Tweet
UltraSonix: The names are the same in the United States.
I must say, thinking about this topic has made me change my position. I think that it is something that needs addressing in Civ 3.
There is another thing that I would like to see the game reflect (and I think city improvements would be the only way to represent this). In ancient times, only a small percentage of the population was educated. This continued through the dark ages, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment. Only with the beginning of nationalism, industrialization, and modernization did full blown schooling come to pass.
I don't think that the game represents this at all. In the last few hundred years, science has become more popularized, with large numbers of people working in 'scientific' fields (at least in Civ 2 terms, where everything was measured in manners of breakthroughs).
Also, science is now being used by the general public. The internet, the airplane, and the internal combustion engine are now being used by scientists and commoners.
However, these breakthroughs are no longer funded by the government in capitalist societies (except in military, top secret, and a few other areas). These breakthroughs are made by private companies and private individuals, even though state grants or subsides help. I think that St Leo wanted to reflect this with his proposition to eliminate city improvements.
The irony is that lazzez-faire capitalism does not want government involvement. All true democracies have 'democratic' economies controlled to a large extent by the laws of supply and demand. Therefore, if citizens of an empire demand a bank, then a bank is built. However, the government does not step in and state 'this bank is being built here'. Thus, St Leo's way to represent this contradiction is to eliminate all city improvements. This would be a good idea for a democracy
However, I think that economic city improvements should be voted on by the people. Instead of the useless advisors that Civ 2 presented, have advisors that state 'the citizens want a bank' as more of an ultimatum in a communist or fundamentalist regime. This could also happen in a republic. A refusal of the people's demand could make the city enter civil disorder (if they want the improvement enough). This could represent the dealings that each civilization has with its people.
I must say, thinking about this topic has made me change my position. I think that it is something that needs addressing in Civ 3.
There is another thing that I would like to see the game reflect (and I think city improvements would be the only way to represent this). In ancient times, only a small percentage of the population was educated. This continued through the dark ages, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment. Only with the beginning of nationalism, industrialization, and modernization did full blown schooling come to pass.
I don't think that the game represents this at all. In the last few hundred years, science has become more popularized, with large numbers of people working in 'scientific' fields (at least in Civ 2 terms, where everything was measured in manners of breakthroughs).
Also, science is now being used by the general public. The internet, the airplane, and the internal combustion engine are now being used by scientists and commoners.
However, these breakthroughs are no longer funded by the government in capitalist societies (except in military, top secret, and a few other areas). These breakthroughs are made by private companies and private individuals, even though state grants or subsides help. I think that St Leo wanted to reflect this with his proposition to eliminate city improvements.
The irony is that lazzez-faire capitalism does not want government involvement. All true democracies have 'democratic' economies controlled to a large extent by the laws of supply and demand. Therefore, if citizens of an empire demand a bank, then a bank is built. However, the government does not step in and state 'this bank is being built here'. Thus, St Leo's way to represent this contradiction is to eliminate all city improvements. This would be a good idea for a democracy
However, I think that economic city improvements should be voted on by the people. Instead of the useless advisors that Civ 2 presented, have advisors that state 'the citizens want a bank' as more of an ultimatum in a communist or fundamentalist regime. This could also happen in a republic. A refusal of the people's demand could make the city enter civil disorder (if they want the improvement enough). This could represent the dealings that each civilization has with its people.
Comment