Thread Tools
Old January 29, 2000, 22:13   #1
MarkG
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Column #96; WHY SE DOES NOT BELONG IN CIV3
a quite interesting article by Raingoon

comments?
http://apolyton.net/misc/column/96_seciv3.shtml
 
Old January 29, 2000, 23:56   #2
connorkimbro
Emperor
 
connorkimbro's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:19
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Seoul Korea
Posts: 4,344
An excellent article. .
He expresses a sentiment which i had often felt, yet, been unable to adequately articulate. I agree.
connorkimbro is offline  
Old January 30, 2000, 01:41   #3
LordStone1
Emperor
 
LordStone1's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:19
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 5,127
MarkG, you mentioned that you tried a new layout. A 2-column layout. That is a

NO-NO!



It's a common fact of web publishing that multi-column layout simply does not work. It may work on paper, but the intrinsic format of a web page makes this VERY impractical. This really is one of the worst things you can do when publishing literature.

You see, once you read down one column, what happens? You scroll back up to reach the top of the next column. This goes against the natural style of reading web pages. Down, down, and down is the way people read on the internet. There are millions of articles out there that tell us exactly why your style does not work.

One article: http://www.builder.com/Graphics/CTips2/ss08f.html Look at the second paragraph.

-LS1
[This message has been edited by LordStone1 (edited January 30, 2000).]
LordStone1 is offline  
Old January 30, 2000, 04:37   #4
tanis
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 01:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Leuven, Belgium
Posts: 33
Raingoon,
I read your article but I must say that it isn't quite clear what you mean...
Why is SE lazy ? What 'actions' should substitute SE ? And since you state that SE is one of the reasons SMAC isn't as succesful as civ2, what does SE in SMAC replace as compared in civ2 ?

I mean, the way I understand it now, you don't disapprove of SE at all, you just want to see a single click on the SE screen replaced by a lot of 'actions' which would show that you try to build a certain kind of socio-political society. However, these kind of 'actions' were not available in civ2...
tanis is offline  
Old January 30, 2000, 05:10   #5
Imran Siddiqui
staff
Apolytoners Hall of FameAge of Nations TeamPolyCast Team
 
Imran Siddiqui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:19
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: on the corner of Peachtree and Peachtree
Posts: 30,698
Give me SE! As has been discussed to death in the forums, a democratic state can have a capitalist or socialist system of economics! This must be in the game! If I want a Democratic Capitalist society or a Totalitarian Socialist or a Democratic Socialist, or a Totalitarian Capitalist state, I should do it! It'd be interesting to see what governments could work, and what couldn't.
Imran Siddiqui is offline  
Old January 30, 2000, 05:31   #6
Patriqvium
Prince
 
Patriqvium's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hysteria Arctica
Posts: 556
Imran, I join your call for SE. Et punctum.
Patriqvium is offline  
Old January 30, 2000, 07:08   #7
Theben
Deity
 
Theben's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:19
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Posts: 15,132
On the one hand, I can see where raingoon is coming from. Society, like government-like most things- evolves over time. It's not one sweeping proclamation that changes changes the hearts and minds of your people (the click of an SE button), but a gradual change in policy dependant on previous actions. In fact my original SE proposal was close to this: that the SE factors moved independently of the player's choices, based on the will of the people and previous actions of the player. Then the player could attempt to "nudge" the SE's in his/her own desired direction, but any major changes would likely cause social upheaval. I could see this. But raingoon is asking for a complete removal of SE from the game, for which I must disagree.

The main reason I feel this way is that Social Engineering does not, or at least should not, stand alone. Technology, SE, and city improvements are all factors which could/should affect the primary stats: what I call Civilization Effects. Civilization Effects (or CEs) are just another name for SMAC's Social Effects. But where as in SMAC the term "Economy" had 2 different meanings- one for SEs and one for the % bonuses cities received from Improvements- my vision for civ3 has all 3 of these categories working in tandem. A "+1" POLICE rating from SEs would have the same effect as a +1 from technology, or from a "police station", or possibly from a wonder. The fact is these settings were in civ2 w/o a title, although they came almost entirely from City Improvements.
The 2nd reason is the one that all game designers have to walk on a fine line to develop: game play/fun vs. realism. Sure it may be more realistic for the empire to evolve on it's own, but I'm the RULER. I WANT to make proclamations that create sweeping change across my nation. I don't want to be a passive observer to my empire's greatness: I want to feel as though I CREATED that greatness. SE can be an integral part of this creation. In MHO, of course.

------------------
Theben
Co-Moderator of the Civ3 Forums


Theben is offline  
Old January 30, 2000, 08:08   #8
Biddles
Prince
 
Biddles's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 404
On the contrary, drastic SE changes can be made in the space of a few turns. Take Russia as an example. They have changed from a planned economy to a free market in a matter of a few years. While it hasn't been easy (ie. a few turns of anarchy) it has happened.

Since most of the SE options represent policy, the SE screen is a realistic way of representing this. A green economy stance can be changed to a free market economy with enough willpower and mass marketing.

While Raingoon's idea does have some merit, I disagree with trashing SE. Modifying SE would be a good way to incorporate both ideas.

For example: If you wanted a highly scientific society you would have to make some policy changes (SE changes to : compulsory tertiary education, government research co-ordination .... etc.), increase your science budget to over x% and build y research labs.

Another example: For a conservationist (green) minded society - policy changes (environmental controls, EPA, clean industry research .... etc.), increase your EPA (environmental Protection Agency) budget to over x% and build y recycling centres.

The policy changes would still have modifiers like in SMAC, but they wouldn't be as high ( .X modifiers) and there would be many more choices.

Once you have achieved "scientific society" status you would get something like a +2 research modifier (compared to the .x modifiers it is a hell of a lot) and maybe penalties.

Just some thoughts on reconciling both sides, as it would be a mistake to go back to Civ2 "SE".


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

[This message has been edited by Biddles (edited January 30, 2000).]
Biddles is offline  
Old January 30, 2000, 14:16   #9
connorkimbro
Emperor
 
connorkimbro's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:19
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Seoul Korea
Posts: 4,344
Biddles: Sure, russia is (in name) democratic and somewhat capitalist now. . but it is NOT working very well. The peoples mindset. . their "political culture" is NOT democratic or capitalist. .
connorkimbro is offline  
Old January 30, 2000, 15:36   #10
NoviceCEO
Warlord
 
NoviceCEO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:19
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Criciúma, SC, Brazil
Posts: 185
I agree completely with Raingoon and I disagree totally with him.

I disagree with him because he's talking SE is a lazy feature and should be forgotten. Should we then, continue to be able to change from Democracy to Moanrchy in a turn (I'm based on Civilization, not on Civ2, ok?)

But I really do agree with him. SE SHOULD NOT be in the game! The firaxis programmers should take a close look to the SE mechanics, its qualities and negative points and NOT put SE in Civ3. They should design a new and totally unique new system, that we'll make us think: "How the hell haven't someone thought about this before" or "Man! SMAC SE was really trash!".

Raingoon knows better than me that you guys don't want an Evolution, you want a Revolution in the TBS genre and that can't be done simply giving minor improvements to the game.
NoviceCEO is offline  
Old January 30, 2000, 19:35   #11
Biddles
Prince
 
Biddles's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 404
connorkimbro: Hey, I never claimed russia was democratic, I only said that they had a free market, and that's pretty much true (even if the russian mafia does own all the shares).


------------------
- 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
Biddles is offline  
Old January 31, 2000, 12:07   #12
SnowFire
InterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
SnowFire's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:19
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New York City, NY
Posts: 3,736
I totally agree with Imran. I want my SE!

If I can draw an analogy, raingoon is criticizing the fact that in RPG's you have to choose a direct character class or combination thereof. He want a system where everybody starts out equal, and then depending on what you "build up," it affects your stats (work on fighting a lot and become a fighter, cast magic a lot and become a magician, etc.). The only problem with this is that usually everybody grows up to be jack-of-all trades clones of each other, with no distinctiveness. When you have only so many SE settings, you force differences and choosing of priorities. Plus it sounds like it would have a terrible inertia-it would be difficult to make fast changes. This isn't entirely accurate, as already pointed out.

And how exactly would you nudge your society around, anyway?
SnowFire is offline  
Old February 1, 2000, 20:01   #13
XZealot
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Lafayette, La. USA
Posts: 6
Lets see what your arguement is?
Social Engineering is lazy because you have to take into account 12 diffent variables that are adjustable on 4 diffent tables and each table has 4 choices. I believe there are a possible 24 different combinations. Versus one table with lets say 6 choices as there is in Civ II.

I think that you are quite backwards rangoon. It is you who are lazy for not trying to understand the range of possibilities while sitting in the cheap seats throwing pop shots at something you do not understand nor have you tried to understand.

"Better to have people think you are a fool, than to open your mouth and prove them correct"
XZealot is offline  
Old February 2, 2000, 08:39   #14
Biddles
Prince
 
Biddles's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 404
XZealot: I support your argument completely. Two things though:
1. There are four choices per line (the default ones are still choices.
2. There is a lot more combinations than 24. (I get well over a hundred)


------------------
- 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
Biddles is offline  
Old February 2, 2000, 12:18   #15
Matthevv
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Crawley, W.Sussex, England
Posts: 85
I would just like to add my voice to the anti-SE lobby. I didn't think it added any interest to SMAC. There are just too many options. The Civ2 government types were at least simple, and added some gameplay diversity. I don't think more is better.

I also don't see the relevance of "social engineering" to ancient civilizations. It might be an appropriate concept for a futuristic game, but I can't empathise with the idea of the emperor of an ancient empire, or even one prior to the 20th century, being involved in "social engineering". The feel of the game is vital for me (and Civ2 did this excellently), so the way that the ruling of your empire is done must be appropriate to the era.

I say down with the social engineers! Off with their heads! (We ancient emperors know how to deal with these types of subversive elements!)
Matthevv is offline  
Old February 2, 2000, 18:40   #16
tanis
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 01:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Leuven, Belgium
Posts: 33
Matthevv,
I'm afraid you contradict yourself: first you lament that there were too many options in SMAC, then you comment the government choices in civ2 for adding to gameplay diversity. I would think that 'more' adds to diversity and thus, in this respect, is 'better'.
Moreover, I don't think that the SE screen & concept were overly complex (as opposed to 'simple'). I might add that for those who dislike the complexity (!) of it, there is always the possibility of ignoring the economic, value & society choices, and only making a political choice, which amounts to roughly the same as in civ2 (hey I said roughly .

As for the relevance of SE in ancient civilisations, it should be clear that this would work like in civ2, meaning that in the humble beginnings of your empire, you nearly have no choices to make since you haven't developed those more advanced ideologies yet.
Moreover, I think the idea that the rulers in those times didn't concern themselves with the form of society they ruled, is overly romantic. Of course they considered it, from the idealists who wanted to shape/change that society, down to the conquerors or crazy despots who just needed a cash cow for their army or vices, they all made a conscious decision in that respect.

I say you can kill me, but not my ideas!!!!
I say pro-choice, SE will prevail!!!!
tanis is offline  
Old February 3, 2000, 11:40   #17
The Joker
Prince
 
Local Time: 02:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 505
I think I agree most with Theben. First, SE effects should be added/substracted from the effects given by city improvements.

Second the people should have a mind of it's own. I think this could be done by having some categories (like Individualism and Militarism) in which the pop had a rating between 1 and 10. The SE effects by each SE choise should partly/entirely be based on these numbers. With a high Individualism rating people would be unhappy with a nondemocratic gov or a planned economy, but with a low Individualism rating a democratic gov would give a lot of corruption and a capitalist economy would not give very much trade (resembling Russia after the revolution). The SE choises would also effect these ratings. A democratic gov would increase the Individualism rating with time, a destructive war would decrease the Militarism rating etc. These effects could be influenced and influence loads of things. A high Militarism rating would reduce/eliminate the unhappyness caused by units away from the city etc.

On top of this each city could have it's own rating. This way in a huge and polarised civ it would be very hard to manage it efficiently, as what caused happyness in some parts of the civ could create unhappyness and corruption elsewhere.

This would make it much harder to make SE changes, as it could take up to decades to get the bonuses you want.
The Joker is offline  
Old February 3, 2000, 14:28   #18
NoviceCEO
Warlord
 
NoviceCEO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:19
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Criciúma, SC, Brazil
Posts: 185
quote:

Originally posted by Matthevv on 02-02-2000 11:18 AM

I also don't see the relevance of "social engineering" to ancient civilizations. It might be an appropriate concept for a futuristic game, but I can't empathise with the idea of the emperor of an ancient empire, or even one prior to the 20th century, being involved in "social engineering". The feel of the game is vital for me (and Civ2 did this excellently), so the way that the ruling of your empire is done must be appropriate to the era.




Man, at least in SMAC you only have access to new options in the SE when you get to discover new techs. Many games end before you have all the options.
NoviceCEO is offline  
Old February 3, 2000, 15:51   #19
raingoon
Prince
 
raingoon's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:19
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 500
Myself not having -- at least I hope -- a closed mind, I find myself agreeing with the Joker that Theben seems to be onto something (see above). I'm glad the column was somewhat thought provoking.
raingoon is offline  
Old February 3, 2000, 16:34   #20
The diplomat
King
 
The diplomat's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:19
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Terre Haute, IN USA
Posts: 1,285
I'll throw in my 2 cents.
I thought that SMAC's SE was a pretty cool feature. Obviously, it can be improved and should be adapted to civ3. But I think there are three conditions that must be met no matter what SE system civ3 uses:
1) your people must be involved so how in the SE process. If you try to switch to a very unpopular choice or try to leave a very popular choice, there should be a real revolt. No just two turns of anarchy like in civ2, but maybe a couple cities declare independance and you have to reconquer them, something like that. Also, your people should request a certain SE choice. For example, if you are a totalitarian, your people might start demanding democracy.

2)the SE choices should have significant impact on gameplay. Not just +/- modifiers like in SMAC. For example, if you switch to democracy, you have to face a senate that might question your decisions.

3)have shades. For example, most countries are not 100% free market or 100% planned, but somewhere in between.

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
The diplomat is offline  
Old February 6, 2000, 10:34   #21
S. Kroeze
Prince
 
S. Kroeze's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Posts: 370
I fully support the ideas posted in this thread by the Joker and by the Diplomat; giving the people a will of their own would make the game much more interesting and realistic. Different regions/cities having an individual identity would be great too! And the concept of ratings from 0% to 100% is essential to the whole structure. When for example the militarism rating of your society would drop below 20% you would always be forced to make peace, even in the most tyrannical, totalitarian form of government. Only massive brainwashing, not prevalent in ancient societies apart from the organized church, would help.

I would at least introduce three new elements in the SE ratings/choices:
Conservatism/Experimentalism, Religiosity/Secularism and War/Peace. War/Peace should be linked to your foreign policy and only offer two possibilities, no gradations here. The default settings of society would be: 100% conservative, 100% religious, Peace. Man is by nature a conservative animal; change becomes only possible when society becomes less conservative.

I know my last remarks actually belong in the SE thread. I want to apologize to the Joker for abandoning this most interesting of threads for the time being. The problem is I'm much to busy. I hope all is well?
S. Kroeze is offline  
Old February 7, 2000, 16:21   #22
The Joker
Prince
 
Local Time: 02:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 505
I like the idea of having the conservatism rating too. And the secularism is nice too (did you know that Denmark is the most nonreligious country in the world?), although it would only effect the relationship with the religion (would need a religion model for Civ3). But I don't quite understant the war/peace rating. Would it simply decide whether you were at war or at peace with the other civs? I would then like to add that there should be several kinds of relationships you could have with the other civs (war, cease fire, peace, non-agression pact, alliance, pact, protectorate, confederation etc).

So we have Individualism (my favourite), Militarism, conservatism and secularism (not including the war/peace thing as I don't quite know what it means). What else do we need? Enviromentalism? Any suggestions?

And how excactly should they effect your society? I am hoping for some responce.

BTW it would be nice to get some of that SE thread debate back, S. Kroeze.
The Joker is offline  
Old February 8, 2000, 03:08   #23
subspace
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 14
It won't be Civ3 without SE...
subspace is offline  
Old March 2, 2000, 02:48   #24
KhanMan
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Fort Worth, Texas, USA
Posts: 691
I have to agree with the pro-SE faction:
1. There are 256 (4*4*4*4) possible combinations in SE, as opposed to civ2's 2 governments.
2. How many people have tried the Fascist Patch, and liked the idea of more flexavility of government?
3. If you want a "behind-the-scenes, computer controlled economy and political system", you can kiss strategy goodbye.

EX. What to declare war on someone? Sorry, your civilization has drifted into a pacifist democracy, which you cannot change, and you get to sit out the game...Do you really want a demonstratably lame AI calculating what government is forced on you? Or do you want to control your civ?

4. If you want a system where all the factors are included, but you have control, then what you basically are asking for is a social-political simulation requiring a masters' degree in economics and political science to understand.
IMHO, the best things of civ are the freedom to choose, and the ability of person under IQ-125 to play...

-KhanMan
KhanMan is offline  
Old May 5, 2000, 17:04   #25
S. Kroeze
Prince
 
S. Kroeze's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: the Hague, the Netherlands, Old Europe
Posts: 370
Since I still owe the Joker a reply and I think this is a quite interesting thread I bring this to everyone's notice again.

I still believe in one radical SE choice: a War/Peace button linked to foreign policy. War would mean you are waging at least one war, Peace the absence of any such war. Because war in real life has a far greater impact on society than suggested by CivII or SMAC; it heavily influences all aspects of society. It might even be the most important SE choice!

It puts a tremendous strain on public finances: a major war can result in budgetary deficits for years. This was one of the main causes of the French Revolution! And of course the economy will nearly always suffer a lot: soldiers can't gather the harvest, which could cause famine and peasant revolts, trade routes will be disrupted, soldiers often loot their own country, epidemics have a greater chance to be spread, refugees add to confusion, taxes will inevitably rise, etc....

War is also the ultimate test for the loyalty of its citizens. The army at the front can't put down a rebellion at home. It is of course no accident that during World War I three long-standing monarchies (in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia) toppled down. Republican France was also passing through a major crisis; it only narrowly escaped.

So if CivIII tries to add more realism to the game wars lasting two millennia will become impossible. Civilizations should break down under such never-ending stress! The Peloponnesian War, lasting only thirty years, definitely ended the 'Golden Age of Greece', destroying both Athens and Sparta. Only very militatistic societies like the Assyrian or Roman empire can endure the tension of almost continuous war. And it is of course no accident that the Roman Republic went down in civil wars. A really brilliant politician like Augustus was needed to restore order, at the same time fixing the borders and creating the pax Romana.

On the other hand war has a tremendous influence on the mind of people. Generally democracies are more peace-loving than autocratic regimes. But during a war this can change radically: I think a democracy once engaged in a war might prove to be far more fanatical to win it at all costs than most other governments. Usually democracies demand unconditional surrender, something unheard-of during Europe's 'Ancien Regime'.
It is public opinion which often will force politicians to make irrational choices, like interfering in Bosnia. After the French Revolution warfare has become much bloodier. The American civil war -between two more or less 'democratic' regimes- is considered the first modern war.

It would be very interesting to be forced by your own people to wage a war against your wishes and best interests!
S. Kroeze is offline  
Old May 5, 2000, 23:32   #26
beyowulf
Chieftain
 
beyowulf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: US
Posts: 91
Hmm..posible effects of social choices.

Conservatism - Longer this maintained, happier the people are..Lower amount of research though.
Experimentalism - Exact opposite of conservatism. More unhappiness, higher amount of research.

Religious - Less corruption. Lower economy maybe.
Secularism - More corruption. Higher economy.

beyowulf is offline  
Old May 6, 2000, 07:49   #27
The Joker
Prince
 
Local Time: 02:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 505
I guess late is better than never, Kroeze!

I am happy to read your responce, though.

I agree that wars should be far more destructive to a civ than they are in Civ2. But I think that they should be so because the war FORCES you to do things that are expensive to your budget etc. I don't think that just because you are at war your people should automatically revolt against you or food shortages should emerge. All these things should happend in some wars, but not automatically. I wouldn't want to be at war with some pathetic island on the other side of the world with just a few units over there, and this causing my civ to collaps. I therefor do not think that the war issue should be goverened on this macrolevel, but in stead on a microlevel.

I am not sure how to make this workable, but it should definately include giving units some new features:

Units should be much cheaper, especcially before the ind. rev. This way you could build LOADS of units if you really needed them during a serious war.

At the same time units should require both money (which could be a serious thread to your national budget), production and in modern times energy for support. The two latter could seriously hurt your homeland productive capabilities.

Units should also take pop away from the cities in which they were built. If done well this could give the food shortage we want in wartimes.


Beyowulf:

I don't think the effects should be that simple. In stead the SE ratings should work together with the SE choises you have made. I think Conservatism should determine how long your people stayed upset (and how upset they would get) after you had made SE changes. Secularism should determine how much power religion had over people's lives. I think that the religions of the world should be independant AIs, that had their own agendas. They could ask the civs to do things for them. If the civs didn't obey the religions would cause unhappyness (and possibly revolts) among the people worshipping that religion. The more secularized the believers of the religion were, the more unhappy they would become. This way you could end up having to totally obey the religious leaders, if you had a very religious pop that all belonged to the same religion. It would be like Europe in the Medieval times.
The Joker is offline  
Old May 7, 2000, 00:03   #28
Biddles
Prince
 
Biddles's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 404
I think that war should have a slightly different effect. I agree that it should drain your treasury and almost everything else that has been proposed for the war setting, but it should also raise your economy level. While war might be costly for the country, private enterprise does quite well, selling weapons, rescources etc. to their government. Actually, if anyone you have diplomatic contact with is at war, you should get a small bonus in this area.


------------------
- 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
Biddles is offline  
Old May 7, 2000, 02:55   #29
DanM
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:19
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: B.C. Canada
Posts: 37
quote:

Originally posted by Biddles on 05-07-2000 12:03 AM
While war might be costly for the country, private enterprise does quite well, selling weapons, rescources etc. to their government.


Exactly.It wasn't government peacetime policies that REALLY got the U.S. out of the depression,WWII did.The American economy got a tremendous boost from WWII,and it never had it's economy reach near-collapse or total collapse from foreign armies laying waste to everything in sight.
My point is,fighting a war on someone else's soil should'nt necessarily affect you adversely.

DanM is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:19.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team