Nuclear disarmament?

[Pods]

In the real world we see agreements between some nuclear powers to cut their arsenals.

Is the diplomacy model in Civ3 known to support an agreement between civs to disband nuclear weapons, if they are a major threat between two civs?

Anyone know?

S.

[isaac brock]

That would be a good idea, but no info exists to support that. Someone had an idea on how nukes would be become useless in this thread.

P.S. Happy Thanksgiving to me and everyone important

[Oligarf]

Originally posted by isaac brock
P.S. Happy Thanksgiving to me and everyone important

Thanks

I read that the diplomatic possibilities were increased. Therefor I hope that forming all sorts of treaties will become possible. Nuclear disarmament could be one of them, or declaring neutral areas or so.

[isaac brock]

They never mentioned disarmament though. I don't think it's in, but I suppose you could buy all their missiles.

[Oligarf]

That could be a way round it. But a bit expensive.
Maybe we gotta send an e-mail to those Firaxians.

[isaac brock]

Originally posted by Oligarf
That could be a way round it. But a bit expensive.
Maybe we gotta send an e-mail to those Firaxians.

Take one of their cities by culture and offer to sell it back for missiles. Then your culture will just take it back again!

[Akron]

I wouldn't be surprised if it is in. I'd think that there would be diplomatic consequences for the use of nuclear weapons. In SMAC, planet busters were atrocities, though you could change this with the UN council (or whatever). Its likely that the U.N. in civ 3 can do things like this too, maybe making use of nuclear weapons an atrocity.

[isaac brock]

Why does everything useful have to be a fugging atrocity?! Whats wrong with ethnic cleansing, slavery, or nukes? Not being allowed to do it sucks the fun right out of the game.

[Trifna]

I allready proposed an idea of disarmament in general, but my thread was so long (was englobing many ideas) that about no one responded

Disamement is used in many cases. Was used by Spartians against Athenians after they won I think (oh well... somethign like this with Greeks)

Was used after WW I and WW II for Germany. Japan also isn't allowed in its constitution to get a serious army since WW II. Disarmement pacts exist quite commonly in history (even if not always respected in some specific cases).

I would propose the introduction of disarmement in general, not only for nuclear. Or maybe specifically for a frontier. Did you ever played Risk? We may put our armies all at same place to protect a passage. Well, in Civ III, it could be a pact between two persons that they wont put more on their frontiers, or soemthing like this.

[Oligarf]

Dan around here?
I like Trifna's idea, is it in CIV III?
If yes, how is it implemented?

[Oligarf]

Forgot something...

If no, why not?

[Akron]

Originally posted by isaac brock
Why does everything useful have to be a fugging atrocity?! Whats wrong with ethnic cleansing, slavery, or nukes? Not being allowed to do it sucks the fun right out of the game.

Of course you can do all that good stuff. Just don't expect the ai to like you.

[Jason Beaudoin]

Although I am no advocate of real life atrocities in any way, I do think these things should be included in CIV3, which as mentioned, most are. (I'm not sure about the ethnic cleansing part.) There should, and probably will be negative effects of doing things like this, like massive-world-wide economic sanctions, which could cripple an economy.

Firaxis can have their cake and eat it too. In other words, they can incorporate these "politically incorrect" aspects of world history, but by creating negative responses by the AI, they can claim that they are trying to teach good behavior. We win by getting more choices, and more fun.

[Inverse Icarus]

nonsense. no one will ruin my nuclear fun.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by isaac brock
Why does everything useful have to be a fugging atrocity?! Whats wrong with ethnic cleansing, slavery, or nukes? Not being allowed to do it sucks the fun right out of the game.

Well, for everyone like you who considers those things fun, there is likely someone who takes them very seriously and would not consider their inclusion fun or in fact appropriate. I think Firaxis would be wise to err on the side of caution and favor the latter so as not to offend people. The former group, while it may be irritated, is unlikely to be personally offended by the exclusion of such things.

With the exception of ethnic cleansing, I think these things being in the game wouldn't bother me...I would just refrain from employing them.

Cheers.

[Crouchback]

With the exception of ethnic cleansing, I think these things being in the game wouldn't bother me...I would just refrain from employing them.

I guess I'll use slavery if a foreign worker or settler (or scout?) crosses into my land, and if they have nukes then you know I've got to have them too.

As for ethnic cleansing I'd bet we'll all do that. Firaxis said somewhere that a player can pick which citizens of an unruly captured city with more than one nationality get expelled when it builds a settler. But the new city will all belong to the main nationality, so it is a good way of expanding and creating a little happiness.

David

*Exits left singing "Spring time for Hitler and Germany..."*

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Crouchback


I guess I'll use slavery if a foreign worker or settler (or scout?) crosses into my land, and if they have nukes then you know I've got to have them too.

As with Civ II, I plan on using the editor to remove nukes from the game. Call me an idealist...

As for the foreign workers, I can see doing that in early stages. But once I feel my civ has progressed into a more "civilized" stage, I hope I can do without it.

I guess by ethnic cleansing I was referring more to the mass murder aspect of it than just kicking out the foreigners. The former is something I have no desire to see in a computer game, and would find it akin to having a first-person shooter in which you could go around raping women. Not at all suitable or necessary, no matter how "realistic" it supposedly is.

Cheers.

[Akron]

Actually, mass murdering of a population will sorta be possible in civ 3. Every turn, you just build a settler and get rid of an opposing nationality. Then, if the city is small enough, you just make this settler rejoin the city. Magically, you've converted these people to your culture. I think that its also possible to kill off a city when you conquerer it.

But I don't think firaxis will refer to this form of ethnic cleansing as what it really is.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Akron
Actually, mass murdering of a population will sorta be possible in civ 3. Every turn, you just build a settler and get rid of an opposing nationality. Then, if the city is small enough, you just make this settler rejoin the city. Magically, you've converted these people to your culture. I think that its also possible to kill off a city when you conquerer it.

But I don't think firaxis will refer to this form of ethnic cleansing as what it really is.

Is that confirmed? That would seem like too easy a loophole for solving public disorder. I would hope Firaxis would have the forethought to make it so that the settler will maintain its nationality upon rejoining a city.

Even so, that is not an explicit suggestion of murder. It sounds more like a minor, unintentional design flaw.

As for destroying the cities, I would probably just infer in my own happy little world that the citizens were dispersed around the Empire rather than being outright killed. Hey, it's possible!

But death camps and massacres? No thank you.

[Christantine The Great]

As for destroying the cities, I would probably just infer in my own happy little world that the citizens were dispersed around the Empire rather than being outright killed. Hey, it's possible!

That sounds like a good strategy! Pump settlers out of newly captured cities and move your's in. Then disperse the non-you settlers.

[Akron]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Is that confirmed? That would seem like too easy a loophole for solving public disorder. I would hope Firaxis would have the forethought to make it so that the settler will maintain its nationality upon rejoining a city.

Even so, that is not an explicit suggestion of murder. It sounds more like a minor, unintentional design flaw.

As for destroying the cities, I would probably just infer in my own happy little world that the citizens were dispersed around the Empire rather than being outright killed. Hey, it's possible!

But death camps and massacres? No thank you.

I hope that you can't simply pump out settlers to solve all your problems. I would be surprised if there aren't diplomatic consequences for such ethnic cleansing. I think the topic of settler ethnicity was talked about a while ago, so Firaxis may have changed it since then.

I also am against death camps, though there are a few people who support their inclusion.

[Ironwood]

Settlers take a while to make. One would not want to waste time making settlers when one could make cultural buildings and lessen the problem... as well as getting the usual benefits.

Then again, if you've got a city of a different nationality, it's likely your neighbors won't be very nice people anyway, so you may want to build *military* units to defend your new territory. No time for settlers!

[Akron]

You don't have to do it immediately. First, you'd want to secure the city with military units. But suppose you like the city and want to make it productive for yourself. At some point you'll want to get rid of those unproductive foreigners and replace them with your own people, right? So at that point you can crank out settlers by rush buying them every few turns. Cultural buildings may be an alternative, but its likely that these structures will already exist, and since they were there before you came, they will not produce culture. It's just a small design flaw that is likely to get exploited by people like me.

[dainbramaged13]

you have to have great leaders to rush buy...

[Mongoloid Cow]

How many Great Leaders can you have? And as for the topic, I would hope you can make agreements not to use nukes, disarm nukes, etc.

[SteveJH]

From what I've seen from screenshots and the official Web site it looks like the only aggreements will be a peace treaty, mutual protection pact, right of passage act, and an alliance. I haven't even seen anything about cease fires.

[Oligarf]

Disarmament should be included and should exceed that of nuclear weapons. Disarmament among a conquered civ or a civ that you have forced to peace. Like the NATO in Kosovo. Disarm attacker-units and leave the defending units by example.

And about those concentration camps. I quite hate them, but they should be a reason in the game to kick a civ it's butt. I would love to declare war on that moronic civ using that horrible thing.

[Dknight]

well we know that the United Nation in Civ III will be similar to SMAC, so maybe Nuclear disarmament is one of the options there?

[Jason Beaudoin]

I remember that in CIV I, once multiple civs had nuclear weapons, wars occured much less frequently between two civs that had nuclear weapons. Mutually Assured Destruction seemed to have been built into that game, and maybe that will be the case in CIV III. I don't think it's that far off the mark to assume that such things will be implemented in this game, along with other things. Who knows.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
I remember that in CIV I, once multiple civs had nuclear weapons, wars occured much less frequently between two civs that had nuclear weapons. Mutually Assured Destruction seemed to have been built into that game, and maybe that will be the case in CIV III. I don't think it's that far off the mark to assume that such things will be implemented in this game, along with other things. Who knows.

I remember playing as the Americans in Civ I on the toughest level, and the Russians were my biggest opponent. After we both had nukes, we nuked the hell out of each other. Old Joe started it (I've never used nukes first), and I remember wishing then there were no nukes in the game. Russia always seemed to use them.

However, I don't recall instances in Civ II of a computer civ nuking another computer civ. They always just seemed to nuke me!