26-01-2005 19:40									#1
	LESS IS MORE: scrap the modern age! Get a bigger avatar today!

It’s my belief that the Civilization series has always been unable to represent the modern age in any way realistically. This is not meant as negative criticism on the creators of Civilization: it is simply impossible to represent all the different societies in the millennia of human history well.

Let’s have a look at some basic characteristics of the Civilization series:

• It’s a tile based game. Production is derived from the land (and seas).
  
• Population growth is related directly to food production.
  
• Raw materials are immediately converted into finished products, with no steps in between.
  
• The player is a god, omnipotent and omniscient about his civilization, and can guide his civilization independently from what’s happening in other civs.

This is a pretty decent system to represent pre-industrial societies, After all, roughly speaking those are agricultural and the size of the population is closely related to the food production in the area. The economic value added to raw materials to get to finished products is fairly limited, so abstracting that to shields + resources = finished good isn’t too far-fetched. On top of that, most production is for local use, and trade is mostly limited to luxury goods, as anything else is too hard and too expensive to transport over long distances. (Though it would be nice to have a trade route system to represent in-between traders such as Venice, the Dutch and Portugal, who didn’t always control the production – ie in civ terms, the tile the resource is on - but did control the trading of the good to their great advantage.)

This model can still function to some degree during the Industrial Revolution, as – at least in the colonial period – the focus of governments lay not in promoting free and international trade but in building up their own national and cohesive economy and obtaining effective control of the necessary raw resources. (Though of course here too the period is much better represented by games that focus specifically on this time period, eg Victoria with its factory system.)

However the system completely fails for the modern (post)industrial societies. To give a few examples:

• There’s overproduction of food, and population size or growth is no longer related to it, as the economic value of a child has declined, and there’s wide access to contraceptives.
  
• Most of the economic value is added in the production process. To say it simple, economic power lies where the factories, banks and research labs lie, not where the raw resources lie, as would be the case in Civ.
  
• There’s a very large mobility of capital, and the biggest corporations are multinationals unbound to any country, investing where it suits them best. So the idea of a player-god in control of the entire economy, without any money flows to foreign countries, doesn’t work anymore.

That’s why I say: Limit Civilization to what it can represent well: pre-modern societies, the age of states and kingdoms! Limit the technology tree to 1945, so that we can still play in the end with tanks, bombers and nukes, but no further. If there still needs to be a space race, make it the Apollo Program and the journey to the moon, instead of a journey to Alpha Centauri, which would require many more techs. Cutting off a piece at the end would allow the game to mold more around the earlier periods, and focus more features on the early areas. After all, that’s the part of the game we play most, as many rarely finish a game because by the end they’ve become so powerful there’s no decent competition left.

So while on most aspects of the game I’d disagree that “less is more”, here I think limiting Civilization’s timespan to pre-modern times would add to the game.

	26-01-2005 21:11									#2
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I dissagree, they shouldn't cut the modern age, they should just fix it up a little. And I prefer there to be a near-future (to 2100 AD) in the game also...

For me the game first starts to get really interesting when getting near the modern times

I do agree that they should cut out the race to AC and make it to the moon instead, though not as an instant win, just something that gives some extra score...

	26-01-2005 23:58									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I just think that the name "modern age" is dumb. People have called their contemporary society "modern" for centuries, long before there was nuclear power, electronics or whatever signifies the "Modern" age in Civ. The Information Age, Nuclear Age or Space Age would be better names.

	27-01-2005 02:14									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

While I agree that the modern age is unrealistic, it does make the game interesting, both from the increase in production to the improved weaponry.

As for contraception, world population will increse for several decades more, and part of the stabilzation will come from overcowding, rather than family planning: AIDS, dessertification of the SubSahara, and possibly damage or destruction of the Great Conveyor Belt (there is concern that the melting of Greenland's cap will stop the flow of Africa's heat to the Gulf Stream & Europe), making temperature differences greater around the globe. Even if this turns out to be incorrect, calling this "global warming" in civ isn't too far fetched.

	01-02-2005 11:02									#5
	Re: LESS IS MORE: scrap the modern age! Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Maniac It’s my belief that the Civilization series has always been unable to represent the modern age in any way realistically. This is not meant as negative criticism on the creators of Civilization: it is simply impossible to represent all the different societies in the millennia of human history well. Let’s have a look at some basic characteristics of the Civilization series: It’s a tile based game. Production is derived from the land (and seas). Population growth is related directly to food production. Raw materials are immediately converted into finished products, with no steps in between. The player is a god, omnipotent and omniscient about his civilization, and can guide his civilization independently from what’s happening in other civs. This is a pretty decent system to represent pre-industrial societies, After all, roughly speaking those are agricultural and the size of the population is closely related to the food production in the area. The economic value added to raw materials to get to finished products is fairly limited, so abstracting that to shields + resources = finished good isn’t too far-fetched. On top of that, most production is for local use, and trade is mostly limited to luxury goods, as anything else is too hard and too expensive to transport over long distances. (Though it would be nice to have a trade route system to represent in-between traders such as Venice, the Dutch and Portugal, who didn’t always control the production – ie in civ terms, the tile the resource is on - but did control the trading of the good to their great advantage.) This model can still function to some degree during the Industrial Revolution, as – at least in the colonial period – the focus of governments lay not in promoting free and international trade but in building up their own national and cohesive economy and obtaining effective control of the necessary raw resources. (Though of course here too the period is much better represented by games that focus specifically on this time period, eg Victoria with its factory system.) However the system completely fails for the modern (post)industrial societies. To give a few examples: There’s overproduction of food, and population size or growth is no longer related to it, as the economic value of a child has declined, and there’s wide access to contraceptives. Most of the economic value is added in the production process. To say it simple, economic power lies where the factories, banks and research labs lie, not where the raw resources lie, as would be the case in Civ. There’s a very large mobility of capital, and the biggest corporations are multinationals unbound to any country, investing where it suits them best. So the idea of a player-god in control of the entire economy, without any money flows to foreign countries, doesn’t work anymore. That’s why I say: Limit Civilization to what it can represent well: pre-modern societies, the age of states and kingdoms! Limit the technology tree to 1945, so that we can still play in the end with tanks, bombers and nukes, but no further. If there still needs to be a space race, make it the Apollo Program and the journey to the moon, instead of a journey to Alpha Centauri, which would require many more techs. Cutting off a piece at the end would allow the game to mold more around the earlier periods, and focus more features on the early areas. After all, that’s the part of the game we play most, as many rarely finish a game because by the end they’ve become so powerful there’s no decent competition left. So while on most aspects of the game I’d disagree that “less is more”, here I think limiting Civilization’s timespan to pre-modern times would add to the game.

Your kidding right? This would be the biggest mistake ever to be made in the CIV series to leave out the modern age. Man, would that PO this community. Come on now, you can do better then this... give some good ideas here.

	01-02-2005 16:18									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I don't want the Modern Age to be cut out entirely (though I'd prefer if they invented better mechanisms for the said problems), though I have to admit that I rarely play games that long...

	01-02-2005 16:34									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

The modern age needs less micromanagement, that means scrapping workers and single unit combat.

As WesW said, the game should get harder as it goes on, not easier, that would also help to make the modern age more interesting, instead of the boring mop-up fest that it is now.

	06-02-2005 18:09									#8
	Inflate your Upload Space

I for one wouldn't notice the removal of the modern age as I can't remember a time when I've played up to it. Maybe I've built one or two nuclear submarines in my entire Civ career!

Oh, and home $ less is definitely home $ more

	07-02-2005 00:02									#9
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Modern age is pretty bad but really all the ages get worse as you advance. I have the most fun in the first age generally.

	07-02-2005 05:24									#10
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Sorry for the absence of any replies from my part. It's just that I'm in the middle of my exams.

Some quick comments:

quote: Originally posted by realpolitic As for contraception, world population will increse for several decades more, and part of the stabilzation will come from overcowding, rather than family planning:

The population growth today is mainly coming from third world countries. In civterms those aren't yet in the modern age. My post only applies to the (post)industrial countries, the great powers of today's world.

quote: Originally posted by PrinceBimz Your kidding right? This would be the biggest mistake ever to be made in the CIV series to leave out the modern age. Man, would that PO this community. Come on now, you can do better then this... give some good ideas here.

I'm sure we could come up with a decent way to represent the modern age. However that would require more than a few tweaks to the game. And we've heard enough Civ4 will be a conservative sequel, with slogans used such as "Simplify, simplify, simplify" and "less is more", which I quoted here. So you have to be realistic: Firaxis isn't gonna implement anything that would dramatically change the game. Therefore the best possible solution we can hope for seems to me to simply scrap the modern age.

Nevertheless, after my exams are done, I'll see if I find the time to write down some (IMHO not too radical) ideas to improve the modern age. Not that I expect them to be implemented of course.

	07-02-2005 13:51									#11
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by pg Modern age is pretty bad but really all the ages get worse as you advance. I have the most fun in the first age generally.

This is always true, in any game, as long as the MM gets more with the empire growing. It gets worse in Civ, in RTW, in MOO, you name it. But I don't think it's the very idea of a Modern Age, it's more the bad interface, that makes you do more and more tedious things as game progresses. So, a simple note to the designers: make useful automation options.

	07-02-2005 18:32									#12
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

No, NO, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again, I probably find myself in the minority, but I kinda like the modern age. Yes, it could be improved -- especially worker hordes and a bit more sophistication in the combat relationships between artillery/tanks/air power.

But I agree that fixing it up is far more preferrable to scrapping it.

	08-02-2005 21:06									#13
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I agree 100% with Maniac!

The few times i get to the modern times in CIV3 i usually get tired of the game pretty quickly. It just feels tedious.

Slower techs, so you don't end up inventing things long before what was done in reality, and end at WW2. Sounds great!

	09-02-2005 07:22									#14
	Get a bigger avatar today!

The population growth issue can be solved by changing how populations grow in Civ. The simplest and best way would be to have population grow regardless of food production-set up a population increase formula based on the basic real factors, mortality rates, fertility rates. This allows for populations to outgrow food production and possible starvations and internal problems (making the game more challagenging, since the issue is trying to make sure you grow enough food to handle the people). If you incvlude disease seriously, then this is what helps keep populations in control and relatively low until tech changes and modern imporvements in sanitation and medicine allow for there to be a population explosion, forcing the playet to deal with the opportunities and problems of this.

ON the issue of units, a public works system and combat by armies, not units, fixes that.

The economic criticism would in theory really apply to economics in the game in general- the fact is that governments today have even greater control of the economy, even in capitalist states, than they ever had before- heck, people could print their own legal tender until just a few centuries ago. The modern world has far more economic regulation and control than say in 1700, because while things grow more complex, the ability of the state to control the situation has grown even faster.

	09-02-2005 14:20									#15
	Inflate your Upload Space

You know, people can still print their own legal tender. Legal tender is nothing more than a piece of paper which "promises to pay the bearer the sum of X in commidity Y". In the days when wealthy merchants and banks routinely did this, the legal tender was only worth as much as the bank or merchant's reputation. these days, legal tender is only worth as much as the nation's reputation.

Incidentally, cheques are a direct outgrowth of that renaissance era tradition of printing your own money. So in a sense, everyone still does it.

Except in Japan of course, which has some of the most primitive banking facilities I have ever seen outside of Africa.

	09-02-2005 20:44									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

The thing is, no state currencies are tied to any commodity anymore, so in that sense, a checke, is not the same thing as a dollar or Euro.

BUt think about it, modern economies run on the promises of states, backed by absolutely nothing. If that is not total control of the economy, what is?

The "problems" with the modern age exist simply because the Civ system's problems magnify with time. The solution is not to get rid of the modern age, but solve the underlying issues- get rid of the disease, not the symptoms.

	11-02-2005 08:48									#17
	Increase Your PM Length

Why not create an option that limits what techs can be discovered in the game.

there could be two options, one option has you set which techs individual nations choose and the other option lets you pick the techs for everyone in the game.
Also included in this is an option to end the tech tree at a certain era.

	11-02-2005 11:13									#18
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by pg Modern age is pretty bad but really all the ages get worse as you advance. I have the most fun in the first age generally.

I agree mate,

Much fun is had when exploring in the early days whilst trying to build a decent nation, I think most will agree on that point.

In all versions, conflict occurs in the industrial (Cavalry/Dragoon) age onwards as time flies by so quickly, and they appear on the tech tree just about when you have your nation in shape.[Cavalry that is!]

I'd vote for longer periods spent in the ancient/dark and middle ages, with a tech stop at WWII. pre-nuclear as the AI has no idea how to handle nuclear weapons especially. (it seems to use it as an offensive weapon before taking a city only, nothing more; which is disgraceful programming I feel.)

Maniac has a point.

Toby

	11-02-2005 17:42									#19
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

So, instead of improving any deficiencies, just toss the whole age out? Well, I'm glad Firaxis will not take this suggestion to their programming team -- that would clearly be a step backwards for Civ.

Whatever happened to the slogan "Build a civilization to stand the test of time"?

It would change to "Build a civilization to stand the test of time until the modern age which is too confusing and difficult

	11-02-2005 21:08									#20
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Okay. Let's remember that what you play as in Civ3 (nor any other game of which I am aware) is not a "nation".

Even the game's own motto attest to this.

At best, what we are all playing is a collection of city-states. This, IMO, is where Civ falls short into the Late Industrial and Postindustrial periods.

As for the modern nation's control of its economics... um, regulation is not control. Keynes is spinning in his grave.

The trick is that money does not flow directly to the state treasury anymore. In fact, it rarely even gets that close. Pre-industrial economic theory was simple - he who has the most gold (money), wins. Adams proved, though, that the mercantilist system actually negated the value of the gold being sought (vertical demand curve, I think... I don't have my notes at hand).

(For what it's worth, this is also why neo-conservative power theory doesn't work. But that's a different forum.)

Now, of course, nations try to get the money to YOU so that every time you move it, they can skim off a little bit (transaction costs). This is the part of the model that Civ doesn't simulate well.

But, of course, since Nobel Prize winning economists have a hard time modeling the modern economic system, it's asking a bit much for video game designers to do so.

	11-02-2005 21:35									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Yes, I identify with your comments regarding modern economies.

However, the "military-industrial complex" concept does work within this model. Whatever economic activity is generated (trade arrows, cash from other nations) is directed in proportion to your (the leader) objectives. Whether this is done with strict state-controlled economy a la Soviet style or free market democracy like the US, the bottom line is either government model is able to control how much military stuff is produced and the non-government economic activity, in the US model, is controlled by regulation, tax codes, policy, etc.

So yes, being an economics major, I also recognize the vast over-simplificiation of the approach, but I think it kinda works for the game.

I like your comment about Keynes spinning in his grave. I think Frederick Engels would be mightly disappointed with the economic model in Civ.

	13-02-2005 11:10									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Heh!

"Keynes spinninng in his grave" was a phrase I learn't studying Human Geography. It is almost impossible to study both Economics and Geography or History at 'A' level in state schools in the UK, which narrows university options to "Public" [read private] school pupils only pretty much, and does our nation a disservice in the global economy I feel.

I wanted to study Geography with History and Economics, no chance- and that was in 1979. All 3 subjects were taught at the same time in my school timetable. Very stupid.

The game:

My prefence for a longer period in the middle and dark ages is clear, but I agree, If nuclear weapon usage was correctly modelled, then the modern age is fine, It's not in Civ 3, but was in Civ and Civ 2, so in Civ 4?

The modern era isn't difficult- on the contrary, it's the easiest- get the (awful) Sherman tank, then modern Armour and you win- quickly, due to the fact that every nation is programmed to hate you from the industrial age onwards (bar 1 or 2), and one after another they will declare war, even if you have never declared war on anyone in 5,000 years, it sort of makes you prepared militarily.

I permanently have Prime Minister Chamberlain waving bits of White paper around but the gits still will attack you.

Toby

	19-02-2005 11:55									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

That would also mean removing the "Americans" from the game, which I would NOT miss at all.
..but we all know this is not happening...

Great idea though

	28-02-2005 06:02									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hi mate,

I dunno, If the Yanks began with the Romans as they do, they are one of the most colonial nations from 1860-80. Afterwards they are just in a common "land-grab" that the main 3 nations in Europe did.

The US didn't like to abmit it's Imperial attititude until Monroe; "The Monroe doctrine" made US imperial policy exactly the same as us British and French- they (The Yanks) simply decided they wanted strategic islands off the US coast- for instance they bullied the Danish to sell the modern US Virgin Islands, still, they did pay for them.

Alaska was brought to trunkate "British North America" (Canada) in the hope Canada would join the Union as they were boxed in thereafter, thus creating a continental wide nation. (Look at West coast access in modern Canada to see what I mean, although the casting vote was a British judge who found favour with the US arguement- Wonder why?)

I think if Monroe had not existed, logic might have dictated that it would actually have occured (a Union)!- his bullying to the North and South of the US ensured the current nation (Canada) stayed as such- land grabbing in Mexico, Cuba and Haiti thereafter happened in the South.

Were it not for the Colonial attitude by the US in 1850-1913, I doubt the US would ever have joined what became WWI and WW2, I'm very glad they did, but I doubt history classes in the US teach the reality of how their governments behaved during this period.

Toby (My opinion of course)

	28-02-2005 06:35									#25
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

This is a borderline off-topic conversation. However, Russia approaches the US to sell Alaska as they were short on cash and looking to scrape together whatever capital they could...hence the origins of the deal. I have never read anything about a "British judge" and "west coast" access having anything to do with the purchase. In fact, I don't even understand that part of your post.

Regarding imperalism, name me one country that had power, but did not pursue some form of "imperalism". If a country has power, it projects that power just about any way they can. It's a human characteristic (failing?), not a trait of any one individual country.

Monroe's Doctrine was partly in response to the imperalism of British, French, Spainish, etc. in the Western Hemisphere. So perhaps the doctrine is imperalistic in nature, but it wasn't the first link of the imperalistic chain - nor the last.

I think it was ultimately economics that drew the US into both WW1 and WW2. Specifically, it was our application of economic power (oil/steel embargo) over Japan that forced their hand and brought an attack upon us. WW1 is more nebulous to the reasons why the US got involved -- certainly losing lots of money due to German sub attacks didn't sit well with the leadership of the US.

With this discussion, it does show the "ever attacking AI" in Civ as a good model of humanity and excellent programming. So, NO! Do not scrap the modern age!

i can't believe I got that all the way back on topic

	28-02-2005 11:05									#26
	Got spare money?

Shogun,

Yep, it is off topic- my appology.

I'm interested to see how US history is taught in the US, I like history - a lot, the UK when I was at school never allowed me to learn real history untill I got older, and left school. (Henry VIII never had VD for instance).

The Monroe doctrine put the US on a par with Germany and Japan in rushing for bits of the world nobody had yet "claimed", called the second colonial wave, where competition, not actual strategic value came into play.

The US took Hawaii as a coaling station for Warships, The UK had an entire string of Islands East of South Africa for that very purpose on the Indian/Australian route, but also to simply stop others (The French or Spanish) threatening trade.

You sounded "tired" within the reply, but the US was far more active and aggressive than the Germans ever were from 1860 onwards- As a Brit I don't have to support or agree with what my nation ever did- indeed as a working class person, we were used as much as any nation was by the Upper classes of Britain- we fought the wars they wanted especially.

The US, Canada, Australia etc remained a real escape from the UK society as it then was, and a ship left Liverpool every day to get away from it.

One thing I've noticed is people that aren't British view the history and then blame me for it- because I'm British. The common person in Britain has as much to do with Colonialism as .....the Monroe doctrine does with you, back then, and now.

I won't appologise for whatever an upper class elite did, to ask me to appologise for them is such an insult to me, as a working class person, but nationals from other nations treat you as if you owned 200 acres on a slave plantation or something whenever the word history is mentioned.

I hope that history will eventually be based upon the common persons' experiences, and I can stop saying sorry to something I had no part in etc. etc.....

(Climbing off my high horse)



Anyway, Monroe basically said anyone who meddled in South America was arguing not with Mexico etc, but the US- The UK had only 2 colonies in South America, both tiny and I have no idea why the British even had them to begin with.

An arguement with Venezuela over one of them led the US to automically intervene (Belize?)- The UK got told by Monroe in no uncertain terms that South America belonged to the US sphere of influence, the UK dropped the argument, whatever the arguement was over.

Still, Colonial attitude, and as a White British bloke, but working class, how do I fit in when people view the British Empire? We were the soldiers and sailors like many other families.

End of rant!! but for those that love history, but feel the books don't really bear much relationship to your history- hey!, neither does Civ 3 either.

Toby

	28-02-2005 11:22									#27
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Well, Toby. That's a lot there. I was only suggesting that imperialism can happen anywhere -- with any country. I wasn't referring to any particular country or period of history.

I just thought that Russia made the first offer to sell Alaska to the US...


fixed a silly typo...

Last edited by Shogun Gunner on 28-02-2005 at 18:31

	28-02-2005 12:00									#28
	Inflate your Upload Space

Sorry mate,

I can ramble, but I do wish history to finally be claimed by the people, in the modern world.

All our history books are based upon govermental/national perspectives, which we learnt at school.

Since the cold war finished, we've had (and still do) a unique opportunity to present real history to our nippers, devoid of governmental influence.

If historians don't take this opportunity, then history will forever be associated with the nation you were born in, rather than history we might all agree about, what ever the epoch.

Toby

	13-03-2005 09:14									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

A near future era would be nice. Not quite to the depth of SMAC, but planting moon colonies would be cool.

	13-03-2005 13:35									#30
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I absolutely agree.

One thing I like about CtP 1 and 2 is, that they have future technologies in it (and yes, I normally play till modern age (and beyond) both in CtP2 and Civ 3).

As GePap says, you could get around masses of workers improving your terrain, if you implement a public works system (like in CtP) and yes, maybe you could alter the System so it represents the modern (and future) age better.
But to leave it out of the game would be a very bad decision (which would be a reason for me not to buy the game).

Maybe you could implement an option at which age to stop though (like a Combobox with "Game ends at ..." [Medieval ages....Modern age])
And of course, you could also give the premodern times more room (by adding more inventions for these periods and maybe altering the timescale so that you don´t rush from 4000 BC to 1900 )

Oh and for future ages, as other people said, why not being able to colonise the moon [and maybe even the Orbit around Earth]