NOTE: This is The Column, a regular feature on Apolyton where anyone can write about anything to do with Civilization or the gaming industry as a whole. If you feel like writing, please visit the article submission page.

PREVIOUS ARTICLES

#154 CIV 2 DYING OUT? NOT AT ALL Jay Bee doesn't subscribe to the popular opinion that CivII is on its way out the door, and is prepared to back his statement up. #153 CIVILIZATION III AND MILITARY MAINTENANCE MrFun dispenses three reasons as to why military expenses should be absorbed by individual cities and not the empire as a whole. #152 WHAT CIV3 SHOULD LOOK LIKE Raingoon stands by his conviction that since Firaxis is spearheading CivIII's development, it should play as it looks. #151 HOW AND WHY DO BAD GAMES GET MADE AND PUBLISHED Ex-Activisioner David "Pyaray" Ray gives us an exclusive look at his work that investigates games from bad to worse. #150 GOODBYE ACTIVISION; NOW CIVERS, LET'S GET TO WORK It's time to face facts and move on with the Civilization series, says MarkG. COLUMN ARCHIVE

I have despised war, and have chided the Civilization games for nearly forcing me to be a warmonger. However, I now realize the necessity of some warfare in historical settings.

Anciently, before the advent of trade, warfare served some of the purposes of trade. Plunder served for the economic and genetic transfer between cultures. This was because ancient despotisms weren?t particularly interested in conquering, just in bringing back enough, err, booty to enrich themselves.

In Civilization, this is simulated by the plundering of huts for money or knowledge, and the inability of an unimproved despotism to hold several cities.

Later in history, the little chiefs formerly only out for the gain of their city, can be united as kings under a High King. The lesser kings then become nobles under the king. Under a true monarchy as such, Warfare becomes less of a plundering affair than a combined defense against the despotisms on the borders trying to plunder the kingdom.

Trade also enters in at this time, as the kingdom becomes more aware of the world around them. With plunder going out of style, Trade fills the void with the necessary economic and inevitable genetic exchange that occurs with this now peaceful contact between cultures.

Warfare also becomes a means of expansion, as well as protection. Outlander lands are then brought under the sway of the king.

In Civilization, this is modeled very well, as monarchy allows for easier expansion, and the discovery of trade opens the way for caravans and increased riches for the cities that participate.

As the desire for expansion increases, some kingdoms make the transition to Empire. Instead of conquering kingdoms, emperors make other kingdoms their vassals. Demanding tribute, but allowing them a great deal of independent government.

Another effect of empire is the massive increase of trade and freedom within the imperial borders. The sub kingdoms trade freely among themselves, and if the empire is large enough, little reason may be seen to brave the dangers of trade outside the empire. Efficiently run, the peace within the empire may be such that many of the cities within may feel no need to build city walls.

Sadly, it seems the effects of empire seem not to be modeled in Civilization at all. An oversight that may be rectified with Civilization III.

In our history, Rome fell, and the multitude of squabbling kingdoms settled into an equilibrium state which mostly continues to today. There is some warfare for expansion, but any overly ambitious king was put down by the rest combining against him.

Under such circumstances, trade becomes more important to the established countries, and wars then become fought for economic reasons. For control of certain resources, or to force ease of trade between countries. Even wars fought to support a regime more conducive to trade.

Often, in modern times, the threat against irritating countries (at least at first), isn?t war or invasion, but economic sanctions and trade embargoes

In this area, Civilization falls flat on its face. Instead of trade and cooperation becoming more important as modern times approach, we have the famed 1850 barrier, beyond which the AI hostility rises beyond comprehension. Instead of possible trade sanctions, we have trade routes which remain unchanged through the changing size of the city, what civ it belongs to, and the city?s state of war with its trading city.

So it seems that Civilization, while it simulates the effect of ancient war and economics, falls short in failing to show the effects of empire, and falls dismally short in showing this relationship in modern times. Civilization has instead the equivalent of ancient land grabbing kings with more modern governments and weapons.

Is it too late to hope for a better relationship between war and economics in modern times? I hope not, for I know what I want under my tree this coming Christmas.

Civilization III!

---------
A lover of all the civ games. I love building my empire but I hate going to war

The opinions expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect those of Apolyton CS or GameStats. They are just the personal opinions of the writer.