17-02-2001 01:16									#1
	Standardized Time Movement Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Originally posted this in the big, big, big, big list of wonders and after a little thought realized that this doesn't belong there.
In the modern era, few if any concepts were as responsible for industrial and economic strength as was the time standardization movement. In 1860 there were 70 American time zones and it wasn't unusual for towns a few miles apart to vary in their "official" time by 20, 44 or 31 minutes. And the "official" time of the day wasn't very official -- church bells would toll at 6 p.m. and then 30-some minutes later the sawmill whistle would blow to mark the end of a workday at, you guessed it, 6 p.m. You can imagine how this hindered industrial/economic performance.
In the U.S., the standardization movement essentially (in practice, not necessarily in theory) began in Pittsburgh, when astronomer Sam Langley (who went on to fame with the Smithsonian) of Allegheny Observatory convinced Western Union to link the observatory with Pittsburgh so he could wire time (that's it -- just the time) to the Pennsylvania Railroad for $1,000 a year (this was in the 1870s, I believe). After that, railroads spread punctuality like government-issue blankets had spread smallpox among the native tribes. Without standardization, railroads are inefficient and prone to crashes (if a Buffalo station believes a train out of New York City left at 7:15 a.m. Buffalo time and instead it left the station at 7:15 NY time, there's bound to be some problems if another train is running on the same line).
Railroads were responsible for the standardization movement and in the game railroads would be required for a society to pursue standardization. Of course, nations didn't devote scientific output to "create" standard time for a nation, instead they had to spend money on ad campaigns to convince people of the merits and allay fears that this was the first step toward a one-world government (these were legitimate fears, even the New York Times wrote an article against standardized time). So, how do we factor that into the game?
Perhaps we make it more expensive/time consuming to lay railroad track. Or we give players an option to spend more cash/time and create a standardized system along with a rail system or just take a just-the-rail aporoach which would be cheaper and faster.
By opting for the more expensive system (which would include ad campaigns and the like), that player would ensure that there are no accidents on the rail line that would hurt production and in fact the cities served by standardized-time rail would have a higher production rate because of the punctuality that standardization brought to the workplace.
By opting for the cheaper system, the player would get rail in place quickly but would run the risk of losing valuable output through accidents. Also the impact on the work force would be negligable.
A society could have both type of rail -- perhaps highly concentrated sections of a nation would be ideal for the time-zone rail while remote military outposts would be best served -- initially -- by the cheaper rail. Once a nation would reach an arbitrary threshhold (say 80 percent) of its cities being connected by standardized-time rail, then the other rail lines would automatically be (or gradually as the case may be) converted because inevetiably people using those distant lines would recognize the value of standardized time. Therefore the entire nation would receive a bonus on production.

	17-02-2001 01:18									#2
	Put an end to popups!

Forgot to mention that if anyone's interested in this topic, you should definitely pick up "A Geography of Time" by Robert Levine. Fantastic book.

	17-02-2001 01:22									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I fail to see how this fits in the civ game!?

	17-02-2001 01:29									#4
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Another great book concerning industrialisation is "The Day The World Took Off" by Sally & David Dugan ISBN 0-7522-1870-0

And no, for the record, this is not a spam posting

I've been reading this book for a while, and it's got some great points about why, when and where the industrial revolution started. All you budding industrialists would do well to take a look at it!!

British Apolytonites may remember the documentary of the same name being shown on Channel Four a while back
[This message has been edited by JosefGiven (edited February 16, 2001).]

	17-02-2001 01:55									#6
	Remove this text

If you want "standardized time" to be a tech advance or a wonder that improves a civ's industry and econ, then that is fine.

Let's keep the implementation as simple as possible, otherwise it will become too complex for a civ game. Do we need civ to be THAT realistic?

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

	17-02-2001 18:08									#7
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I think this is an unneccessary detail. It should not be included in the game.

	18-02-2001 07:39									#8
	Tired of ads?

Were you bored when you wrote that, vanish? Some movements and time periods are nice to add, but we should pick out only the really important ones. Your idea, combined with others I have seen would make civ3 a lot more complicated than it needs to be.

------------------
"We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."
-Thomas A. Edison
[This message has been edited by Sabre2th (edited February 18, 2001).]

	21-02-2001 08:44									#9
	Full PM-box? Change here!

It somehow doesn't strike me as being of earth shattering importance!

	27-02-2001 08:54									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

O.k. I think that like above that standardization of time should be a teck (possibly). I think it fits in with the idea that techs should be aquired by what your are doing at the time. As vanishpoint stated this tech would only be attainable when all cities are linked by railroads. So techs are influenced by what your nation is doing at the time.

In the early game, if you are at war you will discover advances to help the war cause. If you are growing in population you will discover farm advances to increase population faster. Of course contact will mean that your people will learn more and that is without trading knowledge.

So, while this may not be the most important advance, I think it fits with my belief of how the science system should be run - gradual learning by influences in your people's knowledge and what your society is doing at the time.