Governments: CivIII is broken

[Deathwalker]

I personally believe that war warriness is way to powerful in the game. In the real world republics and democracy's have been able to fight wars without the goverment totally collapsing. I think that this feature though an interesting one should not be in the game or have it's effects greatley reduced to the point of being more realastic
I mean even in a back example Vietnam, the US republic did not fall to a Monachy, and in every other war WWI, WWII, Gulf War and others the US was able to fight those wars.
War warriness is way to powerful in the game and should be lowerred to a more realistic level or taken out.

[Grumbold]

If war weariness was weaker then you'd have no need for any modern government other than Democracy since it would be more efficient to build units in the core, ship them to the frontiers and disband than opt for the level-waste Communism. Its not perfectly realistic but it gets the job done. If it had to be changed I'd rather see shields and income being lost directly to war weariness than have all the hassle of juggling heads to manage escalating unhappiness.

Notyoueither: Hehe, strictly by %landmass, North America would hold 2 Civs and South America would hold 2 Civs that extended up about as far as Mexico to make their sizes equal. Unless you're playing a mod with new civs, none of them can be the Canadians or Texans

Europe should certainly all belong to one Civ, but with random placement thats just as likely to be the Chinese as the Romans

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Deathwalker
I personally believe that war warriness is way to powerful in the game. In the real world republics and democracy's have been able to fight wars without the goverment totally collapsing. I think that this feature though an interesting one should not be in the game or have it's effects greatley reduced to the point of being more realastic
I mean even in a back example Vietnam, the US republic did not fall to a Monachy, and in every other war WWI, WWII, Gulf War and others the US was able to fight those wars.
War warriness is way to powerful in the game and should be lowerred to a more realistic level or taken out.

Who said you couldn't fight wars as a democracy? I fight wars as democracy all the time. If the war is very long, then the people tend to be unhappy, but they'll fight. The U.S. involvement in WWII was less than four years. The U.S. involvement in WWI even less.

War weariness is not "too powerful." There are plenty of ways in the game to combat the problem, including that cool slider bar used to adjust luxuries.

[Akka]

I for once agree with Zachriel : I fight all the time as democracy/republic, as I nearly only use these governments (I love too much this trade bonus).
Though the war weariness can be troublesome sometimes, I can usually fight all my wars with it. Not only I think this is a rather accurate concept, but I think too that it's the only thing that prevent democracy to be a uber-government, and that even with it, democracy is hugely efficient.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
I for once agree with Zachriel :

Oh no! I must be losing my touch. Is it too late to change my mind?

[KoenigMkII]

Originally posted by Zachriel
I think you are right for the most part. Hitler would have had a huge slave population. Production outside of Germany would plummet as they killed all the brave, the wise, the intellectuals, the stubborn, the minorities, the "defectives," the Jews, the Gypsies, the Communists, and the labor organizers. So you have made an excellent case for the Civ3 corruption model.

However, these billion people would certainly not be Germans. Indeed, the Nazis were an exclusive club and had no desire to assimiliate inferior races. Restless ethnic populations would make the empire unstable. It would probably break apart once Hitler died.

Your idea to prevent the razing of cities by democracies deserves consideration, but democracies have committed genocide in the past, for instance against the Native populations in the Americas.

Ko's reply:
Para one.
Indeed Hitler would have had a large population of salves in the east. For about 5 years, then he could easily have wiped out the remainder left out from your list above. The Nazis planned the eventual extermination of the entire slavic group of nations.

Russia would have ceased to exist by 1960. Wiped out by starvation, shooting and large quantities of non-persistant nerve agent. (The Nazis invented nerve gas)

With Nazi policies on child birth, I dont think a population growth rate of 5% would have been difficult to maintain for a totalitarian government of that determination to physically build their "Manifest Destiny" to dominate the entire continent of Europe.

Germany had a population of 80,000,000 in 1939. If the Nazis had won the war, and wiped out Russia, a 5% Growth rate gives them a population of over 1.17 Billion by 2000. If there is enough empty space, such growth could be maintained for 55 years (from 1945 to 2000).

As these Germans replaced the Slavonic peoples in the east, production in these places would start low for sure, but sky rocket eventually as the population grows. Nerve gas leaves buildings intact use, so some of the basic buildings could be re-used immediately.

There would be corruption higher than a democracy of course, but the idea that Hitlerburg (ex-Moscow) would be any slower in Tank production in 1970 than a city in the Ruhr due to 90% waste is just silly.


Para 2.
Oh and ALL of this 1.17 Bilion would be 100% German. All the restless ethnics would be dead. Simple and brutal.

Even with a lower science coefficient than the US, on a per-city basis, the greater population and unlimited access to resources would eventually put that Democracy in the shade.

Para 3:
While its true that the US did persue a policy on its western frontier that amounted to, to put it crudely, Genocide, I dont think the Native Americans (on the Northern continent above the Rio Grande anyway) ever really got as far as building a city as such. Hunter-gathering peoples are rairly in one spot long enough to build permanent settlements.

Yes an American republic savaged the Indians, but to be cruel the Indians were like so much vacuum in comparison to the European Americans, at least in number, technology, city building and military power.

In Civ III terms they would just be bands of roaming Barbarians.

So I stick to the Idea of a Democracy being banned from raising cities after occupation of an enemy city by ground troups.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Canada is a good example, because as you know, it is having troubles just staying in one piece due to the Quebec separatist movement.

This is a very poor example because separatists in Qubec are very close to the capital but loyalists in B.C. and Alberta are very far from the capital. So it seems like the problem is not distance from the capital but the presence of another cultural group in some Canadian cities.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by KoenigMkII
Ko's reply:
With Nazi policies on child birth, I dont think a population growth rate of 5% would have been difficult to maintain for a totalitarian government of that determination to physically build their "Manifest Destiny" to dominate the entire continent of Europe.

Sounds like a lot of "what ifs."

Though it is interesting to ponder, the principle of warfare still indicates that defense is easier than offense, and that armies will overextend themselves at some point. Supply lines for the Germans in WWII were already to the breaking point from the moment they entered Russia.

Generally, gunpowder and explosive weapons gives the ability of civilian populations to make attackers pay for every inch of ground they take. A small country like Germany can only control so much territory, and only for so long. Don't believe me. Ask them.

[KoenigMkII]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Sounds like a lot of "what ifs."

Though it is interesting to ponder, the principle of warfare still indicates that defense is easier than offense, and that armies will overextend themselves at some point. Supply lines for the Germans in WWII were already to the breaking point from the moment they entered Russia.

Generally, gunpowder and explosive weapons gives the ability of civilian populations to make attackers pay for every inch of ground they take. A small country like Germany can only control so much territory, and only for so long. Don't believe me. Ask them.

Ko's reply:-
line one: Of course, but the issue is are they consistant, logical and well argued based on good knowledge of Military history, Nazi policies, and the strengths and weaknesses of the Wehrmact/Waffen SS v Red Army.

I let others judge based on other posts in the thread.

As for paragraph two, first line. Militia and Civilians armed in a rush can only survive against a well organised army for a limited period of time in areas like large Cities (Steel reinforced concrete helps reduce the effect of medium artillery and channel the attacker)

A Molotov cocktail can be effective in street fighting (if used to ambush a channeled attacking AFV from above or behind) but try using it in open country like the featureless Steppe common in the Ukraine and other parts of southern Russia. Your head will get blown off by MG34 quicker than you can raise an arm.

The central reason for the German defeat in WWII is Germanies low tank production versus the Soviet Union. This only truly began to tell after the German defeat at Stalingrad and the Cacausus in Winter 1942/43.

If germany had stuck to "Bleu" they would have taken Stalingrad in a pincer movement between army group 'A' (Sixth Army) and 'B' 4th and 1st Panzerarmee. Then the way to Astrakhan and the Volga delta (severs all soviet land communication with Baku and isolates all the soviet troops in the Caucasus) is open.

This leaves something like 500,000 soviet troops isolated in a large pocket. Army group 'B' can wipe it out at its leisure.

With that victory, Baku and the oil wells are doomed to fall into Hitlers lap.

Once that 90 million tonnes of oil production is lost to russia, she is finished. T-34's and Migs cannot run without the fuel refined from Caucasus oil.

Russian final defeat follows with Germany's summer offensive in 1943, since the red Armie remaining mobile forces are immobilised without fuel after the limited reserves are gone.

And as for line two in that paragraph, well of course they say that now, because we are talking about a future in which Germany through away a winning position in July 1942.

And small countries can grow into superpowers, ask someone from the USA ;-)

The 13 colonies were a weak little country to begin with in 1776, but MY how you've grown :-)

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by KoenigMkII
line one: Of course, but the issue is are they consistant, logical and well argued based on good knowledge of Military history, Nazi policies, and the strengths and weaknesses of the Wehrmact/Waffen SS v Red Army.

Is there a publication where can we find this hypothetical sequence of events discussed in detail and backed up by careful historical analysis?

[Zachriel]

If you say so, but real life tends to be a lot more complicated than that. Germany was probably doomed the minute they attacked Russia, probably sooner. Once America entered the war, the Germans could never produce enough fast enough to compete.

And best of all, megalomanics make lots of mistakes.

[JohnE]

Originally posted by Zachriel

The empires you are trying to build are bigger than anything ever built in history. Corruption and cultural flips are models used to represent the difficulty involved in controlling a large empire. The largest empire in recent history, the Soviet Union, just collapsed, in large part due to corruption and the surrounding cultural powerhouses. Civ3 is not meant to be an easy game.

I am not against changes to Civ3; I just think it is playable as it is, though you are free to edit many features of the game if you want.

On the other hand, anybody who can finish a game on huge is definitely a committed player and deserves to have their opinion heard.

I just had a thought.

I get the impression that many of the people complaining about corruption tend to play on larger maps. For the optimal city limits to make sense, they need to be higher for larger maps, and they should probably be in direct proportion to the increased land area. I don't think they are in such proportion, but I will check at home later.

[copcartman]

I think most problems with the civ-games originates from the board-game foundation they build upon. Rules have incrementally been added to the simple core game (whatever game inspired civ 1) to give more and more complexity to it. It would probably be a more realistic/correct game if the ones who made the game had started with the real world and then simplified.

[KoenigMkII]

Originally posted by Zachriel
If you say so, but real life tends to be a lot more complicated than that. Germany was probably doomed the minute they attacked Russia, probably sooner. Once America entered the war, the Germans could never produce enough fast enough to compete.

And best of all, megalomanics make lots of mistakes.

Ko's reply:
What you are overlooking is that the Nazis had a large initial base of War Material/mobilised trained troops in comparison to the US.

It took considerable time for th US to Harness that Idustrial potential. The balencing point of the war occurs in July 42- well before the US is truely producing enough to tip the balence.

You are also forgeting casualties - if the Germans can knock out russia by summer 43, all the casualties/destroyed resources saved each month count as a + to Germanies war output for future months.

If Germany wins in the east, all the air power in from the Eastern front moves to the western front. That airpower potects Germanies U-boat fleet - the result: the Western allies loose the battle of the Atlantic.

When the Western allies try the Mustang P-51, the Germans are ready with the Me-262.

So much for US production, by the time its ready so is Admiral Doenitz.
Game over.

No: it takes all three Allied powers to defeat the Nazis, if one of the Allies gets K.O.'ed early the outcome of the war will be very different.

And the point about Megalomania: Indeed, but the O.K.W. Plan called "case Bleu" actually existed, if he had chosen to execute it methodically after July 1942 then a new dark age would have come to pass. Made longer by the dark power of perverted science.

As for argueing that the Germans were doomed on June 23rd 1941, the day after they attacked the Soviet Union? All I can say is study the Military history carefully - you will think differently.

The US entry into the war puts a time limit on Germany to knock out the Russians, yes, but by itself it does NOT decide the war.

Stalingrad and the previous six months on the eastern front, in combination with the previous US entry do decide the war.

Dont belive the simplified waffle of Journalists and Hollywood; always look at the history yourself.

[KoenigMkII]

Originally posted by Grumbold


Is there a publication where can we find this hypothetical sequence of events discussed in detail and backed up by careful historical analysis?

No- you have to do it on your own by reading lots of WWII Military history, and look at the tank production figures for Germany v the soviet Union. This proves Germany is on a time limit.

Albert Speer's book on his experiences as Hiter's armaments minister is a must read.

But here is a clue: compare the number of divisions in Army group south in July 1942, and compare it with Nov.19th 1942. Look closely at what happened to the deployment of armoured and motorised divisions, the fate of Von Mansteins11th Army, and lastly the deployment of Germanies reserve of super-heavy Artillery.

Then you can see it: The Germans have a winning position in Early July 1942, if "Bleu" is followed through. Of course this can only be IMHO, but it still gives you a shock to see it.