New idea for country classifications in civ4

pollyworth · July 16, 2003, 00:20

I would like to see countries classified as 3rd, 2nd or 1st world and I would like to see the benifits and pitfalls of each. Such as this...

Benefits:

1st world countries can more easily produce weapons of mass destruction and enjoys profitable trade.

2nd world countries are less likely to be focused on with contempt by the world community and enjoys profitable trade.

3rd world countries can trade drugs and weapons of mass destruction on the black market (of course, a black market would have to be created for civ4). And they can also choose to support terrorism allowing them to build a new unit: terrorist.

Pitfalls:

1st world countries are major terrorism targets of jealous 3rd world countries.

2nd world countries have a harder time maintaining a large military.

3rd world countries have a difficulty making large sums of money and little world respect.

vondrack · July 16, 2003, 02:22

Ummm... I think the logic is flawed. In the RL, it is not that you "somehow become" a 1st world country and as a benefit coming out of it, you all of a sudden are able to produce WMD more easily... it is that your economic power allows you to produce them in large quantities and consequently, you begin to be regarded as a world power (and begin to draw the attention of the poorer, less successful nations that may start trying to hamper your success, perhaps even by waging a war of terror).

Likewise, 3rd world countries are not "having difficulties making large sums of money" just because they are part of the third world... It is the other way round - they are regarded as third world countries, because they are poor, have weak economies etc.

pollyworth · July 16, 2003, 02:36

Suppose then when your country reaches a certain age, such as the Industrial, the new form of classification is born and set for you as your country is at that time. And this classification will always be hanging over your country's head--until you make an alliance with another country and/or declare a successful campaign large enough to throw world power out of balance and boost you up to a new level (or down to a lower level.)

pinocchio · July 16, 2003, 04:24

I don't see the point of classifying countries, if your economy has gone to ****, well you already know about it and the other civs will treat you badly regardless of what you're labled.
However a sort of terrorist unit could be cool, every turn there could be like a 50% chance that it does what you direct it it to do, or it does what ever it wants. And if another friendly civ catches your 'terrorist' you have to pay them a fee.

TacticalGrace · July 16, 2003, 04:58

How about when a country gets to 1st world status every citizen gets internet access, no matter how uneducated they are, and they get to send messages to international news groups thus making it look like your country is populated by moronic simpletons.

pollyworth · July 16, 2003, 05:16

hmmmm...

pollyworth · July 16, 2003, 05:39

Quote:

Originally posted by TacticalGrace
How about when a country gets to 1st world status every citizen gets internet access, no matter how uneducated they are, and they get to send messages to international news groups thus making it look like your country is populated by moronic simpletons.

Tactical,

I like your idea of putting 'the internet' into the game. The only problem is, civ 3 already has it. As far as making your country look like its populated by moronic simpletons--I think this idea's a no-go. We don't delve into the psychology per se of the population in civilization games.

stonewall · July 16, 2003, 12:06

As said, I think you logic is backwards. A classification could be usefull for setting AI attitude, but I think that it already takes these factors into account in its calculations.

Lorizael · July 17, 2003, 01:46

Second world country doesn't mean what you think it means, btw.

They were terms invented during the Cold War.

First world referred to America and its allies during the war. It just so happened that those countries tended to be the strongest.

Second world referred to Communist bloc nations.

Third world referred to anyone that hadn't taken sides/got abused by the first and second world nations.

The term "second world nation" has no modern usage.

pollyworth · July 17, 2003, 02:31

Very interesting. Thanks for the info.

johncmcleod · July 18, 2003, 00:37

I agree with Pinnochio. When you have a bad economy, you suffer. You don't need a label to ell you it's bad and make it worse. BTW I thought 2nd world still meant a communist country?

Lorizael · July 18, 2003, 00:40

It does, but when was the last time you heard a news reporter use the term "second world nation"?

CharlesBHoff · July 18, 2003, 05:59

Wealth can disappear real fast. Than 1st world nation like America can become than 3rd world nation fast. We are heading to 3rd world nation status in America with tax cut for the rich only running 455 billion dollar budget debt this year and 475 billion dollar next year. Loseing over 2 million job since Buch became President.

Hagbart · July 18, 2003, 08:12

LOL that idea sucks...

Instead just think of the despotism countries as 3rd world countries and the democracies as 1st world countries.

Vince278 · July 19, 2003, 04:22

Quote:

Originally posted by pollyworth
I would like to see countries classified as 3rd, 2nd or 1st world and I would like to see the benifits and pitfalls of each. Such as this...

Such a classification really isn't relevent anymore in the real world.

bobbo008 · July 19, 2003, 19:04

lorizael is absolutely right, and it should be the 2nd world nations having the EASIEST time keeping a large army...

Vince278 · July 20, 2003, 00:27

The 2nd world, as a concept, only lasted as long as the Soviet empire. A short blip in world history. You could say that all we have now is the 1st and 3rd worlds but I don't think that is even accurate to say anymore. Its probably more accurate to say the world is divided between haves (the old 1st world) and have nots (the old 3rd world). Historically speaking, that is as old as time.

bobbo008 · July 20, 2003, 14:03

curiously, "3rd world country" is a term i hear a lot, usually referring to poor/developing ones. "1st/2nd world country" has never been used in a conversation i've ever had.

Patroklos · July 20, 2003, 17:36

The "wealth" classification has nothing at all to do with the actually hard cash a governement has, nore how much debt you have (unless it is extreme). The classification is due to the worth of your economy, and in that case America is not "heading to third world status" (I agree that this vocabulary is now obsolete) and still has a head start on most of its first world peers by many times over. Debt only makes your country "poor" if it is more than or close to the gross output of your economy, America's debt is about 1-2% of its economic productivity. Debt is not always a bad thing unless dimwit politicians try and equate the finances of multi trillion dollar entities to that of an average soccer mom's check book, read the "Federalist Papers." So in civ, just because the tresury is empty doesn't mean it is a poor country. A better way to discover the where a civ player ranks is by adding its total shields and averaging them against its total cities, then comparing that to the other civs.

2 million less jobs? Lets get off the reationist hippy web sites and get an economic journel. A "reccession" which is what we are in, is nothing close the a "depression" which we are nowhere near. 10 years ago the stock marked was at 1000, it is now hovering close to double that even though we are suposedly in an economic down turn. So while we are not doing as well as normal, that doesn't nessecarily mean we are doing bad. Then again, with reaticonaries going onto forums spouting idiotic suggestions that we are going to the poor house over and over again without knowing what they are talking about, of course most people have the wrong idea. We did not lose 2 million jobs, they simply migrated and hippy news sources would rather say 2 million people lost their jobs (which is technically true) than say 2 million people lost their jobs and found a new one elsewhere. Such tactics work on week minds (btw, the actualy unemployment rate is 5.1%, which means a loss of one million jobs, which is not much more than the normal fluxuation from year to year). And for the anti Bush people out there, the economic downturn of today is a symptom of the economic policy of yesterday (it will take years for the effects of the Bush economic plan to have a true effect), so who would be to blame for this recession then? The hippies left that out too.

Kuciwalker · July 20, 2003, 17:46

Quote:

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
Wealth can disappear real fast. Than 1st world nation like America can become than 3rd world nation fast. We are heading to 3rd world nation status in America with tax cut for the rich only running 455 billion dollar budget debt this year and 475 billion dollar next year. Loseing over 2 million job since Buch became President.

There's an OT forum. This belongs there.

johncmcleod · July 20, 2003, 17:46

Well, to get on economics-Bush shouldn't have had a tax cut when we're in already in debt. I thought that was plain silly.

Clinton-lovers always talk about how great he was for the economy, since it went so well when he was in the presidency.

It is so ridiculous democrats say that. When he became president something called the internet became open to the public, and there was what you could call an economic explosion. It gave people reason to buy computers and the internet. It created tons of new jobs, created an entire economic sector. It created E-Business, it created an entire new business dimension. At the beginning of his presidency, the internet was pretty much unheard of and not many people had computers, and by the end everyone had computers and the net.

And that wasn't his doing, because Al Gore didn't invent the internet.

BTW I'm not a conservative, I'm a leftist with a strong dislike of both political parties in American.

Kuciwalker · July 20, 2003, 17:47

That also belonged in OT.

johncmcleod · July 20, 2003, 17:51

Yeah, you're right.

Vince278 · July 23, 2003, 00:22

The quick divergences to OT topics seems to show that the original topic of this thread was not a good idea to start with.

CharlesBHoff · July 23, 2003, 19:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Patroklos
The "wealth" classification has nothing at all to do with the actually hard cash a governement has, nore how much debt you have (unless it is extreme). The classification is due to the worth of your economy, and in that case America is not "heading to third world status" (I agree that this vocabulary is now obsolete) and still has a head start on most of its first world peers by many times over. Debt only makes your country "poor" if it is more than or close to the gross output of your economy, America's debt is about 1-2% of its economic productivity. Debt is not always a bad thing unless dimwit politicians try and equate the finances of multi trillion dollar entities to that of an average soccer mom's check book, read the "Federalist Papers." So in civ, just because the tresury is empty doesn't mean it is a poor country. A better way to discover the where a civ player ranks is by adding its total shields and averaging them against its total cities, then comparing that to the other civs.

2 million less jobs? Lets get off the reationist hippy web sites and get an economic journel. A "reccession" which is what we are in, is nothing close the a "depression" which we are nowhere near. 10 years ago the stock marked was at 1000, it is now hovering close to double that even though we are suposedly in an economic down turn. So while we are not doing as well as normal, that doesn't nessecarily mean we are doing bad. Then again, with reaticonaries going onto forums spouting idiotic suggestions that we are going to the poor house over and over again without knowing what they are talking about, of course most people have the wrong idea. We did not lose 2 million jobs, they simply migrated and hippy news sources would rather say 2 million people lost their jobs (which is technically true) than say 2 million people lost their jobs and found a new one elsewhere. Such tactics work on week minds (btw, the actualy unemployment rate is 5.1%, which means a loss of one million jobs, which is not much more than the normal fluxuation from year to year). And for the anti Bush people out there, the economic downturn of today is a symptom of the economic policy of yesterday (it will take years for the effects of the Bush economic plan to have a true effect), so who would be to blame for this recession then? The hippies left that out too.

In the early 1990 depression the DOW was round 8000 not 1000. The DOW first broke 1000 in Nixon 2nd term as president and went down to round 800 in the depression
that follow. It will end only when the DOW reach 12000 it did briftly and the NASDAQ goes over 5000 again. The best
Stock Market was in Pakistan which went up about 110 %
last year. Than Pakistian is than poor 3rd world country.

America lost 2 million white collar job when bussien moved then oversea.

Vince278 · July 24, 2003, 00:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Patroklos
2 million less jobs? Lets get off the reationist hippy web sites and get an economic journel.

Nothing wrong with being a hippy.

Lord_Davinator · July 24, 2003, 00:59

Is there even gona be a civ4 guys?

Vince278 · July 24, 2003, 01:15

Not for a while if ever. Guess this thread is a bit premature...

vmxa1 · July 24, 2003, 02:56

Look for it in 2005 or at least some offical talk of it.

Tiberius · July 24, 2003, 03:32

Why would you want a civ4 already? Civ3 is getting better and better with each XP and C3C looks promising. Slowly but steadily, Civ3 is becoming the civ-game we were dreaming about. There will be at least a year or two of playing C3C and after that ... who knows? Maybe another XP (even though I can't imagine what possibly could they include in a new XP) or maybe Civ4. So I wouldn't expect it earlier than 2-3 years from now.
Actually I'd prefer a SMAC2 first.