[Request] In light of recent events, Modern Middle East Scenario
- Thread starter TomAss
- Start date
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I said this in another thread:
The more I think about it, the more true it seems. Civilization doesn't really handle modernity well. Modernity involves 100+ countries, with no nation in a "winner take all" situation, a UN that is guided by multiple nations sharing a common interest (no matter how corrupt or ineffective it might often be), terrorists of no nationality with no leader, and the line between civilian and soldier blurred by guerilla warfare.
It just can't be done in this game.
The more I think about it, the more true it seems. Civilization doesn't really handle modernity well. Modernity involves 100+ countries, with no nation in a "winner take all" situation, a UN that is guided by multiple nations sharing a common interest (no matter how corrupt or ineffective it might often be), terrorists of no nationality with no leader, and the line between civilian and soldier blurred by guerilla warfare.
It just can't be done in this game.
Chamaedrys
Emperor
dh_epic said:
so dam true
jenks
Prince
shame really, as a scenario it would probably beat everything else into the ground 
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I'd love to see someone create a modern mechanism in general. One that starts after the second world war, with a much more sophisticated model of diplomacy, the UN, of warfare and politics. It wouldn't be easy, mind you.
RogerBacon
King
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2003
- Messages
- 649
For a modern scenario to be accurate you'd have to have a UN that doesn't do anything except pass useless resolutions that are not binding. (U.N. peacekeepers could potentially rape girls in Africa if you wanted 100% realism). You'd also need a huge penalty for democries trying to wage war, including the possibility of losing the game if you lost an election at home. The current war weariness model doesn't go far enough in portraying the way the anti-war, anti-military crowd back home saps support for forign policy they disagree with.
Maybe have any democracy that is at war automatically lose the game if your approval rating drops below 50% for X number of turns. I remember in Civ 1 if yo uwere a republic at war and you talked to anyone the senate would override you and make peace. Rule one was always "Don't talk to anyone".
Making a modern scenario would be great but it would probably require tearing down most of the civ structure and rebuilding it. For one thing, modern wars are not about production. Almost all of the weapons that countries fight wars with are already present when the conflict begins. No more waiting 3-4 turns and getting a new battleship. You'd probably want to set up any scenario with large stockpiles of units and disable production. Either that, or increasing the hammer cost by 50 times and decreasing the cost to buy with gold by 50 times to represent buying units from other countries' stockpiles.
Roger Bacon
Maybe have any democracy that is at war automatically lose the game if your approval rating drops below 50% for X number of turns. I remember in Civ 1 if yo uwere a republic at war and you talked to anyone the senate would override you and make peace. Rule one was always "Don't talk to anyone".
Making a modern scenario would be great but it would probably require tearing down most of the civ structure and rebuilding it. For one thing, modern wars are not about production. Almost all of the weapons that countries fight wars with are already present when the conflict begins. No more waiting 3-4 turns and getting a new battleship. You'd probably want to set up any scenario with large stockpiles of units and disable production. Either that, or increasing the hammer cost by 50 times and decreasing the cost to buy with gold by 50 times to represent buying units from other countries' stockpiles.
Roger Bacon
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
That's another key difference with modern warfare and classical warfare:
In primitive warfare, you spent a lot of time training the actual troops. Hence the long production time and production costs. The weapons themselves, while not trivial to build, are pretty abundant. (You're not going to run out of longbows, once you know the basic design.)
In modern warfare, much more time is spent producing the actual weapon. As such, the weapon itself becomes a huge commodity that can be traded across the globe. Weapons trading is much more relevant than it was in the past.
To me, the most telling difference for a modern scenario of any kind... cities should become DAMN hard to hold, with lots of rebel and guerilla action. Moreover, taking the city would not be the goal -- but building popular support for positive changes. To do that, you'd have to make the model of citizen attitudes much more intricate.
In primitive warfare, you spent a lot of time training the actual troops. Hence the long production time and production costs. The weapons themselves, while not trivial to build, are pretty abundant. (You're not going to run out of longbows, once you know the basic design.)
In modern warfare, much more time is spent producing the actual weapon. As such, the weapon itself becomes a huge commodity that can be traded across the globe. Weapons trading is much more relevant than it was in the past.
To me, the most telling difference for a modern scenario of any kind... cities should become DAMN hard to hold, with lots of rebel and guerilla action. Moreover, taking the city would not be the goal -- but building popular support for positive changes. To do that, you'd have to make the model of citizen attitudes much more intricate.
