Some of the MOST UNREALISTIC Elements in CIVIII

[davidky5]

The topic is self-explanatory

1. Bombers can't sink even a galley (as we all know.)

2. Razing the City: My God, This option is totally out of whack. I conquered a size 24 city with one cavalry, and I "accidentally" clicked the Raze Button, and voila!, that metropolis is a goner. A single group of cavalry killing 3 million in a single turn? The Nazis barely managed to exterminate 6 million Jews over 6 years, and that involved more than 15 concentration camps. The new patch must prohibit razing cities and metropolises, as opposed to towns.

3. Cultural Subversion: Even though 1.17f patch says one can repress the cultural subversion with enough military units, this still represent another unrealistic element, nevertheless. If the same was the case with reality, English colony in India, and German 5-year-long occupation in France during WWII would haev been impossible, and Germany would have wasted its Panzer division not in Russia, but in Paris.

4. Resources: Coal and Iron are about two of the most abundant resources in this planet, but in the entire HUGE MAP, one sees only one coal and two iron per each civ. Even Gems are more abundant than coal, and they never run out. And Uranium? Humans built nuclear plant as a replacement for Oil Plant for a reason.

5. Resource Usage: One Iron mine is enough to supply the entire civilization of 32 cities?

6. Movement: Cavalry has 3 movement point, same as a Panzer, while Tank and Mech. Infantry have 2. If that was true in history, Blitzkrieg would have been invented not by Guderian, but by Napoelon. Seriously, how can a horse run faster than a jeep (mech. infantry, with APC is capable of 50+mph), or a motorized vehicles?

7. City Radius and City Specialization Why is it that one cannot extract resources from tiles that does not belong to any of the cities? If such concept is applied into the real world, Los Angeles (surrounded by deserts) would never get enough food to supply its citizens, and would be reduced into a size 20 city. Where would the city get its shield and commerce? From deserts surrounding them, I don't think so.

8. Railroad No nations in history ever covered its entire land with railroad. Not only was it dreadfully expensive, they did not have that much resources, which brings us to the next point

9. Workers and Tile Improvements : Once you build workers, you can basically build anything in the surrounding tile for free. Road construction, irrigating squares. they cost nothing, and there is no fee for maintenance. How in the world did I paint my entire continent (that covers 1/8 of the world) with railroad with only one source of coal and iron? No one knows.

These are the aspects of the games that I find having no relevance at all to the development of our real Human civilization.

Any comment, and addition of the list would be appreciated.

 

[God]

Hey Civ3 is not supposed to be totally realistic. I guess you probably want some different game.

 

[Ouchgeddon]

Sounds like an old comparison review in The Duelist. Total Annihilation vs Starcraft, which is better? The reviewer knocked Starcraft down for being unrealistic, e.g. "You can make an adult marine or anything from just crystals and gas".

If you would change Civ3 to be more realistic, how would that affect the gameplay aspects? You could limit how many Swordsmen you can simulateously build with one source of Iron. You could also allow resource distribution, as with the Los Angeles situation. So on and more, but these changes would drastically alter the game's style. Ideas for Civ 4 maybe? As usual some players will complain about how Civ3 was much better.

I guess Alpha Centauri, being sci-fi based rather than historical, can be more lenient with its realism.

 

[JoseM]

Originally posted by davidky5
The topic is self-explanatory

1. Bombers can't sink even a galley (as we all know.)

bombers cant sink it but can hit them down to 1 HP and a another ship can easily kill it after it is 1 hp... what i mean is that ok i agree with u that bombers cant sink galleries... but thats because of the bombard... if bombards could destroy units then the game play would have been disbalanced.

Originally posted by davidky5
2. Razing the City: My God, This option is totally out of whack. I conquered a size 24 city with one cavalry, and I "accidentally" clicked the Raze Button, and voila!, that metropolis is a goner. A single group of cavalry killing 3 million in a single turn? The Nazis barely managed to exterminate 6 million Jews over 6 years, and that involved more than 15 concentration camps. The new patch must prohibit razing cities and metropolises, as opposed to towns.

They allowed the "RAZE" option because a lot of people dont like to deal with big cities with a lot of resistence... i mean why would u want to capture a 24 size enemy city? it will take u like 40 units to kill the resistence... is more easier to raze the city and put urself a new city there... and yes a small group of cavalry or armed infantry can kill millions... look how 300.000 english soldiers dominated million and millions of INDIANS in the british empire era... they had the guns if they wanted they could have killed them all.. or when the spanish conquistadors destroyed the aztec empire. Nazis couldnt kill more than 6 million jews because they were trying to do that undercover, they didnt wanted the public to know that they were killing jews.
Also razing cities is a good option, i think it will be a pain in the "legs" to garrison all ur units for 3 turns to kill the resistence... i like fast and quick wars... but if u want to have that city then u have to take the risk and wait 3 or 4 turns with a lot of units to kill the resistence.

Originally posted by davidky5
3. Cultural Subversion: Even though 1.17f patch says one can repress the cultural subversion with enough military units, this still represent another unrealistic element, nevertheless. If the same was the case with reality, English colony in India, and German 5-year-long occupation in France during WWII would haev been impossible, and Germany would have wasted its Panzer division not in Russia, but in Paris.

u can take that as a rebelion... what do u want an easy game? u cant expect to have conquered a big empire and they will just sit without doing nothing... english in india were few and managed to keep the control but with a lot of indian casualties.

Originally posted by davidky5
4. Resources: Coal and Iron are about two of the most abundant resources in this planet, but in the entire HUGE MAP, one sees only one coal and two iron per each civ. Even Gems are more abundant than coal, and they never run out. And Uranium? Humans built nuclear plant as a replacement for Oil Plant for a reason.

People like when there are few resources, so then players and AI can trade, why do u think is the use of tradE? do u think all the 150 countries of the world have all kind of resources? trade, thats an important factor, and if u wanna have all the resources then fight for them then.

Originally posted by davidky5
5. Resource Usage: One Iron mine is enough to supply the entire civilization of 32 cities?

The iron is used to create military units such as legionary or swordman or knight... not to feed all the 32 cities.. anyways if u didnt noticed the iron gets exhausted after a few years.

Originally posted by davidky5
6. Movement: Cavalry has 3 movement point, same as a Panzer, while Tank and Mech. Infantry have 2. If that was true in history, Blitzkrieg would have been invented not by Guderian, but by Napoelon. Seriously, how can a horse run faster than a jeep (mech. infantry, with APC is capable of 50+mph), or a motorized vehicles?

I noticed this and it looked weird that cavalry had 3 movement and tanks 2...but lets see... the horses only needed water and food, which the soldiers had in a lot quantity... and the water? they could put their horses to drink water from the lakes or rivers... so they could go to far distances in few time... instead the TANK need OIL and the AMMUNITION of the turret.. also tanks had to be fixed sometimes when they broke... but what i mean is, if u remember the nazi operation barbarossa, the panzers were advacing so fast that they had to stop because they couldnt be supplies to far away... thats why they had to stop... if they went to far then they couldnt be supplies with oil and ammunition.. thats why they have 2 of movement (u can considerate that like waiting for the supplies).

Originally posted by davidky5
7. City Radius and City Specialization Why is it that one cannot extract resources from tiles that does not belong to any of the cities? If such concept is applied into the real world, Los Angeles (surrounded by deserts) would never get enough food to supply its citizens, and would be reduced into a size 20 city. Where would the city get its shield and commerce? From deserts surrounding them, I don't think so.

Well maybe in CIV 4 they can put something like (supply city option) like (supply city with food or shield ect ect) ... but anyways the game is fine as it is now.

Originally posted by davidky5
8. Railroad No nations in history ever covered its entire land with railroad. Not only was it dreadfully expensive, they did not have that much resources, which brings us to the next point

Probably this is the only point i agree with you, i liked the way CALL TO POWER used to build railroads and roads and stuff with the PUBLIC WORKS option... u had to pay a lot to make a railroad, like in real life... i think CIV 4 should add PUBLIC WORKS option instead workers making those roads and railroads for free, because it looks unrealistic ur whole world covered by railroads.

Originally posted by davidky5
9. Workers and Tile Improvements : Once you build workers, you can basically build anything in the surrounding tile for free. Road construction, irrigating squares. they cost nothing, and there is no fee for maintenance. How in the world did I paint my entire continent (that covers 1/8 of the world) with railroad with only one source of coal and iron? No one knows.

I agree with u in this point EXCEPT that coal and iron gets exhausted a lot too... but u cant expect to get ur coal and iron exhausted in 2 turns every time... that would be annoying.

Originally posted by davidky5

These are the aspects of the games that I find having no relevance at all to the development of our real Human civilization.

Any comment, and addition of the list would be appreciated.

The game is nor perfect, and this game was made to be more fun, if they would have made the game 100% realistic i think the game would not have been fun... i think this game is fun. The importantance of this game is its FUN...not its realism.

 

[Dinorius R.]

...Davidky5, I'm surprised you haven't mentioned these perennial favorites:-

- trans-global travel by rail in less than a second.

- ships that take 20 years to go only half way around the world

- corruption by distance

- deserts and tundra teeming with towns and cities

- leaders that live for thousands of years

- knowing in advance what your wise "men" will discover and when

- spearmen killing tanks (I couldn't resist inserting this one, but I must say I've never seen it happen myself)

 

[JoseM]

Originally posted by Dinorius R.

- ships that take 20 years to go only half way around the world

didnt MOISES and his people lasted 40 years walking from egypt to the promess land? lol

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by davidky5
English colony in India, and German 5-year-long occupation in France during WWII would haev been impossible, and Germany would have wasted its Panzer division not in Russia, but in Paris.

India was in danger of reverson until Wellington consolidated British rule. We would see this as a Great Leader, then the Forbidden Palace.

The French, on the other hand, capitulated. The shame of the Vichy government is well-documented.

Los Angeles (surrounded by deserts) would never get enough food to supply its citizens, and would be reduced into a size 20 city. Where would the city get its shield and commerce? From deserts surrounding them, I don't think so.

Actually, most of the food for LA is produced within a couple of hundred miles. Those deserts are irrigated.

 

[Rain]

6. Movement: Cavalry has 3 movement point, same as a Panzer, while Tank and Mech. Infantry have 2. If that was true in history, Blitzkrieg would have been invented not by Guderian, but by Napoelon. Seriously, how can a horse run faster than a jeep (mech. infantry, with APC is capable of 50+mph), or a motorized vehicles?

I noticed this and it looked weird that cavalry had 3 movement and tanks 2...but lets see... the horses only needed water and food, which the soldiers had in a lot quantity... and the water? they could put their horses to drink water from the lakes or rivers... so they could go to far distances in few time... instead the TANK need OIL and the AMMUNITION of the turret.. also tanks had to be fixed sometimes when they broke... but what i mean is, if u remember the nazi operation barbarossa, the panzers were advacing so fast that they had to stop because they couldnt be supplies to far away... thats why they had to stop... if they went to far then they couldnt be supplies with oil and ammunition.. thats why they have 2 of movement (u can considerate that like waiting for the supplies).

Actaully comparing eras it was equally difficult to supply horses which required huge amounts of fodder. Napoloen lost his entire cavalry in the moscow campaign ( am ajor reason for his subsequent fall since the Frecnh could not replace their losses especailly good horses). Equally significant to the german failure was terrain - it was General mud that stopped the panzers as much as anything. The Blitzkreig worked well in developed europe but the panzers like napoloeon foundered in russia because it was so backward and undeveloped. Napoloen lost in russia because his armies were too huge for the era ~ impossible to supply/ coordinate. Cavalry have the advantage of coping with difficult terrain more easily than mech units. Also the germans were not fully mechanized ~ take a look at a lot of ww2 pictures you will find even the germans still used horses on some occasions and more so as their supplies depleted. WW2 was not as mech'd as one would be lead to believe these days. If i recall correctly the last use of horse cavalry was in ww2 by the poles. Logistics are key to most miltary affairs but they make for dull study hehe.

 

[napoleon526]

The one major complaint that I have ith Civ3 is the fact that the AI doesn't care whether it wins or loses, just as long as you lose. Sometimes I'll encounter another civ that has saltpeter but no iron. They won't trade their excess saltpeter, even though without iron they'll be stuck in the dark ages the entire game! But at least I won't be able to build musketmen/cavalry/cannon! Sometimes it seems like there's a huge conspiracy between rival civs to deny resources and techs, even between countries at war with each other. I'll offer to trade, but neither side will offer me any realistic deals.

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by God
Hey Civ3 is not supposed to be totally realistic. I guess you probably want some different game.

"Totally realistic"?!? Only REALITY is "totally realistic".
We want a game that gives the feeling of realism - and Civ III fails at that.

"A different game"?? Yea, I want a fully developed game, not Firaxis' beta game rushed to market for the Holiday buying season.

As for realism, some of the crap in Civ III is ludicrous, and it's been discussed at length here and on the Apolyton boards.

Bombers that can't sink any ship.

Strategic resource allocation is indeed a joke with the original mod.

Culture Flipping cities and disappearing garrisons. A big crock.

Idiotic unit value in the original mod, such as Cavalry (with rifles) and knights (who never heard of gunpowder) having the same defense value.

Workers who will clear every forest on the planet if allowed to.

Stupid Diplomacy and tech trading esp. with 1.17.

AI ocean-going galleys, and other cheats.

And on and on. Yes, even Civ II with battleships in lakes was more realistic. Massive Editing can help a little with Civ III, but too much cannnot be Edited.

 

[Jason Fox]

I don't know what others, particularly experienced players, are generally looking for, but I think there's too much focus on what's "realisitic." The game is designed to be fun, not simulate life. The "6000 year leader" is one people bring up. In a realistic game you'd only get to rule the civ for 50 years at most. And there would only be one difficulty level.

You also wouldn't get to choose your own civ (none of us did in real life), would need to populate the world with many more civs, may have to play some games as a worker or an archer (how realistic is it that you get to run the whole show every time), get voted out of power in democracy or overthrown (and killed, exiled or jailed) in single leader governments (would anyone complain about getting voted out of office - game over - after hours and hours of play when you're winning. Its realistic and people would kill Firaxis if it happened.)

You wouldn't see the lands explored by scouts and other units until they returned and reported their findings, maps traded/developed would contain errors, couldn't see the borders of civs you hadn't met yet and certainly wouldn't see cities pop up in places you've only been once 1500 years ago.

Civ3 isn't realistic - a point driven home mostly by the actual goal itself. How realistic is taking over the world or landing on Alpha Centuri? In a realistic game you couldn't win. No one has in real life and it's not likely to happen by 2050.

This is a great game, IMHO. Some people want more realism, some want alien invasion. I just want the most fun game and I don't think of Civ3 as a world domination simulator.

With that said, railroads should take longer to build and cost something so you would work to connect cities but wouldn't be likely to commit the time and money putting them absolutely everywhere.

 

[Lieutenant Dan]

I agree with most of what Zouave is saying. I just hope Firaxis keeps those new patches coming, keeping in mind of what Civ fanatics like us have been complaining about.

 

[Jersey Joe]

I think that the inept advisors you are saddled with is the most unrealistic element in the game. Only the military advisor offers any useful information. As for the other advisors, they are only good for fertilizer.

 

[TOM_ASS]

I THINK THAT UOR COMPARISON WHIT THE HOLOCAUST IS KIND OF NAZI

APPART IF THE GAME WAS TOTTALY REAL IT WOULD BE A GAME
THE RAZE OPTIONWOULD MAKE THE GAME SLOWER IF U HAD TO WAIT FOR THE SLAYING OF THE POPULATION OF A CITY APPART KILLING CIVILIANS WHEN TAKING A CITY IT'S NOT COMPULSERY. ALLSO U HAVE TO TAKE IN ACCOUNT THAT EVERY UNIT IS A DIVISION OF THAT UNIT, FOR EXAMPLE A CAVALRY UNIT IS A CAVALRY DIVISION AND U DON'T NEED MORE THAN THAT TO TAKE PRISIONER OR EVEN TO EXECUTE THEM IN A SMALL TO A MODERATE SIZE CITY!

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by davidky5
The topic is self-explanatory

1. Bombers can't sink even a galley (as we all know.)

2. Razing the City: My God, This option is totally out of whack. I conquered a size 24 city with one cavalry, and I "accidentally" clicked the Raze Button, and voila!, that metropolis is a goner. A single group of cavalry killing 3 million in a single turn? The Nazis barely managed to exterminate 6 million Jews over 6 years, and that involved more than 15 concentration camps. The new patch must prohibit razing cities and metropolises, as opposed to towns.

3. Cultural Subversion: Even though 1.17f patch says one can repress the cultural subversion with enough military units, this still represent another unrealistic element, nevertheless. If the same was the case with reality, English colony in India, and German 5-year-long occupation in France during WWII would haev been impossible, and Germany would have wasted its Panzer division not in Russia, but in Paris.

4. Resources: Coal and Iron are about two of the most abundant resources in this planet, but in the entire HUGE MAP, one sees only one coal and two iron per each civ. Even Gems are more abundant than coal, and they never run out. And Uranium? Humans built nuclear plant as a replacement for Oil Plant for a reason.

5. Resource Usage: One Iron mine is enough to supply the entire civilization of 32 cities?

6. Movement: Cavalry has 3 movement point, same as a Panzer, while Tank and Mech. Infantry have 2. If that was true in history, Blitzkrieg would have been invented not by Guderian, but by Napoelon. Seriously, how can a horse run faster than a jeep (mech. infantry, with APC is capable of 50+mph), or a motorized vehicles?

7. City Radius and City Specialization Why is it that one cannot extract resources from tiles that does not belong to any of the cities? If such concept is applied into the real world, Los Angeles (surrounded by deserts) would never get enough food to supply its citizens, and would be reduced into a size 20 city. Where would the city get its shield and commerce? From deserts surrounding them, I don't think so.

8. Railroad No nations in history ever covered its entire land with railroad. Not only was it dreadfully expensive, they did not have that much resources, which brings us to the next point

9. Workers and Tile Improvements : Once you build workers, you can basically build anything in the surrounding tile for free. Road construction, irrigating squares. they cost nothing, and there is no fee for maintenance. How in the world did I paint my entire continent (that covers 1/8 of the world) with railroad with only one source of coal and iron? No one knows.

These are the aspects of the games that I find having no relevance at all to the development of our real Human civilization.

Any comment, and addition of the list would be appreciated.

Well, this thread has been exhumed. So a few more comments. . .

The fact that Firaxis marketed a game where bombers couldn't even sink a galley was insulting. And it took them three patches to fix it. Meanwhile those of us who played the beta game had to deal with that idiocy.

Razing cities is FANTASYLAND. A single damaged unit can make a city or even metropolis vanish, process all the corpses neatly, and not even leave the rubble as we have a nice grassland tile to immediately irrigate. It's not only ridiculous it promotes genocide as with the Culture Flipping crap we have to raze conquered cities.

You're right about France in WW II. The Germans would have had to keep their entire army in Paris to prevent it Flipping to the British! It's preposterous and totally non-historical.

I was posting ages ago the game's very low appearance rates for coal and iron were a joke. No war ever was fought over an iron mine; it is too abundant. Yes, one iron mine can supply your entire civ FOREVER, theoretically. It has a chance of being depeleted, but I once had one become "exhausted" after two turns with a road on it and nothing requiring iron was built.

Cavalry?? Why does cavalry have the same defense factor as knights? One is armed with rifles and the other doesn't even know what gunpowder its?!

Railroads. Good point. The idea that you have to cover EVERY tile with RR's to get the increase in production is crazy. It would drain your iron resources terribly, be insanely expensive, and screw up your environment.

Of course we shouldbe able to extract resources and food from tiles that do NOT belong to a given city. This was one of the changes from Civ 2 I expected to see in Civ 3. Nope.

There's a lot of other stuff relating to the ridiculous unit values, too few units, too few techs, and other things, that make Civ 3 a step backward from Civ 2.

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by davidky5
The topic is self-explanatory

1. Bombers can't sink even a galley (as we all know.)

They can if you configure lethal bombardment for naval.

4. Resources: Coal and Iron are about two of the most abundant resources in this planet, but in the entire HUGE MAP, one sees only one coal and two iron per each civ. Even Gems are more abundant than coal, and they never run out. And Uranium? Humans built nuclear plant as a replacement for Oil Plant for a reason.

[/B]

IMHO the problem on a huge map (or other map with fewer civs configured) is that the game allocates resources per civ, not per tile of the map , so on a map where the civs are sparce, the resources get very thin. It is frustrating when the nearest iron tile is 80 tiles away. It is also unrealistic. Resources should not be more scarce on a planet if there are fewer people inhabiting it. The game map should be generated with the same per tile ratio of resources, no matter how many civs there are.

And therefore I think the editor should have a "per tile" resource field instead of a "per civ" one.

 

[Maple]

Originally posted by TOM_ASS
I THINK THAT UOR COMPARISON WHIT THE HOLOCAUST IS KIND OF NAZI

APPART IF THE GAME WAS TOTTALY REAL IT WOULD BE A GAME
THE RAZE OPTIONWOULD MAKE THE GAME SLOWER IF U HAD TO WAIT FOR THE SLAYING OF THE POPULATION OF A CITY APPART KILLING CIVILIANS WHEN TAKING A CITY IT'S NOT COMPULSERY. ALLSO U HAVE TO TAKE IN ACCOUNT THAT EVERY UNIT IS A DIVISION OF THAT UNIT, FOR EXAMPLE A CAVALRY UNIT IS A CAVALRY DIVISION AND U DON'T NEED MORE THAN THAT TO TAKE PRISIONER OR EVEN TO EXECUTE THEM IN A SMALL TO A MODERATE SIZE CITY!

Please don't use all caps in your post. It makes it seem as if you are yelling. (Even if you are, don't post in caps)


EDIT: Yay!!! Post #300!!

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by TOM_ASS
I THINK THAT UOR COMPARISON WHIT THE HOLOCAUST IS KIND OF NAZI

APPART IF THE GAME WAS TOTTALY REAL IT WOULD BE A GAME
THE RAZE OPTIONWOULD MAKE THE GAME SLOWER IF U HAD TO WAIT FOR THE SLAYING OF THE POPULATION OF A CITY APPART KILLING CIVILIANS WHEN TAKING A CITY IT'S NOT COMPULSERY. ALLSO U HAVE TO TAKE IN ACCOUNT THAT EVERY UNIT IS A DIVISION OF THAT UNIT, FOR EXAMPLE A CAVALRY UNIT IS A CAVALRY DIVISION AND U DON'T NEED MORE THAN THAT TO TAKE PRISIONER OR EVEN TO EXECUTE THEM IN A SMALL TO A MODERATE SIZE CITY!

Yea. No caps.


So, it takes too long to slaughter millions of people, so Firaxis, in its infinite "wisdom" decided to throw reality out the window and allow millions to be instantly slaughtered to keep the game moving!

Jeez. Suspend reality to be better able to implement a demented and crazy concept! Now that's logical!

Hey, if Firaxis cared about the game being slow and tedious in the Modern era I can think of about two dozen things they could have done other than promote the easy and ridiculously unrealistic mass slaughter of millions. Of course with patch 1.21 Firaxis just made the game slower!

 

[Doc Mahem]

I agree with all of davids problems. But there's a problem with "fixing" it too.

Half of the complaints on these forums are people saying it's too hard.

The other half say it's unrealistic.

Those two objectives are, unfortunately, mutually exlusive to a large degree.

 

[Myartar]

Guess I just like unrealistic games, but I like the 'raze' option, and Zouave, you should too. With that crazy culture flipping you hate so much, this give you the option of not haveing to deal with your newly conquered city going back to the enemy and getting a whole new garrison. You simply wipe it out. And why look at it as all those people are killed? I don't see a city as where all 2 million or however many people live, i mean, they don't all live on that one tile. Way I see it, they live on all tiles covered by the culture radius. I mean, you have people working those tiles around the city, do the farmers commute from the city to thier fields? You wanna talk about unrealistic..... Your cities are major cities, manufactuing and social centers. Raw materials(shields) are mined from surrounding villages. Food is grown by surrounding farming hamlets. Commerce developed by trade with the major city. So you can destroy the center, and everyone else just scatters to the wind. That's just how I see it, but I'm sure you think that's too unrealistic?

As far as coal and iron, if they were really abundant lot's of people(including me) would complain about that. If thier appearance ratios bother you that much, you can alter them w/ the editor.

With railroads, once agian, look at it in perspective with the idea that people live on every tile in the culture radius and the rail bonus is b/c it gets the materals and food to the city quicker, so every square would need RR to recieve to bonus.

As someone said a while back about this game being unrealistic, if it was realistic, it would be so boring and stupid, we would wanna play. This person's example was you send your army off to fight a battle, you wait 15 years and when you're on your death bed your army returns and find out you lost the battle. If I wanna know what running a country is really like, I'll start an oil bussiness, buy my way into politics and steal a presidental election!