn't be so formulaic that you can say, prior to committing an action, that Civ A will definitely fight to the death if I do this. I want to be surprised if they choose to fight that way, or if they choose to suddenly surrender. Civ3 should try to resist any deep predictability. And, OT, it would be nice if, out of the blue, a civ chose to surrender when half its cities had been taken, as opposed to always, always fighting to the very last damn city.
Less predictability!! Keep me guessing!! Though I suppose that I'll be able to experience the uncertainty of my opponent's actions in multiplayer, it would still be nice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sindai
|
|
Great list there Enoch, I like it.
Ajbera - great ideas all around. I love the concept of leaders who won't care at all about what methods you use on your population, as well as the somewhat random surrender chances.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-04-2001 01:32
)
|