as usual the disclaimer first:
sorry if this has been posted before but I couldnt find it.

ok - how about drug (of various kinds) exporting as a kind of luxury?
maybe this would make civ a bit more adult themed pushing up the rating but obviously this would only feature in supply and demand rather than the depiction of taking them. also if they made up the drugs rather than using real ones it might not be so risque.
if you choose to officially supply them as a nation this would have fairly severe diplomatic repucussion if other nations found out (maybe to start with they wouldnt know where they were coming from). there could be a demand in cities for them if there is a certain level of crime/corruption or something (maybe just any city over a certain size). to balance out the hostility of other civs the drugs industry could give your treasury with a very healthy gold supply. only certain gov types should be able to develop a state sponsered drugs industry (certainly not democracies). the whole drugs theme could lead to more diplomatic/espionage options as well.

maybe this could be linked or similar to an arms trade - whereby selling weapons would be frowned upon but very profitable (possibly only to or between certain government types) ie selling arms, or WMD's in particular, to dictatorships could be unpopular in the international community.

have the coco plant as a luxury

cocoa plants, opium popies and maraujuna (spelling?) plants. maybe a worker action to build a drugs plantation and maybe a processing factories in a city for the drugs. maybe exporting these to other nations would increase corruption/crime in cities as well as giving you money or maybe this would be too much incentive for such as morally dubious idea.
if other players discovered your drugs industry they could commit surgical strikes against plantations or processing factorie which would not result in war automatically because what your doing is illegal to begin with.
this might seem a bit indepth but i think it would add more detail and options to the modern world which tends to be a bit dull (mainly cleaning up pollution)

Perhaps a legalize drugs option would increase hapiness but decrease productivity.

even though this idea would add a realism route into civ4, i think that since the fact that there is a war on drugs, that the developers would include it in the game. id be surprised if they even include terrorism.

yes, but the idea was more to give more options to raise money/weaken or annoy other civs/give more diplomatic/espionage type options of a devious nature. and of course the opportunity to flood rival civs cities with drugs whilst laughing manically. :lol:
or alternatively conducting deep strikes with special forces behind enemey lines to destroy drug plantations in a war on drugs.

Although it would make the game a little controvertial I can't argue with the fact that illegal trading, particularly as far as more autocratic government types are concerned, would give the game an interesting underhand feel to it and also provide a reason for people to rush to the nearest democratic government

I thought that the spices luxury already covered this...

I thought that the spices luxury already covered this...

Maybe in the theorical but there are good spices that are not pot. I don't want, or anticipate drugs being included the game. I feel it is too minor of an issue to be dealt with and too contrary to the way the game is currently being played.

spices of course do not refer to drugs they refer to spices - which were in massive demand in europe and the search for which prompted a lot of european exploration and expansion - marco polo and columbus, for example.

although i dont expect to see them included in the game to argue that they are minor issue is not really accurate. if you look at the amount spent by governments combating drug growing, smuggling and dealing. look at this site - http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm - incredible!

the drug industry is a 300bn global market. large parts of the world economey is funded with drug money - afganistan (nov 2004 $30bn already that year; 95% of the crop is destined for Europe) north korea (US State Department report has said it is "highly likely" that North Korea is involved in state-sponsored drugs trafficking), burma (armed forces involved in large-scale trafficking in heroin, of which Burma is a major exporter) and of course all of south and central america (no stats needed). most guerilla and terrorist movements throughout the world fund their activies through drug dealing. sorry this should not really be in this part of the forum.

anyway im trying to think of new things to put in the modern age of civ4 which will break up the dullness of cleaning up pollution and moving vast tank armies along railways. ive seen a lot of post about war on terrorism type ideas because obviously thats such a hot topic now but the drugs industry is lot bigger and more damaging to society than terrorism. and possibly more easy to implement in a civ game.

also *slightly* dodgy practices such as drug trade/arms trade/sponsership of terrorist (or should that be freedom fighter) movements could be a way that smaller nations can compete with larger ones in civ.

also if you have made the choice of fascism/military dicatorship/communist government why should you have to a morally spotless domestic and foriegn policy? maybe some people might want to opt for the rogue nation status.

Maybe something like the Opium Wars would be possible if this were implamented.

How about you can import morphine (poppies) and this will decrease war weariness in times of war (the wounded do not suffer so) but there is a chance some of your citizens become addicts, and appear as specialists, providing nothing in the way of food, shields or gold, just like resisters.

Whoever controls the poppies would have an advantage, sort of like having ivory for Statue of Zeus, as some civs would really be wanting this stuff quite often.

Elizabeth: "Hey, Mao, would you like some more POPPIES? They'll take your mind right of all those nasty Keshiks outside of Beijing!"

Mao (Furious): "NO! and stop selling caskets of opium to my Riders behind my back, Elizabeth! I've had just about enough of this trespassing by English traders and pikemen near Hong Kong!"

Elizabeth: "Sleeeep, my pretty!"

Toto: "Arf! Arf!"

How about this for a radical proposal:

In your trade screen, you have a list of every resource you possess or currently KNOW about. Next to each resource name is a 'switch' which can be moved between 'Legal', 'Banned' and 'Contraband'.
If the resource is legal, then it operates as normal.
If it is banned, then it cannot be traded to you OR by you-this is especially important if the concept of a private sector is introduced-as it will deny the private sector of an enemy access to your markets (legally) and prevent your own private sector from trading certain resources to an 'enemy state'. In addition, though, banned resources you possess generate extra happiness for your nation, but cause an increase in crime and corruption in your cities as well. Banning a resource yourself can also increase diplomatic pressure on other nations to do the same as well.
If you convert a resource to 'Contraband', then you or your private sector can 'trade' said resource to a nation-which has banned that resource-without the need to go through diplomatic channels. Such trade generates income for you, whilst generating crime and corruption for the other nation (though they get the aforementioned happiness benefit as well). The downside, though, is that contraband resources, though still 'technically' legal-and therefore usable-within your own nation, generate a certain degree of corruption within your own nation (though to a much lesser extent than a banned resource).
The number of resources you can 'ban' or turn into 'contraband' would be dictated by your nations Legalism and Libertarianism levels.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

like it :)
though what other resources would you deciede to ban apart from drugs? hmm... maybe things that iritate me personally like polystrene, or annoying mobile phone ring tones, anyway I digress.
other players should still be able intercept drugs imports, possibly success at this would relate to strength of navy and airforce and would happen automatically - no moving planes/ships about the map - a bit like preventing spy missions in civ3. intercept enough times and/or discover drugs source through reconnesence (terrible spelling) missions and then the opportunity to take out the source of the drugs should be available.

Interesting ideas, but I don't think it would really add all too much to Civ gameplay.

I do think, however, that the luxury/commodity system they started in Civ3 should be expanded upon.

Uh......Democracies quite readily trade drugs in RL just so you know, and laws are only passed making them illegal to increase profit markets, and police funding.

Keeping them illegal makes more money.....Okay, now I'm waiting for the police to haul my computer away. lol (j/K) :crazyeye:

The trade in drugs obviously does occur in 'real life' democracies of course. BUT it is not official government policy or state sponsered - to suggest that it does is a bit of a far out conspiracy theory. It may be allowed to occur further down the rungs of government/police due to corrupt officals and police but the government would make far more money by legalising it, taxing it and therefore cutting law enforcement costs. I can't imagine why a government would want to share drugs money profits with a bunch of shifty drug barons.
The idea was to give non-democratic underhand and dubious methods of attacking rivals and a good source of income and let other democractic countries can take the moral high ground and try to stamp this trade out or legalise it and make their own drugs.

what a silly thread

Well, Dexter, what other resources you ban (or turn into contraband) will depend on in-game strategic factors, such as denying a nation with a monopoly its markets, or trying to cause harm to an enemy via the trade of contraband to that nation. Also interdiction methods can, temporarily, halt trade of contraband into your nation-or you could march in to the nation and 'confiscate' its resource.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

what a silly thread

speaking objectively I'd say it was probably the greatest thread I've ever seen.

It's a good thread, but a lot of communist countries punnish drug dealers with death, and many democracies sponsor drug cartels to subvert an enemy govt.

Question- where does most heroin and cocaine come from? -answer: Afganistan and Columbia. Conspiracy claims laid to rest. Illegal drugs increase profit ten fold by supporting intelligence agency types. To not understand this is laughable.

yeah, well when the US pushed for an international ban on Heroin, the vast bulk of South East Asias poppy fields were in the hands of the Viet Nimh (the rebel groups who would later become the North Vietnamese government and, in South Vietnam, the Viet Cong)-so hows THAT for a conspiracy? Thats just like how the head of Dow Corning (the chief producer of synthetic materials) was also the head of the US Treasury department-the department behind the banning of hemp after WWII :mischief: ! This, of course, is the historical justification of the idea which I am putting forward-about using bans and contraband for tactical reasons!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

cocoa plants, opium popies and maraujuna... ...which would not result in war automatically because what your doing is illegal to begin with.


Why is it illegal? As the guiding spirit of the nation, its only illegal if you decide it is illegal (but trying getting that one past the Moral Minority).

Fact is, drugs as luxuries are already in Civ3. It's called tobacco. And the reason robacco is legal and not cannabis? Some old screwhead persuaded the then-king that tobacco was cool, but failed to give cannabis the same sales pitch.

ok. i'm not trying to push some moral majority/conservative viewpoint on drugs here. i am in favour of legalisation of most drugs because i think the divisions between 'drugs', alochol and tobacco are arbitary and bizarre. once legalised most of the drugs problems, ie crime, that occur are removed, they become safer to use because there is what goes into them is regulated, ie no washing powder in ectasy and all the other horror stories, information about safe usage can be properly diseminated by the government, and treatment for those that abuse as opposed to use drugs can be funded properly. as a fairly frequent user of the first two (not tobacco though) it would be hypocricitical of me not to be pro-legalisation.
the trouble with giving cannabis a good sales pitch is that smoking dope and cogent political discourse do not mix because ...mumbles. ... hmm.. kinda forgot what i was saying ... anyone got any cookies... :sleep:
anyway this should really not be on this part of the forum.

rhialto - what i mean by illegality is that if you (the nation/people/class/volk/zietgiest/state/government) have decieded in your wisdom to ban drugs and some other civ s is pumping drugs into your fair cities then you can take issue with this. if they are legal in your civ then you prob wont need this foriegn import unless you lack the resource yourself - no cannabis - the horror!! if you do need it then it can be traded as a normal resource. but the point really was to create a kind of illegal drugs trade with the resulting backlash.
as a dictatorship you are more likely to flout international convention about drugs smuggling than a democracy. maybe not so in real life but this is civ and i think its not quite as sordid and corrupt as real life.
its all a bit academic anyway really because i cant see them introducing this to a game as clean cut as civ - although obviously anahilating whole nations with nuclear holocaust is perfecly fine.

for some reason rhailto is opposed to the word goverment. i wish he would only tell us why...

aNYWays, drugs would be cool as a luxury, and too make them illegle all u need is a boycott or embargo. North korea ships shipfuls of heroin all over the place...
maybe corruption goes up significantly for aquirring drugs of any kind making them less preferable yet profitable if it is your country selling them. however something would need to be done if the corruption is effecting you country by having a cocoa crop within the borders. some type of containment building so your able to isolate it from your citizens. maybe by use of a military unit or a special worker option.

this also could be a military stronghold against rebels who need a source of income...rebel units might try take over the square, thus creating a guerilla war within your borders...

maybe rhailto is an anarchist. pish tosh! anarchism is merely leftist deviation and lacks the true progressive spirit of the marxist leninist movement!! forward comrades!
yes and guerilla warfare would lead to my favourite thing that they will put in civ4 (hopes)- civil wars, and the backing of different sides by competing rival ideologies- hurray! is there anything more exciting than providing impovrished peasants with armaments as you back their struggle to seize the state and march it into the dead end system of communism - i think not!

OK, consider these 'in-game' examples vs real-world situations to explain how I would see the idea of banning and contraband as working.
Obviously, you would still have the embargo option for blocking 'enemy' nations from trading with you (a method which said country could still get around using the contraband method).
The other system I am describing here, though, is a more 'surgical' approach to the 'problem' of stopping certain kinds of trade-as follows:

1) Your capitalist faction has used its resources to convert a natural resource into a new, artificial resource. However, due to the trade of a large quantity of a very similar NATURAL resource, the value of this new resource-in domestic and foreign trade-is too low. Thus, the capitalist faction puts pressure on you to ban the natural resource in order to bump up the value of the new resource (the US prohibition of hemp after WWII).

2) Your nation is relying too heavily on luxury resources (and a couple in particular) to boost the happiness of your population. Over time, this has caused a drop in your nations wealth and productivity (and, possibly, other negative impacts). To deal with this, you ban one of the offending luxuries. Because your nation has become hooked, though, the initial drop in happiness could be much more than might normally occur. In addition, the banning of the resource can lead to a boost in crime and corruption in many of your cities-thus possibly making the solution WORSE than the problem (US prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's).

3) One of your allies has suffered a civil war and, worse still, the 'enemy' side in this internecine conflict has control of the bulk of the former nations primary resource. In order to prevent this enemy profitting from the resource, you ban the resource in your country-then bring pressure to bear on other nations in order to bring a ban about amongst the bulk of other nations. At the same time, though, you make a secret deal with the other side in the conflict, asking them to convert the small amount of the resource they have into contraband, so that they can continue selling it-and thus make a lot of money to continue prosecuting the war (world prohibition of heroin in 1956, at the height of the original Vietnamese civil war that produced North and South Vietnam).

These may not all be brilliant examples, but you can hopefully see how a flexible system for what is 'legal' and what is 'illegal' is best for gameplay and historical accuracy!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.