An intellectual's review

[Wiglaf]

That is priceless.

[Adam Weishaupt]

It is a reflection of the fact that all this comes from a "which special unit do you like" perspective, rather than a "how do SEALs actually perform when war does break out around the time they are relevant." If people can't even bother to make that distinction, just how seriously am I supposed to take judgements that follow from the resulting muddle?

Regards,
Adam Weishaupt

[Kataphraktoi]

Bhruic specifically mentioned a number of reasons why SEALs are a poor UU. Never did his dislike of SEALs or America come up as a reason. Its something you made up to dismiss his argument. And if anyone could be bothered to read his comment, they will see that he did not do what you claim he did-not consider a SEAL in its time of relevancy.

[Bhruic]

Originally posted by Adam Weishaupt
It sounds to me like SEALs are being evaluated in the context of evaluating America, not in the context of using them in warfare. What matters isn't that they only have a couple of advantages over Marines.

That depends on the scope of your assertion. You could be saying one of two things: 1) SEALs are great general units, or 2) SEALs are a superior UU. Comparing them to Marines covers case (2).

What matters is that when you mix them in with a complex force being confronted by another complex force, they hold their own in a more diverse set of circumstances.

"Hold their own" compared to what? In what way? And there is a huge difference between "holding their own" and "kicking ass".

I think the trick here is not that I haven't played, but rather that I haven't been in the endless discussions in which the mythology of excellence causes people to embrace "the one true way" of looking unfavorably at something that does not look so bad from another perspective.

Ah, yes, so now you are saying that your complete lack of experience somehow makes you more qualified to judge the relative strengths of various units.

There is intelligent discussion, and there is condescending pretension. You've officially crossed the line into the second. And sadly, it's completely unjustified pretension.

Bh

[Kataphraktoi]

He crossed the line with his blog.

[Arrian]

I feel increasingly like I'm watching Gladiator. People slicing each other to bits, and Wiglaf shouting "Are you not entertained!?!"

Wodan

As annoying as he can sometimes be (and chose to be at the outset in this thread), I'm gonna have to side with Kuci here, sorry.

On the least important (and yet fun) point: Navy Seals are indeed a "meh" unit, for reasons already mentioned, that have nothing to do with the Civ to which they are attached. They could be the Incan Navy Seal and still suck.

-Arrian

[Adam Weishaupt]

Look, if me conceding that Navy SEALs are feeble will end this trollfest I'll be happy to do it. It's not as if I think people will look like fools for carrying on through life with that heartfelt conviction. However, it is worthwhile to be clear -- whether or not they kick ass is not at all a function of whether or not they compare favorably with other special units (with the exception of others that are reasonable contemporaries, I suppose.) If other people are convinced that American players would do well to skip them altogether, so be it. I am consistently unimpressed by the thinking of my critics here, but this is a silly point of trivia and I admit both that I do not play many protracted wars and that I haven't been a part of whatever process caused a few of you to become convinced that Firaxis and associates collectively made a huge mistake that they surely would have fixed in a patch if only they had been blessed with your majestic insights into the issue.

If we get back to the slightly less trivial point from which this emerged, scratch SEALs, insert something you do think kicks ass, then ask yourself if the real world equivalent of that unit does in fact kick ass. If so, then there's the lesson. If not, then there's a valid criticism of the game, though still nothing even vaguely resembling a repudiation of the idea that it contains some of the best elements of a macroeconomic simulator.

Regards,
Adam Weishaupt

[Wiglaf]

An example of a basic macroeconomic simulation would be a study of the effect that environmental regulation has on the energy markets in a particular continent. The simulation would take into account everything from tax systems, transportation statistics, to energy supply to tell us what would happen in 2015 to energy markets given the effects of a given piece of legislation.

Civilization is incapable of any of this. Civilization can only tell us the same thing over and over again, and that is basic generalities that rarely, if ever, hold true in reality. Cities near mines always produce more. If you ever put a city elsewhere, it is penalized, without considering anything else. It does not matter what tax systems, transportation systems, or private industries are in place. The game simply says "Nope, this is a bad idea," which clearly flies in the face of reality. As do about a million other aspects of the game which have already been mentioned.

The game has an economic model, but it is ridiculous, cannot accept new inputs of any kind, tells us nothing about reality, and as such has no elements of a good macroeconomic simulator. Saying it has "many of the necessary elements" of a real world simulation is a brazen assertion when you can't even mention what these elements are. Perhaps you have simply never played the game, which is why you think we are railing on SEALS because we're all anti-American. I cannot think of any other legitimate reason you are so convinced of this bizarre theory.

And I still think you should be banned for consistent personal attacks and condescension after two separate warnings. OUT YOU GO

[wodan11]

I think he was asking for software of some sort, Wiglaf, not a paper study.

Wodan

[Wiglaf]

Right, software is also capable of responding to new inputs based on statistics or real world research to give us insights into the future. The simulation is what would provide the resources for the paper study.

[Solver]

Hey, relax everyone

[Wiglaf]

This fiasco makes me look at Solver's reviews in a much more positive light

[Bhruic]

Originally posted by Adam Weishaupt
Look, if me conceding that Navy SEALs are feeble will end this trollfest I'll be happy to do it.

There are two problems with that statement. The first is that you are transforming people's valid criticism of your point into "trolling". The second is that you are trying to concede the point without conceding the conclusion. It is that kind of attitude that is causing people to be somewhat scathing in their approach towards you.

I mean, even while admitting you were wrong, you tried to turn that into some sort of moral victory on your part. "Look at me, I can admit I'm wrong, and you can't, so nah-nah!"

If you want to have a serious discusion about something, leave the attitude at the door. I will grant that Kuciwalker and Wiglaf did some mighty fine baiting early in the thread. I'd extend the same advice to them. But please, for the love of god, drop the pretension.

I am consistently unimpressed by the thinking of my critics here

Yes, that pretension.

I admit both that I do not play many protracted wars and that I haven't been a part of whatever process caused a few of you to become convinced that Firaxis and associates collectively made a huge mistake that they surely would have fixed in a patch if only they had been blessed with your majestic insights into the issue.

I mean, is this really your arguing style? That's the best you can do? A group of people argue against your post that SEALs "kick ass", and your response is that we've somehow implied Firaxis "made a huge mistake"? There are plenty of units in the game that don't "kick ass". In fact, I'd say at least 95% of them don't. That doesn't mean Firaxis made a mistake, it means they made a balanced game.

And "majestic insights"? Come on, you have to be able to do better than that. If you want to argue about their usefulness, then come up with some concrete examples of their usefulness. Don't write some vague "they are a great part of a mixed force" BS. And if you are unable to do that, admit that you don't have enough knowledge and call it a day. Don't suggest the rest of us who actually have the experience to make qualified judgements are acting superior.

If not, then there's a valid criticism of the game

Criticism in what context? Why would we want to argue that there should be a real world correspondance with "kick ass" units?

though still nothing even vaguely resembling a repudiation of the idea that it contains some of the best elements of a macroeconomic simulator.

No, but so far after 6 pages you have yet to describe what exact elements of a macroeconomic simulator the game has. Or why they'd actually qualify as macroeconomic.

Bh

[Velociryx]

Well...it's been an interesting (though surprisingly venomous) thread so far.

Adam....looks like you got quite the welcome. My apologies for the venom sent in your direction.

On balance, I agree with you. The abstractions of food (farming), hammers (industry), and commerce (...commerce) do an adequate job of representing the real pillars of the functioning economy (and your comments 'bout terrain differences being abstracted by hammer/food/coin outputs is spot on re: allowing the game a simple mechanism to differentiate regions without going into too much detail about the particulars)...a passingly good enough job that it "feels" like you're in charge of a living, vibrant nation (well, actually not...more akin to a collection of city states, but still....close enough to not be terribly distracting), and it produces outcomes that are close enough to real world outcomes that it makes them interesting.

Historic? LOL...hardly, but no one would argue that Civ is (or was meant to be) a historic simulator (play EU if that's what you're looking for...which, btw, also has an excellent economic model, if more inaccessible than Civ's).

Kuci nailed one point tho....Civ's population/growth model is absolutely malthusian...an intentional game design decision, I think (and probably rightly so....anything else would be a nightmare to balance!).

Minus the venom, this coulda been a thread worth topping. Still, amidst it all, there's some good reading.

-=Vel=-

[pikesfan]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
An example of a basic macroeconomic simulation would be a study of the effect that environmental regulation has on the energy markets in a particular continent. The simulation would take into account everything from tax systems, transportation statistics, to energy supply to tell us what would happen in 2015 to energy markets given the effects of a given piece of legislation.

I suspect you've set the bar way too high for something to be considered a simulation.