"Civilization IV"... Confirmed?

[Toby Rowe]

Nikolai,

The first Gulf War was a UN mandate, the second not. No "declaration of war" needs to be declared if the UN mandates force.

The UK hasn't officially declared war on anyone since Poland was invaded by the Nazi's in 1939. That includes conflicts over the entire time since then, bar a few years out. The UK does want to stop conflicts now, most wars after WWII were to stop Communism, once the Warsaw Pact imploded, they were their to help civilians (Sierra Leone is a recent example). From Greece, Malaya, Boreo et al to the current day- they are there to help, not kill.

I wish the Nordic nations, along with Germany (largest Army) would help more often. Zimbabwe? Can't do it- no coast.

Anyway, back to the game- I think the world currently has 37 individual wars right now- so perhaps your implication about the number of wars pre-WWII is right- or it now gets noticed by the world by modern communication, and before never got recorded.

Regardless, wars within the game rarely happen until Cavalry occur, at least we can concur that they were actually very common within our European nations before WWI- only one since WWII- and us British stepped into that Balkan war whilst everyone else buried their heads in the sand- neighbouring Germany and Austria especially.

Blimey- that might be my play-style- Does anyone suffer war commonly before cavalry? I simply try to develop my nation.

Toby (sorry for the mixed post!)

[SSBLoveU]

Originally posted by Trip
"War" courtesy of Dictionary.com:

"A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties."

Modern wars cost millions of lives per year. In Civilization, there is no distinction between a war and conflict. A conflict or battle has few deaths, maybe 50,000 or so after a few years. Maybe, a few thousand might be killed in a political statement while an act of anarchy might kill one or many.

[Epistax]

I'm not sure what we're talking about. Hell I hardly read the previous post. That being said I'll try to make an intelligent contribution.

I'd like there to be fighting without war, and war without fighting. Why can't we get into a state of economc, political, or cultural war, instead of just militarily. Why can't we ever take over a city without war being declared, such as colony skirmishes? I'd really like that kind of thing. Often when there is a very high level of hostily between nations they'll take over eachother's villages for defense positions, or just to try to make the enemy make the first move, etc.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by SSBLoveU
Modern wars cost millions of lives per year. In Civilization, there is no distinction between a war and conflict. A conflict or battle has few deaths, maybe 50,000 or so after a few years. Maybe, a few thousand might be killed in a political statement while an act of anarchy might kill one or many.

Call it what you want, a war's a war.

[Toby Rowe]

A conflict is when two nations haven't declared war, but are fighting each other. Iraq is not an example, whilst the Falklands War (Britain-Argentina) is. Neither officially declared war upon the other.

(even if the Portugese discovered the damn islands first, but didn't like 'em!!, even if us Brits first settled 'em-) one day they will be Argentinian, It just will take time- like Gibraltar for Spain- It's merely fitting things into to the modern world- some colonies don't accept the year 2000, let alone modernity and reality. The Falklands hasn't been a Royal Navy Coaling station since WWII, and we don't use whales for Oil anymore.

The Falklands need to decide if they become independent or join the nearest nation (Argentina- 400 miles away), In the modern world "staying British" is flattering but quaint, like the rest clinging onto a Britain that no longer exists and hasn't since the early 1960's.

IMHO of course,

Toby

[Jon Shafer]

And calling "Vietnam" with its millions of casualties is just a "conflict" as well.

Nobody ever calls the American Revolution a "conflict." It's the American Revolutionary war. Why is it a war? Because two large groups of people were fighting. Not because each of them went to their congress and debated for a while and then announced to the world. Same with Vietnam. It's the Vietnam war.

"Yeah yeah, but to be correct in defining..."

Blah blah blah. It's all semantics. Wars don't change because of definitions. Read the definition I posted. It fits all of these and more quite well.

[SSBLoveU]

I'd like there to be fighting without war, and war without fighting

I think that is the point. Fighting should be able to be done without declaring war. Spying is the only way to do this now, but it is not the same. Some times, I do not want to declare war. I just want my friend to stop walking into my land. Also, some enemies just need a lesson rather than a war.

Also, historical differences are interesting:
50k-10k B.C. Stone age hunter-gathers did not know civilizations. Yet they could wander without the need for cities.

10k-2k B.C. Bronze age- needed cities and agriculture

~2K B.C. Iron Age- Morden Warfare deepens its roots

1200-1000 The Canaan Conflict, Iron Age
640-546 Thales of Miletus, Philosophy
605 The Battle of Carchemish and Valley of Megiddo
606-538 Babylon
538-331 Medo-Persia
331-146 Greece and Carthage Destroyed
146-A.D. 476 Rome
(All Dates Now A.D.)
376 Huns ride across Danube
395-1000 Boundary Between Eastern and Western Empires of Rome
570 -1400 The Middle Ages
570 -632 Mohammed
1000-1522 Explorers, Vikings, Marco Polo, Mongols and Columbus; New World
1500-1900 Science, British & Holy Roman Empire, North & South Asia, World Governments
1900-2000 Atomic Age, World War One and Two, United Nations, Space Age

[Toby Rowe]

Trip,

I'm often wrong and never reach for a dictionary, but a conflict is a war, within which no official war is declared between nations as I understand.

Since the UN began, a conflict is far easier for nations than a declaration of war is, afterall, if a nation officially declared war, then ignored the UN, wouldn't the world condemn them?

(If the dictatorship of Argentina had officially declared war on the UK it would have made the sinking of the "Belgrano" much easier- I personally, if I was the interfering stupid woman Thatcher was during this war (oops, conflict) would have ordered the Aircraft Carrier sunk instead as HMS Conqueror had both as choices.- Politicans ay?)

Only one was a threat, but personally I don't care if the Belgrano was sailing back to Argentina or sailing to the moon, wrong choice but no official war, so her direction somehow matters.

(The UK declared a 200 mile exclusion zone around the Falklands after Argentina invaded, this only applied to Argentinian shipping- any ship within would be sunk. HMS Conqueror was already in the region and radioed Northolt that she could sunk either an Aircraft Carrier or the Belgrano, Margaret Thatcher- a Politican - decided which or none was sunk, sitting in London. The ex-WWII cruiser was sunk, not the offshore airfield or nothing..... both were leaving the exclusion zone, but because no state of war ever existed, arguements rage on whether the crap target (Belgrano) was or wasn't sailing away from the illegial zone us British declared, which compounded the illegial invasion the Argeninians did.

Not officially declaring war can be an extremely useful choice in these modern times.

A conflict is a war, just seems like since the UN no one wants to officially declare one, not shocking but no one takes it seriously anyway due to it's colonial structure (like my nation still being on the permanent council- and yes, I'm white British.)

A permanent council that has Britain and France on it- come on!! Is a permanent council even relevant to the modern world? How about a continental system with the US and China taking a rotating presidency?- That at least would be more upto date.

Oops, rambled again,

Toby

[Whilst the world has changed, the UN still has "made in 1945" stamped all over it] (I feel!)

[Jon Shafer]

All I'm saying is that just because there's no DOW doesn't mean that it's not a "war." Many historical 'weapon-tossings' were never officially declared, but we still call them wars. People can call things what they want, but at the end of the day the dictionaries still define "war" as 2 or more groups of people duking it out.

Anyways, I got better things to do than argue semantics.

[Toby Rowe]

I'm with you on what you say mate,

BUT, I still think the lack of honesty in what's happening around the world is due to the very semantics,

Both the Falklands and Vietnam were officially conflicts, amonst many others.

Regarding Sudan; no one used the word "genocide" as that required all UN nations to act upon it immediately. Semanantics may be thus, but in the Sudan people are being killed because of wordage. I believe Colin Powell has finally has finally used "that word"- I'll watch to see if Europe is full of hot air as usual, and if the US chooses to "hold hands" with Europe on this occasion as well now the word has been said.

I'm pro-European, but I wouldn't trust a "common European defence minister" to arrange to defend my garden shed, much less intervene somewhere that the people are being slaughtered in- Britain has already seen the rest of Europe watch as people were slaughtered in the Balkans- at least we British did something whilst other nations wrung their hands.

Toby

[Ps, look at the geophical locations of Germany, Austria and Britain- which nation should have acted?, Germany needs to get off it's ass within the world- WWII is no longer an excuse that holds water in 2004, time they played a REAL part in it- and that includes combat UN missions]

[Peter Triggs]

Should the game reflect this "UN effect" (i.e., after the UN is built, civs don't declare war on each other anymore)? If so, how should it be implemented?

[Toby Rowe]

Tongue in cheek here;

I hope they do apply the "UN effect" this way I can pretend that the UN still actually means something, rather than the shambolic mess that allows half a million people to die in Rwanda before the world has to act, inspite of the UN.

I'm sure the UN was still finding plastic fork suppliers for the victims' meals in Rwanda, but by the time they finished signing the contract they needed many less forks than the field workers originally stated as needed.

The world has changed, the UN is still based in 1945, update or stop the pretence.

For Civ 4, if the AI can allow it, I'd like a flexible UN that can adapt- I did say it was tongue-in-cheek!!

Toby

Sorry!,
I think that If you build the UN that should be the diplomatic victory, just like sending off the spaceship, If your choice of victory wasn't diplomatic it should be just another wonder;

I'm still wondering what they've acheived since Korea!! Ooops- going off again.

[Heresson]

I don't want Civ IV actually. I want huuuge updates to civ2.
Civ3 was a misunderstanding

[Nikolai]

yeah...right...

[Heresson]

Civ3 sucked. I hope Civ4 will be better. To chieve that, they should make it similar to civ2