Simple way to make CIV more "real"

[LionQ]

Reparing NavalUnits by AlliedCities...

Originally posted by Jaybe

Which VERSION of Civ2 was that??

All the versions. You just navigat with your NavalUnit to an AlliedCity and the HealthBar will get higher and greener. So simple is that...

[LionQ]

Well, I guess the link is incorrect.

[Panag]

Re: Reparing NavalUnits by AlliedCities...

Originally posted by CivilopediaCity

All the versions. You just navigat with your NavalUnit to an AlliedCity and the HealthBar will get higher and greener. So simple is that...

hi ,

and that is something that should go back in civ III

and PTW

have a nice day

[TomCB]

I totally agree with the Hover Dam being a must have.
I have launched wars to get it, and ruined alliances by sabatoge it the AI was about to beat me by a couple of moves to get it.
I don't know of any other wonder that has such a huge effect on the game.


OK, so no one has any way to remove the impact of global warming.

I even removed pollution from every improvement.
All that did was delay global warming until the AI's start deciding to stop taking cities and decided to just nuke them until they don't exist anymore.

The effects would make more sense if they increased the sizes of deserts, or something along those lines.
But NO. It wipes out forests and things like that.

Oh well


BTW I favor pre emptive attacks if there is reason to believe that it will prevent a worse conflict, being one that will cause more harm, later on.
I now I look at my neighbors in CIV and decide if I should attack them now or later.

I would like to see other WMD included in the game besides nukes.
And diplomatic treaties to cover them.

Is it me or are carriars just plain wimpy.

I like the idea of "colorless" units.
If the AI could figure out who is sending them, they could ad a whole new dimension to the game.

[redhat]

I agree with the idea of pre-emptive attack in civIII. I will try my best to prevent other civs from having their hand on any uranium source.

My civ is acting like the only super power in the game, I can do anything I like because I have control over all uranium resource. The AIs have mutual protection pact with one another while they try to make peace with me. Anyway when they refuse my requests (for tribute) I just send them some ICBM or some of my elite force. That's satisfying.

though i wouldn't agree with the idea of pre-emptive attack in the real world....two big kids fighting one another, other little kids will pick sides...
one big kid left
if the bunch of little kids oppose this big kid, the big kid will punch a little kid today, and another little kid tomorrow (before these littles kids become big kids) this will bring fear amongst the little kids. these kids can work together.

anyway, the better way to prevent war is for the whole world to work towards the same goal. That is each and one of us can be free from war, poverty, starvation, deadly diseases. If we build our own wellbeing on the sacrification of others, that will only lead to more hatred which = more war and continues.

[Austin]

Originally posted by Jaybe

Lend-Lease to the USSR did not contribute any meaningful proportion of anything except for motor transport (jeeps & trucks), which was more than the Soviets produced. Essential for motorized units and getting supplies to the front.

Gee, only the stuff absolutely essential to waging modern war of course. And the US also supplied just about everything else; almost all of the radios, 100 octane avgas, boots, food etc. etc.

The Soviet Union built a grand total of 12 locomotives between June 22 1941 and 1945. 12. The USA supplied ALL of their railroad rolling stock.

Basically the German invasion reduced the Soviet Union to a GDP equivelant to France or Italy. Because the USA supplied EVERYTHING else, from A to Z, the Soviets were able to concentrate on producing nothing but weapons.

Without the US the Red Army would have been much smaller and almost immobile. There would have been no Red Air Force. Germany would have won the war in the East in 1943, which would have made D-Day in 1944 impossible. Which means that instead the Western Allies would have spent 1944~1947 bombing continental Europe to a radioactive cinder.

But of course without the US you can't even do that, so Hitler's heirs would be running Europe (minus Britian) today.

It can be legitimately argued the the US did not defeat Germany in WW2. It definitely was the Soviets.

Nope. At the very least without the Strategic Bombing Campaign the Germans would have continued to enjoy air superiority, since it was the US that wiped out the Luftwaffe. Without the US the Soviet Union would have been decisevely defeated by 1943 at the latest. At that point without the US the Brits would have been broke, weaponless, hungry and running out of manpower.

OTOH, if the Germans had treated Russian people decently instead as sub-humans, then they would have been considered as liberators and the war might have gone quite differently. The Warmacht treated them okay during the initial invasion, but then the occupation governmental arm came in and people were being killed wholesale, starved even more than before and conscripted into forced labor, etc.

The Germans didn't have much of a choice. The infrastructure in Russia was so poor, and the Germans themselves so starved of motor transport that the only way they could support a large army deep in Russia was by having the army forage for as much of it's needs locally as possible, saving the scarce transport for absolute essentials like ammunition.

Both my grandfathers fought in Russia during WWII (one Wehrmacht, one Waffen SS). They both said that on many occasions if they wanted to eat, they had to loot the nearest Russian peasant.

It is truly amazing how history can be interpreted differently. Also, each country is quite ethnocentric when it comes to how history is taught in their educational systems (yes, even the U.S.)!

There are areas where things are a matter of interpretation. And then there are areas where the cold hard facts cannot be ignored, and the fact that the Soviet Union rolled to victory on US wheels is one of them.

Oh, and I'm not an American, just to head off charges of 'ethnocenticity'.

Austin

[TomCB]

While I can appreciate the comments of Austin, I fear he is vastly over estimating the value of American aid to Russia.
Yes trucks, and even a great deal of planes, however, the US after Dec 41 had no way to get rail road cars to Russia, and the trucks slowed down a great deal as well.
Germanys economy would not have allowed the war effort to go much further than 46, while Russias could have gone on forever.
Germany was running out of men by 45, Russia seemed to have unlimited, which was a good thing considering how wasteful Stalin was of them.
Germany's biggest blunder was resizing all the rail line they took to German specs rather than resizing their cars to Russian specs before the invasion.
That would have made supply a whole hell of a lot easier and removed any need to "live off the land".
Had Adolf actually done the math and figured out that his armies had no chance to reach the entire Volga before winter, he may have had winters items ready as well.

Britain. Yes, they would have been a starved piece of toast without the US, and they knew it.
Churchill wrote after the war that after he heard that Pearl Horbor had been bombed that he "slept the sleep of the saved."

I stand by my claim that Russia was the primary power that beat the Germans and that the US army in 45 would have gotten creamed by the Russian army of 45 had war broken out between them.
Us bombers could not have reached Russian industry, but Russia had several rail lines to get material west.

Of coarse, the A bombs may not have been used on Japan if things had gone differently.
And that could have shaken things up a great deal on the Russia vs US front in France/Germany.

A southern front, launched from Iran against Russia may have helped the US cause.
BUt even with all that, I think Russia would have won.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by redhat
anyway, the better way to prevent war is for the whole world to work towards the same goal. That is each and one of us can be free from war, poverty, starvation, deadly diseases. If we build our own wellbeing on the sacrification of others, that will only lead to more hatred which = more war and continues.

I can't believe I'm seeing this opinion expressed here.

Kill this man!

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Yes, I have to say, the German economy couldn't support Hitler's various ridiculous invasions. MAYBE until 1947, but Austin, I'd like to see where you got that concrete time for Russian defeat...

We'll never know the answers to these questions for sure, but one thing is obvious... US or no US, Hitler was no military genius... he was quite fonding of purging his finest commanders, actually. It's doubtless he would have won the war, even if the US had sat on the sidelines, due to his foolish commands to his top generals, admirals, etc.

Though it is likely that there would be no Paris today!

[TomCB]

I think we are all forgeting that without the Swiss bankers, Germany would have run out of resources in 4 months, according to German officials that are still alive today.

Damn Neutrals

Even as an economist, I fail to see why Germany could not have created it's own banks and replaced the need for the Swiss.
Afterall, it is not like Germany was against lieing and even printing up it's own foreign currency.
Perhaps modern banking concepts were not thought of back then.

Either way

Damn Bankers

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Huh?

TomCB, any country that just prints currency based on nothing causes a massive economic crisis; their currency becomes worthless. You can't just "print money" and circulate it in an economy; it will cause that currency to become worthless... as in post-WWI Germany!

This is ALSO the case in the modern world, an overlooked plague that is (sadly) not represented in Civ. The effect of internationally-linked currencies on the fate of nations and people is subtle, but immense. Take a look at almost any "developing country" across the globe and you'll see it.

I wish this could be represented in Civ somehow, but I honestly have no idea how to do it.

[TomCB]

I don't know where you live, but US currency (and I think every nation on the planet) is only backed by "full faith of the US government" (or their respective government) and the only reason it has value is that it is the only thing the government will take for payment of taxes. That little fact has caused a ripple effect where everyone accepts the currency.

It is not backed by gold or silver or land or anything other than the stability of the US.

Germany financed the war effort by printing up money and then having price controls. Sooner or later, there will be more money in circulation then there are goods to buy. That would cause the economic collaspe.

South America is doing the same thing, but they do not have the stability to back it up.

The US inflation rate is caused by the increase of the money supply. Interest rates are raised to discourage borrowing and thus lower inflation.

I am very pleased to see that Master of Orion 3 is going to at least attempt to have this effect in the game, with interest rates dependent on how long it takes you to complete a turn.
In civ, gold is the standard, not fiat money (money not backed by anything) and that is why it is "overlooked".
The option to have a non-gold based money is the only option ignored.
An option I wish we would not have had in real life either.

[Panag]

Originally posted by TomCB
I think we are all forgeting that without the Swiss bankers, Germany would have run out of resources in 4 months, according to German officials that are still alive today.

Damn Neutrals

Even as an economist, I fail to see why Germany could not have created it's own banks and replaced the need for the Swiss.
Afterall, it is not like Germany was against lieing and even printing up it's own foreign currency.
Perhaps modern banking concepts were not thought of back then.

Either way

Damn Bankers

hi ,



well it was not only the swiss , dont forget the ports in sweden , ..... dont forget spain ,..... supplies where going in occupied europe true these countries , the swiss delivered weapons , etc , .....

germany printed and used fake money in such amounts that the british had to change the notes , .....

amongst other countries , .....

have a nice day

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by TomCB
In civ, gold is the standard, not fiat money (money not backed by anything) and that is why it is "overlooked".
The option to have a non-gold based money is the only option ignored.
An option I wish we would not have had in real life either.

I totally agree with you... when currencies are allowed to "float" as they do, havok is wreaked.

But a lot of horrible things are represented in Civ... nuclear weapons, communism, etc... why isn't this?

[Master Zen]

Here's a funny little story:

Currency used to be backed by soemthing, usually gold, including the dollar. After WW2, France began accumulating a large reserve of dollars until eventually Charles de Gaulle decided to "test" U.S. backing of the dollar: he asked for gold equivalent to France's dollar reserves. Of course this would have turned Ft. Knox into an empty warehouse so to this day the dollar, as with most currencies in the world are backed by speculation, not by precious stones.

As for printing currency, it leads to nothing but inflation unless there is an equivalent rise in aggregate demand. I'm not sure what is meant by "South America is doing the same thing". If you are refering to the recent collapse of the Argentine economy, it was partly because the result of pegging the Argentine peso to the US dollar for many years which of course is only wise if there are enough dollar reserves to back up any fluctuations in the "real" exchange rate in order to maintain parity. As an economist I don't think this is a good stategy, countries usually do this to give foreign investors the illusion that their currency is "as good as" the dollar (noooot). Dollarization would be a wiser move but is usually shunned for nationalist reasons as well as the fact that your central bank loses much of its monetary independence. In any case the few countries who have done this (panama, ecuador) usually have done it AFTER a major crisis, not beforehand.