While We Wait: Part 2

[Lord_Iggy]

I just make my updates as long as I want them. An early update where little happened was 350 years long, one filled with war may be only a few decades.

Frankly, it's not that important to make dates totally accurate and realistic. We're based off of the game Civilization, not reality.

But one idea I had:

An update will have domestic events and nonmilitary things. People at war will then have microupdates between the domestic updates. Their orders will be something like: Advance up the enemy's flank using mobile tactics (though knowing you guys, it'll still probably be multiple PMs ). The other person may say: Set up defensive positions near this river and that mountain range, use logical counterforces to stall the enemy and make them bleed for every inch.

Then the moderator will write up what happens, more mini war orders are sent, and the NES goes on. At the end of the week, a new domestic update is written (along with a summary of all of the wars). The pattern continues.

Thoughts?

 

[Niklas]

Sounds a lot like what Dis was proposing, although possibly at an even finer scale. As always, it's a very good idea if it works, but it gives both players and mod a lot of work.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

No, the mini-updates don't have to be very detailed. Maybe there could be a limit to the number of mini-updates per week.

 

[North King]

I do have a minor idea for this. Instead of mini updates, the moderator could merely determine what happens immediately, PM the players as to the situation of the battle, and find out their general plan for each battle. This would not be nearly as detailed as what others are proposing, but it would be quite manageable, I think.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

I do have a minor idea for this. Instead of mini updates, the moderator could merely determine what happens immediately, PM the players as to the situation of the battle, and find out their general plan for each battle. This would not be nearly as detailed as what others are proposing, but it would be quite manageable, I think.

I suggested this a few posts back. It would be even better if all parties involved could get together on IRC, and send snap orders as the situation evolved.

 

[Birdjaguar]

1. Inquiry: "Briefly describe your plans for the next 1, 5, 10, 20, and 30 years, in that order and describing their overall importance." [PROMPT]
2. Collate Responses. [COLLECTION]
3. Evaluate overall scale of action for each time projection. [EVALUATION]
4. Select the lowest of the scales that has a high quantity of action. [JUDGMENT]
5. Statement: "The upcoming turn will cover X years," where X is the value you decided. [EXECUTION]
6. Repeat as necessary. [LOOP]

The important part is JUDGMENT. It could be more (longer) than the lowest with some action if that action is fairly weak. If you have players getting some number of EP/year, or per number of years (the base temporal resolution, likely) then have them multiply that by however many units greater the turn itself will be. The only difficulty is collecting the responses. On the other hand, it will weed out people who don't really want to play, and most games take more than a week between updates now anyway, so there's plenty of time to actually do so.

Or, you can just cut the players out of it entirely and decrease it (or increase it) at your own prerogative, if that's too much work, and simply inform them of what it will be. The moderator tends to have some idea of what's going on and can roughly adjust the flow of time as necessary themselves.

A fluid system is quite possible if one's willing to work for it.

It is an interesting approach. Let's pretend a minute.

On turn one all 10 players send in orders mapping out 30 years worth of plans. 8 of those players' orders fit nicely into a 20 year time horizon (resolution/turn scale). Two players go to war in the second year of the turn and that war is probably going to last 2 years.

As the mod, I determine that the war is significant enough to warrant a scale that permits an upddate. The first update then will cover 3 years: the first year and 2 years of war.

So once I have written that update, do I post it and then write another update for the remaining 17 years and post that? Or once I have posted the first one, do players get to rewrite their orders in light of the first update actions and outcomes?

Or have I missed something about the way you see this working?

 

[Birdjaguar]

No, no, you don't understand. People aren't just acting off of the same base desires--that wasn't my point. Most people think just as quickly. Events, contrary to the belief that seems to be held, do not advance more quickly. Time has not sped up. The only reason to break years into shorter and shorter turns would then be to accommodate more events occurring in a single year, and even this is not so. Just because people take days where they would take minutes to get from place to place does not make things happen faster. Warfare still takes years to fully carry out: the occupation of even a small country like Iraq has been taking years; the ground war is fought quicker, yes, but that hardly means the war is over, as we are discovering to our sorrow. Cultural changes, and the big changes, are happening just as quickly or slowly as they did in the olden days, because people generally resist change, and the big things, those that involve the change of societies, must then wait for those people to fade away and be replaced: the generational length. This happens to be roughly the same for all of history. The simple stuff, like sending a package around the world, might happen much faster. An army can deploy much faster. But culture does not change faster, and culture is ultimately the true storyline of history.

I tend to agree with NK in this. But one effect of modernization and population growth is that more stuff can happen in a year because there are more people, more nations, more interactions that are significant.

 

[Symphony D.]

Bullcrap. This is going to make you rant and rave for half an hour, but it's true: not all that much has changed. The most significant technological change of the past century has been the computer, and that is arguably the only important change, as it allows us to automate much of what previously had to be manual. Prior to that, I challenge the assertion that advancements are that impressive. Humanity has seen only a few landmark changes: language in the last 50,000 years, civilization in the last 10,000. If you want to subdivide it, the Bronze Age was from 5000-c. 1500; the Iron age lasts nearly to the present day. The toys of the Industrial Revolution were really just extensions and harnessing of the power and mechanical resources that were already there in the Iron Age. We're still looking for more efficient ways to turn things and send things flying.

Unlocking the power of the sun. Being able to generate micro-black holes in experiments involving terrawatts of electricity. Building lasers that can outshine the sun. Modern medicine that can extend human lifespan by double or triple what it was previously, or even farther. Being able to manipulate matter on the molecular level. Being able to rewrite the human genome line by line. Landing a man on the Moon. Sending probes beyond the boundaries of the Solar System. Splitting the atom. Being able to communicate with anyone anywhere else on Earth instantly.

Surely none of these things, nor none of the millions of other things you and I now take for granted, have any effect on the impact of the way things unfold in this world, whatsoever. No, none of the above are more impressive than finding new and ever more clever ways to assemble rocks into piles of varying shapes and sizes as our distant ancestors did.

When an event happens now, everyone can know of it. Most people can even resolve to do something about it. The scale of response to world news, or local news, or what have you, is implicitly larger than it ever was previously. Similarly, the decision-making process is larger, and I don't just mean in a governmental sense, in which case you could write it off as a product of culture, I mean on an individual basis, people are not infinitely better able to receive information and capitalize on it. Whether they do or not is a different matter, assuredly, but the potential is there. Potential that is used occasionally, and was not at all possible previously.

I'm not saying some new world-shaking event occurs every year. It doesn't. What I am saying is that the flow of information now, and the tools with which to exploit that information, are magnitudes of order vaster, and accordingly, each event, no matter how temporally local it might appear from the future, becomes that much more involved and important in shaping the events that come after.

But culture does not change faster, and culture is ultimately the true storyline of history.

Culture is also built on events and on its surroundings. It does not just exist in some vacuum removed from these things. They influence it, and it influences them. You are not simply American or Chinese in some void without America or China and the places and events that made them what they are. You don't just suddenly step from Tang China to Ming China, or Interwar American to Counterculture American. Culture does not exist without its respective events. Culture is not just this eternal thing, separate from its origins or goings on, it's part of a feedback loop. Culture causes event, event modifies Culture, Culture causes event. Neither comes first, they evolve and occur together.

To simply assert that culture is all that matters and that its contemporary co-products in the form of technology, or beliefs, or events caused by it are simply secondary is to write off half the picture. The true storyline of history is all of history itself. There is no little aspect that receives infinitely higher priority than anything else in it. That culture is also permanently in flux. There is not some point at which you can pin it down and say "It believed universally in exactly these things in these particular flavors." It's always changing. At a more or less constant pace as you said, yes. I'm not disputing that.

What I am disputing here is that NES is not ultimately a story about culture, because you can't really write updates about culture. Players can, but the moderator can't, and shouldn't. I do not want to hear that Chicken Dim Sum is particularly popular in Hong Kong in 1973. I don't care that the Bikini was just invented by some Parisian. NESing as it is related by the moderator is inherently event driven. Culture is invoked in the motives of those events or in the stories of the players. One could claim that the events are derived from the pattern of the culture the player stands for, presumably, all though that assumes a lot about the roleplaying of the player.

In the context of NESing then, you especially cannot simply write off events and their impactors as unimportant. That is precisely what a standardized turn timer for all time does. And that is exactly why it's completely unacceptable.

[EDIT] Let me state what I'm saying here a little more plainly: cultures are not the storyline. Cultures are acting troupes sharing a stage. Events are plot-points. Inventions are props. The storyline is all of that together. To ignore parts of it is to diminish the whole.

It is an interesting approach. Let's pretend a minute.

On turn one all 10 players send in orders mapping out 30 years worth of plans. 8 of those players' orders fit nicely into a 20 year time horizon (resolution/turn scale). Two players go to war in the second year of the turn and that war is probably going to last 2 years.

As the mod, I determine that the war is significant enough to warrant a scale that permits an upddate. The first update then will cover 3 years: the first year and 2 years of war.

So once I have written that update, do I post it and then write another update for the remaining 17 years and post that? Or once I have posted the first one, do players get to rewrite their orders in light of the first update actions and outcomes?

Or have I missed something about the way you see this working?

Practically, I would say that depends on outside factors. If it's technologically primitive age, it will take news of the war and its outcomes to reach other locations, and how far away they are, and factoring those in should determine which of the two was selected. Theoretically, I would say that by deeming the war significant you had opted for it as the resolution of that particular turn, and should thus should reassess player objectives to determine the next resolution scale.

 

[North King]

Symphony, your post is near nonsensical, because you're taking the debate into an avenue where I never even went. You're responding to claims that weren't made, and frothing at the mouth at shadows. I was going to respond to it line by line, but responding to it by saying such and such simply was not what I said does not appeal to me; hence, I will summarize it:

You insult our ancestors by implying that their inability to use modern technology somehow made their events less important. Furthermore, more than half the inventions you cite were after what I said was probably the most important technological innovation after the Iron Age: electronics. I do understand that they have changed things: I acknowledged that. What I dispute is that technology has so changed over the course of history that we must use decreasing turn lengths; it is simply not true.

Furthermore, you seem to think I place no importance on events. I never wrote off events as unimportant; you are twisting my words. I am saying that culture is the background upon which all stories are placed upon; it is the fluid story that all of this is projected on. Events are important, obviously; if I thought otherwise I would not be on this forum, nor playing these games.

You have completely misunderstood my usage of the word "culture". I do not mean the way every single human being has lived; I do not mean compiling a library of food and drink; I mean world cultures and their members. World cultures clashing defines the course of history: it is the events, the swirls and eddies of these cultural transformations that make our story. It is the story of every man, and it includes warfare, politics, but above all, it is the way people think. The way people think defines the way they make history, for people are ultimately constrained by their world-view. People change slowly, if at all. And about every 20 years, the members of society are replaced by the fact that most of them have had children: the generations. This is the key: this is why I have suggested twenty years as a constant. Most major events can be defined in twenty year cycles: the time it takes for manpower pools to be replenished, roughly, the time it takes for a new group to take power in every nation.

That is why, not some stupid belief that the world never changes, not some belief that the world is constant and marching onward without much excitement. I never said that. There is drama and tension in a clash of world cultures. Argue against what is there, not what you want to argue against.

Also, honestly, how are the events of the last twenty years any more important to world history than Alexander's Conquests? Obviously you see them as more relevant: because you are alive today. The modernist bias is undeniable.

 

[Symphony D.]

Moving from coarser to finer points so that my arguments cannot be simply written off by the wave of a hand and my concluding point is at the end...

You insult our ancestors by implying that their inability to use modern technology somehow made their events less important.

For all your accusations of my ability to twist what you say, you're remarkably adept at it too. I did not insult them, I said their activities were rather limited to building large piles of rocks. If you would care to dispute this, when their most lasting direct accomplishments include things such as Stonehenge or the Pyramids, which are rather impressive to this day and difficult if not nigh-impossible to duplicate, feel free. You may, of course, bring up oh, I don't know, horse domestication or corn, or any number of other things if you want as a counterpoint, instead of trying to smear and deride me and instead engaging in a real discussion.

Also, honestly, how are the events of the last twenty years any more important to world history than Alexander's Conquests? Obviously you see them as more relevant: because you are alive today. The modernist bias is undeniable.

OK, since you're so big on emphasizing claims that were never made to write off the opposing side's arguments, when exactly did I ever mention that I was so enamored with the the past 20 years exclusively? I referenced the Cold War and the 20th Century. I wasn't born in 1940 or 1901, North King. I didn't spend particularly much time living through the bulk of events of either for me to regard them as sacrosanct to the universe, and I have never once in my arguments referenced the events in my lifetime solely and exclusively, thank you.

Furthermore, more than half the inventions you cite were after what I said was probably the most important technological innovation after the Iron Age: electronics. I do understand that they have changed things: I acknowledged that. What I dispute is that technology has so changed over the course of history that we must use decreasing turn lengths; it is simply not true.

Oh, only half.

Allow me to toss some expert opinion in on the subject. A civilization's capability is ultimately measured by the power it can wield and utilize to do work; work in this case being whatever it wants to do. It's mainly a predictive scale used for estimating the capabilities of extraterrestrials, but it's remarkably useful for estimating the future (and past) of humanity as well.

At around 0BC, the human race had a sum total power output of 10,000,000W, or 10MW. Today, it produces 10,000,000,000,000 or 10TW. As an example, approximately 5,000 PCs take 1MW to power. A single RBMK-1000 nuclear reactor at Chernobyl produces 1000MW. There were four of them initially.

So that means that a single nuclear reactor today could theoretically produce all the power requirements for 100 Earths at the time of Christ. Or that with all the power on Earth back then you could power all of 50,000 PCs. Today we could power 100,000 of those Earths.

That is what you are failing to comprehend in terms of our technology. It's not just bombs, it's not just planes, or spaceships, or cars, or iPods. It's work. We can simply do far more than they could. And that ability only continues to increase as time goes on. It is the capability of that power to alter the fabric of society through consumer goods and quality of life, let alone through direct events of whatever nature, that sets us apart from previous ages, because power builds on power, and power grows. That is why Civilization slows the game down, and why I suggest doing so too: more power. More resources. More to do. More to control.

Feel free to look at recent values or do some further reading on the matter.

As a side note, your example of electronics is also excepting the fact that the single greatest innovation in the field of electronics--the transistor and the integrated circuit--weren't invented until the 1960s, and the chief driving force of the computer industry (which at the time produced mainframes and supercomputers) was the defense industry, chiefly out of the need to simulate nuclear weapons, thus making the atomic bomb the reason why the computer took off initially, and the further development of the Internet (by DARPA--again, out of concerns over nuclear war) to make the PC finally boom in the 1990s, decades later. So no, in fact, the most important technological innovation after the Iron Age, by your standards, would be the Atom Bomb, and I would rather fit the Steam Engine, among several other things, like oh, I don't know, Electricity or Space Flight in there too, given the above.

Furthermore, you seem to think I place no importance on events. I never wrote off events as unimportant; you are twisting my words. I am saying that culture is the background upon which all stories are placed upon; it is the fluid story that all of this is projected on. Events are important, obviously; if I thought otherwise I would not be on this forum, nor playing these games.

Yet not as important as this backstory of culture. Your own implication twice now, the second time in the above. You continue to place this interplay of cultures as of greater importance in the context of history as a whole.

Fine. Great. I don't care as to how you view the world. Your application of that viewpoint to NESing however remains inherently flawed. NESing remains event-driven, not culture-driven, and that viewpoint does not apply as a result unless the game is radically altered from its present form.

You have completely misunderstood my usage of the word "culture". I do not mean the way every single human being has lived; I do not mean compiling a library of food and drink; I mean world cultures and their members. World cultures clashing defines the course of history: it is the events, the swirls and eddies of these cultural transformations that make our story. It is the story of every man, and it includes warfare, politics, but above all, it is the way people think. The way people think defines the way they make history, for people are ultimately constrained by their world-view. People change slowly, if at all. And about every 20 years, the members of society are replaced by the fact that most of them have had children: the generations. This is the key: this is why I have suggested twenty years as a constant. Most major events can be defined in twenty year cycles: the time it takes for manpower pools to be replenished, roughly, the time it takes for a new group to take power in every nation.

It is indeed totally my fault you used a very selective interpretation of a word with a very wide range of meanings and I didn't pick up on it. Sorry.

So nice of you to disambiguate what exactly that means too. What is an example of a world culture? The West? Anglo-Speakers? Slavs? The Muslim world? Something along those lines? Large, somewhat-associated groups of similar values interacting globally? Because if so ultimately NESing has jack-all to do with "world cultures" either. It is about individual countries. It very often does not matter if they share religions, history, or race between them in how their actions will unfold. These tend to be viewed as items of convenience in forming ties, not as the root causes for them. Ultimately it is not about what the country wants, it is about what the player behind the country wants, and what they choose to use a reason to get there.

There are no world cultures in NESing, unless you want to assume perfect roleplaying. There are players. Unless you want to set the two equal to each other for points of discussion, then the latter totally overrides the former in actual gameplay, rendering the consideration of the former worthless on the subject of the game. It isn't at all a justification for a rule like a timescale.

You want to present a case on something absolute that isn't different between reality and NESing? Make it on the generational case alone.

From that standpoint, which is very clear and not tainted by all this other crap, I would say you have a good point. Giving each generation a single turn is pretty simple and fair, and is a fairly good marker of time, at least until people start living longer and dying less.

But I would conjecture it's still completely unappealing and the resolution is too coarse for an event-driven game, particularly in terms of warfare. It results in one of two outcomes: updates that are either entirely too sparse in terms of events for any age relative to a real-life analogue, or updates that are entirely too long to produce. You can get rid of events of lesser importance to cut down on it but still much of the interplay of international relations that makes such a large time period interesting--and produces many of the events--gets lost too.

I just do not see a single timescale working, at least not that big. It creates about as many problems as it solves, with no real benefits. Again, it's a compromise that pleases nobody.

 

[Nylan]

Just one thing Symph. Can you give me a statistic showing that more wars happen or are longer in modern times than in the past? If they were more frequent or longer, they would need more updates than others. If not...

 

[Kal'thzar]

I'm inclined to suggest that neither of you will convince either of each others viewpoint;

I would sumrise that Sympth's conclusions are partly due to his use of the OODA loop, and hence the fact that he has more information and must perform this loop multiple times before reaching a conclusion in the modern era (where things rapidly change, and communcation is extremly fast) etc force him to wish for shorter time periods to be covered as more information and so on is avialable for use.

thus Increased ability to perform actions; results in shorter time spans to focus on the multitude of actions equally.

Whilst NK is merely concerned with the story, and the evolution of the world as a whole. The fact that he has to perform more loops for actions later in the game are to him irrelevant, earlier time periods can be just as intresting as later time periods.

Anyway, why I suggested that you two will never be able to agree is simply because as Sympth has stated he dislikes fresh starts. Whilst NK seems to be very intrested in them (quite a few NES's etc). Your both trying to gain something different from the NES.

 

[North King]

OK, since you're so big on emphasizing claims that were never made to write off the opposing side's arguments, when exactly did I ever mention that I was so enamored with the the past 20 years exclusively? I referenced the Cold War and the 20th Century. I wasn't born in 1940 or 1901, North King. I didn't spend particularly much time living through the bulk of events of either for me to regard them as sacrosanct to the universe, and I have never once in my arguments referenced the events in my lifetime solely and exclusively, thank you.

Do you somehow deny that the events of the last few years are more important to the modern world? Obviously history increases in direct relevance to the present world as it comes closer to the present day. However, in NESes, we move through history, making every time period the "present day". Thus, ALL time periods are highly relevant.

As a side note, your example of electronics is also excepting the fact that the single greatest innovation in the field of electronics--the transistor and the integrated circuit--weren't invented until the 1960s, and the chief driving force of the computer industry (which at the time produced mainframes and supercomputers) was the defense industry, chiefly out of the need to simulate nuclear weapons, thus making the atomic bomb the reason why the computer took off initially, and the further development of the Internet (by DARPA--again, out of concerns over nuclear war) to make the PC finally boom in the 1990s, decades later. So no, in fact, the most important technological innovation after the Iron Age, by your standards, would be the Atom Bomb,

The computer would have taken off without the atomic bomb (being highly useful). So I do not view the atomic bomb as the most important.

Yet not as important as this backstory of culture. Your own implication twice now, the second time in the above. You continue to place this interplay of cultures as of greater importance in the context of history as a whole.

The interplays of cultures ARE events. Most world events cannot be explained except in the context of these; they are intricately intertwined, but one is still caused by the other.

Fine. Great. I don't care as to how you view the world. Your application of that viewpoint to NESing however remains inherently flawed. NESing remains event-driven, not culture-driven, and that viewpoint does not apply as a result unless the game is radically altered from its present form.

NESing remains driven by the history of the world, and once again, events are not separated from culture. They are different things, but there is nothing in the world which stops cultures from creating events.

It is indeed totally my fault you used a very selective interpretation of a word with a very wide range of meanings and I didn't pick up on it. Sorry.

Symphony, if I am not specific enough for you, then please ask me to clarify.

So nice of you to disambiguate what exactly that means too. What is an example of a world culture? The West? Anglo-Speakers? Slavs? The Muslim world? Something along those lines? Large, somewhat-associated groups of similar values interacting globally? Because if so ultimately NESing has jack-all to do with "world cultures" either. It is about individual countries. It very often does not matter if they share religions, history, or race between them in how their actions will unfold. These tend to be viewed as items of convenience in forming ties, not as the root causes for them. Ultimately it is not about what the country wants, it is about what the player behind the country wants, and what they choose to use a reason to get there.

There are no world cultures in NESing, unless you want to assume perfect roleplaying. There are players. Unless you want to set the two equal to each other for points of discussion, then the latter totally overrides the former in actual gameplay, rendering the consideration of the former worthless on the subject of the game. It isn't at all a justification for a rule like a timescale.

Nations are built on their cultures, and are at the same time vessels for them. Nations do not generally change significantly unless there has been a huge change in the cultural mindset of the people. See China. How many government changes has it undergone? Yet it is still recognizably China. Nations are not generally obliterated (except in NESing), because you cannot just gobble up a nationality and expect it to go away, except over a very long period of time.

You want to present a case on something absolute that isn't different between reality and NESing? Make it on the generational case alone.

From that standpoint, which is very clear and not tainted by all this other crap, I would say you have a good point. Giving each generation a single turn is pretty simple and fair, and is a fairly good marker of time, at least until people start living longer and dying less.

Well then, if we agree on that, there's half the argument.

But I would conjecture it's still completely unappealing and the resolution is too coarse for an event-driven game, particularly in terms of warfare. It results in one of two outcomes: updates that are either entirely too sparse in terms of events for any age relative to a real-life analogue, or updates that are entirely too long to produce. You can get rid of events of lesser importance to cut down on it but still much of the interplay of international relations that makes such a large time period interesting--and produces many of the events--gets lost too.

I just do not see a single timescale working, at least not that big. It creates about as many problems as it solves, with no real benefits. Again, it's a compromise that pleases nobody.

Unfortunately, history has stretched on for a long time, and those of us who want to explore its full range have to figure out a way that will cover all of that time. As IT/BT is inherently flawed, I suggested a 20 year system. If anyone has a better suggestion, I would be most receptive.

(A lot of the planned content of this post was cut, as I think we're getting a bit too caustic over a very simple issue.)

 

[Azale]

I think NK and Symphony need to co-mod an NES.

Yes, that would be grand.

 

[Kal'thzar]

Azale, I hate to suggest you would be arrested for assiting in a homicide but.....

 

[Abaddon]

Kal? please?

 

[Kal'thzar]

today focussed on me getting my work situation sorted....

I hate this bit

 

[Swissempire]

I much say that this is a very interesting debate. In one corner, we have North King, a slightly altered version of Amara's Law and Samuel P. Huntington and on the other is Symphony D, Kurzweil's Law and Nikolai Kardashev

 

[Birdjaguar]

Allow me to toss some expert opinion in on the subject. A civilization's capability is ultimately measured by the power it can wield and utilize to do work; work in this case being whatever it wants to do. It's mainly a predictive scale used for estimating the capabilities of extraterrestrials, but it's remarkably useful for estimating the future (and past) of humanity as well.

You have reduced civilization to some kind of machine that has capability to do stuff. That is a very silly notion. Civilization is far more than the capability of a group of people to move things around or reorganize their environment. If you could accurately measure how much work the Egyptian civilization could do in a year (which you can't) the best you could make of it would be some sort of efficiency rating compared to today.

At around 0BC, the human race had a sum total power output of 10,000,000W, or 10MW. Today, it produces 10,000,000,000,000 or 10TW. As an example, approximately 5,000 PCs take 1MW to power. A single RBMK-1000 nuclear reactor at Chernobyl produces 1000MW. There were four of them initially.

I suspect that such a number is 90% BS.

That is what you are failing to comprehend in terms of our technology. It's not just bombs, it's not just planes, or spaceships, or cars, or iPods. It's work. We can simply do far more than they could. And that ability only continues to increase as time goes on. It is the capability of that power to alter the fabric of society through consumer goods and quality of life, let alone through direct events of whatever nature, that sets us apart from previous ages, because power builds on power, and power grows. That is why Civilization slows the game down, and why I suggest doing so too: more power. More resources. More to do. More to control.

In civ I suspect that the telescoping turns is game device used to make play seem more realistic. Having tanks take 50 years to cross Europe would be unacceptable to players. having them take 3 years is still nuts, but much more acceptable. I think that the change in time scale is more related to solving a distance/movement problem than anything to do with what you and NK are talking about. It recreates the "shrinking world" image that we have lived with for the last 100 years.

As a side note, your example of electronics is also excepting the fact that the single greatest innovation in the field of electronics--the transistor and the integrated circuit--weren't invented until the 1960s, and the chief driving force of the computer industry (which at the time produced mainframes and supercomputers) was the defense industry, chiefly out of the need to simulate nuclear weapons, thus making the atomic bomb the reason why the computer took off initially, and the further development of the Internet (by DARPA--again, out of concerns over nuclear war) to make the PC finally boom in the 1990s, decades later. So no, in fact, the most important technological innovation after the Iron Age, by your standards, would be the Atom Bomb, and I would rather fit the Steam Engine, among several other things, like oh, I don't know, Electricity or Space Flight in there too, given the above.

Just because things can be linked across time, it does not mean that one caused the other. The above connection between the atom bomb and the growth of the PC business is kind of like saying that whatever reason caused Napoleon's ancestors to move to Corsica caused the collapse of the French Republic in 1799.

 

[Symphony D.]

Unfortunately, history has stretched on for a long time, and those of us who want to explore its full range have to figure out a way that will cover all of that time. As IT/BT is inherently flawed, I suggested a 20 year system. If anyone has a better suggestion, I would be most receptive.

Alright, lets focus on this then.

This is why I suggest the variable turn. Even running at 20 years per turn, spanning the notable period of civilization (lets say, somewhat arbitrarily, 2,500BC to 2,050AD) that's still 228 updates, rounded up, or about 4 years and 4 months on a constant 1 week update schedule.

If you're seriously going to go for the whole enchilada, you're not going to make it with either the Variable or the Constant without a lot of time and a lot of consistency. Which means odds are you'll be doing something of shorter duration (in which case I would maintain a variable to be superior) or you have three options:

1.) Make the constant turn even bigger, diluting it even more. 100 years would be reasonable at about 45 updates. Maybe 50 years for 90.
2.) Use a variable rate of wildly differing resolution and shoot for around 50 - 100 updates, probably stepping on many players' toes. Its benefits are it can deemphasize the less exciting or developing times and refocus attention onto more direct action. I know your opinions on NESing being a glorified war game, and I agree, but consolidation and rebuilding does also take time and can be condensed into longer time periods than war itself (though generally not forever like in past BTs)
3.) Use something like an IT/BT system, however modified.

Ultimately I just don't think its possible to feasibly use a solid-figure turn system to run through a whole game unless it's really big, which sort of defeats the whole point.

I think NK and Symphony need to co-mod an NES.

Yes, that would be grand.

Don't move, it'll throw off the Force Choke.

You have reduced civilization to some kind of machine that has capability to do stuff. That is a very silly notion. Civilization is far more than the capability of a group of people to move things around or reorganize their environment.

No, it's being reduced to its capability to do stuff to put it in a frame of reference as to its ability to impact its environment and thus rank it to some other, different civilization, as Kardashev intended, which is what I was doing.

I suspect that such a number is 90% BS.

Well you can take it up with the late Carl Sagan, as it's his number. I'd suspect it to be much lower.

Having tanks take 50 years to cross Europe would be unacceptable to players. having them take 3 years is still nuts, but much more acceptable.

It's not much different than having a Curragh take 2,000 years to circumnavigate a continent or 3,000 years to build The Pyramids, and that's in. The game mostly telescopes because they wanted it to end at 2050 and technology gets more expensive to follow increasing civilization size (via production ability - work, energy) and needs more turns as a result.

Just because things can be linked across time, it does not mean that one caused the other.

Not so much in this case. ENIAC's successors et al were all initially installed at places like Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, and Los Alamos. They were designed to model nuclear weapons design. The major clients for initial computers were government research centers, followed by universities. Ultimately the development of the early machines was driven by military research, mostly surrounding nuclear weapons. The integrated circuit is indeed a seperate development as is the rise of the PC, however the Internet was also a purely military invention designed to link defense installations and research facilities and to continue such links following a nuclear exchange.

In short, several major components of the computer industry, as we know it, is a direct result of the events surrounding the creation of the atomic bomb. Then again, most everything from the latter half of the 20th Century is a military spin-off in some way or another. Would we still have computers? Sure. Would they have come about as quickly or in the same way without massive government investment?... Maybe. Maybe not.