captured cities

[To_Serve_Man]

Hmm... I think that once a city is captured, its pretty obvious that they will become part of your civ. What I think we should try and fiqure out is the length of time it will take to become a fully functional city of your empire without wanting to revolt.

Heres how it Should work:

Quickest Absorbtion Time
Moving your Capitol to the new area/Having the Capitol near several newly taken Cities. This is the quickest, but costs the most and takes several turns to set up. This also lowers the level of Revolt a lot
|
|
|
Moderate Absorbtion Time
Have some type of fairly quick building City Improvement or a 'Re-Educating' version of Capitialism, where it doesnt stop until you tell it to (or the City is totally absorbed). This Re-Educator is propaganda that is tought in schools etc and brainwash the people. This is Faster than relocating your Capitol, Costs less, but does not work as quickly and will not lower the revolt risk as much
|
|
|
Slow Absorbtion Time
Keep Military Units there. This is very cheap, and can be set up very quickly. However this method takes very long, and Increases the revolt risk to show how people have a harder time settling after being conquered with miltary forces present.

[SerapisIV]

Now Firaxis has mentioned using genocide amongst a civs peoples to eliminate internal dissent of a certain nationality, would doing so bring about the wrath another civ who is predominantly that nationality, say the Romans warring with the Chinese after the Chinese slaughtered their white/Roman peoples? Or would it be more of a general atrocity like in SMAC? I hope such a feature focus' on nationality specific civs to get outraged, to go along with the improved diplomacy

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
South America and Mexico? The Europeans killed off the natives, not joined with them. The example you're looking for is probably more along the lines of the Romans in Iberia and Germany.

Actually in Mexico they did join with the Indians. That is why we have today Mexican. I believe this is also true of Central American and to a lesser extent in South American. The solider did not bring family with them early on. Today Mexican are a mix of European and Native Indian of the area. There are/were many difference Indian tribes in Mexico in 1500.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by joseph1944

Actually in Mexico they did join with the Indians. That is why we have today Mexican. I believe this is also true of Central American and to a lesser extent in South American. The solider did not bring family with them early on. Today Mexican are a mix of European and Native Indian of the area. There are/were many difference Indian tribes in Mexico in 1500.

Yup, but the concentration of Native blood in the average Mexican today is less than the equivalent of 1 great-grandparent of Native blood. The question isn't one of absolute destruction; it's a qustion of scale. Mexico's population is overwhelmingly (although not entirely) European.

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Yup, but the concentration of Native blood in the average Mexican today is less than the equivalent of 1 great-grandparent of Native blood. The question isn't one of absolute destruction; it's a question of scale. Mexico's population is overwhelmingly (although not entirely) European.

Not so. In the school that I work at today, we have about 30 to 35 % Mexican pop. After looking at them, you kind of know which have more Indian blood then the others (I have Indian blood). One of my best friends at school is a young Mexican lady. I call her young but she is 34 years old. She was born in Mexico and her father who is American w/Mexican ancestry came back to the US and raise her in SF We talk a lot about Mexico and the Spanish and French influent in their culture. She is Aztec & Spanish. Her Mother family live in Mexico City area for many generation. She has a Master degree, so when she talks about Mexico, I listen and of course asks lot of question. I have always asked a lot of question about thing.

[TechWins]

Not so. In the school that I work at today, we have about 30 to 35 % Mexican pop. After looking at them, you kind of know which have more Indian blood then the others (I have Indian blood). One of my best friends at school is a young Mexican lady. I call her young but she is 34 years old. She was born in Mexico and her father who is American w/Mexican ancestry came back to the US and raise her in SF We talk a lot about Mexico and the Spanish and French influent in their culture. She is Aztec & Spanish. Her Mother family live in Mexico City area for many generation. She has a Master degree, so when she talks about Mexico, I listen and of course asks lot of question. I have always asked a lot of question about thing.

Why does this even matter? Yes, it is easy to tell how much Indian a Mexican has in them. The darker they are the more Indian they have and the lighter they are the more Spanish they have.

[Juggernaut]

Exactly. So the population do mix. Hope you´ve learned something KrazyHorse

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by uncle_funk
Exactly. So the population do mix. Hope you´ve learned something KrazyHorse

I'm going to assume that you're just needling me and not respond. Damn! I just responded!

[TechWins]

This was a pointless thread. So I hope you've learned something too, Uncle Funk. Keep your stupid ideas to yourself unless you have some good information to back them up with.

[Juggernaut]

Heh, I post as many threads as I want. Like I care what you think. You seem quite angry. Cute.

[TechWins]

Cute.

Hey, I would really appreciate it if you would stop hitting on me.

[Juggernaut]

I can´t, you´re so gorgeous.

[TechWins]

I can´t, you´re so gorgeous.

So you mean that you're stalking me now. That's just weird.

[Juggernaut]

Arsch, this is meaningless. One has to be over ten years old to understand irony.

[KrazyHorse]

That's not irony; it's sarcasm.

[Juggernaut]

and what´s the definition of irony then? enlighten me please.

[Rasputin]

goto www.dictionary.com to find irony definition

[Rasputin]

or if you lazy here it is


i·ro·ny (r-n, r-)
n. pl. i·ro·nies

1.The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
2.An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
3.A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit1.
4.Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: “Hyde noted the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most hated” (Richard Kain).
5.An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.
Dramatic irony.
Socratic irony.

[KrazyHorse]

The main difference between irony and sarcasm is that sarcasm is a simple statement which is intended to convey the exact opposite meaning to the listener; irony involves more context and subtlety.

[Juggernaut]

thanx for the link.

"i·ro·ny (r-n, r-)
n. pl. i·ro·nies

The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning."

so my use of the word was accurate. KH, stop marking words, what´s the fun of it?

[KrazyHorse]

Reread the post immediately before yours. The dictionary definition doesn't give the full flavour of the word.

[Rasputin]

its obviously jsut your interprettion of the words KH..

Heres sarcasm for you

sar·casm (särkzm)
n.
1.A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2.A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3.The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.

[Juggernaut]

i trust the dictionary more than KH.

[Rasputin]

all depends on whther you meant harm or not with the comments, !!!

[Juggernaut]

then i didn´t mean no harm!

[Rasputin]

so it was definatly ironic then

[Juggernaut]

perhaps sarcastic is the more proper word to use, but is this relevant? is it turning this thread in to a fun read? KH should be banned from apolyton for increasing the boredom factor

[Rasputin]

actually maybe i did that...

[TechWins]

Well, Krazyhorse is right it was sarcasm I used. I'm very sarcastic.

[Juggernaut]

you´re also very stupid. we were talking about if I was using sarchasm or not. you don´t seem to understand anything.