I have entered a war with two different countries simultaneously once again. As I have mentioned in earlier posts, my approach to this dilemma is to destroy the weaker country initially; once I conquer the weaker, I will focus all attention to the stronger country. However, as the stronger country continues to absolutely dominate my unattended land, it is not truly hurting my economy by any means. The Germans (the superior country) are taking over my weaker cities. Whenever they attempt to conquer a more developed, industrialized city, I am able to fend them off and re-energize my troops before another attack. Therefore, the concept of war is very unrealistic in Civ IV. When a country is at war, its economy is being negatively impacted by several sources. It dedicates billions of dollars to war, thus effecting the surrounding cities. When your main city, and other relatively industrialized cities devote all their attention to war, they are unable to specialize in what they ought to produce. For example, if your city which specializes in culture is near a war border, it would be sensible to produce military tanks and stealth bombers here so that it does not become destroyed. While in reality this would harm an economy, it fails to do so in this game. It actually benefits you, because it provides defense for the city.
Therefore, in Civ IV, war does not really significantly impact your economy, unless of course you lose the war. If the U.S. was at war with Iraq and Germany simultaneously, this tag-team would absolutely destroy us. If we dedicated all of our attention to Iraq, Germany would have its way with us and we would all be speaking German in the future. Also, the game simply obliterates the existence of civilizations when you take over all their cities. This obviously does not occur in real life. While I do enjoy going to war in this game, it is simply not realistic by any means. The only way it depicts real life is when you are one of the extremely weak countries (which I never have been), for the other countries are able to take over your cities in a long, slow process, eventually leading to your ultimate demise.
War is the most entertaining concept of this game. Although its effects are very unrealistic in terms of an economy, I still enjoy going to war with several countries simultaneously, for it allows the game to move along more quickly. It is just like other video games: fun to play but unrealistic. I, however, am not complaining. I am having the time of my life trading blows with dominant countries in Civ IV. Not realistic, no problem. It's fun.
1 comment:
Paul, you're about 100% right on this. CIV IV is a generally poor replicant of war's effects. First of all, war usually causes noticeable social problems (arguing, protesting, political strife.) I would use the U.S. as an example, but we're not in a war. We have troops in a the middle east, not much else is really on our horizon. But anyway, the effects on the standard of living and GDP change dramatically. For that matter, I'm starting to think that there are some other pretty un-economically-historical attributes of CIV IV. Really, what historical nation's sole production has been military units (God knows thats just about all you can make in CIV IV, excluding a few buildings that indirectly augment your military.) May be I'm ranting, but this game isn't as perfect as one would think to learn from.
Post a Comment