What European country is the closest to winning today ?

[Robert Mokler]

That's true, but it would at least take Hamburg out of the running for legendary status - as there were precious few buildings of any sort left standing after the RAF was through with it...

 

[AdamCrock]

Now maybe if we would combine some German engineering, Greco-Roman culture, Russian Rex-ing etc. (take all things best from all European nations) and combine it all together forming some sort of an unified European Empire we could get somewhere ... near China

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Now maybe if we would combine some German engineering, Greco-Roman culture, Russian Rex-ing etc. (take all things best from all European nations) and combine it all together forming some sort of an unified European Empire we could get somewhere ... near China

The China scare is, well, just a scare. Economically, despite all their problems, the EU is somewhere near double China in GNP. Their only real advantage is a huge population, but unlike Civ in the real world post industrialism you can't whip them into hammers.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Their only real advantage is a huge population, but unlike Civ in the real world post industrialism you can't whip them into hammers.

Didn't stop them from trying though.

 

[sinimusta]

Mao's and Stalin's policies I think are closest to civ4-like whipping. I imagine the whips(for infra) as projects with high death rate explaining the lost pop and whipping troops as very harsh military training.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Mao's and Stalin's policies I think are closest to civ4-like whipping. I imagine the whips(for infra) as projects with high death rate explaining the lost pop and whipping troops as very harsh military training.

I don't think Mao or Stalin 'whipped for hammers'. Their objective was to just 'whip away' the unhappy citizens without creating more unhappiness. The objective (in Civ terms) being to take the drain of the unhappy citizens off the food supply so they could 'run more specialists'. Unfortunately for them I think they found that 'whipping away' the unhappy citizens did actually create more unhappiness, just as Civ models it. Hopefully the conservative movements in other countries will take note.

 

[Iranon]

Germany and the Soviet Union certainly whipped for hammers. During parts of WW2, forced labour accounted for a quarter of the German workforce, and a significant part of the output. It played a significant part in the SU's rapid industrialisation.

Both whipped excessively and inefficiencly... apparently the German player misunderstood the culture mechanics and the Russian one the happiness mechanics.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Germany and the Soviet Union certainly whipped for hammers. During parts of WW2, forced labour accounted for a quarter of the German workforce, and a significant part of the output. It played a significant part in the SU's rapid industrialisation.

Both whipped excessively and inefficiencly... apparently the German player misunderstood the culture mechanics and the Russian one the happiness mechanics.

Actually the game mechanics are just a poor reflection of forced labor. Forced labor works great...in agriculture. Once you reach industry, or even artisan crafting, it really doesn't work effectively. Every society throughout history has learned that, most of them the hard way.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Actually the game mechanics are just a poor reflection of forced labor. Forced labor works great...in agriculture. Once you reach industry, or even artisan crafting, it really doesn't work effectively. Every society throughout history has learned that, most of them the hard way.

How about Mining, lumbering, and building railroads?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How about Mining, lumbering, and building railroads?

Worked okay pre-industrial, but once machinery gets involved you really can't afford to have forced labor. One machine, or even a horse, does the work of too many slaves, and is too valuable to let a slave run it...or get near it for that matter.

When mining was a bunch of guys in a hole with picks, and a bunch more guys carrying rocks...forced labor.

When lumbering involved pushing big logs on rollers made of little logs...forced labor.

Building railroads was mostly done with cheap labor, not forced labor, though the conditions were probably as bad or worse. Most of what we consider abhorrent today (blood diamonds and Asian factories for example) is probably closer to this kind of cheap labor than any of them are to actual forced labor. 'Do this work or starve since there is no other' is a very strong incentive, but it isn't slavery.

 

[Iranon]

There's a flaw in that argument: Slave labour doesn't have to be unqualified.
Skilled slaves were valuable in antiquity - several years of their expected income had they been free. Educators for example were highly valued in Rome, but it wasn't an attractive position to Roman citizens with the qualifications. Hence, often done by valued and respected Greek slaves.

Slaves also weren't entirely devoid of rights (Other Roman examples: There were procedures enabling slaves to force their sale. And there were restrictions on new buyers - e.g. the owner had to show a slave misbehaved quite badly if they wanted to sell them to a pimp or gladiator trainer).

As a rule, slavery in industrialised nations just didn't concern itself solely with economic efficiency - correction, coercion, extinction may have been the prime motives and forced labour the means rather than the end.
Often there's a split. In Nazi Germany, forced labour ranged from "sustainable, wages and conditions comparable to German workers... apart from the lack of freedom" to "worked to death in months". Neither was a rare exception, it mostly depended on where the victims were from.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There's a flaw in that argument: Slave labour doesn't have to be unqualified.

Slave labor also doesn't have to be forced labor. The Roman slaves were certainly 'second class' compared to citizens, but they were very seldom subjected to forced labor. A Roman slave generally had much better living conditions than 'free people' outside Roman territory, and for the most part they knew it. It may be better to rule in hell than serve in heaven, but serving in Rome beat starving in the wilderness hands down.

Slavery can work in an industrial economy. Similar to Rome a trade of freedom for security and sustenance is basically what makes Asian factories work, and while most westerners find the conditions unacceptable they do work. However they aren't reflected in the 'trade population for instant production' mechanics of Civ. That requires forced labor, which doesn't work in any process with sufficient complexity to be vulnerable to sabotage.

If you were a fighter pilot would you fly a plane built by forced labor into combat? That's where things started to go wrong for Nazi Germany. They could not make up in forced labor for the fact that there were just not enough Germans to sustain their war.

 

[Antilogic]

You are american, right? ...

Stereotypes about ignorant Americans aside, one thing the US requires all grade school students to learn are the states and their capitals, which often are not the major cities in the state. This means that the average US kid will be able to rattle off tons of city names that foreigners don't particularly care about, while only being able to name a handful of cities (or just one) in any particular foreign country.

Also, didn't Rome got invaded by the Barbarians? I think that would have been a really hard hit for the culture there I only remember like all great buildings being totally demolished and think I remember something of Barbarians having actually be the end of the roman culture.

British Empire @ 25% of the world's land area and 20% of its population. I don't think any other empire has even gotten close to that land area share, but of course that point is past.

I'd have to agree that Italy may be closest to the cultural vc, if it has not qualified already. Paris and Rome might be neck-and-neck, but Italian cities pull ahead as a group.

Britain had the largest disconnected empire by land area, and the Mongols the largest contiguous empire. No civilization has won a conquest or domination victory if you are counting the entire world map, and other victory types are obviously disqualified for any number of reasons.

Even if you are insistent on looking at culture through civ's framework, considering that France has three world wonders in two different cities. Italy doesn't have any!

Can I be the first to point out how arbitrary the list of wonders is and that it has changed even in different incarnations of Civ?

They had been on something of a loosing streak since Napolean's defeat at Waterloo. Lost Franco-Prussian war decisively. Was getting a draw in WW I (with assistance of British) until US joined war. Capitulated to Germany in WW II until US (w/British (& some Canadian)) help got France to the limits to break free and then gave them back their cities. Lost Indochina war (then got US to loose it too.) So France got rep as militarily ineffective.

Poland's WW II performance (cavalry vs tanks) made its WW II performance something of a joke.

Other countries listed were simply too small to withstand the Nazi juggernaut

At least the slave labor debate isn't terrible.

 

[drewisfat]

If the world wonder list is arbitrary and should be discounted then so too should culture system that civ has, as it can change version to version and clearly isn't a great representation of culture. After all literary, artistic, musical, culinary and fashion contributions are not really implemented, yet would be what you think of as culture.

So both going with what country you'd expect to have a culture victory in real life or have one according to civ's terms, France is winning.

 

[Antilogic]

If the world wonder list is arbitrary and should be discounted then so too should culture system that civ has, as it can change version to version and clearly isn't a great representation of culture. After all literary, artistic, musical, culinary and fashion contributions are not really implemented, yet would be what you think of as culture.

That's the crux of the problem--the Civ game rules take something real and concrete and abstract it, and then we are reverse-engineering the process. This thread is basically the Backstroke of the West of Civ gaming.