Refugees

[Grrr]

When a city is being attacked, I think their should be an exodus of refugees to a near city of the original owner's civilization.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I would really like to see some kind of strategic refugee unit. For example, under certain types of governments, when you conquer a city you get x number of refugee units. These are handy little things you can do lots of stuff with. You can choose to resettle them in the city you just conquered, boosting the population back up, but lowering the happiness of the city. You can just keep them hanging around your territory, or (slowly) move them around your territory to resettle them. Every turn they aren't resettled, though, they cause minor diplomatic problems with other government types, and draw off food from your empire, or the closest city, whatever. When you move them to another city, it's just like you added them to their home city; pop goes up, happiness goes down. The third thing you can do is herd them across the border into the territory of another civilization. Once they cross the border they aren't your problem any more, but, you can't control them, either. They wander around the enemy territory, drawing off his resources and food, until they are contained by his military units (how? I'm not sure yet...). They become an economic weapon and a distraction for his military units, but the drawback is he gets the population once they've been contained and resettled (still with happiness penalties).

I could see strategies where you share a long border with another civ, blitzkrieg all the cities along the border, then turn around and release all those refugees back into his territory, crippling his economy and military at the same time. Of course, there are diplomatic penalties for this, but since when have iron-fisted dictators worried about what the diplomats think?

[jdlessl]

They become an economic weapon and a distraction for his military units

And a much better one than say, the Lawyer unit.

Also, you could have another, rather distasteful, option. Just kill the refugees off. Obviously, this has serious diplomatic reprecusions, but this would not, as you said, stop an iron-fisted dictator.

--
Jared Lessl
[This message has been edited by jdlessl (edited December 12, 2000).]

[Nikolai]

We have discussed this three times:
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/001795.html

and
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/001656.html

and(archive)
http://apolyton.net/forums/Archives/...-6-000467.html

[Koyaanisqatsi]

quote: We have discussed this three times:

True. None of those discussions were along the same lines as what I said above, though. I'm not talking just a settler that leaves the city after it's conquered, like in SMAC, or a complex system where you have to constantly be aware of and manage your refugee population. I just want a simple unit that has a couple of special rules and powers built in to it. The complexity of the unit lies in the strategies you come up with, not micromanagement.

And not to get off on a rant, because I don't know if this is how you intended it or not, but I realize it's been discussed before. That doesn't mean that there will be no new ideas presented or that it shouldn't be discussed again.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Yes, we have talked about refugees, I think its a great idea.

[Jeje2]

GREAT topic.

I remembered yesterday evening a documentary serie, that came recently in Finnish TV, about the Roman empire.
(Unfourtanately I've forgotten it's English name)

Now they sad that the reason for the collaps of western Rome was people coming from north and wanting there peace of the good cake (=fruitful land). When Rome sad no, it was invaded.

Another point happend earlier in the Eastern parts of the empire, specially the border. The border was stressed due to invaders from east. The reason for theire advance was the rapid groth of the Mongolian power. People flew away (=west) and Roman territory was on the way.

Both of these events can bee seen as refugee problems, just like todays political (and people locking for better living) refugees. People do flee and/or look for theire part in this big mess.

---

I also realised yesterday that I have becommed obsessed with this hole refugee idea . Got to have it in CivIII, Must have it!!... (So please try to bear with me. I'll promise to return to this topic over and over again )

[Nikolai]

Just as you people know it; I do like idea, if anyone thougth something else. I just linked the other threads so we had something to look back on.

[Jeje2]

Nikolai:
Thank you for your help.

---

Another thing I also remembered from this documentary is about Rome itself. Rome as a city had about 1 million inhabitants at 1AD and it remaind at 1 million for the next twotreehundred years. (After this a millioncity araised next time during the industrial revolution IIRC the program)

Now a city this big at that time required a lot of space to feed everybody. Acording to the documentary, for example most of sisilia was producing grain/corn for the city of Rome. Goods were coming from everywere in boats that mostly returned empty.

This could be utilised somehow in the game. The cities were small and not so close to eachother as today.


Damm, I should have wached the documentary thinking of CivIII all the time. Well, for a stupid head the whole body suffers...

[Wazell]

Exactly. Also you might remember that Rome wasn't able to grow real large before they conquered Egypt 30BC. Because Egypt was the biggest grain-producer in Mediterranean area, most of the food which was consumed in Rome came from Egypt by ships. You should build a whole lot of food caravans in Civ2 to achieve that! So a better system is needed for Civ3.

Actually the growing power in East was Huns (not Mongols) who invaded Europe in 375AD and pushed those small German tribes over the Roman borders, leading to the quick Fall of Roman Empire. In this case, I think, germans weren't so much refugees but simply small tribes which didn't have real cities and that made it relatively easy to flee away. (Yes, I watch historical documentaries too .)

Anyway, shoudn't the refugee unit belong to the civ which LOST the city, and not to conqueror? Makes more sense to me. But refugees are a great idea and must be in the game.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

quote: Anyway, shoudn't the refugee unit belong to the civ which LOST the city, and not to conqueror? Makes more sense to me.

I don't think so. What gives the losing civ control over those people? They don't have any military units left in the city, or they wouldn't have lost it. The city itself is no longer a part of the previous civ, and the land around the city is conquered when the city falls. Maybe the citizens would be loyal, but that's already represented in unhappy conquered cities and partisans. There's not even any way for the previous civ to communicate with or take care of the refugees usually. I think any refugees would be considered under the control of the conquerors, just by force of martial law.

Besides, for gaming purposes, I think it's better to reward the conqueror than the conquered...assuming you consider your new refugee unit a reward, and not just a drain on your resources.

[Jeje2]

Wazell:
Thx, for the correction of my faults. I think you and I watched the same documentary , do you happen to remember it's English name?

---

I think it is time to shake the apple tree and see what rumbles down…

Refugee/wanderer unit

Why?

Take a look at this thread and the links Nikolai gave.
One point I'd like to point out is that it is a way to force defence out of cities in game.

When should unit appear?

Now I see many possibilities

1. City is attacked/concurred

Now let's say we require a minimum size of 3 for a unit to be created. They are people fleeing battle. Risk of unit forming is proportional to size. So a city of 3 has a very small probability and a city of size 15 has big, even more than one unit/turn possible. (When one knows that if the city of size 20 is attacked one will get a massive population flee the temptation to defend outside city gets bigger. And if we add the risk of destroyed city improvements…)

2. Neighbouring city is attacked/concurred

As in previous, but now let's say minimum size is 12 and Max 1unit/turn.

3. Wanderers??

Now we get to the revolutionary thinking that makes this so appealing to me
First take a look at a thread titled: A third state between anarchy and order.

OK, I'll try to solve it my way. So before total anarchy of city let's say people leave it locking for a better place to live. This can be another of your cities or even in another country.

Let's take the idea even further by combining it to the fall of west Rome mentioned earlier in this thread. People in the northern parts were unhappy and tried to come to Rome asking for their part of the cake. How do you do this? One way is to limit city size. The city can't take the unit => the unit gets mad and rest is history… Or we could have a civil war and then rest would be history

Definition of unit?

General

Something like settler, but not able to build new cities nor to do terraforming

Movement

They are normal walkers, but all squares are treated as roads.

Defence

Like settler, very poor.

Attack

NO (But, take a look at the Wanderer part…)

Special abilities

- They aren't affected by ZOC and they don't create one.
- Can't use railroad
- Unit is something like helicopter in SMAC, takes damage each time it doesn't end turn in a "friendly" city. Starvation.
- When created it should be computer controlled 1-2 turns, during what time it should not take the damage at end of turn.
- Unit is to be taken to a friendly city, not the city it left from, and dissolved. (Note. The city must have limit to accept newcomer)
- Finally unit can die of starvation

Who owns the unit

- If wanderer then the player from who it left, unless the unit cross border before end of computer controlled 1-2 turns.
- If fleeing from neighbouring city or while the city is defended => unit belongs to the nation of the city
- If fleeing a concurred city, ??? (Have to think more on this topic)
- A unit could be easily conquered. (Like alien artefact in SMAC)

Effect

- The more wanderers the bigger risk of government falling and lower popularity (=> cheaper for others to buy cities)
- A unit would bind the cities food reserves. This so the city wouldn't grow back to its size at once.
- A starved unit would cause big negative effect on overall happiness.
- A killed (Attacked and destroyed) unit would lead to atrocities
- The city accepting the unit would have one to two turns more unhappiness than normally

Some bad effects of implementing the unit in CivIII

NONE! None what so ever
Seriously I see this leading to bigger micromanagement and balancing the unit isn't that easy task during development either.


Jeje2

[Deathwalker]

This could be a very good adition to the game.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[Waku]

Nomadic civilizations, as Lapps, Gipsy, Bedouins, american indians, tuaregs, etc. can be emulated using these refugee units.

Think of an unit using a single square of land acting as a city.

[Grrr]

Have you ever played CTP and edited the cities in Units.txt, giving them movement? This is what the Civ III nomads should be like

quote: Originally posted by Waku on 01-09- 2001 05:19 PM Nomadic civilizations, as Lapps, Gipsy, Bedouins, american indians, tuaregs, etc. can be emulated using these refugee units. Think of an unit using a single square of land acting as a city.

[Grrr]

Have you ever played CTP and edited the cities in Units.txt, giving them movement? This is what the Civ III nomads should be like

quote: Originally posted by Waku on 01-09- 2001 05:19 PM Nomadic civilizations, as Lapps, Gipsy, Bedouins, american indians, tuaregs, etc. can be emulated using these refugee units. Think of an unit using a single square of land acting as a city.

[New Yorker]

i don't want to throw the subject off but if u include refugees, to me at least, there should be a whole system of immigration not only refugees, these immigrants & refugee shouldn't only occur during war but also change of government, or when famine strikes & immigrants/refugees shouldn't really drive down happiness depending on the events surrounding the refugees

1 more thing on the refugees, should u be able to turn them into slaves, just a thought

sorry if i repeated someone cuz i didn't read everything

-----------------------
if at first u don't succeed, skydiving ain't 4 u
[This message has been edited by New Yorker (edited January 10, 2001).]

[- Groucho -]

quote: Originally posted by Jeje2 on 12-31-2000 08:07 AM Special abilities - They aren't affected by ZOC and they don't create one. - Can't use railroad

Refugees are a cool idea, but I think that it is ZOC that should determine who controls refugees. If they are in A's ZOC, then A controls them, if they are in both A's and B's ZOC then neither controls them (they go barbarian), and if they are in no one's ZOC no one controls them and they go barbarian.

They should be able to use trains, but only if they are in someone's ZOC (i.e. if you put them on a train and then move them outside of one of your units ZOC, then you lose control and they essentially jump off the train - they should treat trains as roads when they're not controlled).

So sort of like SMAC's artefacts, anyone who walks past them can get control, but unlike artefacts, you don't have to end up in their square and you can't send them off by themselves (which I've always thought was an odd thing about artefacts - how do they walk by themselves?)

I like the idea that you can add them to any city's populace at a price of some unhappiness points, but what if you lost a city, refugees were generated, they wandered around for a bit, you managed to retake the city and then sent out a rescue mission to bring your people home. In that scenario there shouldn't be any unhappiness penalty.

[Wazell]

So refugees are independent units which are controlled by someone only in certain situations? That might work best. About the immigration-emigration system, it is also something which needs to be in Civ3. And in many ways. If your people are unhappy, some of them can emigrate to another civ, residents of poor regions of your civ move to richer parts, and it's also possible to tell your people to move somewhere else, like settlers and colony pods now. Immigration is so great part of history, it can't be left out.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Refugee Unit: Counterproposal

[/i](The numbers and details used in this post are based on the CivII systems...obviously, they'd vary depending on what's implemented in CivIII as far as support structure, combat concepts, etc.)[/i]

Unit: Refugee
A/D/M/HP: 0/1/1/1
Cost: Not produced; see below.
Support: 2 Food, 2 Shields from nearest friendly city. Also cause 1 unhappy citizen in the supporting city.

Special Rules:

[*]Refugees are created when a city without city walls is attacked. There's a small chance of them appearing inside a city radius every time a unit inside the city is defeated. The odds of this happening increase with the size of the city. Also, under certain governments, you can order your units to create refugees out of your own cities.[*]If a Refugee is inside a city radius (ANY city radius, friendly or un-) that square cannot be worked.[*]Every turn a Refugee is under your control, you take a (very small) diplomatic penalty. This is not really significant unless you have lots of Refugees, or keep them in play for a very long time.[/list]
Ownership:


[*]When a Refugee is created, it belongs to the attacking civilization.[*]You can release your Refugee to another civilization by moving it across a border and into their territory. At that point, their closest city must pay the maintenance costs, but the Refugee's movement is controlled by the computer.[*]Any Refugee under your control, but outside your borders, must be accompanied by a military unit, or you lose control of it! A Refugee under this kind of military control has larger diplomatic penalties than normal.[*]A civilization that is paying support on a Refugee, but not in control of it, can capture it by attacking the Refugee with any military unit. Once it's captured, the civilization still has to pay support, but can now move or dispose of the Refugee however they'd like.[/list]
Disposal:


[*]A Refugee under your control can be disbanded at any time. Since you're essentially killing off a bunch of helpless people, there are diplomatic penalties to this, which vary according to the government of the other civilizations.[*]A Refugee under your control can be taken to any city in your empire and resettled, adding 1 to the population of that city. That citizen is unhappy for 20 turns, however. A Refugee resettled in their home city is unhappy for only 5 turns.[*]A Refugee under your control can be herded across the border to another civilization as described above, effectively making them somebody else's problem. There is a diplomatic penalty for this as well, but only with the civilization you're sending them to. (Much like a spy being caught.)[*]A Refugee under military control will be KILLED when the military unit escorting them is destroyed. This is a serious diplomatic penalty for the attacker A killed Refugee may turn into a terrorist unit appropriate for the age. (Warrior, Musketeer, Partisan)[/list]
Strategic Implications:

I think that this unit could have a serious effect on exactly what strategies work in CivIII and what strategies don't. Depending on how high the odds are of a Refugee being created, this could seriously discourage huge military conflicts. They'd simply be unprofitable. Too many diplomatic problems, especially in modern times when advanced governments tend to frown on such things, and too many ecomonic issues, since lots of Refugees can cripple the industry and growth of your cities. Because of this, I think there should be an option to set the likelihood of Refugees appearing, like there is for barbarians now.

That being said, Refugees can cripple the enemy's economy just as effectively as your own. If you want to attack an enemy, but military options aren't prudent for diplomatic or other reasons, you can send your Refugees across the border and release them. This hurts their economy, ties up their military, and also might provoke them into firing the first shot in a shooting war, saving you the damage to your reputation.

Refugees can also be used as human shields for your units. What if you, say, sent a dozen tanks over the border, all of which were escorted by Refugees? As long as each Refugee ends its turn in the same square as one of your tanks, they stay under your control. On the other hand, if your tanks are ambushed and destroyed, the Refugee is killed, and the diplomats are all in a tizzy.

There's lots of examples, but the basic idea is they'll make military conquest less profitable, and sneaky stuff more fun.
[This message has been edited by Bell (edited January 16, 2001).]

[loinburger]

I believe it in the Units section of the List that there was a rather simplistic set of rules for refugees. Following is the fully worked out ideas that resulted in the brief entry into the List:

When a city is conquered, or possibly just attacked or in a state of turmoil (revolution, people starving, etc.), then there is a chance that refugee units will be created. They will make their way across the map towards a target city; this destination will change if the target city is attacked or undergoes some sort of turmoil. If the refugees are happy with their current Civ (such as if they were in a city conquered by an opposing Civ) then their destination city will be a city from their old Civ or a city friendly to that Civ. If they are unhappy with their current Civ (they are starving, the Civ is oppressive, etc.) then they will make their way to the city of an opposing Civ.

Refugees have little to no defense and cannot attack. The suggested Att/Def values were 0/1, with one suggestion being 0/0 (if they are attacked, they will die).

If the refugees are on a city's production tile then that tile will have reduced output, or possibly no output (the refugees are living off of the land). When the refugees reach the target city's production radius then they will request asylum. A Democratic or Republican (not the political parties, but the government choices) Civ will create unhappiness if they turn away refugees; any other Civ can send the refugees packing. Refugees will add a point of population to the city that they arrive at, but they will not be able to produce anything (work the land, become a Taxman, etc.) for five turns after their arrival; they will still eat food and create population-based pollution, though.

If refugees are left wandering for too long they may either disappear (die of starvation and exposure) or create their own barbarian city. This city is neutral with all Civs, since the other Civs did not welcome the refugees but did not kill them either.

Killing refugees will constitute a diplomatic penalty and will also create unhappiness in a Democratic or Republican Civ. Refugees can be forced off of the land that they are occupying (such as a city's production radius tile) by initiating an attack against them; the option will be presented whether you want the refugees destroyed or forced off. Forcing refugees off will create unhappiness in a Democratic or Republican Civ, but constitutes no diplomatic penalty. However, there is a possibility that the refugees will die (base chance would be something like: forcing unit's ATT minus 6 times 10, or (ATT-6)*10, since tanks are ill-suited to "friendly" crowd control but casualties caused by infantry (note that Mech Inf ATT is 6, so there is no chance of destroying the refugees are minor when used towards "friendly" crowd control). If the refugees die while you are forcing them off of your land, you will receive the same diplomatic penalty that you would receive from outright killing them.

Attacking refugees might cause them to spontaneously turn into Partisans. This possiblity also exists if you are forcing them off of your land if the forcing unit has an ATT above 6. The transformation takes place before the attack is resolved, so if you attack refugees you might actually be attacking Partisans; if you defeat the Partisans in the initial attack (the one intended to destroy the refugees) then you will receive a diplomatic penalty just as you would for killing refugees. If the Partisans survive the attack then you can thereafter attack the unit without fear of diplomatic penalty. If an attack against refugees is unsuccessful (either you or the refugees retreat before the battle is over, or the refugees, against all odds, win the battle) then you will still receive a diplomatic penalty, but not as great as the one you would receive for killing the refugees.


Unfortunately, not all of this made it into the list; not enough space, IMO. The list says something along the lines of "Refugees: 0 ATT, 1 DEF, prevents use of land occupied by unit, adds 1 unit of population to a city, attacking Refugees constitutes a diplomatic penalty."

[Jeje2]

Bell's counterproposal

The idea in itself sounds OK, but I would like to once more point out why the Wanderer/refugee unit is at all needed.

Bell sad that a refugee could be created in a city whitout city walls. I have to disagree. The biggest problem with defence in CivII was that you even in late game wanted to defend your city in your city. This isn't true in our days... In early days yes, but today no. So refugee unit has a purpose...
(Of course I would like to have destroyed city improvements also...)

technophile

That is a good way to describe it.
(Some minor things of course, but ... )

[Admiral PJ]

I dislike the idea of refugees SUDDENLY becoming partisans etc when you attack them.. they should represent ordinary peasants/families fleeing or emmigrating a war or because they're economic refugees (wanting to go to a rich city.. anywhere but home to make a good living)

Normally refugees stay the same nationality as they started, unless they join another civ or just live in slums like the recent asia Indian refugees(around Kaskmir/bangladesh somewhere)

The partisans created from a conquered city could protect the refugess as separate units.. and yes they should become independant/barbarian if their owner tries to disband them (but other countries can support them with food somehow.. such as the UN does by offering refugee camps)

Admiral Pete

[Lawrence of Arabia]

There some very good ideas in this thread, but I have one to add.

Lets say that your civ has a very high culture rating, and you capture a city of whos civ has a low culture rating. Those refugees while have less unhappiness when they settle in your cities. If its the other way around, then there are even bigger unhappiness for longer.

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now