What's a little Genocide between allies...

[red_jon]

Originally posted by d_dudy
i can't believe he came up with a serious and good idea but he did. i think he's completely right it should take many turns to destroy a large city and its improvements

Are you talking about me? Why can't I come up with a good idea?

there any way we can killfile members of this forum? Why do I have to subject myself to such stupidity?

Newbies

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by red_jon

Newbies

Geez, please make yourself look more stupid. I've been here over a year longer than you have.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Pembleton


Geez, please make yourself look more stupid. I've been here over a year longer than you have.

That's it, have a good whine at people's ideas, contributing bugger all yourself.

And I have a higher postcount than you

[Pembleton]

Maybe I don't contribute that much, I don't know. But I'd rather keep quiet when I'm not contributing than continually opening a big mouth and saying a whole lot of nothing.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Pembleton
Maybe I don't contribute that much, I don't know. But I'd rather keep quiet when I'm not contributing than continually opening a big mouth and saying a whole lot of nothing.

So my contributing ideas is 'nothing', but saying someones ideas are 'stupid' is? Grow up.

[Darkknight]

You don't think that 14 million people are going to take genocide lying down ( no pun intended) do you you dont think they might see 40000 troops and think we're going to die anyway lets take some of them with us?

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Darkknight
You don't think that 14 million people are going to take genocide lying down ( no pun intended) do you you dont think they might see 40000 troops and think we're going to die anyway lets take some of them with us?

maybe there has to be 1 unit per 5 pop to be able to create genocide, to control them?

[Pembleton]

Let's go back to what started this then to see who is stupid. You brought up the ideas of concentration camps as if it was a legitimate suggestion and something that should be considered. This is absolutely preposterous. Someone already called you disgusting, and I agree with him, but I don't think that the moral issue is even necessary for me to argue, and I won't unless you really want me to.

So let's go back to why the idea is stupid rather than just morally objectionable. I'm not even sure why I'm doing this since it seems that someone with your lack of intellect won't understand or comprehend my argument.

Anyway, look what happened to the press, games, and entertainment industry in the U.S. after the terrorist attacks. Any reference to the World Trade Center, airplane explosions or even explicit references to terrorism in film or television are being edited or deleted. A trailer for the upcoming Spiderman movie was pulled just because it had a scene with the WTC. They've already taken out the WTC in flight simulators. There was also some tendencies to tone down violence in general in all upcoming games.

Let's look at the prominent comedians. The late night talk shows used to parody George W. Bush and were not even kind in the least. Now no-one will dare to make fun of a political figure for a very long time. I really can't imagine when an environment for politcal satire will be appropriate for a long time.

Now with this environment, you think Sid Meier is going to say, hey, concentration camps, that's a good idea? What would that do his reputation? Do you think the members of the design team or programmers won't object? Do you think gamers and the general public would accept this? There is already a movement to eliminate violence in games in general, which I disagree with.

I don't even know why I'm wasting my time arguing this. Even in a pre-September 11 environment the idea is ridiculous. The U.S. has the largest population of Jews in the world, many who are holocaust survivors.

To suggest concentration camps is really the lowest depth of stupidity in my opinion. And yes, perhaps I am being stupid for saying what I did as well, but I know I won't even come close to approaching your level.

[red_jon]

Yep, lets all pretend they never existed

Why do you have to bring Spetember 11th into it? It has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion. Kindly stay on-topic or shut up.

The majority of those who posted in this thread have been for the idea in some way. Slavery was a terrible atrocity yet it was implemented in both the CTP games.

(And BTW, the withdrawal of anything to do with the WTC in computer games and other media such as films was ridiculous)

If you wish to contribute something to the discussion please do so. If you wish to whine, go do it to some friends (if you have any) or in the OT.

Good day.

[Pembleton]

Well I give up. Most of your post was insults rather than arguing anything of substance. I guess I did waste my time.

[Dauphin]

Pembleton if you don't want to hear what RJ has to say use the ignore list.

RJ, I agree that sanitising history should not be done for the sake of not offending anyone. However tact should be employed on delicate topic areas, and all implementations should be in good taste.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Pembleton if you don't want to hear what RJ has to say use the ignore list.

RJ, I agree that sanitising history should not be done for the sake of not offending anyone. However tact should be employed on delicate topic areas, and all implementations should be in good taste.

In SMAC you can nerve staple citizens, put whole colonies of people to death, etc, yet no-one complains about this.

The camps were used by the British in the Boer war and many nations have used them. They are a thing of evil, but so is war itself, isn't it?

[Inverse Icarus]

no, war is not a thing of evil. war is a thing of good that the intelligent cannot avoid.

infact, most wars/tensions are started or aided by religion...

think about it...

[jdd2007]

most wars/tensions are started or aided by religion...

maybe the biggest percent of wars/tensions, but not really many of the big ones-WWs had nothing to do with religion, american civil war had nothing to do with it as was the case with the american revolution and almost all recent (last 2hundred years) european wars

[Akron]

Originally posted by UberKruX
no, war is not a thing of evil. war is a thing of good that the intelligent cannot avoid.

infact, most wars/tensions are started or aided by religion...

think about it...

so you believe all life is not sacred?

assuming all life is sacred, and war takes lives, you come to the conclusion that war is evil.

now most religions hold life to be sacred, or at least something that should not be misused. the problem is that religion is so easy to use as a means of destruction (as Bin Laden has and many others throughout history have shown). also, it is ignorance of the masses that facillitates war, since it is easy for someone to control them. now, if everyone is ignorant and stupid, then you go back to neandrathals beating each other on the head with sticks or whatever.

[Inverse Icarus]

sa·cred (skrd)
adj.
Dedicated to or set apart for the worship of a deity.
Worthy of religious veneration: the sacred teachings of the Buddha.
Made or declared holy: sacred bread and wine.
Dedicated or devoted exclusively to a single use, purpose, or person: sacred to the memory of her sister; a private office sacred to the President.
Worthy of respect; venerable.
Of or relating to religious objects, rites, or practices.

i dont believe any life is sacred.

How about this:

You may use (ground) troops to kill off the population of a city... Each troops can "attack" up to it's attack score of population per turn. The population however also fights back (it's attack score is say 1/2 that of the population being assaulted by that particular troop (round up)) and the unit must defend vs. this counter-attack first, if it survives it deystoys the population (but it gains benefits as if it was "entrenched" but not from walls, etc.). Thus you can kill off a large population quickly, if you have a large enough army... but you might take some losses.

Example:

Romans take an egyptian city of 9 population... the romans use 2 units each with an attack of 2 and defense of 1.

Each turn the romans try to kill 4 population, but each unit must survive an attack of 1 (2 pop being attacked per unit/2) vs it's defense of 1.5 (1 +50% for entrenchment). Each unit that survives kills 2 pop.

The game mechanics are just a possible example, but you get the idea...

So, what do you think?

[Akron]

Originally posted by UberKruX


i dont believe any life is sacred.

your really beginning to scare me.... i can see people saying not all life is worthy of respect, but to say no life is worthy of respect....

your joking, right....
right?.....

[mactbone]

.....Must....resist....major...trolling...mission. ...

Oh man, you know how fun it would be to just be the argumentary guy? Like in the Monty Python Argument Skit.

*sigh*

I've resisted this time.......