What "Realism Watchdogs" Should Really Be Worrying About

[Mr. President]

War. Man's oldest friend. Since the Ice Age, Ares in his various incarnations has brought us better food, more spacious caves, and attractive cavewomen. By which, of course, I mean that it is (broadly) good for the economy. Germany shook off the Depression by militarizing its economy. World War II transformed the United States into a superpower.

But, in my experience, war often has the opposite effect in Civilization. You tend to end a war with your treasury empty from rushing units and your population hating you. It also slows down your research, when in real life conflict drives science.

In the words of D. L. Hughley, "What up with that?" Sure, the economy is too complicated to be accurately simulated by a computer game. But you'd think that they wouldn't punish you for fighting a war, considering that war is one of the things you're encouraged to do by the advertisements.

[The Pioneer]

I agree with the idea that war has had positive effect on science development and the economy in some cases. But I also believe that the game correctly punishes prolonged warfare. In an ideal world (far from ours) people should not wage wars and all should live in harmony and peace. The game is based on this principle which may or may not be realistic but makes for a good game.

Anyway, if you have a strong civilization and you are advanced enough waging a war should not cripple you. Maybe the population will grow wary but remember its their sons that you are sending out to war. My original cities (i.e. ones that I established long before the industrial age) always stay in tact and wealthy long after the first shots of war fell. On the other hand if your civilization is weak and/or still in ancient era a prolonged war will cripple you because of the absence of a core production center that could produce wealth, science and units. But if you play long enough afterwards the wounds will heal and progress will once again prevail.

I hate drawing parallels from the game to real life but (hoping this wont raise any controversy; it's just a game a very good one but still only a game) look at Afghanistan or some other African nations like Liberia, they have literally been thrown into the dark ages because of war. Which investors, manufacturers or scientists would be mad enough to go and invest in such places. They usually flock out of such places and stay away until order has been restored.

'nough said now I have to go and blast the Japanese back into the stone age for threatening me

[dunk]

I agree with the Pioneer.

Successful wars are good for the economy, but unsuccessful ones, well, they hurt.

[MiloMilo]

Pioneer summed things up nicely, I believe.

WWII? We (USA) began a massive build-up of our military that continued through the 50+ years of peacetime that followed it. Ditto for science. The war jumpstarted the USA's economic growth of the second half of the 20th century, but would that have happend if the war lasted, say, 20 years longer? We fought a very short war with very precise objectives, and walked away from it when it was over. Wars in civ3, on the other hand, tend to be prolonged affairs in which the size of an empire can increase by 20, 40, 60%. If you fight a war in civ3 that is very short and capture zero or at most a couple cites, your economy will not suffer in the least. If you're at war for centuries, it will. This is not unrealistic IMHO.

[Incan_Warrior]

huh-uh

Did you do any research regarding how successful the Vietnam War was for our country's economy and research? What about all the Desert ____'s we engaged in back in the early 1990s... we aren't exactly thriving from the boons of those operations. As other posters have said, a country that successfully wins a war with few casualties will most likely see a boost in it's output due to an increase in morale, etc. Otherwise war is detrimental.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The caveat to any of these discussions is does the war take place on your soil? I see a lot of discussion here saying that war envirogorated economies etc.

There are numerous example of how war did hurt in a big way those economies/cultures when prosecuted ontheir own lands. The entire midevil period could be descibed as fuedal warfare. Likewise the lack of emergence of Prussia/Germany as a power in Europe until the 1800's was due largely to the nerver ending oscillating warfare on their soils.

Contrast that to the emergence of England as a world power where in wars prosecuted by England were mostly on foreign soil. A revolution/coup here and there but by and large no mass destruction of infrastructure as was the case in Europe proper.

So war prosectued onsomeone else's land may indeed reinvorgarte an economy and allow technological/cultural advances. A defensive war on your own land is a completely different story IMHO.

Og

[Austin]

Re: What "Realism Watchdogs" Should Really Be Worrying About

Originally posted by Mr. President
War. Man's oldest friend. Since the Ice Age, Ares in his various incarnations has brought us better food, more spacious caves, and attractive cavewomen. By which, of course, I mean that it is (broadly) good for the economy. Germany shook off the Depression by militarizing its economy.

Actually Hitler's military buildup and public works programs of the 1930's had the short term effect of artificially boosting the economy, but by 1936 he had pretty much blown all of Germany's currency reserves, and Germany's economy only kept going by absorbing and looting the capital and currency reserves of Austria and Czechoslovokia. By 1939 Germany was broke again, and the Germans had the choice of picking another victim to loot, or pretty much standing down their army and going home.

Hitler decided to pick on Poland, and hence WWII.

CivIII has it right, maintaining a large standing army will totally sap the vitality of your economy.

World War II transformed the United States into a superpower.

The USA was already a superpower. WWII made it official by showing that the Americans had the economic might to go from a tiny army to a world spanning ass kicking machine in the space of three years. But of course America has a large continent full of resources all to itself.

But, in my experience, war often has the opposite effect in Civilization. You tend to end a war with your treasury empty from rushing units and your population hating you. It also slows down your research, when in real life conflict drives science.

Fighting a large war SHOULD do this. Britian ended WWII bankrupt and with a population so war weary that they voted Churchill out of office if you can believe that ****!

In the words of D. L. Hughley, "What up with that?" Sure, the economy is too complicated to be accurately simulated by a computer game. But you'd think that they wouldn't punish you for fighting a war, considering that war is one of the things you're encouraged to do by the advertisements.

Wars have a real cost.

Austin

[Cookie Monster]

The only reason why the US economy and science took off like a rocket after WWII is because the US is fortunate enough not to be bombed or invaded during the war.

Look at the UK. They got bombed. They did win the war. Why is it that they did not receive the same boost in economy and science? Because they lost all of their empire after WWII. Same thing for France.

Look at Germany. They lost the war. Yet 20 years later they had a monster economy flooding the world with BMW's and Mercedes. Same thing for Japan. Toyotas, Sony's, etc. Granted these two countries received massive aid from the West but somehow they managed to rebuild their devestated countries.

I guess whether a civ thrives before, during, or after a war depends on many reasons. War alone is not the only reason.

Now a unified Europe would be truely an economic powerhouse. Perhaps eclipsing USA and Asia in economic power. They wouldn't need to start a war either to achieve economic and scientific prowess. All Europe needs is a strong leader who can unite the countries of Europe under a single disciplined whip.

[redstar1]

The US economy took off because the infrastructure put in place to fight a war was never dismantled and instead of becoming increasingly isolationist the US was brought out into the wider world and began to trade more extensively. Scientificly the US benefitted greatly from both the spoils of war (German rocket technology etc) and from being handed most if not all of Britain's military secrets for safekeeping. This allowed them to build the Atomic bomb. At the beginning of WW2 the UK was the most technologically advanced in many fields and were very close to producing Atomic grade weapons.

Germany and Japan benefitted from being defeated totally. Their infrastructure was rebuilt from scratch in many cases. They were given grants to turn bomb factories into car factories. The level of military strenght was limited and therefore their military budget was limited. Japan's homeland was relatively untouched save for two atrocities. Germany's was all but destroyed. Perhaps the greatest story of recovery was Russia's. Almost everything west of the Urals was wiped out but they still managed to keep pace with the USA and lead for much of the cold war.

Many people argue that if the Gulf war had continued until it was won completely then Iraq, and the entire region would benefit from political and economic stability.


A unified Europe would be a strong economic prescence but much the same as the US once overtook Europe I think the future economic superpowers now lie in Asia. China, India, Pakistan and the Korea's are the big threat now.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
Now a unified Europe would be truely an economic powerhouse. Perhaps eclipsing USA and Asia in economic power. They wouldn't need to start a war either to achieve economic and scientific prowess. All Europe needs is a strong leader who can unite the countries of Europe under a single disciplined whip.

to quote padmé from Ep II: "now that sound awfully like a dictator".

i'd love a strong europe, but as long as some major nations (specially italy) have a near-to-facist governement (or parts of the governement), we can forget all further uniting.

look at the netherlands, from the once most liberal EU-nation, even they were seriously discussing to exit "schengen" and more or less close the border. italy, austria, denmark and other afaik have already done the latter (or want to do so)...

i guess here in europe, noone is ready to give up the patriotic feelings for a more united and stronger europe (or do you know a single frenchman who hopes, that germany or england wins the football world cup? )

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by sabrewolf


to quote padmé from Ep II: "now that sound awfully like a dictator".

i'd love a strong europe, but as long as some major nations (specially italy) have a near-to-facist governement (or parts of the governement), we can forget all further uniting.

look at the netherlands, from the once most liberal EU-nation, even they were seriously discussing to exit "schengen" and more or less close the border. italy, austria, denmark and other afaik have already done the latter (or want to do so)...

i guess here in europe, noone is ready to give up the patriotic feelings for a more united and stronger europe (or do you know a single frenchman who hopes, that germany or england wins the football world cup? )

I agree, it does sound like a dictatorship. My observations though seem to tell me that something will eventually bring Europe together out of necessity. Redstar1 mentioned that he thinks that Asia will be a major competitor in the world market. That alone is reason enough for Europe to band together to compete against Asia. Big business and profits probably will play a big role in unifying Europe. Just my thoughts anyway..........

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
I agree, it does sound like a dictatorship. My observations though seem to tell me that something will eventually bring Europe together out of necessity. Redstar1 mentioned that he thinks that Asia will be a major competitor in the world market. That alone is reason enough for Europe to band together to compete against Asia. Big business and profits probably will play a big role in unifying Europe. Just my thoughts anyway..........

in the 80's asia was seen as the power of the 21st century, but after 1987 esp. japan never returned to its former influence... tha banking system doesn't work and all the governement can do is react to symptoms, not actually get rid of the causes.

europe has a lot slower growth, also because it cares about the social wellfare and sustainability more than e.g. the US. so imho in the long term, europe will survive well... maybe united, maybe separate...

[Austin]

Europe is way too culturally, ethnically, and linguistically diverse to really effectively unite the way the big players like China, the USA, or Russia are.

This diversity worked in Europe's favor from about 1500 to 1900 A.D., but it looks like most of de Tocquiville's predictions are coming true.

Austin

[Inverse Icarus]

to quote hitler (and to get called a nazi some more),

"mankind has grown strong in eternal struggle, and shall only perish through eternal peace"

this post brought to you by supreme military commander UberKruX. Glory Comes From Spilt Blood.

[Jaybe]

Uber, your history of avatars continues to amaze (and entertain)!