Empires

paulmagusnet · July 23, 2001, 03:58

You should read the work by historian John Glubb, who studied how and why empires declined and came up with a theory of specific cycle that all empires appear to follow.

Many of the 'advances' in CIV (what ever flavor) are poorly thought out and rather arbitrary. Take for example 'Nationalism' and 'Philosophy'. Neither of these really do anything for the game but are very relevant to what you discuse here. Philosophy is not some generic ticket on the way to something useful, as if your were and engineering student selecting electives, but the choices made in philosophy porfoundly affect the future direction of your civilization. If you follow the Plato-Hegal camp you end up at Fascism & Communism, and it is difficult to change to other methods. Following Aristotle, your get to the enlightenment and more limited and effective types of governments.

Nationalism means something, not just a new unit build. It means that those groups raised under a strong nationalistic ethic are very difficult to conqour. Even if you hold their territory they will try again and again to recreate anew or rejoin an existing similar group. In game terms, nationalism should effect how the empire, its cities and its units behave and add or detract some capabilities. It should also make some future choices more difficult or impossible.

Once you have expanded beyond a point where a City State model workes for your empire, the capital becomes very very important. If it is lost through war or internal strife, their should be severe consiquences. On the other hand, if you look at the US model of govetnment, where power is diffused very thoroughly, losing your capital might even improve your empire. (You know, we did lose our capital in one war, no one noticed.)

One sure sign of the impending decline of an empire is the rise of Feminism. Nothing kills a civilization faster than when the women try to take over.

------------------------------------

The collaps of the Soviet Union was both a result of the inherent flaws of communism and or the underlying strong nationalistic feeling held by many of that empires territories, including Russia. In-fact the empire could have continued almost indefinitly through the use of its terror mechanisms which very successfully kept the populance in line. Only the fact that the leaders let go of that mechanism allowed nationalism to break up the empire. You must observe that the Chinese have tried to adapt to some reforms while holding on to their power and terror machine. Several things keep outside agencies from destroying the remains of these powers at the times of their vulnerability, that being WMD technology which makes it not worth the loses to make the effort and the remains of the enlightenment ideals that discourage military aggression.

As for CIV III, an implementation of some form of world engagement would be welcome, as done in 'Apha Centuri' and 'Empire of the Fadding Suns.' But it should not dominate the game play.

SOMETHING has to be done about the game, as currently it is just a race down the tech tree and pumping out as many units as you can. Not a whole lot different then the originial early 80's 'Empire' game.

Inverse Icarus · July 23, 2001, 18:23

Quote:

inherent flaws of communism

more like the inherent flaws of human nature if you ask me.

Dauphin · July 24, 2001, 17:37

Many of the 'advances' in CIV (what ever flavor) are poorly thought out and rather arbitrary. Take for example 'Nationalism' and 'Philosophy'. ...... Philosophy is not some generic ticket on the way to something useful,

Quite a few people dislike the mishmash of techs that have been put into the civ genre games. I much prefer more specific technologies with slightly more general but related units and buildings. Then finally the consequences on your empire being the generic side of it.

For example - You discover/invent the steam engine. This allows you to build railways and factories, as they provided the power to both. The cultural effect is thus the industrial revolution.

Off on a slight tangent there.....

death_head · July 24, 2001, 17:42

You make a valid point, but as Tom Cadwell put it:

"A game should only be realistic if it enhances the gameplay." (paraphrase)

paulmagusnet · July 24, 2001, 23:12

The point being that the current 'unrealistic' advances offer very little to game play. It just seems like they ran out of ideas and made some very hasty, thoughtless, decisions as to what advances should do.

As a result, my CIV games are inverably similar, and there are no real choices, just follow the path down the tech tree and build everything.
Also, just because you know about something, like nationalism, doesn't mean that it is implemented.

connorkimbro · July 25, 2001, 00:55

Quote:

One sure sign of the impending decline of an empire is the rise of Feminism. Nothing kills a civilization faster than when the women try to take over.

I liked alot of what you had to say until you turned into a retard. Sorry pal . .

TechWins · July 25, 2001, 03:10

Quote:

One sure sign of the impending decline of an empire is the rise of Feminism. Nothing kills a civilization faster than when the women try to take over.

That is such a terrible statement to make. Women don't try to take over, what they try to do is contribute, which is the same thing men do. You need to keep stupid comments to yourself

.

Quote:

As a result, my CIV games are inverably similar, and there are no real choices, just follow the path down the tech tree and build everything.

What's your point? The tech tree is set up to show how certain advances lead to new advances in technology. The basic premise of the tech tree is fine. The tech tree does need improvements in adding techs, modifying techs, and replacing techs in certain areas. Overall the concept of the tech tree is good. If you are so fanatically against it why do you play Civ?

Quote:

Also, just because you know about something, like nationalism, doesn't mean that it is implemented.

Yeah, we do know that Nationalism is implemented. It has been confirmed by Firaxis. Although, Nationalism as a gov. choice hasn't been confirmed by Firaxis (I'm 99% sure). Plus, rarely do any informed posters claim that certain things will be implemented into the game when Firaxis hasn't confirmed it. Don't go running your mouth about something you are very unaware about.

Rasputin · July 25, 2001, 06:18

Quote:

Originally posted by paulmagusnet

One sure sign of the impending decline of an empire is the rise of Feminism. Nothing kills a civilization faster than when the women try to take over.

and you have examples to prove this ???

campmajor! · July 25, 2001, 06:33

Quote:

Originally posted by paulmagusnet
You should read the work by historian John Glubb, who studied how and why empires declined and came up with a theory of specific cycle that all empires appear to follow.

Many of the 'advances' in CIV (what ever flavor) are poorly thought out and rather arbitrary.

You missed the point of civ. It is not a sim of life, it is just a game which is fun to play!

There are a lot of people who try to make civ as realistic as possible. That could work out fine, but not allways. For instance, I liked the railways in civ2. No movement points!

So that is not realistic, but it sure is fun.

By the way, the way ctp(2) handles railways is actually also not realistic. Why should the transport of a tank be much faster than the transport of artillery? The train doesn't move any faster, does it?

Grumbold · July 25, 2001, 06:35

Quote:

Originally posted by TechWins
Yeah, we do know that Nationalism is implemented. It has been confirmed by Firaxis. Although, Nationalism as a gov. choice hasn't been confirmed by Firaxis (I'm 99% sure). Plus, rarely do any informed posters claim that certain things will be implemented into the game when Firaxis hasn't confirmed it. Don't go running your mouth about something you are very unaware about.

Ouch! I think you misread his point and he means in Civ. Just because you have researched the theory of Nationalism does not mean you encourage your country to become nationalist. In the same way that in Civ the Industrial age begins before a single factory or railroad has been built, which just does not make any sense. If the tech was "mechanical automation", the product "factories", and the Industrial age was announced when the 10th factory was actually built on the map it would make far more sense than researching "industrialisation".

LaRusso · July 25, 2001, 06:37

Quote:

Originally posted by campmajor!
By the way, the way ctp(2) handles railways is actually also not realistic. Why should the transport of a tank be much faster than the transport of artillery? The train doesn't move any faster, does it?

bizzare but true: russians put their tanks to slide on railways through pripiet marshes during summer 1944 offensive against germans. but i agree that railway should be basically same for every unit....

campmajor! · July 25, 2001, 06:38

Quote:

Originally posted by paulmagusnet
Also, just because you know about something, like nationalism, doesn't mean that it is implemented.

That is right. But is it so that Democratic governments know nothing about a communist type of government? Of course not. They know it, just didn't implement it....

campmajor! · July 25, 2001, 06:40

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso

bizzare but true: russians put their tanks to slide on railways through pripiet marshes during summer 1944 offensive against germans. but i agree that railway should be basically same for every unit....

May be it reflects the fact that in the era when cavalry is used, trains are slow and in the era tanks are used trains are faster?

paulmagusnet · July 25, 2001, 21:34

Mr techwin, connorkimbo, et al

Your very personal attacks are both juvenile and without merit. THOSE are the kind of things you should keep to yourself. I will not respond in kind. If you can express a rational thought or question I can comment upon that.

- - - - - -

Feminism has nothing to do with the contribution of women, it is an advocacy for superiority and destructive in more ways than constructive. This is not a proper forum for this discussion other than that it is included in the game with such unreserved accolads.

- - - - - - -

But to be an interesting and enjoyable game, CIV must reflect some reality or it becomes arbitrary and meaningless. Most things that people complain about are divergances from how the game acts and experience of such things in the 'real' world. CIV has not been promoted as an arbitrary 'game' but an expression of how the world takes shape, done in a way that is fun and interesting to manipulate.

For example, the rail road makes the game less fun because it acts in a way contrary to how we expect rails to function.

It is a pity that the best of CIV classic and CIV CTP can't be combined.

- - - - -

Rasputin. Thankyou for a rational question.

1] There is No record of any amazonian civilization, other than in Greek mythos. I'll accept that there is some reality to that because some of what was thought to be myth has been found in archealogical digs. If it did exist, it died real quick. In any case, of nearly ten millenia of human record (of one form or another) there is no instance of any feminist surviving long enough to leave any trace of its existance.

2] Empires tend to follow a generational cycle. Rapid expansion, wealth, welfare, greatworks, decadence and implosion. During the last cycle of decadence and decline, femmenin values begin to replace masculin values (the later Romans began complaining rather vocifferiously in their writings about how the women were taking over). I don't know if it a symtom or a cause of decline, but it is a closely associated situation. This should not be confused with individual leaders. There have been some very good leaders who have been women, but they acted as better men than the men around them at the time.

3] In comtemporary times, population specialists discovered that they could reduce birth rates by education women. This was going to be the mainstay of UN sponsered birth control until someone realized the biological consiquences of 'neutering' the best and brightest. (find and read 'tragedy of the commons') If you have even the remotest belief in the biological basis of abilites, you can recognize a negative value here. There are other issues but I don't have room here (nor is it really appropriate). Francis Fugikawa (sp) a contemporary historian and economist has some comments in this area worth reading.

IN Game terms, you would have to model an expansion of the labor force, decline in pay accross the board (you just hyper inflated you labor pool), a negative birth rate and a marginal increase in unhappiness.

Like it or not, biology has consequences.

DarkCloud · July 25, 2001, 23:47

You considered those personal attacks? I surely hope you do not go into the OT for your own good.

Perhaps if you explain your ideas on how feminism is bad, then you will receive some useful discussion.

As far as I can see the only thing that anyone would find bad about it is if they are religious zealots who want women to wear all black and not show any skin on their bodies at all.

TechWins · July 26, 2001, 01:52

Quote:

Feminism has nothing to do with the contribution of women, it is an advocacy for superiority and destructive in more ways than constructive. This is not a proper forum for this discussion other than that it is included in the game with such unreserved accolads.

Why do you bring up a topic if you don't care to talk about it? I agree with Darkcloud that you should explain your thinking on why you feel the way you do about feminism. I still want tolerate this topic "Nothing kills a civilization faster than when the women try to take over.". I am in no means a feminist but I do believe in equal rights. With equal rights I believe that if all women become more competent than men then let them rule all.

Quote:

But to be an interesting and enjoyable game, CIV must reflect some reality or it becomes arbitrary and meaningless.

So are you saying that Civ isn't interesting and enjoyable? Plus isn't the game already meaningless, I mean it's only a game? The game should be based on fun first. I'll saw a quote on sombody's signature the other day about how a game needs to have fun as it's top priority ahead of realism, in terms of creation. It seems to me that you would like Civ to be more realistic even if it means for fun to take a back seat. If that ever occurs in the Civ series I would be truely amazed because the Civ series is based on fun while enacting a little bit of realsim by having a history replaying format.

SITS · July 26, 2001, 03:25

Paulmagusnet - I must admit I took a double take at your original posting about '...when the women try and take over.' It is a very sweeping statement which I'm not sure you have explained. Later on you say

Quote:

Feminism has nothing to do with the contribution of women, it is an advocacy for superiority and destructive in more ways than constructive.

So is your point that when one group of people try to be in charge over others then that is when an empire dies? Most of history has been based on patriarchal society which fits in with your description of Feminism but through a male point of view. If you had said that when group of people tries to repress and control another group of people that is when an empire crumbles then fine. But you attributed it to one part of society and not to another. This is sexism. Also I not sure how many empires have crumbled because of feminism. Romans? Most of the history I have read is that the empire becomes corrupt and stops listening to the people.

If you look at history since WWII you will see women have played a more equal part in society. This has both good and bad effects on society. For instance male suicide rate in the UK has been rising in the last 20 years and some commentators put this down to men having to find a new role for themselves and that this transition period is particularly painful for them. On the other hand women have increased the production of said societies and by challenging men for the position that they've held by tradition has made society more open. These are good things - it makes the world a more equal and inclusive place. The problem is when you group a people as a whole and stop seeing them as individuals that is when I think society breaks down. Also I find a good way to gauge what you are saying is to insert another group into the sentence. How about instead of women you say blacks? or Jews? Does it make your statement any more palatable or worse? Is being a sexist ok but a racist not?

You say biology has consequences. I was reading the obituary of a German woman called Beate Uhse. She basically introduced contraception to post-war Germany as under the Nazis it had been thought of a crime against the state. I think the biology road is a slippery one which if you accept the basic argument as true then you can end up in a pretty inhuman situation. Ask the Jews.

As to educating women to reduce the birthrate - in the developed nations the birthrate is going down. Educated women have choices of what to with their bodies and the power to enforce them. Also there is a big argument about the consumer society making couples earn two incomes to buy the things that they think they need. What is an alternative? Take their choices off them? How about the Taliban in Afghanistan? Should you drive women around a football stadium in a pick-up truck - take them onto the field and put a bullet in their head in front of 60000 people simply because they didn't cover their face properly? Are you saying that you agree with the Taliban where women are no longer given education after the age of 8? I find you statements deeply disturbing and I suggest that you have look at yourself in relation to women. What are you so scared about?

connerkimbo - I find it hard to understand that you defend women's rights at the same time have a go at 'retards'.

Quote:

I liked alot of what you had to say until you turned into a retard. Sorry pal . .

I'm not sure how this is better than the misogynist paulmagusnet.

Like you said paulmagusnet this might not be the place for this sort of discussion but I think views like yours should be challenged every time they come up.

LaRusso · July 26, 2001, 03:46

cmon, give Paulmagusnet a break. he was not PC, so what. there is a pattern that he tried to rationalize, perhaps not completely successfully....
rise of feminism DOES weaken a society if it was really patriarchal and/or embedded fimly in masculine values.
as everything posted in the last couple of weeks, this is completely off topic. dan, put that website up!

TechWins · July 26, 2001, 04:17

SITS, I agree with everything you have to say.

Quote:

cmon, give Paulmagusnet a break. he was not PC, so what. there is a pattern that he tried to rationalize, perhaps not completely successfully.... rise of feminism DOES weaken a society if it was really patriarchal and/or embedded fimly in masculine values.

No, I won't give a break to him and I don't think anybody else will either. That is very disturbing for somebody to have the views of "Nothing kills a civilization faster than when the women try to take over". I'm not sure why you (Paul) said this but I don't think that you need to express these type of views in this forum nor in the off topic forum. If you (Paul) can't give some logical (humane) support on why you made that statement, I think you need to at least delete that statement.

Quote:

as everything posted in the last couple of weeks, this is completely off topic. dan, put that website up!

Well, I know you're lying for three reasons. 1)You have pulled this joke before. 2)If the site was up you wouldn't be posting here. 3)If for some reason you did decide to say that the site was up you wouldn't have said it so nonchalantly. Nice try, though.

LaRusso · July 26, 2001, 04:36

i did not say he DID put it up. i said 'dan, put it up!'
sorry if i was misunderstood
yes i did try to pull that one, it was a while ago. i assure you i did not try to pull it again on this occassion

TechWins · July 26, 2001, 05:46

Quote:

i did not say he DID put it up. i said 'dan, put it up!'

Sorry about that. I kind of skimmed through that part and I thought that was what it stated.