What "Realism Watchdogs" Should Really Be Worrying About

[nbarclay]

Re: War and reality

Originally posted by GePap
An interesting point is that the draft limits make little sense to me. The gov should be able to draft as many citizens as possible, though at the cost of them not creating tax revenue and production in their cities. Also, the number of shields gotten from working the population to death in despotic governments should go up with time (or at least get the bonuses from industry). working a thousand people to death in a factory will get me a lot more built than workin the same one thousand to death in old furnaces to equip my legions.

There's a limit to how quickly an army can train draftees and have them be of much use. For that matter, just equipping half the population for a war all at once would be a serious problem. I think having a limit on how many troops can be drafted per turn is a good idea to reflect that. As for the different limits for different types of governments, democractic societies do tend to have more organized resistance to a draft unless the situation is pretty critical. Viewing the draft limit as an average (thereby avoiding the complexity of having the draft limit be higher under some circumstances than under others), the system doesn't seem clearly unreasonable.

Regarding the benefits of pop rushing, I suspect that morale has a higher effect on job performance for more highly skilled jobs than for grunt labor. Would you really want to drive a car built by people who were being "worked to death"?

Nathan

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

"realism" , well where is the point of having a courthouse , to judge the bad guy's , and a police station to get them , but there is no jail to lock them in to , ....no wonder there is so much corruption , .....

There are LOTS of nasty things that can be done to criminals without having a jail, and that have been done over the course of history. Consider the penalty for theft under traditional Islamic law, for example.

Nathan

[Panag]

Originally posted by nbarclay


There are LOTS of nasty things that can be done to criminals without having a jail, and that have been done over the course of history. Consider the penalty for theft under traditional Islamic law, for example.

Nathan

hi ,

dont worry , we see that every day , .....

anyway , we should have a jail as a building , ...
and many more , ....

well some of the demands of the people are in the sig , ...

have a nice day

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

dont worry , we see that every day , .....

anyway , we should have a jail as a building , ...
and many more , ....

well some of the demands of the people are in the sig , ...

Demands of WHICH people? I wouldn't mind having a few more buildings if the time required to build buildings were shortened or the game as a whole stretched out to accommodate them (and I think the game needs stretched out on higher skill levels anyhow), but personally, I think your list is overkill. If you want that many buildings, SimCity might be a better game for you.

Nathan

[Panag]

Originally posted by nbarclay


Demands of WHICH people? I wouldn't mind having a few more buildings if the time required to build buildings were shortened or the game as a whole stretched out to accommodate them (and I think the game needs stretched out on higher skill levels anyhow), but personally, I think your list is overkill. If you want that many buildings, SimCity might be a better game for you.

Nathan

hi ,

people > just a bunch of fool's who like to play , ...

have a nice day

[nato]

Sorry to go OT, but since it came up -

panag, your signature is a joke, right? It certainly sounds comical. That long list of requests, and then "thanks in advance" at the end!

[Panag]

Originally posted by nato
Sorry to go OT, but since it came up -

panag, your signature is a joke, right? It certainly sounds comical. That long list of requests, and then "thanks in advance" at the end!

hi ,

nope its not , .....

panag > buch of people who like to play games , ...

hey , you never know , .....

it could work , and at least its worth to try it , ...

have a nice day

[GePap]

response

Nathan:

If a state were desperate for manpower, (regardless of the goverment) then it could, and would, draft very large numbers of men in a secon. In such a situation just having the bodies present would be enough. ny limits on the ability to take in draftees are based on the wishes and doctrines of the goverment. Thus, if you want a decently armed and rudimentary armed force, you will place own limits on drafting. But if the fact is that the enemy has a large army at the doorstep of your city then the local commanders would call up everyone possible. If we do want to place a limit, it would be more realisitc to base it on production, or, the amount of weapons that could be provided to equip the units, with the limit being lower for more technologically advanced uits (much easier to get enough rifles to everyone to form riflemen than to create al the armored vehicles needed to eqip mech. infantry)

also, on the slave labor, all i meant was that the Soviets were able to build a huge amount of equipment with their draconian work methods during world war 2, this because they had factories. It makes no sense for it to cost more lives to rushbuild a tank in a city with factories than a legion in a city 2000 yeras before, or in a city of the same time also trying to build a tank but without a factory.

[nbarclay]

Re: response

Originally posted by GePap
Nathan:

If a state were desperate for manpower, (regardless of the goverment) then it could, and would, draft very large numbers of men in a secon. In such a situation just having the bodies present would be enough. ny limits on the ability to take in draftees are based on the wishes and doctrines of the goverment. Thus, if you want a decently armed and rudimentary armed force, you will place own limits on drafting. But if the fact is that the enemy has a large army at the doorstep of your city then the local commanders would call up everyone possible. If we do want to place a limit, it would be more realisitc to base it on production, or, the amount of weapons that could be provided to equip the units, with the limit being lower for more technologically advanced uits (much easier to get enough rifles to everyone to form riflemen than to create al the armored vehicles needed to eqip mech. infantry)

Measuring strictly in terms of realism, I agree, but a mechanism where the first unit you draft is infantry, the second and third are riflemen, and the rest are spearmen (armed with pitchforks and such) would add significant complexity to the game for no significant imprevement in gameplay value. Within the level of complexity appropriate to Civ, I think they did a pretty good job. (Then again, you may regard a higher level of complexity as appropriate than most players do.)

also, on the slave labor, all i meant was that the Soviets were able to build a huge amount of equipment with their draconian work methods during world war 2, this because they had factories. It makes no sense for it to cost more lives to rushbuild a tank in a city with factories than a legion in a city 2000 yeras before, or in a city of the same time also trying to build a tank but without a factory.

The whole concept of almost instantly rush building something that would normaly take a long time to build seems unrealistic enough that I really don't want to analyze all the nuiances of what would be the most realistic way to implement it. Consider, though, that a city trying to rush build a tank unit is DRAMATICALLY exceeding anything even remotely resembling its rated factory capacity. Now imagine trying to build large numbers of tanks using makeshift equipment spread around whatever buildings happen to be available. Is that easier or harder than quickly equipping units from earlier ages?

The entire concept of Civ 3 is an enormous abstraction from real life. It has to be or the game would be completely unplayable. So I'm not inclined to quibble if the abstractions aren't quite perfectly, 100% realistic.

Nathan

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by nbarclay
A good argument can be made that COLD wars are good for technology. When two nations or groups of nations are constantly preparing for possible conflict, they are likely to focus less on pleasure and more on developing new technologies that could give them an edge or take away an opponent's edge. Further, it is not rare that new technologies have viable military applications long before they have viable civilian applications, yet the technologies do eventually develop civilian applications.

Hot, shooting wars are another matter. Much of the technology boost of such conflicts is illusory, coming from the much faster upgrade cycles as older equipment is destroyed and new, state-of-the-art equipment replaces it. War also increases pressure to get new ideas that were already on the drawing boards into production a lot more quickly, so the quality of equipment produced gets a boost even though the science was already there.

Some key military technologies do get a major boost, but others with a longer-term payoff can actually have their priority reduced once the shooting starts. And what happens to research on technologies that have no military application?

Regarding production, Civ 3 does have mobilization to reflect the increase in production if a nation fully dedicates itself to a war. But since Civ 3 does not model complex economic phenomena like recessions or depressions, why should it model situations where a war pulls a nation out of a depression? And would war really help an economy that is already at the top of the cycle instead of near its bottom?

Successful warfare in Civ 3 is already plenty powerful due to the extra cities and production you can get out of it. Isn't that enough?

Nathan

i don't really agree with the cold war stuff you mentioned. as you said, the governements spend more or less all available (and more) money for the army. taxes are put up to a nearly unbearably height (like socialist countries), education, social system, etc. gets reduced to the minumum. the only thing that profites is -as you mentioned- technology... but also here, i'd say, that it's mainly war-, weapons- and army-based discoveries.

advantages:
- we get materials like aluminum, teflon, titan, etc. from spaceflight and airforce research.

but think of all the (logical) dissadvantages:
- build up an army never needed... you spend all the money on so many people, and don't even get to use them
- same for weapons
- excessive spending can kill a country... see the soviet union... the development of the nuclear arsenal, the spacerace and other cold-war related things caused its nation and people to get poorer and poorer, but definetly not happier.
- propaganda, everywhere: yes... even in the US... the most of you (as a lot of americans i know told me) still believe, that communism=stalinism, which is totally wrong. you were taught, that the commies are evil, etc. communists in america were chased and locked away.. and that in a country being proud of the "freedom of speech". proper communism is actually something absolutely different and might have a lot of faults... but it's not evil! don't get me wrong, i like america (my girlfriend's from there), but you're governement and media do quite like to "bend the reality" slightely... that was in the cold war, and still now
- immagine what would be, if the money in both countries had been spent just on research, luxuries and wealth (as in civ3)... i'm sure, people would be smarter, happier and richer. and the world would be 10 years again of the present world.

there are surely a lot more positive and negative points to mention, basically i wanted to say, that cold wars don't make everything better... au contraire... a lot worse than it could be.

regards, sabrewolf

btw: don't forget: who was technologically (not army based) ahead in the 80's? no, not the US, not USSR... it was japan... when was the biggest growth of happiness and wealth in the post-WWII-era? the 90's... and why? basically because there was no enemy to worry about.... q.e.d.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by sabrewolf


i don't really agree with the cold war stuff you mentioned. as you said, the governements spend more or less all available (and more) money for the army. taxes are put up to a nearly unbearably height (like socialist countries), education, social system, etc. gets reduced to the minumum. the only thing that profites is -as you mentioned- technology... but also here, i'd say, that it's mainly war-, weapons- and army-based discoveries.

advantages:
- we get materials like aluminum, teflon, titan, etc. from spaceflight and airforce research.

but think of all the (logical) dissadvantages:
- build up an army never needed... you spend all the money on so many people, and don't even get to use them
- same for weapons
- excessive spending can kill a country... see the soviet union... the development of the nuclear arsenal, the spacerace and other cold-war related things caused its nation and people to get poorer and poorer, but definetly not happier.
- propaganda, everywhere: yes... even in the US... the most of you (as a lot of americans i know told me) still believe, that communism=stalinism, which is totally wrong. you were taught, that the commies are evil, etc. communists in america were chased and locked away.. and that in a country being proud of the "freedom of speech". proper communism is actually something absolutely different and might have a lot of faults... but it's not evil! don't get me wrong, i like america (my girlfriend's from there), but you're governement and media do quite like to "bend the reality" slightely... that was in the cold war, and still now
- immagine what would be, if the money in both countries had been spent just on research, luxuries and wealth (as in civ3)... i'm sure, people would be smarter, happier and richer. and the world would be 10 years again of the present world.

Note that I said "A good argument can be made." I'll agree that there are also valid arguments on the other side.

In theory, I fully agree that the money COULD have been spent a lot better without the cold war. But in the real world, there is often a huge disconnect between what could happen and what actually would happen. Would the money have gone into civilian research and into USEFUL improvements in education? (Note that spending more money on schools does not auotmatically make them better.) Or would most of it have been squandered on things that improve happiness but produce relatively little long-term advantage (and that perhaps even produce a long-term disadvantage by providing incentives not to work)? I don't know of any definitive way to answer that.

btw: don't forget: who was technologically (not army based) ahead in the 80's? no, not the US, not USSR... it was japan... when was the biggest growth of happiness and wealth in the post-WWII-era? the 90's... and why? basically because there was no enemy to worry about.... q.e.d.

Was it really Japan's science that was superior, or just its ability to take ideas and turn them into low-cost, mass-produced products? Back in the 80's, Japan's standard of living lagged behind and that gave them a significant cost advantage. Couple that with a few other factors like the fact that their auto industry was quicker to adopt robotics, and they had a nice edge for a while. But what areas of original scientific research did Japan have a clear lead in?

I'll certainly agree that cold wars are not a good thing for personal wealth or for happiness. But that's mostly a separate issue from scientific progress, which was what my earlier post focused on.

Nathan

[Sinapus]

What about the 'realism' of ruling a nation for 6000 years? ;-)

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by sabrewolf

- propaganda, everywhere: yes... even in the US... the most of you (as a lot of americans i know told me) still believe, that communism=stalinism, which is totally wrong. you were taught, that the commies are evil, etc. communists in america were chased and locked away.. and that in a country being proud of the "freedom of speech". proper communism is actually something absolutely different and might have a lot of faults... but it's not evil! don't get me wrong, i like america (my girlfriend's from there), but you're governement and media do quite like to "bend the reality" slightely... that was in the cold war, and still now

At a (100% ) risk of going off topic, what we commonly call communism is actually a rather extreme form of socialism, not true communism. But the Soviets advertised it as communism, and the term stuck, resulting in the long-term negative association you describe. I wouldn't paint a true communist proposal with the same brush, but I view the concept as unworkable in the real world even without all the Soviet/Stalinist baggage. (For that matter, I'm vague on how you would get a system that is truly communist rather than socialist without having anarchy as a byproduct.)

Nathan

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by nbarclay
At a (100% ) risk of going off topic, what we commonly call communism is actually a rather extreme form of socialism, not true communism. But the Soviets advertised it as communism, and the term stuck, resulting in the long-term negative association you describe. I wouldn't paint a true communist proposal with the same brush, but I view the concept as unworkable in the real world even without all the Soviet/Stalinist baggage. (For that matter, I'm vague on how you would get a system that is truly communist rather than socialist without having anarchy as a byproduct.)
Nathan

the soviet communism was very much near to a dictatorship, definetly no 'fair' democracy. different thinking people were opressed, and the whole system didn't really work.

i associate 'real' communism more with marxism (from the theoretical, idealistic and academic point of view). but this was not applicable in reality. i guess leninism came the nearest to this theory.

to bring this thread back on-topic, i'd change communism to what it should be. e.g. in the game, communism should:
+ 1. make units and buildings cheaper, let's say 8 instead of 10 shields per cost. that would make everything 20% cheper
+ 2. reduce unhappiness, because there isn't (shouldn't be) any unimployment
+ 3. less war weariness than democracy and republic
OTOH:
- 4. reduce happiness caused by luxuries (see china now, and former USSR: not many luxuries for the simple people (exept vodka))
- 5. reduce commerce by (let's say) 20% --> less science, less luxury, less wealth
- 6. reduce worker-productivity: if your job and salary is guaranteed, you have no extra motivation to work harder.

in civ3, points 3 and 6 are done, 5 partially... but especially 1 and 4 cannot be done... maybe something to ask firaxis for?

generally i don't like the governemental system, democracy comes waaaaaay to early. middle of medieval times (i usually go for theology, education, printing press, democracy... and "buy" feudalism) the nearst to democracy was more a republic like system (like the ancient greeks had (polis)). "real" democracy should IMHO begin some time beginning of industialisation...

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by nato
Sorry to go OT, but since it came up -

panag, your signature is a joke, right? It certainly sounds comical. That long list of requests, and then "thanks in advance" at the end!

a lot of things sound nice a needed, but at my present game, i can hardly build a courthouse in remote cities, a police station takes even longer... and a jail? that would be a few hundred turns just for 3 things against corruption.

if corruption wouldn't be that bad, i'd be happy to have more buildings... but as firaxis stated: no further changes on corruption... so our 15 shield cities on the opposite side of the world will just have one productive shield

panag, nice idea, but a lot has to be changed first to make these things... how about your own mod?