c#155: THE INTERRELATIONSHIP OF WAR AND ECONOMICS

[MarkG]

by Father Beast
http://apolyton.net/misc/column/155_wareconomics.shtml

[Chris 62]

Interesting article, but from an historical perspective, warfare is as prevelent now as it was during the time of the caesars. I think the real problem is the limitations of the A.I., which is unable to form any Strategy whatsoever, never mind a peaceful trading one. The game solution in the more difficult levels is to change the game rules(Cheat like wild). What is needed is a better A.I. All it can do is now is try to steal tech(at higher levels), and then massproduce it's most advanced unit. How many times has your fleet approached a midi-eval city, only to have the A.I. announce that they have stolen Rocketry from you, and you watch your fleet be burried in a swarm of Cruise missiles? It has happened to me many times. A new trade system, that has less busy work, would greatly improve the game.

------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.

[Father Beast]

I wasn't focusing on the AI in this article, I just wanted to show how these two are inextricably tied to each other in the real world, and that it would (probably) make for a more full and interesting experience to show the effects in civ.
Imagine if you get a message saying that the russians are angry because you continue to trade oil with the chinese, who the russians are at war with. it would increase your standing with your allies if you broke that trade, and instead trade oil with russia's protectorate, the polish.

Yes, war is as prevalent now as in ancient days, but for different reasons. a slightly different set of economic circumstances drive warfare these days.

Dang! this column was so clear to me when I dreamed it. it's just a bit difficult to put it down.

[:) Smiley]

Very true, that "1850 barrier". Also, there's the "End-game Fundamentalism rush" in Civ2 where all the AI's go Fundamentalist becaquse future technology is not worth researching.

[Father Beast]

The fundamentalist rush is indicative of a different problem in civ, where we can change governments without our citizens having any say. as I said in my ancient thread in civ2 gen "fundamentalism is too powerful" - Fundamentalism is so great because it stands on the shoulders of democracy.

is it a wargame or an economic game? can it be both without one overshadowing the other (except for personal preference)?

[East Street Trader]

Nicely written, Father Beast.

Your notions are new to me and I think your criticisms are well founded.

A (slightly) more complicated set of diplomacy options would be an improvement.

And if the mechanical aspects of trading could be assisted with, say, a better "go to" function then I rather think trading would be improved if the routes were influenced by events over time.

One small cavill - isn't it 1750 when universal hatred sets in?

[sulla]

A nice article, thanks for posting it Mr. G.

------------------
Sulla-The last dictator of Rome before Caesar. He changed Rome and Rome sure as hell changed him.