Advances etc. that make no sense

[ejm43]

Hello, first post. Just started playing civ2 again after a couple of years.

Wondered what other people think about the units that certain civ advances allow, and how little sense they make. Eg:

Polytheism allows Elephants. What has a religious concept got to do with Elephants, which were fairly rare in warfare historically.

Automobile = Battleship. huh?

Labour Union = Mech Inf. Labour Union was the product of a more empowered working class, and was if anything costly to the ruling classes. It should allow an improvement/have an effect that reduced productivity but improves hapiness. What on earth has it got to do with the construction of jeeps??

Communism = flat, low rate of corruption. Corruption and waste were rife in communist Russia; if anything, corruption should be much worst in communism than in republic. And why does communism equate to advantages with spys? Because Russia had spies? Communism and Russia are not the same thing

OK you get the idea - anyone else think of any concepts in Civ II that don't bear much relation to history?

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Good observations. Here are a few more:

1. Seafaring allowing explorers.

2. Fundamentalism having no corruption.
The Iranian government which is the inspiration behind this form of goverment in Civ2 has terrible corruption, more so than the Monarchy it succeeded.

3. Alphabet being a prerequisite to Writing as opposed to the other way around. I think Civ4 has it the right way: Writing being a prereq of Alphabet.

4. Medicine allowing Shakespeare's theatre.

5. Engineering allowing King Richard's Crusade.

6. Railroad allowing Darwin's Voyage.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

A lot of the things that don't make sense are set up because they happened around the same time in history, even if they aren't directly related. Of the examples listed, I think that would apply to Auto/BBs, Medicine/Shakes, RR/Darwin at least.


On a slight tangent: I'm intrigued by the discussion of the problems with communism. In one sentence you say Communism should have more corruption because Russia [Soviet Union] did. Then you turn around and say it shouldn't give advantages to spies because Communism and Russia aren't the same thing.

 

[Andu Indorin]

Good observations. Here are a few more:
3. Alphabet being a prerequisite to Writing as opposed to the other way around. I think Civ4 has it the right way: Writing being a prereq of Alphabet.

They finally got that one right. One my personal peeves as always been: Gunpowder --> Musketeers, and Metallurgy --> Cannon. I've always argued that the reverse makes more sense historically, at least in terms of the Civ II combat system.

(Off hand, the Civ IV tree "seems" to be more well thought out than the Civ III tree, which betrayed significant [fill in the blank]. However, I haven't interpreted all the icons as yet, so I cannot pass adequate judgment on the new History of Society and Technology ...)

 

[ejm43]

On a slight tangent: I'm intrigued by the discussion of the problems with communism. In one sentence you say Communism should have more corruption because Russia [Soviet Union] did. Then you turn around and say it shouldn't give advantages to spies because Communism and Russia aren't the same thing.

Fair point, I wasn't very clear. I use Russia as an example of a communist regime with widespread corruption: I could (and perhaps should, to avoid confusion) have named China or any of the many Asian / Eastern European nations that at some point fell under a communist regime.

So let me rephrase: communism should have more corruption than a republic because historically, communist regimes in many countries have experienced large-scale corruption. Communism should NOT confer advantages re Spies because expert espionage is historically more associated with Russia than with communist nations as a whole. Hope this helps

 

[Ali Ardavan]

communism should have more corruption than a republic because historically, communist regimes in many countries have experienced large-scale corruption.

Similarly, Fundamentalism should have higher corruption and higher unhappines than even Monarchy. (I say it should be somewhere between Monrachy and Despotism.)

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

Fair point, I wasn't very clear. I use Russia as an example of a communist regime with widespread corruption: I could (and perhaps should, to avoid confusion) have named China or any of the many Asian / Eastern European nations that at some point fell under a communist regime.

So let me rephrase: communism should have more corruption than a republic because historically, communist regimes in many countries have experienced large-scale corruption. Communism should NOT confer advantages re Spies because expert espionage is historically more associated with Russia than with communist nations as a whole. Hope this helps

Sorry, I was just giving you a hard time.

The game has all sorts of oddities. The idea that a democracy is without corruption or waste is laughable. (Just ask people who know Jack Abramoff, those who bought Enron stock, or people who decide how many government contracts Halliburton gets.) You could almost argue that the idea of republic has changed from the city-states of the renaissance, and that a modern republic might be more efficient than a monolithic democratic federal state. But like I said, the idea was probably to map the game to our preconcieved notions of historical sequencing so Democracy = USA = Trade and production monster; while Communism = Soviets = Less trade, extensive spy network, strongarm tactics to control the populace and ability to support a large military buildup.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

the idea was probably to map the game to our preconcieved notions of historical sequencing so Democracy = USA = Trade and production monster; while Communism = Soviets = Less trade, extensive spy network, strongarm tactics to control the populace and ability to support a large military buildup.

And Fundamentalism = Islamic Republic of Iran = Fast production of fanatics , scientific stagnation , no unhappiness , and no corruption

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

And Fundamentalism = Islamic Republic of Iran = Fast production of fanatics , scientific stagnation , no unhappiness , and no corruption

What can I say, nothing is a perfect match. At some point they had to give it some features to make it worth playing. I'm getting way out of my comfort zone here, but I'm guessing the people that morphed Fundy to a Fascism mod might have had the right idea. Nazi Germany seems to be closer than Iran. Not that there wasn't corruption or unhappiness (or slaughter) but people who didn't join were too afraid to dissent. It wasn't fundamentalist or even religion based, but it might have more similarities in effect.

 

[BlackAdder60]

Fair point, I wasn't very clear. I use Russia as an example of a communist regime with widespread corruption: I could (and perhaps should, to avoid confusion) have named China or any of the many Asian / Eastern European nations that at some point fell under a communist regime.
...

Somewhat inaccurate. These countries have ALWAYS had high corruption, even BEFORE they whent commie. The russian revolution was triggered partly by the rampant corruption in imperial russia during WW1. Imperial China was no better. The transition to communism did not increase or CAUSE corruption, which really is a cultural phenomenon rather than ideological.

Likewise in postcollonial Africa where a lot of corrupt leaders came to power then used a communist goverment form as a PRETEXT to justify their regimes while actually being nothing more than a continuation of the exploitational policies of the (collonial) past.

I might even go so far as to claim that corruption is a prerequisite for communism in the first place.

... So let me rephrase: communism should have more corruption than a republic because historically, communist regimes in many countries have experienced large-scale corruption. ...

Latin america is full of REPUBLICS and CORRUPTION (again: culture NOT ideology/goverment form).

Lastly, the game mechanics of this GAME, Civilization, requires that there be goverment forms, advances, city improvements and units, with varying properties, advantages and penalties. While they, Sid & Co, may have tried to assign reasonable properties, its inevitable that there will be some stretch of imagination. The key is: have FUN playing this GAME

 

[MikeLynch]

I'm guessing the people that morphed Fundy to a Fascism mod might have had the right idea.

I've often thought about that. It'd require a rephrasing of the Civilopedia text:
"In Fundamentalism, no citizen is ever unhappy!"
to something a little more bleak, like
"In Fascism, no citizen ever expresses his or her unhappiness for fear of what will happen to them if they do! So, from your perspective as ruler, nobody's ever unhappy!"

Kind of a 1984 approach. Though how you would replicate 1984's squalor is less obvious for Civ2...

Really, it makes one wonder why the Civ2 designers DIDN'T call it Fascism instead of Fundamentalism, which is more likely to irk some people. Maybe it was just to make Tithes make more sense.

But back on topic:
I don't like the Tactics advance. As if there were no tactics before "Tactics."

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Really, it makes one wonder why the Civ2 designers DIDN'T call it Fascism instead of Fundamentalism

They did so because the model they had in mind was Fundamentalism, which is after all religious fascism, not traditional secular fascism. More specifically they modeled this government after Islamic Republic of Iran. The best inidication of that is the fact that if you play Persians and are in Fundamentalist government your title changes to Ayatollah. This is unique to Persians, no other nation's ruler gets that title.

Also, as you correctly pointed out, the tithes is another indication that they indeed had fundamentalism in mind.

What bothers me about that model is the lack of unhappiness (I like your explanation for it though) and the lack of corruption. Islamic Republic of Iran is very corrupt. More so than the Monarchy it replaced.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

But back on topic:
I don't like the Tactics advance. As if there were no tactics before "Tactics."

I think the idea is that that represents the formal study of the discipline of military tactics. You could make the same argument about Mathematics. It's not like things weren't counted before that; that if you had 5 rocks and someone gave you 3 more you couldn't figure out how many you had. It's just that at some point people sat down and put some discipline behind the study of numbers, geometry and such.

 

[MikeLynch]

It's not like things weren't counted before that; that if you had 5 rocks and someone gave you 3 more you couldn't figure out how many you had.

Uh... eleventy-nine?

 

[ElephantU]

1000 - in binary...