LESS IS MORE: scrap the modern age!

[GePap]

The thing is, no state currencies are tied to any commodity anymore, so in that sense, a checke, is not the same thing as a dollar or Euro.

BUt think about it, modern economies run on the promises of states, backed by absolutely nothing. If that is not total control of the economy, what is?

The "problems" with the modern age exist simply because the Civ system's problems magnify with time. The solution is not to get rid of the modern age, but solve the underlying issues- get rid of the disease, not the symptoms.

[sprucemoose3311]

Why not create an option that limits what techs can be discovered in the game.

there could be two options, one option has you set which techs individual nations choose and the other option lets you pick the techs for everyone in the game.
Also included in this is an option to end the tech tree at a certain era.

[Toby Rowe]

Originally posted by pg
Modern age is pretty bad but really all the ages get worse as you advance. I have the most fun in the first age generally.

I agree mate,

Much fun is had when exploring in the early days whilst trying to build a decent nation, I think most will agree on that point.

In all versions, conflict occurs in the industrial (Cavalry/Dragoon) age onwards as time flies by so quickly, and they appear on the tech tree just about when you have your nation in shape.[Cavalry that is!]

I'd vote for longer periods spent in the ancient/dark and middle ages, with a tech stop at WWII. pre-nuclear as the AI has no idea how to handle nuclear weapons especially. (it seems to use it as an offensive weapon before taking a city only, nothing more; which is disgraceful programming I feel.)

Maniac has a point.

Toby

[Shogun Gunner]

So, instead of improving any deficiencies, just toss the whole age out? Well, I'm glad Firaxis will not take this suggestion to their programming team -- that would clearly be a step backwards for Civ.

Whatever happened to the slogan "Build a civilization to stand the test of time"?

It would change to "Build a civilization to stand the test of time until the modern age which is too confusing and difficult

[CarnalCanaan]

Okay. Let's remember that what you play as in Civ3 (nor any other game of which I am aware) is not a "nation".

Even the game's own motto attest to this.

At best, what we are all playing is a collection of city-states. This, IMO, is where Civ falls short into the Late Industrial and Postindustrial periods.

As for the modern nation's control of its economics... um, regulation is not control. Keynes is spinning in his grave.

The trick is that money does not flow directly to the state treasury anymore. In fact, it rarely even gets that close. Pre-industrial economic theory was simple - he who has the most gold (money), wins. Adams proved, though, that the mercantilist system actually negated the value of the gold being sought (vertical demand curve, I think... I don't have my notes at hand).

(For what it's worth, this is also why neo-conservative power theory doesn't work. But that's a different forum.)

Now, of course, nations try to get the money to YOU so that every time you move it, they can skim off a little bit (transaction costs). This is the part of the model that Civ doesn't simulate well.

But, of course, since Nobel Prize winning economists have a hard time modeling the modern economic system, it's asking a bit much for video game designers to do so.

[Shogun Gunner]

Yes, I identify with your comments regarding modern economies.

However, the "military-industrial complex" concept does work within this model. Whatever economic activity is generated (trade arrows, cash from other nations) is directed in proportion to your (the leader) objectives. Whether this is done with strict state-controlled economy a la Soviet style or free market democracy like the US, the bottom line is either government model is able to control how much military stuff is produced and the non-government economic activity, in the US model, is controlled by regulation, tax codes, policy, etc.

So yes, being an economics major, I also recognize the vast over-simplificiation of the approach, but I think it kinda works for the game.

I like your comment about Keynes spinning in his grave. I think Frederick Engels would be mightly disappointed with the economic model in Civ.

[Toby Rowe]

Heh!

"Keynes spinninng in his grave" was a phrase I learn't studying Human Geography. It is almost impossible to study both Economics and Geography or History at 'A' level in state schools in the UK, which narrows university options to "Public" [read private] school pupils only pretty much, and does our nation a disservice in the global economy I feel.

I wanted to study Geography with History and Economics, no chance- and that was in 1979. All 3 subjects were taught at the same time in my school timetable. Very stupid.

The game:

My prefence for a longer period in the middle and dark ages is clear, but I agree, If nuclear weapon usage was correctly modelled, then the modern age is fine, It's not in Civ 3, but was in Civ and Civ 2, so in Civ 4?

The modern era isn't difficult- on the contrary, it's the easiest- get the (awful) Sherman tank, then modern Armour and you win- quickly, due to the fact that every nation is programmed to hate you from the industrial age onwards (bar 1 or 2), and one after another they will declare war, even if you have never declared war on anyone in 5,000 years, it sort of makes you prepared militarily.

I permanently have Prime Minister Chamberlain waving bits of White paper around but the gits still will attack you.

Toby

[odioalsoco]

That would also mean removing the "Americans" from the game, which I would NOT miss at all.
..but we all know this is not happening...

Great idea though

[Toby Rowe]

Hi mate,

I dunno, If the Yanks began with the Romans as they do, they are one of the most colonial nations from 1860-80. Afterwards they are just in a common "land-grab" that the main 3 nations in Europe did.

The US didn't like to abmit it's Imperial attititude until Monroe; "The Monroe doctrine" made US imperial policy exactly the same as us British and French- they (The Yanks) simply decided they wanted strategic islands off the US coast- for instance they bullied the Danish to sell the modern US Virgin Islands, still, they did pay for them.

Alaska was brought to trunkate "British North America" (Canada) in the hope Canada would join the Union as they were boxed in thereafter, thus creating a continental wide nation. (Look at West coast access in modern Canada to see what I mean, although the casting vote was a British judge who found favour with the US arguement- Wonder why?)

I think if Monroe had not existed, logic might have dictated that it would actually have occured (a Union)!- his bullying to the North and South of the US ensured the current nation (Canada) stayed as such- land grabbing in Mexico, Cuba and Haiti thereafter happened in the South.

Were it not for the Colonial attitude by the US in 1850-1913, I doubt the US would ever have joined what became WWI and WW2, I'm very glad they did, but I doubt history classes in the US teach the reality of how their governments behaved during this period.

Toby (My opinion of course)

[Shogun Gunner]

This is a borderline off-topic conversation. However, Russia approaches the US to sell Alaska as they were short on cash and looking to scrape together whatever capital they could...hence the origins of the deal. I have never read anything about a "British judge" and "west coast" access having anything to do with the purchase. In fact, I don't even understand that part of your post.

Regarding imperalism, name me one country that had power, but did not pursue some form of "imperalism". If a country has power, it projects that power just about any way they can. It's a human characteristic (failing?), not a trait of any one individual country.

Monroe's Doctrine was partly in response to the imperalism of British, French, Spainish, etc. in the Western Hemisphere. So perhaps the doctrine is imperalistic in nature, but it wasn't the first link of the imperalistic chain - nor the last.

I think it was ultimately economics that drew the US into both WW1 and WW2. Specifically, it was our application of economic power (oil/steel embargo) over Japan that forced their hand and brought an attack upon us. WW1 is more nebulous to the reasons why the US got involved -- certainly losing lots of money due to German sub attacks didn't sit well with the leadership of the US.

With this discussion, it does show the "ever attacking AI" in Civ as a good model of humanity and excellent programming. So, NO! Do not scrap the modern age!

i can't believe I got that all the way back on topic

[Toby Rowe]

Shogun,

Yep, it is off topic- my appology.

I'm interested to see how US history is taught in the US, I like history - a lot, the UK when I was at school never allowed me to learn real history untill I got older, and left school. (Henry VIII never had VD for instance).

The Monroe doctrine put the US on a par with Germany and Japan in rushing for bits of the world nobody had yet "claimed", called the second colonial wave, where competition, not actual strategic value came into play.

The US took Hawaii as a coaling station for Warships, The UK had an entire string of Islands East of South Africa for that very purpose on the Indian/Australian route, but also to simply stop others (The French or Spanish) threatening trade.

You sounded "tired" within the reply, but the US was far more active and aggressive than the Germans ever were from 1860 onwards- As a Brit I don't have to support or agree with what my nation ever did- indeed as a working class person, we were used as much as any nation was by the Upper classes of Britain- we fought the wars they wanted especially.

The US, Canada, Australia etc remained a real escape from the UK society as it then was, and a ship left Liverpool every day to get away from it.

One thing I've noticed is people that aren't British view the history and then blame me for it- because I'm British. The common person in Britain has as much to do with Colonialism as .....the Monroe doctrine does with you, back then, and now.

I won't appologise for whatever an upper class elite did, to ask me to appologise for them is such an insult to me, as a working class person, but nationals from other nations treat you as if you owned 200 acres on a slave plantation or something whenever the word history is mentioned.

I hope that history will eventually be based upon the common persons' experiences, and I can stop saying sorry to something I had no part in etc. etc.....

(Climbing off my high horse)



Anyway, Monroe basically said anyone who meddled in South America was arguing not with Mexico etc, but the US- The UK had only 2 colonies in South America, both tiny and I have no idea why the British even had them to begin with.

An arguement with Venezuela over one of them led the US to automically intervene (Belize?)- The UK got told by Monroe in no uncertain terms that South America belonged to the US sphere of influence, the UK dropped the argument, whatever the arguement was over.

Still, Colonial attitude, and as a White British bloke, but working class, how do I fit in when people view the British Empire? We were the soldiers and sailors like many other families.

End of rant!! but for those that love history, but feel the books don't really bear much relationship to your history- hey!, neither does Civ 3 either.

Toby

[Shogun Gunner]

Well, Toby. That's a lot there. I was only suggesting that imperialism can happen anywhere -- with any country. I wasn't referring to any particular country or period of history.

I just thought that Russia made the first offer to sell Alaska to the US...


fixed a silly typo...

[Toby Rowe]

Sorry mate,

I can ramble, but I do wish history to finally be claimed by the people, in the modern world.

All our history books are based upon govermental/national perspectives, which we learnt at school.

Since the cold war finished, we've had (and still do) a unique opportunity to present real history to our nippers, devoid of governmental influence.

If historians don't take this opportunity, then history will forever be associated with the nation you were born in, rather than history we might all agree about, what ever the epoch.

Toby

[Bkeela]

A near future era would be nice. Not quite to the depth of SMAC, but planting moon colonies would be cool.

[Proteus_MST]

I absolutely agree.

One thing I like about CtP 1 and 2 is, that they have future technologies in it (and yes, I normally play till modern age (and beyond) both in CtP2 and Civ 3).

As GePap says, you could get around masses of workers improving your terrain, if you implement a public works system (like in CtP) and yes, maybe you could alter the System so it represents the modern (and future) age better.
But to leave it out of the game would be a very bad decision (which would be a reason for me not to buy the game).

Maybe you could implement an option at which age to stop though (like a Combobox with "Game ends at ..." [Medieval ages....Modern age])
And of course, you could also give the premodern times more room (by adding more inventions for these periods and maybe altering the timescale so that you don´t rush from 4000 BC to 1900 )

Oh and for future ages, as other people said, why not being able to colonise the moon [and maybe even the Orbit around Earth]