1st, 2nd, and 3rd World Countries

[Tical_2000]

Mr. Dictionary...err, I mean Zero Tolerance: Where do you suggest this 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world idea fit into actual gameplay. Is this whole thread dedicated to a useless statistic people would like to see on the demographics window??? Seriously though, what's the point? Where's the substance to these ideas???

[Zer0_T0lerance]

To answer your question, the substance (or purpose) is to draw clear lines of power between major and minor civs, so as to prevent any disagreements between the players on where to draw just a single line between major and minor civs.


------------------
Zero (formerly jrhughes98)
[This message has been edited by Zero_Tolerance (edited November 30, 2000).]

[Tical_2000]

Yes but WHY? Why would we need to do that?

[Zer0_T0lerance]

Well, alot of people around here talk about "playing Sweden" and say that Sweden is a good example of a minor nation. In my opinion, probably not. Sweden is pretty much developed and has benifited from trade by using a strict code of neutrality, so Sweden would probably be best classified as either a 1st or 2nd world nation. There are other nations in the world that are much poorer and worse off than Sweden (take Ethiopia for example), so they would best fit in other classifications. Just because a nation has a small population doesn't mean it should be classified as "minor."

And if you think that's unrealistic, who cares about when the terms 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th world were invented. Just because these terms were not invented until the 20th Century doesn't mean we can't use them in Civ3. The game is NOT gonna know the difference!

There's my two cents.

------------------
Zero (formerly jrhughes98)

[This message has been edited by Zero_Tolerance (edited December 01, 2000).]

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by Tical_2000 on 11-30-2000 04:39 PM Mr. Dictionary...err, I mean Zero Tolerance: Where do you suggest this 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world idea fit into actual gameplay. Is this whole thread dedicated to a useless statistic people would like to see on the demographics window??? Seriously though, what's the point? Where's the substance to these ideas???

It could fit actual gameplay if the concept of colonizing were introduced (as in Imperialism). First world countries could colonize Third world countries, with a chance that these would develop into Second world countries (ie a minor power could at some point bceome a major power).

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[weird god]

quote: Originally posted by Zero_Tolerance on 12-01-2000 12:51 AM Sweden is pretty much developed and has benifited from trade by using a strict code of neutrality, so Sweden would probably be best classified as either a 1st or 2nd world nation. There are other nations in the world that are much poorer and worse off than Sweden (take Ethiopia for example)

huh?? sweden a 2nd world country??? sweden is one of the richest countries of the world and both socially and economicly leading in northern europe. plus they had huge military influence on the main continent in the late middle ages.

maybe you learn your geography/history lesson!

------------------
mankind made alcohol, god made weed.....whom do you trust?

weed god, chief of EUROPA

[Stuff2]

quote: Originally posted by Zero_Tolerance on 12-01-2000 12:51 AM Well, alot of people around here talk about "playing Sweden" and say that Sweden is a good example of a minor nation. In my opinion, probably not. Sweden is pretty much developed and has benifited from trade by using a strict code of neutrality, so Sweden would probably be best classified as either a 1st or 2nd world nation. There are other nations in the world that are much poorer and worse off than Sweden (take Ethiopia for example), so they would best fit in other classifications. Just because a nation has a small population doesn't mean it should be classified as "minor."

Sweden being poor? Where u from? Sweden is one of the most technological advanced countries in the world, and it's certianly not poor.

But i agree, i wouldn't see sweden as some kind of minor nations simply beacouse it has got a small populations either.

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by Zero_Tolerance on 12-01-2000 12:51 AM Well, alot of people around here talk about "playing Sweden" and say that Sweden is a good example of a minor nation. In my opinion, probably not. Sweden is pretty much developed and has benifited from trade by using a strict code of neutrality, so Sweden would probably be best classified as either a 1st or 2nd world nation. There are other nations in the world that are much poorer and worse off than Sweden (take Ethiopia for example), ...

Ethiopia for example?

Just because it's relatively poor NOW, doesn't mean it's a minor civ in human history. Ethiopia was the first sub-Saharan African nation (1000 BC), and was never colonized. This makes it either a first-world nation or numberless.

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[Shogun Gunner]

The Kingdom of Sweeden was a powerful kingdom for many years. Sweeden controlled many of the rivers in Russia and the Ukraine. In fact, someone correct me if I'm wrong, Swedes had a lot to do with the formation of Russia as a distinct nation and group of people. Some say Sweeden "spawned Russia"

This thread is going nowhere. I have not read anything that would contribute anything meaningful to Civ III.

As I stated before, the latest Master's circulums of Human Geography have done away with the terminologies "first, second and third world."

Outdated terminology, no connection to Civ. What's the point?

[Ralf]

In what ways does this idea make the game more fun and exiting to play?

My combat-model thread "Risk-II style..." on the other hand, has perhaps a misleading heading.

[Zer0_T0lerance]

quote: Originally posted by Stuff2 on 12-04-2000 11:03 AM Sweden being poor? Where u from? Sweden is one of the most technological advanced countries in the world, and it's certianly not poor.

Uh, EXCUSE ME! I NEVER said that Sweden was a poor country. I SAID that other people on these boards have used Sweden as an example of a minor nation and I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THAT!!!



------------------
Zero (formerly jrhughes98)

[weird god]

oh sorry, didn´t sound like that

------------------
mankind made alcohol, god made weed.....whom do you trust?
weed god, chief of EUROPA
[This message has been edited by weird god (edited December 04, 2000).]

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

There should not be 1st, 2nd, and 3rd (and 4th) world countries, because it is not part of the Civ games, I would prefere regular civs, and then mini civs.

The mini civs would be like the Barbarian units that stock you and try to overun your empire in civ2, except that in civ3 they should be more like a *mini* civ, they would have minor settlements here and there, depending on the diffeculty you are playing on. and the size of the map

the regular civs would be as they are.

And also, I would kinda like to see 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world countries, specificly for historical accuracy. Its just that it wouldn't work.

[Zer0_T0lerance]

quote: Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto on 12-06-2000 04:30 PM Its just that it wouldn't work.

Well, why not???


------------------
Zero (formerly jrhughes98)

[Biddles]

But what really is the point of this idea. People who were really discussing minor civs were talking about one or two city computer controlled civs that don't do much except allow the major civs to interact with (instead of having 64 major civs, just have 8 majors with the other 56 being minors that sit around and just trade and interact diplomatically with the majors). This idea has no resmbelance to that. Your not restricting the third world civs in any way your just saying "Hey, your a third world civ", so what?

I don't see the point of putting something like this in the game if it isn't going to do anything.

------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission