State-Owned Property Unrealistic

[Dis]

it's more of a critique on civ.

[Hauptman]

in civ terms USSR communism under stalin was
police state + beurocracy + slavery + merchantilsm + paganism

Notice state property not even beeing mentioned? Stalinist russia had a notorious food shortage and 100,000 people died to make his little canal.

Kruschev made the switch to state property though allowing the peasents to keep their own small gardens, but didnt really gain the bonus of outside trade!


Hitler ran a Police state + vassalage + slavery + freetrade + theocracy type Govt.

Where as the US would be similar to Representation + free speach + emancipation + free trade + free religion set up obviosly.

[Forwarn45]

I think the original poster has a point - but I otherwise agree that the designers want each civic to have its pros. Personally, I'd replace the state property civic with "Centrally Planned Economy," which would similarly be available with the discovery of Communism.

One of the most impressive things about such an economy is its ability to mobilize resources and industrialize rapidly. The Soviet Union transformed Russia from a mostly agrarian state into an industrial power between the 1920s and the 1940s (WWII). In civ terms, the civic could do something like reduce the costs of factories and power plants by 50%. I can see other, simple benefits that would also make sense - such as better science. (Again - see Soviet Union as a good example here). I know there are detriments as well, but the civics are designed to keep things kinda simple! What doesn't make much sense in my mind is the current food bonus. I don't think it is supported by history....

[TheHateMale]

Half-price factories would be enormously overpowered though. Regardless of drawbacks, everyone would swap to it for the 10 or so turns to get the entire civ industrialised and it would never be used again.

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by Hauptman


Where as the US would be similar to Representation + free speach + emancipation + free trade + free religion set up obviosly.

In Civ terms, the USA's government civ is closer to Universal suffrage rather than representation. Cash money is the grease that makes the government machine work, much like you can rush buy government buildings in the game (this simulates the bribes and lobbying). Under representation, people in the three largest cities are happier for living in those cities. I doubt that people from New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago are really all that much happier than the rest of we Americans just because of where they live (definitely not the typical angry New Yorkers maybe the Los Angelinos are ).

Also there is a tremendous amount of productivity coming out of American suburbs and towns (the hammer you get from towns under Universal Suffrage), where I have a hard time believing that priests, entertainers, merchants, or engineers really produce much scientific knowledge, although that can be said of these people in any country, and is really more of a game mechanic than anything built on any sort of a real world example.

I agree with the rest of the interpretation, although for the last twenty years or so, environmentalist attitudes seem to be gaining momentum while Free Market values seem to be declining (at least in our liberal Media and at Universities).

[muflonex]

Taking China into account (according to the Most-People-Live-in-China rule) I'd say it's Free Market which gains momentum, and environmentalism... well... being large nation is not about building subways for snails and cudling the squirrels.

[Hauptman]

yeh i thought about that myself masterdave. I would venture to say that prewar was representation then after pearlharbor and all the boys gettin shiped off to war, we switched then to universal sufferage letting rossie the riveter do all the hard labor.


And as far as chicago NY and LA, they have a higher "happy cap" than other cities, its not that they are happier per-se. and NY is WELL OVER its happy cap. =P

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by muflonex
Taking China into account (according to the Most-People-Live-in-China rule) I'd say it's Free Market which gains momentum, and environmentalism... well... being large nation is not about building subways for snails and cudling the squirrels.

China has no historic tradition for tree hugging and snail coddling. I see today's china as Police State, beauracracy, serfdom (bordering on slavery - a la the Cultural revolution), state property (gradually moving to free market), and paganism.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Hauptman
iWhere as the US would be similar to Representation + free speach + emancipation + free trade + free religion set up obviosly.

You sure? It seems like you have either Organized Religion or Theocracy plus Serfdom

[muflonex]

Chinese have this unique combo of confucianistic*-communistic-bureaucracy. It's not simple to discribe it in terms of Civ, because it's like ideal form of bureaucratic vassalage- even those, who oppose, can't deny the entire system -like chinese professor, who came back to his country, 'cause Chairman of the Party requested him to do so, even though this man opposed the Party ("Chairman can't be wrong").

As for religion it's state-forced ateism (IMO), something more organized than simple paganism.

_______
*As a cultural/mental trait, not religious one. Which leads me to conclusion that Civ lacks the "family structure" civics, IMHO it might change a lot.

[Urban Ranger]

If another person complains about something in this game being unrealistic I am going to throttle him myself.

Stop being such nitpickers and go play the game.

[johnmcd]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If another person complains about something in this game being unrealistic I am going to throttle him myself.

Stop being such nitpickers and go play the game.

That is not a realistic request.

[Aro]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If another person complains about something in this game being unrealistic I am going to throttle him myself.

Please, let me help you.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If another person complains about something in this game being unrealistic I am going to throttle him myself.

Stop being such nitpickers and go play the game.

I disagree. If we aren't going to attempt to put some realism in the game, what's the point?

Why not have flying tanks then?

There should be as much realism in the game as is feasible (and fun) to do so.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If another person complains about something in this game being unrealistic I am going to throttle him myself.

For this claim to be credible, you'd need to know where he lived, take the time and money to go over there, expect that he wouldn't be waiting for you, expect that he is not as strong as you, etc.

That's unrealistic.