Refugees, Immigrants, Governments

[the_orange1]

I'm not sure whether any of these have been mentioned before, but I have not come across them yet in my wanderings around the site. If they have, I apolgise for the repitition. The ideas are not fully formed and I would love to hear others add their tuppence worth about them. Anyway, here they are:

1)Refugees: The creation of refugees is an unfortunate outcome of almost all wars. It is also an issue that stirs a lot of passion and draws further attention to a war (just look at NATO's recent war in Kosovo where the flow of refugees was the image that sparked the West into action; similarily in Rwanda). Furthermore, it is something that complicates the act of war, moving away from the idea (in civII) that war is a clean, clinical affair that only effects military units, with citizens only suffering through the destruction of city amenities or the loss of the odd population unit (excepting of course a nuclear strike). In the game, a refugee unit could be created when a city is taken perhaps at the cost of a population point(like partisans, but not as many). It would have no defence points and would be controlled by the computer. However, if attacked, it would be treated as an atrocity and effect the civ's reputation accordingly and could spark the entrance of other powers into the war. The refugee unit would head for either the nearest home city or a close city of an opposing civ (but not the attacking civ). It would be particularly likely to move to an opposing city if that civ was bigger, happier or more powerful than its home civ. On arrival, the refugee could maybe turn into a population point. If entering an opposing city, that civ could choose whether to accept the refugees or not. If they do, they get a population point, but it could maybe affect happiness (just look at how unhappy some Brits are about refugees at the moment) or reduce money (housing, social security,etc). If they don't, the refugees could either move on or camp outside the city (in a makeshift shanty town) that would reduce production in that square. If religion plays a bigger role in civ III (as suggested in other posts), this could be a factor in where the refugees go too.

2)Immigration: Immigration/Emigration has been a powerful factor in the development of many civilisations in history (British convicts to Australia, Spanish to South America in later colonial period and absolutely everyone to the US). The pulling power of a rich, powerful or happy nation is ignored in civ II. It seems inevitable to me that citizens in a small, weak and poor nation that borders a large, civilised and rich one will be drawn towards it. Immigrants would work like refugees, but would not be created by capturing cities, but rather as a probability based on the civ's happiness, wealth, power compared to other civs, especially if the civs are close together. Immigration could cause unhappiness or money loss in the recipient city, but would cost population in the donor city. Thus, if you don't keep a city happy, not only do you lose production through rebellions but also population through immigration.

3)Governments: The system of governments should be expanded beyond that in civII (or for that matter SMAC with its extra SE options). Within democracy for instance, you could choose to have a federal or unitary government - if federal or devolved, perhaps the central government gets less money (because state governemnts are spending more themselves), but cities get happiness advantages. Under a untary government, it would be the opposite, with citizens unhappy under the stifling control of the central government, especially if far away from the capital or if a different culture, religion etc (again see other posts). I can tell you for nothing that us Scots are a lot happier with a devolved parliament in Edinburgh than we ever were under the tyranny and oppression of Westminster. Just an example...Also, communism could be divided - Maoism, with its concentration on the countryside over the cities could give food bonuses but lose shields, while Marxism, with its urban, industrialised focus, could give more shields at the expense of food.

Right that's me done.

[the_orange1]

I was thinking about this a bit more and realised that refugees/immigrants don't seem much of a benefit to an opposing civ. To make them worthwhile, they could give something that reflects them bringing new skills/knowledge from their home civ. Obviously a tech advance is too great, but how about a one-off boost to science production?

[Optimizer]

Interesting idea... which calls for some Wonder ideas.

The Statue of Liberty would attract immigrants and refugees. There should be an Iron Curtain wonder too, that would prevent emigration from the possessing civ if it is not democratic.

Refugees should be able to go by boat, too.

[raingoon]

quote: The Statue of Liberty would attract immigrants and refugees. There should be an Iron Curtain wonder too, that would prevent emigration from the possessing civ if it is not democratic.

Great idea!

[airdrik]

quote: Originally posted by the_orange1 on 02-28-2001 09:31 AM - Maoism, with its concentration on the countryside over the cities could give food bonuses but lose shields, while Marxism, with its urban, industrialised focus, could give more shields at the expense of food.

It alreasy has this, to an extent. You could choose to irrigate the land so that it will produce more food, or you could choose to mine the hills, etc. and improove the production.

I like your ideas about unitary vs. federal gov. You could choose your main type of gov(democracy/monarchy/communism/etc.) and then you can choose whether it is unitary or federal (maybe you could have different degrees of federal gov.) The more federal, the more happiness, but less money to spend. If you federate it completely then you get anarchy

If you switch between govs then the severity of the effects would be dependant on how federated your gov is: less federal, more 'totalitarian' effects aren't as severe. more federal, less 'totalitarian' more severe effects, and maybe even not switch at all, but causes unhappiness nationwide. People's happiness also affects this: happier people, more severe effects. Unhappier people, less severe effects.

The way I can see this refugees thing is this way. When a units start to attack another city let's said after the second or third hit a code in the program will tell the city to loose one pop. point and a refugees units steps out of the city, just the same as when you capture a city the partisan show up. Of course if you attack the refugee units it would be an atrocity.
Mr. the_orange 1 as you can see I did not read the complete parp. before I started to answer your post. You have an excellent suggestion. Why not sent this to Firaxis and see what come of it.

------------------

[Lonestar]

Bah, There is nothing more fun than bombing refugees. Much like the colony pods in SMAC.

Maybe if the refugees were completely destroyed it would compel the opposing goverment to surrender.

[Lonestar]

Bah, There is nothing more fun than bombing refugees. Much like the colony pods in SMAC.

Maybe if the refugees were completely destroyed it would compel the opposing goverment to surrender.

[RAF]

good point i said something about few days ago at minorities, government and revolts...these things should be considerate some how at Civ 3...

[the_orange1]

I like the idea about the Statue of Liberty attracting immigrants. Either that or it could increase the science input of immigrants and lower their unhappiness effects or something. As for different forms of government within the wider classification of "democracy" etc, there are so many things you could do. I've always found it odd that Republics have PMs and democracies presidents. It is possible to have democarcies with either (look at UK for example, with its PM - it's certainly not a republic, but it is a democracy). Conversely, the countries of Latin America are republics but have presidents. You should be able to choose to have a presidential-style or a parliamentary-style democracy - these have historically had profound differences on country's developments. It is generally easier to pass policy under a pres system because most parliamentary governments are formed from coalitions. On the other hand, however, parl systems are more representative. Also, historically, parl systems have been more succesful at enduring than pres systems. Although this is a sweeping generalisation that ignores many other factors and has some fairly obvious exceptions, it is still a valid point. Perhaps this could be reflected in the game with pres systems more likely to collapse, especially as the result of coups.

I think there should also be room for more authoritarian governments too. For instance, what would Saddam's Iraq come under in civ II - fundamentalism? Despotism? Does that really reflect what kind of system it is? I don't think so. Also, there is no way anyone will play despotism after the discovery of monarchy. There should be some authoritarian forms of government that offer advantages to playing. Much as the West dislikes Saddam, he has been fairly succesful in his own country and in the region. Similarily, what would the military regimes of Latin America in the 1960s-80s come under?

Anyway, enough for now. All I'm trying to say is that the choice of government should not be limited to a few categories and you should be able to tweak different aspects of each form of government.

[Sirotnikov]

quote: Bah, There is nothing more fun than bombing refugees. Much like the colony pods in SMAC. Maybe if the refugees were completely destroyed it would compel the opposing goverment to surrender.

I say things that don't even sum up to this on the OT forum and get slaughtered. You say it and nothing happens.

You, Ariel Sharon, you!

[Lonestar]

Ariel Sharon? Moi ? Just because I favor using helicopter gunships to take out snipers?

Besides, the whole "Bombing retreating refugees" might work, especially if the country you're fighting is weak. Like Poland...or Mississippi.

------------------
"People should know when they're conquered."

"Would you Quintis? Would I?"

"Soylant Green is people. PPPeeeoooppllleee!"

[airdrik]

The problem with that is that Everyone will delare war on you for such atrocities. For what profit is it to a leader if he gains poland and looses his entire nation?

[MrFun]

Do not forget the 4 million African-American refugees and thousands of white refugees that existed when the American Civil War ended. Many of the problems that the freed slaves faced, along with the government of the United States, was complicated by political terror and racial violence by former Confederate soldiers.

So, what if Civilization III would implement civil war? Such as when a certain number of cities become VERY unhappy and split?

[tmarcl]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 03-02-2001 04:07 PM The problem with that is that Everyone will delare war on you for such atrocities. For what profit is it to a leader if he gains poland and looses his entire nation?

Well, if you have the Great Wall or the UN, then that shouldn't be too much of a problem (after a couple of skirmishes, enter negotiations, and voila', no war).

Marc

[Lonestar]

ooooooooooo.....who's gonna stop me, France? Besides, never underestimate the power of realpolitik , especially if you cut a deal with a country bordering the one you're in the process of destroying.

------------------
"People should know when they're conquered."

"Would you Quintis? Would I?"

"Soylant Green is people. PPPeeeoooppllleee!"

[sulla]

Great idea! Although how about the refugee unit being a land/sea unit allowing it to travel to a nearby country or city reflecting the historical Old World to New World emigration.

------------------
Sulla-The last dictator of Rome before Caesar. He changed Rome and Rome sure as hell changed him.

I concur, if refugees are included then they need to have the ability to travel by boat to other islands - not just wonder around the same island where their home city is/was located.

[RAF]

The game should take in consideration the ethnic minorities as a current event of the game. We should have as example that happens with the Kurds, Basque and Gypsy, the existent problems for all American continent with the subject of the native ones . For instance the gypsies are people without territories but that could settle down in the civilizations as it happened mainly in Romania. No matter how problematic those subjects are they should be considered, could the game ask for instance: what you want that is done with the inhabitants of this city (ou area-province)? Segregate them? Did I banish them? To exile them inside of the empire? Make them slaves? To kill some as punishment ( form that would cart hereafter in conquered resentments us remaining) for who to riot against your new masters? Can to join them to the império (as the time and the treatment of the empire to them become part of the civilization)? Another topic would be to treat the case of the migrations internal (forced as it happened followed, or spontaneous the search of better conditions), emigrations and immigrations. The immigrants could enter in the civilization becoming it leaves of the empire assimilated as it really happens with the immigrants. Often some immigrants could announce request of political asylum in case the civilization has immigration control or borders closed. You could accept them, to give them shelters temporary or to also extradite them this option available in illegal immigrants' case, to accept them or to order them although as it really happens

[RAF]

The player could also opt for your political tendencies as which he finds of the minorities, which your right option, left or centro(em democracies, and as this it would affect the economy and happiness of the people), what to do with refugees that ask for shelter in our border, or nomadic people that cross our lands, what to do with the separatist of the north that unsatisfied ...Poderiam are revealed to have options of formation of unifications as for instance the austro-Hungarian Empire, United Kingdom, or monarchies that unite two people in a nation as in Spain and in Belgium, that would appear when a nation wins a war or it conquers the other, the winner side he/she can enclose the lands, to destroy the civilization or to unify on your domain... .mas these would be more fragile governments because they would have two or more nations on a government, what would help this situation he/she would be the regional governments with more autonomies for the subdued groups...