Command and Conquer Planning Thread

[pecheneg]

The idea that democracy must always win out and totalitarianism must always loose

I remind you that in your version, liberal democracy, as an alternative, has a generalized dictatorship, which, due to the lack of a scientific bonus, loses not long-term, but immediately.

because liberal democracy is somehow magically better

Competition (in all spheres) is magically better than no competition. The whole history of the USSR is directly about this.

The long term victory of america vs the Soviet Union which is what you seem to be referencing has nothing to do with their political system and everything to do with the fact that one of the two saw WW2 as a period of unprecedented economic growth with minimal casualties while the other bore the brunt of its economic and human cost. So whilst one could sustain a massive arms race the other simply couldn't.

1. The fact that the USSR collapsed under the weight of military spending is liberal propaganda.
"The only open military budget in the history of Russia and the USSR was published in 1989 on the wave of glasnost and amounted to 8.9% of GDP. In the early-mid-1980s, it was, of course, higher – about 11% of GDP. This is quite a lot – but not disastrous in any way. Between the Korean and Vietnam wars (1954-1963), the United States spent about 10% of GDP on defense - despite the fact that the American economy of those years roughly corresponded to the Russian of the 1980s."
Among other things, the fall of the USSR occurred against the background of very low military expenditures by Soviet standards. Аnd in the 1950s, when they really amounted to about 20%, the Soviet economy caused panic in the West in the spirit of "Soon the Soviets will win the economic race. The Soviet army was pretty cheap, actually.

2. The overall economic advantage of the United States after the war was impressive – to about the same extent as that of England in the middle of the 19th century. And where is that England now. Catching up development is much cheaper than "leadership" and, as a rule, such hegemony erodes quite quickly. At the same time, the USA of the 60s and especially the 70s did not shine at all with growth rates. If the USSR had maintained a high rate of development, this funny picture would have turned out.

Spoiler :

It is quite often illustrated by the relationship between Russia and Poland-Lithuania. Because the current situation is ephemeral, and potential, growth rates and sound management are long–term factors.

3. So while liberal propaganda is moaning about the horrors of the Gulag (it can't do anything else, and yes, one of my relatives has been there - for real guilt and without special effects), normal people are watching statistics. And there... curious.
The real reasons are
A) The chronic decline in investment efficiency throughout the post-Stalinist era. More and more was invested, the return was less and less. If the marriage in industry is over 30%, 11% of military spending is your least problem.
B) The total inability of regulated industry and, above all, agriculture to meet demand. As a result, the hole was plugged by imports – which created the prerequisites for a financial crisis.
C) These prerequisites would have remained prerequisites if not for the deranged actions of Gorbachev's economists. At the same time, they were a logical consequence of total ideological control – these figures quoted Marx by heart, but no longer understood the most basic principles of the real work of the economy.
D) At the same time, the loyalty of the population was undermined by a total failure in the field of propaganda. Despite the fact that the western was not as cheap trash as it is now, but also far from brilliant. The reason is exactly the same – monopolism decomposes.

Relatively high military spending is the last straw that broke the camel's back.

And in the immediate postwar environment it was america and the west that continually pushed for that arms race for that reason.

Yes, the initiative was constantly with the "peaceful defending West". However, the key motive was not a bet on exhaustion – the Pentagon seriously counted on winning a nuclear war.

My issue with this is that it is frankly just too complex.

The only complicated thing here is the description of the effects. At the same time, the same 4 effects have two vanilla civics, with 3 more. State property and nature protection can be described in the same way.

 

[<Nexus>]

I don't see Corporations mentioned in the project roadmap. Does it mean that you want to leave the untouched?
Honestly I don't know enough corporations from the C&C universe, only Future Tech. But maybe there were some mentioned in the games, like isn't there some inn or fast food restaurant often on the maps?

Oh, I found some more:
Idris Corporation
McBurger Kong (lol)

McBurger Kong

McBurger Kong is a common fast-food chain in the United States. The restaurants are easily identified by a giant gorilla figure and a hamburger perched on their roofs. Almost every town in America has one. The franchise also has branches in Australia where it is known as McRoo Burger. During...

cnc.fandom.com

.. . and there is even a compilation list of C&C companies at the bottom

EDIT:
Basically I think most corporations, could be simply renamed and maybe get a new icon from the C&C universe or with a reference. Like:

Cereal Mills -> McBurger Kong
Sid's Sushi Co. -> Yuriko Sushi Co.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I did in fact want to keep corporations intact for now. I don't really see a need to change them.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I remind you that in your version, liberal democracy, as an alternative, has a generalized dictatorship, which, due to the lack of a scientific bonus, loses not long-term, but immediately.

I do not see how that would be the case. I personally find the idea of extra to be far more useful than a couple extra points unless you are running a specialist heavy economy which I rarely am.

Specialists just cost too much to have unless your city has several food resources and has no need to produce many hammers.

Competition (in all spheres) is magically better than no competition. The whole history of the USSR is directly about this.

1. The fact that the USSR collapsed under the weight of military spending is liberal propaganda.
"The only open military budget in the history of Russia and the USSR was published in 1989 on the wave of glasnost and amounted to 8.9% of GDP. In the early-mid-1980s, it was, of course, higher – about 11% of GDP. This is quite a lot – but not disastrous in any way. Between the Korean and Vietnam wars (1954-1963), the United States spent about 10% of GDP on defense - despite the fact that the American economy of those years roughly corresponded to the Russian of the 1980s."
Among other things, the fall of the USSR occurred against the background of very low military expenditures by Soviet standards. Аnd in the 1950s, when they really amounted to about 20%, the Soviet economy caused panic in the West in the spirit of "Soon the Soviets will win the economic race. The Soviet army was pretty cheap, actually.

2. The overall economic advantage of the United States after the war was impressive – to about the same extent as that of England in the middle of the 19th century. And where is that England now. Catching up development is much cheaper than "leadership" and, as a rule, such hegemony erodes quite quickly. At the same time, the USA of the 60s and especially the 70s did not shine at all with growth rates. If the USSR had maintained a high rate of development, this funny picture would have turned out.

Spoiler :

It is quite often illustrated by the relationship between Russia and Poland-Lithuania. Because the current situation is ephemeral, and potential, growth rates and sound management are long–term factors.

3. So while liberal propaganda is moaning about the horrors of the Gulag (it can't do anything else, and yes, one of my relatives has been there - for real guilt and without special effects), normal people are watching statistics. And there... curious.
The real reasons are
A) The chronic decline in investment efficiency throughout the post-Stalinist era. More and more was invested, the return was less and less. If the marriage in industry is over 30%, 11% of military spending is your least problem.
B) The total inability of regulated industry and, above all, agriculture to meet demand. As a result, the hole was plugged by imports – which created the prerequisites for a financial crisis.
C) These prerequisites would have remained prerequisites if not for the deranged actions of Gorbachev's economists. At the same time, they were a logical consequence of total ideological control – these figures quoted Marx by heart, but no longer understood the most basic principles of the real work of the economy.
D) At the same time, the loyalty of the population was undermined by a total failure in the field of propaganda. Despite the fact that the western was not as cheap trash as it is now, but also far from brilliant. The reason is exactly the same – monopolism decomposes.

Relatively high military spending is the last straw that broke the camel's back.

Several points here, I'll make them short.

1. You are conflating systems of government with economic systems.
   
   I newer said that a command economy is equally valid as a market economy. Of course it isn't. A command economy is nice if you have an emergency like a war or famine or some other disaster that you need to handle right now, consequences be damned but in the long term those consequences will come to get you.
   
   What I said is that the liberal democratic system of government is not inherently superior to its alternatives and that the ultimate test of what makes a system good or bad is NOT how free the people are but their economic prosperity.
   
   You can have dictatorships, oligarchies and other unfree societies that run their economy quite well and liberal democracies that do it quite badly.
   
   
2. Having close to or over 10% of your GDP go to military spending is insanely high and absolutely is disastrous. Do that for long enough and your economy will fail no matter what. The only reason why america is only failing now decades after the Soviet Union is that they started from a much better position to begin with. But if they keep up feeding the military industrial complex at the expense of social programs they will inevitably fail.
   
   There is a reason why Europe outsourced its military to america after all.
   
   
3. The collapse of the Soviet Union had a lot to do with the underlying ethnic tensions of the old Russian Empire which were just carried over and buried under the carpet of the new system but newer went away. And the moment the idiot who shall not be named decided to let people vote they voted to go their separate ways.
   
   And I say idiot because that is what any politician who honestly believes in his states ideology is. The state ideology be that religion, liberalism, the divine right of kings, communism, human sacrifice or what ever else exists as a means for controlling the masses. It is a tool for propaganda and nothing more. Politicians are supposed to pay lip service to it whilst doing the smart and pragmatic things they need for society to prosper.
   
   The moment they start actually believing it is when things go down the drain.
   
   
4. This probably isn't the place for this sort of debate.
   
   PS. I am actually not terribly pro Soviet. I just don't find the modern western narrative of "we won therefore we were destined to win and thus our current system, what ever it happens to be this week, is the best and must always win." to be a convincing one.

Yes, the initiative was constantly with the "peaceful defending West". However, the key motive was not a bet on exhaustion – the Pentagon seriously counted on winning a nuclear war.

Military policy is not the same as political policy. The military has the job to strive for 100% GDP going to them so that they can conquer the world. And failing that to make sure they can do so with what they are given. Politicians have the job of trying to make the enemy fall before it comes to that.

The only complicated thing here is the description of the effects. At the same time, the same 4 effects have two vanilla civics, with 3 more. State property and nature protection can be described in the same way.

Yes, but that is 2-3 civics which is my point. I prefer to have each thing be its own thing that is simple to read and understand.

Basically my goal here isn't to create a super complex mod that realistically depicts anything. It's to put a fresh coat of paint on CIV4 without changing the underlying gameplay all that much other than by what is required to fit the lore of Red Alert.

So I intend to rebrand or remove things that don't fit like vassalage or catapults but not to change the fundamental underlying way the game plays and feels.

 

[<Nexus>]

So I intend to rebrand or remove things that don't fit like vassalage or catapults but not to change the fundamental underlying way the game plays and feels

I think it's a pretty smart approach

 

[<Nexus>]

I did in fact want to keep corporations intact for now. I don't really see a need to change them.

I was thinking about it because there wasn't much happening at that moment and thought if corporations could be easily C&C-died, that would also add to the atmosphere. I mean no changes in mechanics, just renaming and getting a new icon if needed.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

I was thinking about it because there wasn't much happening at that moment and thought if corporations could be easily C&C-died, that would also add to the atmosphere. I mean no changes in mechanics, just renaming and getting a new icon if needed.

True, but I just have too many other things to worry about at this point. So that sort of thing gets shunted to phase 2 of my roadmap along with custom art.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Update. I found a suitably Red Alert name for the civic that enables slavery. And fittingly it was the wacky Soviets that came up with it.
It's called "superindustrialisation" and is honest to god the name the Soviets gave to the concept of rapid forced industrialization that they undertook in the post civil war period.

 

[pecheneg]

I do not see how that would be the case. I personally find the idea of extra to be far more useful than a couple extra points unless you are running a specialist heavy economy which I rarely am.

Specialists just cost too much to have unless your city has several food resources and has no need to produce many hammers.

1. In fact, a strong influence will be already at an early stage. The early level of science generation is low, and technology is cheap. Even 6 points from a couple of priests is quite a lot.
2. There are free specialists
3. There are necessary merchants, etc. At the same time, large garrisons require maintenance.
Practice is the criterion of truth, the change of the monarchy to the presidency gives a solid bonus in most cases. Worse, the representation was invented for this purpose.

You are conflating systems of government with economic systems.

You can have dictatorships, oligarchies and other unfree societies that run their economy quite well and liberal democracies that do it quite badly.

The problem is that either non-ideological dictatorships or ideological opportunists in the spirit of Deng Xiao Ping's slogan govern well.

1. 
   
2. Having close to or over 10% of your GDP go to military spending is insanely high and absolutely is disastrous. Do that for long enough and your economy will fail no matter what. The only reason why america is only failing now decades after the Soviet Union is that they started from a much better position to begin with. But if they keep up feeding the military industrial complex at the expense of social programs they will inevitably fail.

1. During the Cold War, American defense spending fell below 6% of GDP only during the stagflation of the 1970s. At the same time, they were also less than 10% in the USSR at that time. The difference of less than 4% of GDP turned out to be fatal - with the catching-up type of development in the USSR? Well, this is a matter of religious faith.
At the same time, at least the United States did not spend much on servicing military debts. The Europeans had much more fun.
By the way, Britain has become an economic hegemon against the background of gigantic payments on "Napoleonic" debts.

2. The USSR of the 1950s, which combined very high costs with high growth, is not really alone. In Japan in the 1930s, military spending was monstrous. The result is a huge growth rate against the backdrop of the global depression https://history.wikireading.ru/hyEphtbRnS

3 . The nuance is that military spending, even in the first approximation, is no worse than other ways of unproductive squandering of money. Meanwhile, the costs of servicing the national debt, for example, have been epic in quite prosperous countries. At the same time, in reality, military spending is the least unproductive of unproductive. A significant share of them is dual–use research and development + "subsidizing" of the high-tech industry.

The only reason why america is only failing now decades after the Soviet Union is that they started from a much better position to begin with. But if they keep up feeding the military industrial complex at the expense of social programs they will inevitably fail.

The main problem of the US economy is deindustrialization due to the growth of competition against the background of frenzied free trading and a low-level tax policy that encourages the inflating of the financial sector. The joke is that it was the high military spending that partially restrained the process of industry flight.

There is a reason why Europe outsourced its military to america after all.

Spending 1% of GDP on the military-industrial complex instead of 2-3% is already "saving on matches" and stupid bullying, long-term harm to the economy. The problem is that the welfare state created in Europe turned out to be too expensive after the demographic situation worsened. Attempts to save it at any cost until the next election, cutting out half a percent of GDP from anywhere, are convulsions, not meaningful policy.

The collapse of the Soviet Union had a lot to do with the underlying ethnic tensions of the old Russian Empire which were just carried over and buried under the carpet of the new system but newer went away. And the moment the idiot who shall not be named decided to let people vote they voted to go their separate ways.

In the old Russian Empire, even the autonomists initially failed in the elections after the February revolution. It took increasing chaos for the supporters of complete internal independence to win even in Finland (control over defense and foreign policy did not cause objections even from radicals). The fact of the matter is that the lightning collapse of the USSR is a gloomy contrast with the loyalty of the majority of the suburbs before the "drug addicts" came to power in St. Petersburg.

And I say idiot because that is what any politician who honestly believes in his states ideology is.

Yes, indeed. At first we spend huge efforts on brainwashing, starting from kindergarten and promoting real communists into power structures, then suddenly we get brainwashed characters at the head of the state. Of course, an accident.

The state ideology be that religion, liberalism, the divine right of kings, communism, human sacrifice or what ever else exists as a means for controlling the masses. It is a tool for propaganda and nothing more. Politicians are supposed to pay lip service to it whilst doing the smart and pragmatic things they need for society to prosper.

The moment they start actually believing it is when things go down the drain.

Well, yes, all the forces of ideological control and propaganda are aimed at making everything go down the drain. That's exactly why everything went down the drain.

Yes, but that is 2-3 civics which is my point.

The war economy/crusade has 6 effects.

At the same time, I repeat, I do not insist. I can draw a civic in ХML myself – especially since I want to experiment with pseudo-runners, etc..

 

[pecheneg]

=Update. I found a suitably Red Alert name for the civic that enables slavery. And fittingly it was the wacky Soviets that came up with it.
=

Some historical background
1. Generally speaking, in 1900, the most common slavery was still quite widespread. Moreover, if it is canceled quickly in China, then Ethiopia – in 1942, Iran/Iraq – in the 1920s, the Arabian countries - in the 1960s. This is if we take playable civilizations. But there are, of course, no global effects. Theoretically, you can give traditional slave owners "+" to commerce on plantations, oases and, possibly, mines (well, or / and a low-value specialist). Or can just forget.

2. The exchange of the population for "production" has been a banality for a very long time without any slavery. For example, large construction projects outside the ideally developed area were accompanied by mass mortality simply due to the low level of medicine, logistics, etc. Ideally, you can add accidental mortality to early workers – but this is not a mod topic.

3. Relapses of serfdom in the form of labor service and the attachment of workers to enterprises fully existed until the 1940s. In Germany since 1935. At the same time, the special rights of landlords in relation to farmhands and servants (including the right to flog) were abolished there only by the Weimar Republic


By the way, it is not very clear what problems the postponement of the start in 1900 solves.
1. There is at least some uniformity with respect to civics by default in 1850, in 1900 there is no longer due to the greatly increased spread in the levels of development following the results of the ongoing second industrial revolution.
2. Worse, it is almost impossible to find equivalents to all basic vanilla technologies in the narrow period of 1900-1914.
3. As a special case, there are problems with military affairs. The machine gun was invented in 1883, in 1905 they were already building a "Dreadnought" - pre-dreadnoughts have a gap of 5-6 years.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

=Update. I found a suitably Red Alert name for the civic that enables slavery. And fittingly it was the wacky Soviets that came up with it.
=

Some historical background
1. Generally speaking, in 1900, the most common slavery was still quite widespread. Moreover, if it is canceled quickly in China, then Ethiopia – in 1942, Iran/Iraq – in the 1920s, the Arabian countries - in the 1960s. This is if we take playable civilizations. But there are, of course, no global effects. Theoretically, you can give traditional slave owners "+" to commerce on plantations, oases and, possibly, mines (well, or / and a low-value specialist). Or can just forget.

2. The exchange of the population for "production" has been a banality for a very long time without any slavery. For example, large construction projects outside the ideally developed area were accompanied by mass mortality simply due to the low level of medicine, logistics, etc. Ideally, you can add accidental mortality to early workers – but this is not a mod topic.

3. Relapses of serfdom in the form of labor service and the attachment of workers to enterprises fully existed until the 1940s. In Germany since 1935. At the same time, the special rights of landlords in relation to farmhands and servants (including the right to flog) were abolished there only by the Weimar Republic


By the way, it is not very clear what problems the postponement of the start in 1900 solves.
1. There is at least some uniformity with respect to civics by default in 1850, in 1900 there is no longer due to the greatly increased spread in the levels of development following the results of the ongoing second industrial revolution.
2. Worse, it is almost impossible to find equivalents to all basic vanilla technologies in the narrow period of 1900-1914.
3. As a special case, there are problems with military affairs. The machine gun was invented in 1883, in 1905 they were already building a "Dreadnought" - pre-dreadnoughts have a gap of 5-6 years.

What it solves is that I do not have to simulate the 19th century in any way shape or form. Which is exactly what I want to avoid as the 19th century is NOT the focus of this mod. So the start date for this mod is going to be "generically after the 19th century but before the buildup to WW1".

The exact year does not matter, the overall poetic intent does. And the intent is for this to be a mod focused on the period between 1930 and 2030 with a short buildup before that to allow for colonization and exploration to be done by the time you get to Tesla Towers and Racketeers. And I have arbitrarily decided that said short buildup should be WW1 and the period leading up to it with a tiny bit of the 19th century thrown in for flavor.

That is why I am opposed to "slavery" under that name being in the mod as it simply does not fit anyone but Yuri in a the timeline that is supposed to be depicted.

1. In fact, a strong influence will be already at an early stage. The early level of science generation is low, and technology is cheap. Even 6 points from a couple of priests is quite a lot.
2. There are free specialists
3. There are necessary merchants, etc. At the same time, large garrisons require maintenance.
Practice is the criterion of truth, the change of the monarchy to the presidency gives a solid bonus in most cases. Worse, the representation was invented for this purpose.

I see your point.

I would still say that monarchy, especially in combination with slavery is a powerful combination that easily equals what ever gains you get from a specialist economy. Especially in the early game where you can't really run a specialist economy because you are limited to the number of specialists you can produce by the limited number of buildings that grant specialist slots. But you are right that it does loose out in the long term once you can get a lot of specialists going.

And since I am intent on nerfing slavery things are only going to get worse in that respect. So since I want it to remain competitive into the late game and I am intent on nerfing slavery at the same time it does need a boost.

But it needs to be something that is relatively vanilla styled. And most critically something that is low effort to do.

The problem is that either non-ideological dictatorships or ideological opportunists in the spirit of Deng Xiao Ping's slogan govern well.

In other words people that are not idiots. Yes, that much we agree on.

Coolaid is something you serve to your followers after collecting their donations and not something you drink for your self.


I'll discontinue the rest of the debate because I feel it detracts from the purpose of this thread. We can continue it at some later date in another place if you like. But not here and now.

 

[pecheneg]

What it solves is that I do not have to simulate the 19th century in any way shape or form. Which is exactly what I want to avoid as the 19th century is NOT the focus of this mod.

The nuance is that most of the technologies involved "around the First World War" did not appear in 1900-1914. That is, you will have banal technologies of the 19th century, but with wild dates. Units, respectively, too.
As examples.
1. I have already said about the machine gun. Classic magazine rifles (on smokeless powder) have been in service since the 1880s, while magazine rifles on smoky powder are the 1860s. And it's not just about lever (Spencer/Winchester). The Swiss already had a classic with a sliding shutter. In 1900, they began to produce a light machine gun (the system itself was invented in 1890)
2. In mining dynamite and basic mechanization (cutting machines)– this is the 1860s. In the 1880s, they began to switch from steam to electricity. In the 1890s, only a manual jackhammer was invented from the "global".
And so it is everywhere. Minimally, it makes sense to trim by 1880.

But it needs to be something that is relatively vanilla styled.

Hmm. But, if anything, specialized suppression units already exist in mods, you won't have to draw them.

In other words people that are not idiots.

Gorbachev is the son of a peasant, born in 1931. This is a distilled product of Soviet upbringing/education, which has not even seen a stripped-down market economy. In order not to be an "idiot" in such a situation, innate cynicism alone is not enough.
Deng Xiao Ping, for reference, is the son of a small landowner who studied at a prestigious school, in France and the USSR in the 1920s, just against the background of disputes about the ways of building socialism.

 

[<Nexus>]

The nuance is that most of the technologies involved "around the First World War" did not appear in 1900-1914. That is, you will have banal technologies of the 19th century, but with wild dates.

Doesn't really matter. Really! It's an alternate history. If you are worried about the date of machine gun appearance, than what's the date for tesla tanks, prism tanks or the crono-sphere? It's an alt-timeline. Accept it: Things can differ from real world.

 

[pecheneg]

Doesn't really matter. Really! It's an alternate history. If you are worried about the date of machine gun appearance, than what's the date for tesla tanks, prism tanks or the crono-sphere? It's an alt-timeline. Accept it: Things can differ from real world.

1. I repeat – why slide into an alternative history, if you can not slide into it? Moreover, the whole question is in formal dating. The technology tree itself does not change at all.

2. The alternative story must be plausible. The pace of technological progress in this period is already high. So much so that the army is in a state of constant rearmament, ships are becoming obsolete on the stocks, etc. If the pace is more than doubled, an absurd picture will turn out. The rearmament of the army and industry is not a generational change of iPhones, it is expensive. As a consequence, the cycle of decision-making and execution... somewhat longer.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

The nuance is that most of the technologies involved "around the First World War" did not appear in 1900-1914. That is, you will have banal technologies of the 19th century, but with wild dates. Units, respectively, too.
As examples.

And literally all of the social developments that we know today and would represent with "civics" were already in existence by the turn of the century as well. But that won't stop me sprinkling the civic unlocks all across the tech tree either.

Fundamentally realism must in all things take a back seat to gameplay and game flow.

Bottom line is that as far as I am concerned the clock starts ticking in 1930. Anything before that is just what ever year happens to match the required number of turns to give people enough time to colonize the world and start meaningfully interacting. And that can be one year or one thousand for all I care. But I am not going to focus on that area any more than is absolutely critically necessary to make it playable.

So that part of the tech tree is going to be defined 100% by what I think fits mechanically to enable the sort of gameplay I want.


Furthermore that is the approach I intend to take with this entire mod. I intend to design things to facilitate the sort of gameplay I want and than paint those things in what ever quasi historical seems appropriate and entertaining to me. And if that happens to produce idiotically ahistorical results so be it. They can't be more ahistorical than towers that cast lightning bolts and time travel devices.

Gorbachev is the son of a peasant, born in 1931. This is a distilled product of Soviet upbringing/education, which has not even seen a stripped-down market economy. In order not to be an "idiot" in such a situation, innate cynicism alone is not enough.
Deng Xiao Ping, for reference, is the son of a small landowner who studied at a prestigious school, in France and the USSR in the 1920s, just against the background of disputes about the ways of building socialism.

An idiot is an idiot is an idiot. Whether through lack of education, bad genetics or some other factor matters not. A man is judged by the action he performs and not by the road he took to those actions.

 

[pecheneg]

Fundamentally realism must in all things take a back seat to gameplay and game flow.

Formal dates do not affect the gameplay itself in any way at all. The technology tree remains the same. I just suggest finding realistic equivalents to vanilla technologies with correct dates, and you should stamp the entire analogue of vanilla antiquity in 1900-1914.

An idiot is an idiot is an idiot. Whether through lack of education,

Well, yes, at the same time, there was simply no adequate economic education in the USSR. And the second problem is that non-idiot with a 99% probability would follow the example of Deng Xiaoping Peng Yi... and socialism would remain only a "signboard", with a horde of billionaires behind it. Sadness.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Formal dates do not affect the gameplay itself in any way at all. The technology tree remains the same. I just suggest finding realistic equivalents to vanilla technologies with correct dates, and you should stamp the entire analogue of vanilla antiquity in 1900-1914.

If I can I will. But it is not a priority. The priority is pushing forward onto designing the 1930 - 2030 era. And I can backfill the early ages when it comes to that.

Well, yes, at the same time, there was simply no adequate economic education in the USSR. And the second problem is that non-idiot with a 99% probability would follow the example of Deng Xiaoping Peng Yi... and socialism would remain only a "signboard", with a horde of billionaires behind it. Sadness.

That is a danger of any system. Every system which fails to provide a healthy separation between the ruling class and the ruled inevitably falls into the trap of having its leaders start to believe their own religion. It happened to monarchies in the past, it happened to the Soviet Union and it is happening to the EU today.

And one more thing. This is my mod. So my word is final. You guys can have input and I appreciate it if you do. But if I draw the line somewhere that line is final.

 

[pecheneg]

And I can backfill the early ages when it comes to that.

There is nothing to "backfill". The technologies and units remain the same, just the dates change to real ones. For example, if a machine gun appears in the second "column" of technologies, then in my version this is a generalized interval up to 1890. You have the middle of the period 1900 -1914. I.e. 1905-1910.
At the same time, the Sudanese shot with machine guns in 1898 is not a secret knowledge of fans, it is mass culture.

That is a danger of any system.

Only here the scales of glitches are fundamentally different. The first generation, who grew up in a democracy or under a monarchy, did not part with basic knowledge about the functioning of the economy

 

[PPQ_Purple]

There is nothing to "backfill". The technologies and units remain the same, just the dates change to real ones. For example, if a machine gun appears in the second "column" of technologies, then in my version this is a generalized interval up to 1890. You have the middle of the period 1900 -1914. I.e. 1905-1910.
At the same time, the Sudanese shot with machine guns in 1898 is not a secret knowledge of fans, it is mass culture.

You are going to hate the fact I have electrification appear near the end of age 2.

Only here the scales of glitches are fundamentally different. The first generation, who grew up in a democracy or under a monarchy, did not part with basic knowledge about the functioning of the economy

It's not a glitch, it's a major preventable problem. And it only takes one generation of mishandling for it to become critical. Seriously, just look at the cold war era pragmatic west and the 2020's suicidal west. That's just two generations, or more realistically one since that's the generation that is now in politics.

A shepherd who consorts with his sheep is not a good thing.

 

[pecheneg]

You are going to hate the fact I have electrification appear near the end of age 2.

Vanilla electrification banally gives commerce points to mills. At the same time, for example, large commercial wind turbines, and not a trifle somewhere on an isolated farm - this is a very late high–tech. The oil shock of the 1970s and that's it. That is, you can simply rename it to "renewable energy".

It's not a glitch, it's a major preventable problem. And it only takes one generation of mishandling for it to become critical. Seriously, just look at the cold war era pragmatic west and the 2020's suicidal west. That's just two generations, or more realistically one since that's the generation that is now in politics.

A shepherd who consorts with his sheep is not a good thing.

At least in the United States, no establishment faith in the same green agenda is visible even at close range. If we look at it as a whole, the same carbon circus is an attempt to impose tribute on catching up with competitors, introduce neoprotectionism under the conversations about saving humanity and push technologies that consumers simply do not need outside of this context.
At the same time, achieving at least a relative energy "autarky" and getting rid of potential dirty bombs on its territory (and nuclear power plants with increasing accuracy of nuclear weapons is exactly that) is a necessity in preparing for a big war. By a strange coincidence, all the efforts of the Pentagon point to the terminal stage of preparation for it.
The deployment of medium-range missiles designed for a preemptive strike and the announced deployment of weapons in space is exactly about this (the space echelon of missile defense is the main one because it allows the interception of missiles at a vulnerable initial site)
This does not negate the presence of a huge stratum of true believers, pushing to irrational actions, of course.