1st, 2nd, and 3rd World Countries

Zer0_T0lerance · November 24, 2000, 14:59

I think that instead of just having major and minor civs, their should be 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world countries, like their is in the real world. This would add realism to the game and keep us from deabating about where to draw the line between major and minor civs. Well, we don't. We draw two lines between 3 different classifications. Now we have an easier question to answer: Where do we draw these two lines? Let's debate about it!

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

November 24, 2000, 15:15

"Second World" precludes two different major superpowers.

Tical_2000 · November 24, 2000, 17:45

you're an idiot.

Dauphin · November 24, 2000, 19:20

I thought the Second World refered primarily to Communist countries - ie those that are developed but not as "free" as the first World. Third World related to underdeveloped (in general) countries. First world being those with money and freedom. But I was never good at Human Geography.

In the game this would lead to civs being classified based on the state of the game, and not the state of the game based on classifications of civs.

Shogun Gunner · November 24, 2000, 20:21

In my studies in Human Geography, those terms of "first world" and "third world" countries have been deemed obsolete and are less used in academia. They are still used in the media which is slow in picking up the new terminology and theories.

"Developed nations" and "developing nations" are the generally accepted terms now.

I really don't see how that fits into Civ.

Zer0_T0lerance · November 25, 2000, 02:08

quote:

Originally posted by Tical_2000 on 11-24-2000 04:45 PM
you're an idiot.

Who's an idiot?

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

DarkCloud · November 25, 2000, 19:03

1st World- Prosperous, Industrizlized
2nd World- Industrizlized, But not that prosperoud
3rd World- Becoming Industrialized

I wonder why no one ever speaks of the 4th world countries.

4th World- Losing Industrialization

Zer0_T0lerance · November 25, 2000, 20:30

According to my studies, in Webster's New World College Dictionary (1997), a third world nation is defined as 'the underdeveloped or emergent countries of the world.' Sadly, though I don't understand why, there are no definitions in here for 1st and 2nd world countries.

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

Zer0_T0lerance · November 25, 2000, 20:42

UPDATE!!!

Thanks for the idea of 4th world countries, DarkCloud. I didn't know they even existed, but here in Webster's fourth world countries are defined as 'the poorest, most underdeveloped countries of the third world.'

------------------
Zero (formerly jrhughes98)
[This message has been edited by Zero_Tolerance (edited November 25, 2000).]

Zer0_T0lerance · November 25, 2000, 23:21

Here is some more, valuable information:

THIRD WORLD. The term Third World was originally coined in French (tiers monde) in 1952 to describe a group of countries that chose to stay out of the Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union (the First and Second worlds). Among these nations were Yugoslavia, Egypt, India, Ghana, and Indonesia. (See also Cold War; International Relations, "The Third World.")
By the mid-1950s the term was taking on a broader meaning. It became a collective reference to all underdeveloped nations. The meaning of Third World, therefore, had changed from a geographic one to an economic one. The underdeveloped countries encompassed all of Latin America, all of Africa except for the nation of South Africa, of Asia except for Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Israel.
Some areas such as sub-Saharan Africa, Haiti, and Bangladesh remained mired in poverty and squalor. They became known as the Fourth World to differentiate them from places that showed a measure of economic growth.
Economics. Taken together, most of the Third World societies and all of those in the Fourth World share certain economic characteristics. They may, like Haiti, be poor in natural resources with neither economic development nor growth. Or they may have undergone some economic development without economic growth.
There is a significant difference between development and growth. Development is brought in from the outside, while growth is initiated from within. The petroleum-rich nations of the Middle East, for example, have known a great deal of economic development since the end of World War II. The technology, money, and know-how brought in from the United States and other Western nations has enabled them to earn billions of dollars by exporting oil. But they have had very little economic growth--the emergence of home-grown manufacturing and agriculture that create wealth. If the oil is ever depleted, it is very likely that these countries will sink back into poverty again.
Without the growth of economies at home, Third- and Fourth-World countries remain little more than supply regions for the industrialized nations. They offer their natural resources as exports, but if the market for these resources collapses they have nothing to fall back on.
Politics. Many Third World countries are governed by extremely inefficient, repressive, and dishonest regimes. Such regimes, with few exceptions, have been unable to guide their nations into prosperity. (South Korea is a notable exception.) They depend on money brought in from the outside for development, but much of this money finds its way into the private bank accounts of the officers of government.
Repressive regimes are rarely stable. They are vulnerable to rebellion and guerrilla warfare, as has happened in Iran, The Philippines, and much of Central and South America. Even the Third World countries that have experienced revolutions usually find themselves no better off. The new governments turn out to be as repressive and ineffectual as the ones they replaced.
Population and debt. The two worst problems facing underdeveloped countries are population increase and the burden of debt. The highest birthrates in the world are in Third- and Fourth-World nations. It is expected that the world population will increase by 2 billion in about the next 20 years. Ninety percent of this increase will be in underdeveloped nations.
Increases of this magnitude aggravate already serious problems of food supply, unemployment, and public services. City populations also burgeon as people move from the countryside to urban areas in search of work or welfare.
Billions of dollars in aid--in the form of loans--have been sent to most underdeveloped countries since the early 1960s. Much of the borrowing was done when the industrial nations were prosperous and interest rates were low. Today many Third- and Fourth-World countries are overburdened with huge debts and see no way to repay them. The total debt of these nations is more than 800 billion dollars. The largest debtors are Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Nigeria, Peru, Chile, and Poland. To keep these nations afloat, lenders are forced to refinance the loans or face the threat of default, or total nonpayment. A default of such size would wreck the international financial system. Yet the vast amount of money poured into the underdeveloped world has done little to make it economically self-sufficient.
Multinational corporations. Many large corporations based in Western Europe, North America, and Japan operate manufacturing and other business facilities in underdeveloped countries. In some cases entire factories have been built--the German auto manufacturer Volkswagen has an automobile plant in Brazil, for example. The subdivision of production processes has also enabled companies to have some of their work done in countries with lower wages, while final assembly is at the home plant.
The operations of multinational corporations have served to make the world economically interdependent. One result, however, has been to increase unemployment in the industrialized world by shipping jobs overseas. Another result has been increased control of the economies of underdeveloped nations while not raising their standards of living appreciably.

FOURTH WORLD. A group of nations especially in Africa and Asia characterized by extremely low per capita income and an absence of valuable natural resources.

---------------------------------------------------------
From Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia Deluxe © 1998 The Learning Company, Inc.
[This message has been edited by Zero_Tolerance (edited November 25, 2000).]

Zer0_T0lerance · November 25, 2000, 23:54

With this information, I think that naturally the difference between 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th world countries in Civ3 should be classified like this:

1st - the developed nations of the world that have both freedom and money.

2nd - the developed nations of the world that have money, but no freedom.

3rd - the underdeveloped nations of the world that have weak economies and rely entirely on trade using their own natural resources to keep from "falling back."

4th - the underdeveloped nations of the world that have very weak or no economies at all and have little or no natural resources to trade with.

If the game were set up this way, regardless of the state of the game, their may only be 3rd and 4th world countries to start and as time goes by and new forms of government are discovered and nations rise up to power, 1st and 2nd world countries will begin to appear.

Ok, I'm ready to get bashed now. . .

------------------
Zero (formerly jrhughes98)
[This message has been edited by Zero_Tolerance (edited November 25, 2000).]

Ribannah · November 26, 2000, 16:57

As far as I know, the original meaning was this:

First World - Europe + Mediterranean (the old powers)

Second World - Colonies that took to parental culture and state of development (USA, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, South Africa)

Third World - Colonies that failed to do so

which left only a few countries to escape the terminology (mainly China, Korea and Japan). Some others are borderline (Mexico, Mongolia).

But I may be wrong, I couldn't find a reference.

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

weird god · November 29, 2000, 17:39

1st, 2nd and 3rd or even 4th world countries don´t make much sense in civ. until the last hundred years all countries were undeveloped "4th-world". and if we really are one world it might be that in a hundred years all will be "1st-world" or whatever. this classification is very limited in use. it´s only a glimpse in history.

Zer0_T0lerance · November 30, 2000, 01:48

quote:

Originally posted by Zero_Tolerance on 11-25-2000 10:54 PM
If the game were set up this way, regardless of the state of the game, their may only be 3rd and 4th world countries to start and as time goes by and new forms of government are discovered and nations rise up to power, 1st and 2nd world countries will begin to appear.

Ok, I'm ready to get bashed now. . .

Like I said, I'm ready to get bashed now, but I was only kidding. . .

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

Deathwalker · November 30, 2000, 09:08

What a stupid idea!!!

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

Tical_2000 · November 30, 2000, 17:39

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 · November 30, 2000, 17:59

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 · November 30, 2000, 19:09

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

Zer0_T0lerance · December 1, 2000, 01:51

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 · December 1, 2000, 10:18

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 · December 2, 2000, 01:50

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 · December 4, 2000, 12:03

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 · December 4, 2000, 15:30

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 · December 4, 2000, 17:16

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 · December 4, 2000, 18:52

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 · December 4, 2000, 19:20

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 · December 4, 2000, 22:39

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 · December 6, 2000, 17:30

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 · December 6, 2000, 20:01

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 · December 6, 2000, 22:24

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