De-Militarized Zone
- Thread starter Cedbird
- Start date
Ahriman
Tyrant
Demilitarized zones are very rare in history (Rhineland + Korea + ???), and have never really had any significant impact. As seen in the Rhineland the consequence of remilitarization was... nothing.
I so no need for such a mechanic.
I so no need for such a mechanic.
From an Aristotelian point of view, there are two aspects to any feature in this context: possibility and necessity. A de-militarized zone is obviously unnecessary. However, should it be added on terms of possibility? I do, but it shouldn't just be because of a de-militarized zone in and of itself. As the above user said, these locations aren't frequent throughout history. However, is the Civilization franchise just supposed to be an imitation of real history? I don't think so. It is not an imitation of history but of politics, if you get to the core of it. You're playing an alternate history of the world. In an alternate universe, maybe de-militarized zones are frequent, because it is a useful way to indicate whether another country is complying with a treaty or not realistically. There could also be a feature that lets you negotiate a cap on the amount of military officers a country could have, such as Germany having to keep their forces under 100,000. All these possibilities should be added in order to accentuate gameplay and the capacity and scope of the game.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Uhhhh..... no. The beauty of Civ is its simplicity. It is just a terrible idea to add mechanics into the game for any historic event that *might* have been important in some alternate history of the world.
Besides, nearly every arms reduction treaty in history has been an abject failure. The Rhineland was remilitarized without a squeak. The Treaty naval limitations were ignored. Bans on a german air force were ignored through the creation of "aero clubs". Nuclear weapon reduction treaties have occurred, but have never managed to get countries to give up weapons they didn't want to give up, and have never managed to have a meaningful reduction in the ability to unleash destruction.
Arms control is fail as a mechanic because it just doesn't work; the only way to enforce it is war, and avoidance of war was the whole point of trying to put these things in place.
There are enough significant historic mechanics that aren't in the game without going and adding one that has been historically irrelevant.
Yes, Civilization IV's characteristic is simplicity, but that doesn't mean that the next installment should continue that trend. The Civilization franchise wasn't always simple. I've spoken to many Civilization fans, and the majority of them want to return to that spirit of complexity in gameplay, and the games should, because that is where their fanbase is. The game is about human civilization and empire building. It is not about sword fighting or gun shots. That doesn't, in and of itself, make Civilization any better or worst than the other genre I paralleled. It is just that, by nature, the Civilization franchise is supposed to be complicated and complex, because its subject is complicated and complex.
In terms of a De-Militarized Zone, as I have stated, the Civilization franchise is supposed to be an imitation of politics, not history. It's just like how Aristotle says that poetry doesn't imitate reality but the possibility of a reality. If Civilization was supposed to imitate history, then the only map would be an Earth map, and the timeline and outcomes of all battles would be as those in the history textbooks. That isn't how the games work, however. Typically, you start off with a civilization in real history, but, after that, the timeline can go in any way possible. If we're just narrowly going by the examples of a de-militarized zone in history, then, even so, it still had a very considerable effect in human history. You're only looking at this from one perspective. Appeasement didn't work out for the British, but it worked out for the Germans. The Germans gained much, much more leverage than they ever could have at the start of the war with these appeasements, which includes the De-Militarized Zone.
That could have a considerable impact on gameplay. The player could appease another player or weaken another country Diplomatically through these appeasements, if they want to prevent war. The other side would of course get stronger, which is how the ordeal works. You yourself said that there weren't many examples of De-Militarized Zones throughout history; therefore, in a different context than post-World War I, it could have had a considerable effect on the outcome of history.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Yes it does. Civ is supposed to be highly playable for casual players, not to get bogged down in adding all kinds of minor features.
Yes it is. Civ4 is slightly more complex than civ1 and 2, and about as complex as civ3.
What are you talking about? How is civ4 less complex than civ3? There are several new mechanics and strategic decisions to make; specialists, health, religion.
This makes no sense. Demilitarized zones had a major effect because.... the Germans ignored the restriction? The Germans didn't *gain* anything from the demilitarization of the Rhineland, they just ignored it when it suited them.
Logic fail. There haven't been successful examples of demilitarized zones (Korea is arguable; its tiny, no-one lives there, and its basically a giant minefield) because the mechanism is fundamentally flawed. The lack of examples is an argument *against* them, not an argument *for* them.
Essentially, this is an irrelevant point. The Civ gamers are not unintelligent. A de-militarized zone isn't even that complex a feature. A restriction on military size is not a complicated feature. Civilization was never intended for every gamer, just like Call of Duty is not intended for every gamer. It was intended for people who are into politics, history, etc., and it should be designed for those people. You need to remember the target audience for this game, and people who are minimally into this should at least be able to understand junior high history.
Even though I don't agree with that, you do admit that there is a trend towards complexity, but I thought that the Civilization franchise was always meant to stay simple. Shouldn't the trend be going downwards, then?
Now, don't put words into my mouth. I explicitly said that that was the opinion of someone else.
A demilitarized zone was one of the factors from the Treaty of Versailles that enraged the German population. The main argument isn't just for this, however, but for the appeasement system in general, and everyone with knowledge of history knows about its importance in the second World War. It was meant to weaken the German nation after World War I, but, after that, it became the means for the Allies to keep postponing the war.
I frankly think the problem with you here is that you do not understand the meaning of context. The Civilization games aren't a reiteration of human history. There are nuances and at times large variations from actual human history. Had a demilitarized zone been the justification to declare war because of a breech in treaty, I honestly hope that you wouldn't say that this feature would be insignificant. Of course, Great Britain and France could have always chose to declare war at any time one of their treaties was breached -- they just chose not to do so, but that's an issue of context, not idealism.
Again, this point has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand. I believe that I have found what is psychologically wrong here.
"The lack of examples is an argument *against* them, not an argument *for* them."
Brutal strawmen. I never said that the lack of examples was an argument for anything. My argument was always that there has never been a need for examples. Human history is a nice basis for features, but it isn't the only foundation, because it followed a particular and specific timeline. Had there been a different context in history, demilitarized zones could have been prominent, and it's the purpose of the Civilization games to emphasize those possible features. Let me make the point simple.
Do you want to contradict Aristotle, when he said that poetry wasn't an imitation of reality but of possible reality? If not, then why shouldn't it be the same for this artform as well?
Ahriman
Tyrant
Uhh, no, its not irrelevant. Civ is not aimed at a narrow niche market. Its aimed at a hugely broad market. Virtually everyone who has ever played computer games has played at least one incarnation of Civilization. It has some of the broadest appeal of any PC game.
A minor trend. But every new mechanic has been major and game-changing, not little tiny mechanics like this one.
Ahem.
And now you sound like Fox News; "some are saying that Obama is a Muslim Communist". No, *you're* saying that.
You are conflating appeasement with demilitarization. They are different.
Civ already has an appeasement mechanic; the AI will demand tribute from you, and often declare war if you refuse. If you give them the tribute, that's appeasement.
The Rhineland demilitarization was minor on German opinion relative to the reparations demands.
Uhh... what? If Britain and France had declared war on Germany because of its rearmament, it would have been the military buildup that caused the war, not the violation of a treaty principle.
A piece of paper might provide a formal cassus belli, but it doesn't change the strategic incentives that determine whether wars actually happen or not.
They could have chosen to declare war at any time whether a treaty was breached or no. That's not just an issue of context, its the fundamental problem of a demilitarization.
You try to force someone to demilitarize to prevent war, but the only way to enforce the demilitarization is to declare war.
It is an intrinsic logical flaw, not just some specific historical context.
Yes, you did.
You do know what "therefore" means right? It means you're making a logical induction.
Your argument was: there weren't examples of demilitarized zones mattering, therefore they could have had considerable impact on history. Which is ridiculous.
That's a very poetic quote.... but completely irrelevant. Its an entire artform, not a single poem.
Yes, you could go create a poem or game that had demilitarized zones in it, but that doesn't mean that *every* poem should do so.
A poem has to pick and choose limited aspects to go inside, it can't encompass *all* of possible reality in a single poem.
Because the realm of what could have happened is infinite, and doesn't provide a useful means of selecting mechanics for a game based on earth's history. And because the goal of the game is to provide a fun gameplay experience based on the most important drivers of human history. Demilitarized zones doesn't really rate there alongside religion, power, land, resources, trade, slavery, industrialization, plague, and so forth.
And, as I argued, demilitarization or arms control treaties could never have been incredibly significant because of their fundamental logical failure.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,927
There is only one DMZ I can think of that has any backing and that's the one in Korea. Other than that, there's no reason to have them because the AI, if smart, would ignore at its convenience (like real countries have).
