1st, 2nd, and 3rd World Countries

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by Biddles on 12-06-2000 09:24 PM I don't see the point of putting something like this in the game if it isn't going to do anything.

Let me repeat my post above which apparently went unnoticed.

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 become a major power).

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

[Grumbold]

The only point I can see in this discussion is if countries retain some semblance of national identity after they are captured by more advanced players. This would be a considerable shift away from current Civ play where a city falls, riots, spawns a guerilla unit or two, then settles down and becomes a productive assimilated part of the new owning nation.

If cultural identity was more acurately modelled then it would indeed be possible for "1st world" nations to colonise parts of the world, strip them of resources for a while (or develop their economy to be able to provide resources), then return them to their previous national control when the cost of ownership became too high to make continued occupation worthwhile.

Without rules to support this, the difference between a 1st and 3rd world nation can easily be determined by the computer by looking at its victory chart and is no more meaningful. The weaker nations are simply losers whose cities are awaiting absorbtion and have no means of influencing their larger neighbours into keeping the peace.

[Tical_2000]

quote: Originally posted by Ribannah on 12-07-2000 09:50 AM 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 become a major power).

Uh...first world countries didn't colonize third world countries. They settled uninhabited land or lands inhabited by technologically inferior peoples. The USA was never a third world country-it was created by English colonists. I also think that in a game such as Civ, it would be hard to distinguish colonization from just building cities (there's no difference in the actual game). The concept of colonization would be extremely hard to implement in Civ3.

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by Tical_2000 on 12-07-2000 04:36 PM Uh...first world countries didn't colonize third world countries.

Call them territories if you like.

quote: They settled uninhabited land or lands inhabited by technologically inferior peoples. The USA was never a third world country-it was created by English colonists.

I am certain the people who lived in North America and saw their land taken by force felt a little different about this . Whether or not their nations could be described as Third World countries or as "unnumbered" (ie potentially first-world) is another matter. Gamewise, a Third World country would simply offer additional options to connect it to the empire other than conquest.

A major empty terrain that was taken in the relevant time frame is South Africa - by the Dutch and English from the south, and the Zulus from the north.

quote: I also think that in a game such as Civ, it would be hard to distinguish colonization from just building cities.

Using national borders would probably help here. Any new city that is too far away to connect to the "homeland" border is a colony, built or taken makes no difference. The game could perhaps allow building a single city within the borders of a Third World nation, without changing those borders.




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