What "Realism Watchdogs" Should Really Be Worrying About

[Mr. President]

War. Man's oldest friend. Since the Ice Age, Ares in his various incarnations has brought us better food, more spacious caves, and attractive cavewomen. By which, of course, I mean that it is (broadly) good for the economy. Germany shook off the Depression by militarizing its economy. World War II transformed the United States into a superpower.

But, in my experience, war often has the opposite effect in Civilization. You tend to end a war with your treasury empty from rushing units and your population hating you. It also slows down your research, when in real life conflict drives science.

In the words of D. L. Hughley, "What up with that?" Sure, the economy is too complicated to be accurately simulated by a computer game. But you'd think that they wouldn't punish you for fighting a war, considering that war is one of the things you're encouraged to do by the advertisements.

[The Pioneer]

I agree with the idea that war has had positive effect on science development and the economy in some cases. But I also believe that the game correctly punishes prolonged warfare. In an ideal world (far from ours) people should not wage wars and all should live in harmony and peace. The game is based on this principle which may or may not be realistic but makes for a good game.

Anyway, if you have a strong civilization and you are advanced enough waging a war should not cripple you. Maybe the population will grow wary but remember its their sons that you are sending out to war. My original cities (i.e. ones that I established long before the industrial age) always stay in tact and wealthy long after the first shots of war fell. On the other hand if your civilization is weak and/or still in ancient era a prolonged war will cripple you because of the absence of a core production center that could produce wealth, science and units. But if you play long enough afterwards the wounds will heal and progress will once again prevail.

I hate drawing parallels from the game to real life but (hoping this wont raise any controversy; it's just a game a very good one but still only a game) look at Afghanistan or some other African nations like Liberia, they have literally been thrown into the dark ages because of war. Which investors, manufacturers or scientists would be mad enough to go and invest in such places. They usually flock out of such places and stay away until order has been restored.

'nough said now I have to go and blast the Japanese back into the stone age for threatening me

[dunk]

I agree with the Pioneer.

Successful wars are good for the economy, but unsuccessful ones, well, they hurt.

[MiloMilo]

Pioneer summed things up nicely, I believe.

WWII? We (USA) began a massive build-up of our military that continued through the 50+ years of peacetime that followed it. Ditto for science. The war jumpstarted the USA's economic growth of the second half of the 20th century, but would that have happend if the war lasted, say, 20 years longer? We fought a very short war with very precise objectives, and walked away from it when it was over. Wars in civ3, on the other hand, tend to be prolonged affairs in which the size of an empire can increase by 20, 40, 60%. If you fight a war in civ3 that is very short and capture zero or at most a couple cites, your economy will not suffer in the least. If you're at war for centuries, it will. This is not unrealistic IMHO.

[Incan_Warrior]

Did you do any research regarding how successful the Vietnam War was for our country's economy and research? What about all the Desert ____'s we engaged in back in the early 1990s... we aren't exactly thriving from the boons of those operations. As other posters have said, a country that successfully wins a war with few casualties will most likely see a boost in it's output due to an increase in morale, etc. Otherwise war is detrimental.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The caveat to any of these discussions is does the war take place on your soil? I see a lot of discussion here saying that war envirogorated economies etc.

There are numerous example of how war did hurt in a big way those economies/cultures when prosecuted ontheir own lands. The entire midevil period could be descibed as fuedal warfare. Likewise the lack of emergence of Prussia/Germany as a power in Europe until the 1800's was due largely to the nerver ending oscillating warfare on their soils.

Contrast that to the emergence of England as a world power where in wars prosecuted by England were mostly on foreign soil. A revolution/coup here and there but by and large no mass destruction of infrastructure as was the case in Europe proper.

So war prosectued onsomeone else's land may indeed reinvorgarte an economy and allow technological/cultural advances. A defensive war on your own land is a completely different story IMHO.

Og

[Austin]

Originally posted by Mr. President
War. Man's oldest friend. Since the Ice Age, Ares in his various incarnations has brought us better food, more spacious caves, and attractive cavewomen. By which, of course, I mean that it is (broadly) good for the economy. Germany shook off the Depression by militarizing its economy.

Actually Hitler's military buildup and public works programs of the 1930's had the short term effect of artificially boosting the economy, but by 1936 he had pretty much blown all of Germany's currency reserves, and Germany's economy only kept going by absorbing and looting the capital and currency reserves of Austria and Czechoslovokia. By 1939 Germany was broke again, and the Germans had the choice of picking another victim to loot, or pretty much standing down their army and going home.

Hitler decided to pick on Poland, and hence WWII.

CivIII has it right, maintaining a large standing army will totally sap the vitality of your economy.

World War II transformed the United States into a superpower.

The USA was already a superpower. WWII made it official by showing that the Americans had the economic might to go from a tiny army to a world spanning ass kicking machine in the space of three years. But of course America has a large continent full of resources all to itself.

But, in my experience, war often has the opposite effect in Civilization. You tend to end a war with your treasury empty from rushing units and your population hating you. It also slows down your research, when in real life conflict drives science.

Fighting a large war SHOULD do this. Britian ended WWII bankrupt and with a population so war weary that they voted Churchill out of office if you can believe that ****!

In the words of D. L. Hughley, "What up with that?" Sure, the economy is too complicated to be accurately simulated by a computer game. But you'd think that they wouldn't punish you for fighting a war, considering that war is one of the things you're encouraged to do by the advertisements.

Wars have a real cost.

Austin

[Cookie Monster]

The only reason why the US economy and science took off like a rocket after WWII is because the US is fortunate enough not to be bombed or invaded during the war.

Look at the UK. They got bombed. They did win the war. Why is it that they did not receive the same boost in economy and science? Because they lost all of their empire after WWII. Same thing for France.

Look at Germany. They lost the war. Yet 20 years later they had a monster economy flooding the world with BMW's and Mercedes. Same thing for Japan. Toyotas, Sony's, etc. Granted these two countries received massive aid from the West but somehow they managed to rebuild their devestated countries.

I guess whether a civ thrives before, during, or after a war depends on many reasons. War alone is not the only reason.

Now a unified Europe would be truely an economic powerhouse. Perhaps eclipsing USA and Asia in economic power. They wouldn't need to start a war either to achieve economic and scientific prowess. All Europe needs is a strong leader who can unite the countries of Europe under a single disciplined whip.

[redstar1]

The US economy took off because the infrastructure put in place to fight a war was never dismantled and instead of becoming increasingly isolationist the US was brought out into the wider world and began to trade more extensively. Scientificly the US benefitted greatly from both the spoils of war (German rocket technology etc) and from being handed most if not all of Britain's military secrets for safekeeping. This allowed them to build the Atomic bomb. At the beginning of WW2 the UK was the most technologically advanced in many fields and were very close to producing Atomic grade weapons.

Germany and Japan benefitted from being defeated totally. Their infrastructure was rebuilt from scratch in many cases. They were given grants to turn bomb factories into car factories. The level of military strenght was limited and therefore their military budget was limited. Japan's homeland was relatively untouched save for two atrocities. Germany's was all but destroyed. Perhaps the greatest story of recovery was Russia's. Almost everything west of the Urals was wiped out but they still managed to keep pace with the USA and lead for much of the cold war.

Many people argue that if the Gulf war had continued until it was won completely then Iraq, and the entire region would benefit from political and economic stability.


A unified Europe would be a strong economic prescence but much the same as the US once overtook Europe I think the future economic superpowers now lie in Asia. China, India, Pakistan and the Korea's are the big threat now.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
Now a unified Europe would be truely an economic powerhouse. Perhaps eclipsing USA and Asia in economic power. They wouldn't need to start a war either to achieve economic and scientific prowess. All Europe needs is a strong leader who can unite the countries of Europe under a single disciplined whip.

to quote padmé from Ep II: "now that sound awfully like a dictator".

i'd love a strong europe, but as long as some major nations (specially italy) have a near-to-facist governement (or parts of the governement), we can forget all further uniting.

look at the netherlands, from the once most liberal EU-nation, even they were seriously discussing to exit "schengen" and more or less close the border. italy, austria, denmark and other afaik have already done the latter (or want to do so)...

i guess here in europe, noone is ready to give up the patriotic feelings for a more united and stronger europe (or do you know a single frenchman who hopes, that germany or england wins the football world cup? )

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by sabrewolf


to quote padmé from Ep II: "now that sound awfully like a dictator".

i'd love a strong europe, but as long as some major nations (specially italy) have a near-to-facist governement (or parts of the governement), we can forget all further uniting.

look at the netherlands, from the once most liberal EU-nation, even they were seriously discussing to exit "schengen" and more or less close the border. italy, austria, denmark and other afaik have already done the latter (or want to do so)...

i guess here in europe, noone is ready to give up the patriotic feelings for a more united and stronger europe (or do you know a single frenchman who hopes, that germany or england wins the football world cup? )

I agree, it does sound like a dictatorship. My observations though seem to tell me that something will eventually bring Europe together out of necessity. Redstar1 mentioned that he thinks that Asia will be a major competitor in the world market. That alone is reason enough for Europe to band together to compete against Asia. Big business and profits probably will play a big role in unifying Europe. Just my thoughts anyway..........

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
I agree, it does sound like a dictatorship. My observations though seem to tell me that something will eventually bring Europe together out of necessity. Redstar1 mentioned that he thinks that Asia will be a major competitor in the world market. That alone is reason enough for Europe to band together to compete against Asia. Big business and profits probably will play a big role in unifying Europe. Just my thoughts anyway..........

in the 80's asia was seen as the power of the 21st century, but after 1987 esp. japan never returned to its former influence... tha banking system doesn't work and all the governement can do is react to symptoms, not actually get rid of the causes.

europe has a lot slower growth, also because it cares about the social wellfare and sustainability more than e.g. the US. so imho in the long term, europe will survive well... maybe united, maybe separate...

[Austin]

Europe is way too culturally, ethnically, and linguistically diverse to really effectively unite the way the big players like China, the USA, or Russia are.

This diversity worked in Europe's favor from about 1500 to 1900 A.D., but it looks like most of de Tocquiville's predictions are coming true.

Austin

[Inverse Icarus]

to quote hitler (and to get called a nazi some more),

"mankind has grown strong in eternal struggle, and shall only perish through eternal peace"

this post brought to you by supreme military commander UberKruX. Glory Comes From Spilt Blood.

[Jaybe]

Uber, your history of avatars continues to amaze (and entertain)!

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Uber, your history of avatars continues to amaze (and entertain)!

::sniff sniff::

you're applause means everythign to me

[Grumbold]

War has been the single most destructive force throughout history because of its massive costs. Kings and countires regularly bankrupted themselves raising troops to fight pointless petty wars. Military Science has benefitted occasionally but many enlightened civilisations have been destroyed and their achievements lost for centuries. The US has largely been an exception to this because since their civil war it has always been on foreign soil and has never truly reached the point of testing their natural and human resources to the limit, merely proved a spur to push harder.

Civ III is still far too soft on war costs because it does not allow loans to cover the huge costs of wartime military activity. Great Britain continued to live under rationing and austerity measures for a decade after the end of WWII because the country was technically bankrupt. Every industry that had been converted to military effort had no money to reconfigure back to peacetime uses, let alone buy in the most modern machinery to do it with. Conversely Germany was given funds to rebuild its transport and manufacturing base while forced to put no money into maintaining an armed service. Imagine what the US could do if its defence budget was spent on health, education, crime and welfare issues.....

[spy14]

...it would leave itself more open to attack. And as half the world hates the US for being so successful, it needs that military in place.

[Incan_Warrior]

spy14 - I'm pretty sure grumbold wasn't postulating that the U.S. actually put it's defence budget towards the other issues. It seemed to me to be more of a hypothetical - hence the use of word "imagine".

[Grumbold]

Absolutely.

Many 3rd world countries remain 3rd world because all their wealth goes to feed luxurious lifestyles for their leaders and relatively massive military forces to keep them in power. Its a vicious circle that they then have to appease the generals with more and more money and power or face being ousted in a coup. Meanwhile the vast majority of the population live in poverty with no sign of a better future for their children or grandchildren.

I'm not trying to turn this into some sort of socialist or bleeding heart agenda. Armies cost a fortune and using them to fight a war costs even more. That's all I'm saying.

[The Pioneer]

I agree with Grumbold and the real life exapmles are many, way too many to post here.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by UberKruX
to quote hitler (and to get called a nazi some more),

"mankind has grown strong in eternal struggle, and shall only perish through eternal peace"

this post brought to you by supreme military commander UberKruX. Glory Comes From Spilt Blood.

Hitler is an instructive example. He started a war and brought his country to ruin, cities wasted, millions dead, his best scientists and engineers refugees. The end of Hitler and the war brought prosperity.

Meanwhile, Hitler's greatest lasting historical legacy is the re-establishment of Israel after 2000 years.

[nato]

Armies cost a fortune and using them to fight a war costs even more. That's all I'm saying.

Maybe give units very high upkeep costs. Then you don't keep units sitting around in peacetime, so when a war breaks out, you go broke rush buying them!

Like a lot of people are saying, nations really do go broke during war. Nations ended wars in huge debt, causing real economic problems. Raising money to pay for armies was one of the major factors in European history. Thats why England and the Netherlands were so very powerful and influential. They gave money to their allies to afford their armies. No one else could go to war without their financial support!

Overinvesting in military is also bad for the economy. It is almost just a black hole that resources disappear into. Put too much in there, and the economy is hurt so much that it destroys your economy's ability to build a military in the future. This is what brought down the Soviets.

[Panag]

hi ,

intresting thread , ...

, only one thing , ...

"peace true power" , ...

have a nice day

[nbarclay]

A good argument can be made that COLD wars are good for technology. When two nations or groups of nations are constantly preparing for possible conflict, they are likely to focus less on pleasure and more on developing new technologies that could give them an edge or take away an opponent's edge. Further, it is not rare that new technologies have viable military applications long before they have viable civilian applications, yet the technologies do eventually develop civilian applications.

Hot, shooting wars are another matter. Much of the technology boost of such conflicts is illusory, coming from the much faster upgrade cycles as older equipment is destroyed and new, state-of-the-art equipment replaces it. War also increases pressure to get new ideas that were already on the drawing boards into production a lot more quickly, so the quality of equipment produced gets a boost even though the science was already there.

Some key military technologies do get a major boost, but others with a longer-term payoff can actually have their priority reduced once the shooting starts. And what happens to research on technologies that have no military application?

Regarding production, Civ 3 does have mobilization to reflect the increase in production if a nation fully dedicates itself to a war. But since Civ 3 does not model complex economic phenomena like recessions or depressions, why should it model situations where a war pulls a nation out of a depression? And would war really help an economy that is already at the top of the cycle instead of near its bottom?

Successful warfare in Civ 3 is already plenty powerful due to the extra cities and production you can get out of it. Isn't that enough?

Nathan

[GeneralTacticus]

*ahem*

In all of history there has never been an example of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.

-Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

[spy14]

Originally posted by Incan_Warrior
spy14 - I'm pretty sure grumbold wasn't postulating that the U.S. actually put it's defence budget towards the other issues. It seemed to me to be more of a hypothetical - hence the use of word "imagine".

... hence the hypothetical response...

[Dom Pedro II]

I think partly the reason why implementing a beneficial war system in Civ3 is so difficult is because there is never any true explanation of exactly what the player is, i.e. a separation of the State from the country in the game.

For example, if the player's gold represents the coffers of the Government Treasury, then, yes, at the end of a war, they're going to be depleted. On the other hand, if the player's gold is meant to represent the overall spending power of the national economy, it doesn't really fit.

The other trouble is resource management. In real life wars, those who control resources and production benefit from war through government contracts. In Civ3, the Player already controls all of the national resources and production, so how can he, as the leader, be made to benefit from his own contracts? The only thing I can think of would be an industrial bonus, which is already given in a War-Time mobilization.

Lastly, science has an explosion in war because the government chooses to funnel more funding into research... you can already do that in Civ3. You already determine the funding, and I don't know about everyone else, but in war, I usually move the slider up as far as it'll go just to get the newest weapons!

[GePap]

I agree with those that have pointed out that real war is higly expensive and that if tis fought on your territory, higly damaging. The difficulties wih Civ3 and war have much more to do with war and happiness. The happiness penalties for representative govs and for drafting are too high, though any player can set them lower. If as dems. one didn't have to spend so much more on luxuries to keep the people happy then you could see a war foguht on foreign soil as a boon to the economy. Just think, mobilize the cities for war, have a lot of extra shields being produced and make your cities create wealth. Then shift tax revenues to science and you could do well.

An interesting point is that the draft limits make little sense to me. The gov should be able to draft as many citizens as possible, though at the cost of them not creating tax revenue and production in their cities. Also, the number of shields gotten from working the population to death in despotic governments should go up with time (or at least get the bonuses from industry). working a thousand people to death in a factory will get me a lot more built than workin the same one thousand to death in old furnaces to equip my legions.

[Panag]

hi ,

"realism" , well where is the point of having a courthouse , to judge the bad guy's , and a police station to get them , but there is no jail to lock them in to , ....no wonder there is so much corruption , .....

there could be so much done , but is it all possible , can it be done , ......

have a nice day