Difficulty Levels

[contro]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:08:01 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> Invid Fan wrote:
>>> In article <8u7mc.3826$CR2.1882@news01.roc.ny>, The Stare
>>> <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Contro"
>>>>
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>>> wrote in message news:c7agke$pma$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL yes, I was thinking this really! So basically you should
>>>>> mine the mountains, cut down the trees and jungle, and irrigate
>>>>> the flat land (if you can)? As well as putting roads all over it?
>>>>
>>>> You get no benefit from irigating grassland during despotism unless
>>>> it has cattle/wheat/game on it. Those should be irrigated early.
>>>> Likewise, if a bonus resource adds 1 food to a plains tile, you get
>>>> no benefit from irrigating it and it should be mined.
>>>
>>> Don't think that's quite right. Cattle on a grasslands (green tile)
>>> gives me three food, and can't be improved via irrigation in
>>> despotism. Best to mine. Cattle on plains (tan) gives two food, and
>>> can be irrigated to three.
>>
>> okay, thanks for that! Does the grassland cattle get increased to 4
>> once out of despotism though? Or is it that it doesn't go beyond 3
>> for any square?
>
> The Despotism penalty results in no bonus at all if the square
> produces 3 food after irrigation (which means that if it makes two
> food before irrigation, don't bother irrigating).
>
> It affect higher production too, but you still get some bonus so it
> is worth doing. Once you're out of despotism, the penalty doesn't
> apply.
>
> Early on, mining tends to beat out irrigation in priority -- you
> need shield production more than food. The only exception is if you
> have a city with good food bonus squares or flood plains, because the
> irrigation will let you turn out settlers faster (it still needs mined
> squares to build them though, but NOT those high food output ones).

Right, I see what you mean! Okay, I think I should be alright with this!
Since I'm still getting the hang of the game, I was just leaving some things
to hope that they were working okay LOL well, while it worked on earlier
difficulty levels, I think it might not on the later ones, that is for sure!

 

[contro]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister wrote:
> On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:06:42 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>
>> ahh, I see! Seems a lot more complicated than I thought it was!
>> But well, it all sounds fair enough. I thought floodplanes were a
>> bad thing though? Do they provide the benefits of irrgated land?
>
> At the risk of being too go***mned intellectual about this... I don't
> really understand why jungles and floodplains actually cause disease
> in Civ 3, but I imagine it might be due to some unintentional
> ethnocentrism.
>
> I'm just guessing, but I imagine most if not all of the Civ design
> team were comprised of white guys of European descent.
>
> Essentially, the game has you start as a guy with a shovel, and from
> there you build a civilization. If your shovel guy happens to start
> near jungle, however, you run the risk of having your population's
> growth impeded by diseases that your scientists believe are coming
> from the jungle near the city... Why?
>
> When white guys with metal hats and wooden ships came to Africa, South
> America, etc... They encountered jungles and many fell from odd
> illnesses like malaria. Thus, the designers made jungles cause
> illness.
>
> Did the Aztecs have rampant bouts with Malaria? Did any of the
> indigenous peoples of the Congo, or the Amazon, or Central America
> deal with horrible crippling viruses on a regular basis? Actually,
> they built up tolerances to the bugs in their native lands, and
> understood how to use the natural medicines of the land.
>
> White guys bought the farm simply because their bodies had never
> encountered these illnesses. Of course, us merry white guys were
> hardly bothered at all by several kinds of cold and flu... When we
> introduced these exotic bugs to the jungles, the natives suffered
> massive losses.
>
> So... It makes no sense that if you play a civ that starts in jungle,
> you would be particularly susceptible to illness. On the other hand,
> maybe illnesses should attack your population when you make contact
> with a new civ.
>

Yes, it is a good point really! I think you are right, and it is because of
their cultural background that jungles do cause disease. Perhaps it's just
that it could be possible that there are certain diseases in there that
every so often would come out and be spread my rats or what not. I still
don't know to what extent the local people in places such as the Amazon
would be susceptible to this though!

I think it's basically just because of the fact that there could be a lot of
wildlife causing the diseases. But to what realistic extent this would
happen really I'm not so sure! It would be a good idea, like you say, to
have a civ that starts in jungled areas to be immune to such things, but
it's how this would be controlled (would cities that were built near jungle
get the same thing).

While jungle and the like do have the badness of providing less beneficial
land, it does seem that it isn't important to make them give disease as
well. But I guess it's just another way to try to make you get rid of them
quicker, as in most "advanced" civs, jungles and the like were removed from
places near cities. But again, that could be a white mans culture talking
again! LOL

I think the game could never be ultra realistic, and if it was, it might
suffer as a result, so I think the jungle and the like was just one way of
being able to get cities to suffer from disease outbreaks, and for the
player to be able to do something about it, rather than it just being a
random thing that happened because of the time period

 

[contro]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Steve Bartman wrote:
> On Fri, 07 May 2004 11:03:53 GMT, Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister
> <stopthespamfrom@aol.org> wrote:
>
>> At the risk of being too go***mned intellectual about this... I don't
>> really understand why jungles and floodplains actually cause disease
>> in Civ 3, but I imagine it might be due to some unintentional
>> ethnocentrism.
>>
> No, it's caused by jungles supporting disease.
>
>> When white guys with metal hats and wooden ships came to Africa,
>> South America, etc... They encountered jungles and many fell from odd
>> illnesses like malaria. Thus, the designers made jungles cause
>> illness.
>
> No, malaria is not caused by jungles. But it happens mostly near
> jungles.
>
>> Did the Aztecs have rampant bouts with Malaria? Did any of the
>> indigenous peoples of the Congo, or the Amazon, or Central America
>> deal with horrible crippling viruses on a regular basis?
>
> Yes. And they still do. See
> http://www.unicef.org/newsline/2003/03pr26malaria.htm
>
> "Press Centre
> Press Release
> Malaria is alive and well and killing more than 3000 children every
> day"
>
> Actually,
>> they built up tolerances to the bugs in their native lands, and
>> understood how to use the natural medicines of the land.
>
> Show me a native medicine that stops ebola. I want to buy some.
>
> Steve

LOL you do have some good points! But it does work both ways. To start
with, malaria is caused by heat. We'd have maleria here in England if it
was hot enough to support the mosquitoes that carry maleria. So it doesn't
really have anything to do with jungles. As for ebola, that might be the
same also. You forget that smallpox and tuberculosis used to kill a huge
amount of people (as did the black plague) in Europe, but they have cures
for them now, and smallpox is extinct I think. It just happens that there
isn't one for aids or the ebola virus yet. Again, I'm not sure jungles have
much to do with it.

But as you say, jungles do most likely harbour a lot of diseases in one form
or another, since they do contain more animals to do so. However, it seems
to be creatures that live in cities which spread disease amongst people,
such as rats, not baboons or what not.

 

[contro]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Tero Könnölä wrote:
> Contro
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>> Yes, I usually always build a granary. But didn't know it got
>> emptied! I just thought it improved food production...what does the
>> emptying actually do?
>
> When you have granary the food storage of the city is halved instead
> of
> emptying it all the way when building settler for example. I don't
> remember the exact numbers but for example when city drops to size 1
> it
> needs 20 food to grow to size 2. If you have granary this only costs
> 10 so
> if your city produces 2 extra food in one turn the size will increase
> to 2
> in 10 turns without granary and in 5 turns when you have it. This will
> affect in both directions so when you city grows size 1->2 the
> storage is
> allready half full and not totally empty.
>
> And this emptying is done with granary only when size is increased
> from 6->7 and from 12->13.
>
> -- tero

ahh, I see what you mean now! I just wasn't sure about the food box
emptying, that is all. LOL some things I left well alone while I didn't
understand them, and the game seemed to be working okay

 

[contro]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Mike Garcia wrote:
> In article <c7fkqr$9i8$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote: <snip>
>> There hasn't been much talk of feudalism. Or communism or fascism
>> for that matter. Is it possible that there are many tactics that
>> people are unaware of, as they are sticking to
>> monarchy/republic/democracy rather than going for the other ones?
>> What advantages do you think feudalism has, and do you go for
>> democracy still?
>
> Comparing the various governments is somewhat like comparing apples to
> oranges. (So here goes. 🙂

LOL

>
> Under C3C Communism is very powerful if you have a huge empire. You
> need to
> start preparing early by building as many Courthouses as you can,
> especially
> in your uncorrupt core. You also want to build your Forbidden
> Palace. Once
> you have the Communism tech you need to start building Police
> Stations and
> finish them in your core before you switch. You also need to get
> Espionage so
> you can build SPHQ (Secret Police HQ -- acts like an additional
> Forbidden
> Palace). You do all this to minimize corruption and waste.
>
> Under Communism your empire won't produce as much gold as a
> Democracy but
> then you don't need as much either. Basically most of your huge army
> is free
> and you can't cash rush buildings. You can also substitute MP
> garrisons for a
> luxury although this is not very powerful.
>
> Once you switch governments you should find that your core with its
> Courthouses and Police Stations is somewhat less productive but your
> far flung
> cities are way more productive. This increase in productivity allows
> faster
> Courthouse/Police Station construction which will further increase
> productivity. You will also want to build the SPHQ as quick as you
> can to
> give your entire empire a productivity boost.
>

it does sound quite interesting! but what are it's bad points though? Are
they that it isn't democracy? I guess it would be good to have a huge army
for free! How is it that your outer cities are more productive than the
inner ones though?

> During a war you can depopulate newly conquered cities by pop rushing
> cultural buildings like Temples and Libraries. This will vastly
> reduce the
> chances of the city flipping but the city will be unhappy for a long
> time.

oh no! Why is that?

>
>
> I have never used Feudalism but I do have some vague thoughts.
>
> First off Feudalism is the _only_ government you _must_ research. If
> you are
> trying to get though the tech tree as fast as possible it may be your
> only
> alternative to Despotism.
>

ahhh, I see

> The obvious strength of Feudalism is the vast army that it can
> support with
> minimum population. It actually has more free support from Towns
> than from
> Metros. This suggests that you want many small cities rather than a
> few large
> ones. ICS anyone?
>
> ICS is an old Civ 2 strategy of building your cities just as close
> together as
> you can. In Civ 3 this would mean each city gets an average of 4
> tiles.
> There is a potentially workable variant of this where you first build
> huge
> numbers of cities and then abandon 3/4 of them as time goes by.
> First about
> half are disbanded so half the survivors can grow to size 12. Once
> you get
> Sanitation you can abandon more cities so the rest can work 16 tiles
> each.
>

oh yes, some people have mentioned this! I was a bit unsure about it, as it
seem wrong to build cities you don't intend to keep. I'm too moral! LOL

> Corruption and waste would be so bad that you would never actually
> build
> anything. You deal with the corruption problem by pop rushing
> military units.
> Your empire grows on the bones of the dead.
>
> If you go this route then the Pyramids and Sun Tzu's are almost
> vital. The
> Temple of Artemis would be way cool. The Great Wall would be very
> nice. This
> would probably work best with an Agricultural tribe -- Aztecs or
> Celts would
> be my choices.
>

well it's nice to see that there seems to be a workable alternative to the
usual way of going through democracy! I might give it, and communism, a
proper go one day. But I think for the moment, I need to just get good at
the normal game before trying! LOL But it is definitely something to do in
the future

 

[contro]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

GWB wrote:
> "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote in message news:c7fkqr$9i8$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>> I think if you are in an early protracted war, it's best to stay in
>>> despotism. I'm in a Regent huge map game with 16 civs and the AI
>>> aggressiveness turned up all the way, and I stayed in despotism
>>> fighting off the Japanese until I switched to Feudalism. Feudalism
>>> is a good govt for fighting a long war also.
>>
>> There hasn't been much talk of feudalism. Or communism or fascism
>> for that matter. Is it possible that there are many tactics that
>> people are unaware of, as they are sticking to
>> monarchy/republic/democracy rather than going for the other ones?
>> What advantages do you think feudalism has, and do you go for
>> democracy still?
>
> Feudalism is a good civ for war early/mid-game for the following
> reasons: Support costs are low for a big army for a civ with
> relatively small cities. You can have up to 3 units in a city for
> happiness. You rush build with people, not gold (this helps keep
> your cities small which keeps your support costs low). War weariness
> is low. (The fact it isn't zero is a little bit of a problem).
> Corruptions isn't quite as bad as in despotism.

ahh, I see! What are the limitations in other government types for military
units in cities? Happiness wise or what not?

Is it still worth the anarchy time it takes to get to and from feudalism
though?

>
> You always have to go for democracy though, unless you plan to stay in
> Republic the whole game.

Yes, it does seem that that is the all round best government

 

[contro]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:28:47 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> The Stare wrote:
>>> "Contro"
>>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>> wrote in message news:c7agn0$pof$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> If you turn off all the victory condtions, can you only win by
>>>> taking over the world?
>>>
>>> That is called a conquest victory and is one of the ones you would
>>> have turned off.
>>
>> But I thought conquest victory was owning 66.6% of the landmass?!
>
> Nope, that is domination (two thirds of landmass and population, you
> have to have both -- though usually if you have the land you also have
> the population).

ahh! Yes, I forgot about that

>
> With all victory conditions off, you are left with histographic --
> get to 2050 and if you have the highest score you win.

Sounds like a good way to do it really! What happens if you complete the
apollo program before 2050, do you still get the animation? Is there any
point building the space parts still, or do you not get any points for doing
so?

 

[contro]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

>>>> You're better off having a city bounce between 4 and 6 pumping out
>>>> settlers. It can build them faster and recover quicker than a 1 - 3
>>>> town. A couple of these and you can crank them out just as fast as
>>>> having all your towns dropping to size 1 all the time.
>>>
>>> Also, never let your city grow past 6, as the granary (I assume you
>>> have one in your settler factory) is emptied when the city grows
>>> from 6 to 7 (as from 12 to 13). 4-6, 3-5 etc. are good growth
>>> cycles. As The Stare points out, 1-3 is probably a little two slow.
>>
>> Yes, I usually always build a granary. But didn't know it got
>> emptied! I just thought it improved food production...what does the
>> emptying actually do?
>
> You should (almost) always build a granary in your settler factory.
> On a standard map, try to get two cities with granaries.
>
> The way a granary works is: Normally, your city grows when your food
> box becomes full; after a city grows, the food box is emptied, unless
> you have a granary, in which case it's only half-emptied. When a town
> becomes a city or when a city becomes a metropolis, lots of things
> happen, including the following:
>
> 1. The food box is emptied even if there's a granary
> 2. The size of the food box doubles (from 10 to 20 and then to 40),
> making growth that much slower.
>

ahh, I see now! Thank you! I was just not sure on the food box thing.
That part of the city screen I had not really come to understand yet. As I
said in another post, some things I just left well alone at the moment, as
things seemed to be working okay without me understanding them !

> One strategy to combat this is, during the times prior to Construction
> (Aqueducts) and Sanitation (Hospitals), when your cities are wasting
> food, build lots of workers, and as soon as the 'duct or Hospital is
> done, merge them all into the city, instantly zooming the city in
> size.

sounds like a nice plan! I was always worried that a city wouldn't be
able to support an increase in population when done like this though? I
don't know why really, but I'm sure I did it once, and everyone started to
starve. Well, merged one worker/settler, and it went wrong.


begin 666 lol.gif
M1TE&.#EA#P`/`)$"`````/__`````````"'_"TY%5%-#05!%,BXP`P$````A
M^00%"@`"`"P`````#P`/```$-%!("6J=6-3 ^<5 )WI3.(X`Y9G!UFI>;,[L
M*;KV7><M;?TD'_ %6UDZ*54N6=I],II?)@(`(?D$!0H``@`L`P`#``D`!@``
7!!-0`"#JE"%0D'D-`AA69&F64ZI&`#L`
`
end

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message news:c7if59$hu6$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Mike Garcia wrote:
> > In article <c7fkqr$9i8$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Contro"
> > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> > wrote: <snip>
> >> There hasn't been much talk of feudalism. Or communism or fascism
> >> for that matter. Is it possible that there are many tactics that
> >> people are unaware of, as they are sticking to
> >> monarchy/republic/democracy rather than going for the other ones?
> >> What advantages do you think feudalism has, and do you go for
> >> democracy still?
> >
> > Comparing the various governments is somewhat like comparing apples to
> > oranges. (So here goes. 🙂
>
> LOL
>
> >
> > Under C3C Communism is very powerful if you have a huge empire. You
> > need to
> > start preparing early by building as many Courthouses as you can,
> > especially
> > in your uncorrupt core. You also want to build your Forbidden
> > Palace. Once
> > you have the Communism tech you need to start building Police
> > Stations and
> > finish them in your core before you switch. You also need to get
> > Espionage so
> > you can build SPHQ (Secret Police HQ -- acts like an additional
> > Forbidden
> > Palace). You do all this to minimize corruption and waste.
> >
> > Under Communism your empire won't produce as much gold as a
> > Democracy but
> > then you don't need as much either. Basically most of your huge army
> > is free
> > and you can't cash rush buildings. You can also substitute MP
> > garrisons for a
> > luxury although this is not very powerful.
> >
> > Once you switch governments you should find that your core with its
> > Courthouses and Police Stations is somewhat less productive but your
> > far flung
> > cities are way more productive. This increase in productivity allows
> > faster
> > Courthouse/Police Station construction which will further increase
> > productivity. You will also want to build the SPHQ as quick as you
> > can to
> > give your entire empire a productivity boost.
> >
>
> it does sound quite interesting! but what are it's bad points though?
Are
> they that it isn't democracy? I guess it would be good to have a huge
army
> for free! How is it that your outer cities are more productive than the
> inner ones though?

Corruption in communisn is 'communal'. The empire wide base corruption is
spread evenly between your cities. Courthouses and police stations reduce it
in cities they are in. Thus your core cities have as much corruption as the
previous 1 shield wonders under a different form. However, the far flung
cities now have much less corruption than they would under any other form of
gov't.


>
> > During a war you can depopulate newly conquered cities by pop rushing
> > cultural buildings like Temples and Libraries. This will vastly
> > reduce the
> > chances of the city flipping but the city will be unhappy for a long
> > time.
>
> oh no! Why is that?

For each pop rush, 1 citizen is made unhappy for 20 turns. If you pop 2
citizens and are only left with one, that one will be unhappy for 40 turns.
Pop rushing alot of citizens can make for a very unhappy city for a very
long time.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message news:c7ifbm$i38$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:28:47 +0100, "Contro"
> > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The Stare wrote:
> >>> "Contro"
> >>>
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> >>> wrote in message news:c7agn0$pof$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >>>>
> >>>> If you turn off all the victory condtions, can you only win by
> >>>> taking over the world?
> >>>
> >>> That is called a conquest victory and is one of the ones you would
> >>> have turned off.
> >>
> >> But I thought conquest victory was owning 66.6% of the landmass?!
> >
> > Nope, that is domination (two thirds of landmass and population, you
> > have to have both -- though usually if you have the land you also have
> > the population).
>
> ahh! Yes, I forgot about that
>
> >
> > With all victory conditions off, you are left with histographic --
> > get to 2050 and if you have the highest score you win.
>
> Sounds like a good way to do it really! What happens if you complete the
> apollo program before 2050, do you still get the animation? Is there any
> point building the space parts still, or do you not get any points for
doing
> so?

If the SS condition is off, you cannot build the apollo program. With it on,
apollo doesn't give you the win, it only lets you build the SS parts. You
don't win via SS unless you build all the parts before anyone else.

If you play out to 2050 for a histographic win, there is no bonus and your
score will be what it says on the victory condition page. The ingame bonus
is (2050 - year of win) * difficulty factor. Thus for HOF purposes, an early
win will tend to give you bigger scores unless you learn to milk the game.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sat, 8 May 2004 11:54:00 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:


>LOL you do have some good points! But it does work both ways. To start
>with, malaria is caused by heat.

No, it's caused by infection, carried by mosquitoes. They need heat
and water to breed. We have trillions of mosquitoes here in Minnesota,
but no malaria.

I believe the word comes from "bad air", which used to be thought the
cause of the disease. Jungles smell bad, but more importantly they
have heat, and water, and breeding grounds for insects. The infection
lives as do the carriers. Mosquitoes alone--no malaria.

As for ebola, that might be the
>same also.

I'm not an expert but I believe ebola is thought to have migrated from
other primate species and harbors in caves and other dark places where
primates are native.

You forget that smallpox and tuberculosis used to kill a huge
>amount of people (as did the black plague) in Europe,

Smallpox is an excellent counter-example to the original point. It was
highly prevalent in Europe for centuries, but no widespread immunity
existed in the general population. Immunity was only gained by
surviving an attack.

Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Fri, 07 May 2004 11:03:53 GMT, Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister
<stopthespamfrom@aol.org> wrote:

>On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:06:42 +0100, "Contro"
><moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>wrote:
>
>
>>ahh, I see! Seems a lot more complicated than I thought it was! But well,
>>it all sounds fair enough. I thought floodplanes were a bad thing though?
>>Do they provide the benefits of irrgated land?
>
>At the risk of being too go***mned intellectual about this... I don't
>really understand why jungles and floodplains actually cause disease
>in Civ 3, but I imagine it might be due to some unintentional
>ethnocentrism.
>
>I'm just guessing, but I imagine most if not all of the Civ design
>team were comprised of white guys of European descent.

Mostly, but I don't think that has everything to do with this.

>Essentially, the game has you start as a guy with a shovel, and from
>there you build a civilization. If your shovel guy happens to start
>near jungle, however, you run the risk of having your population's
>growth impeded by diseases that your scientists believe are coming
>from the jungle near the city... Why?

City building in jungles has always been a problem. Disease is a
hazard (BTW, this still applies -- you don't see a lot of cities all
over Florida's swamp and jungle regions either.

The flood plain is a definite problem -- the issue of cyclic
outbreaks applied to Egypt and Mesopotamia (Assyria/Persia), among
others.

I do think that the effect is not entirely disease, but there are
definite health problems associated with close proximity to
uncontrolled warm wetlands.

The solution, to make them useful for cities, has required good
sanitation and when possible, clearing. The game makes you do that.

Note that cut jungle is quite useful land, very good property. But
it, like swampland, requires more effort in order to turn it into
highly productive urban areas.

>When white guys with metal hats and wooden ships came to Africa, South
>America, etc... They encountered jungles and many fell from odd
>illnesses like malaria. Thus, the designers made jungles cause
>illness.
>
>Did the Aztecs have rampant bouts with Malaria? Did any of the
>indigenous peoples of the Congo, or the Amazon, or Central America
>deal with horrible crippling viruses on a regular basis? Actually,
>they built up tolerances to the bugs in their native lands, and
>understood how to use the natural medicines of the land.

Yes -- among other things. Also, the growth of jungle (ancient
global warming?) pretty much ruined the Maya cities, which had not
been originally built in overgrown jungle lands.

>White guys bought the farm simply because their bodies had never
>encountered these illnesses. Of course, us merry white guys were
>hardly bothered at all by several kinds of cold and flu... When we
>introduced these exotic bugs to the jungles, the natives suffered
>massive losses.
>
>So... It makes no sense that if you play a civ that starts in jungle,
>you would be particularly susceptible to illness. On the other hand,
>maybe illnesses should attack your population when you make contact
>with a new civ.

Situational tolerance might make a little sense but there is little
hint that it applies over any long term. If the people migrate, they
eventually adapt to their new environment, but harder environments
definitely impede growth.

Disease propagation, that could be something interesting. Note that
massive modern trade results in most diseases getting a wide spread,
with isolation difficult to perform. Two recent ones -- SARS and
Ebola -- point out the general limitations of isolation, which really
is the only short term solution to viral outbreaks. You simply have
to accept some people getting ill and even dying.


Modern medicine does cut into this effect.

Which civilizations *start* in jungle historically?

Flood plains, yes. But not jungles, they aren't good environments
for city building.
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Fri, 07 May 2004 11:19:37 GMT, Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister
<stopthespamfrom@aol.org> wrote:

>On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:31:38 +0100, "Contro"
><moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Without adding to any arguments, you aren't gonna see the end of
>>> terrorism anyway. Not that I endorse raizing any cities to the
>>> ground... but terrorism is a part of the human condition, it always
>>> has been, and it always will be. It's the natural by product of
>>> oppression, real or perceived.
>>
>>Very true! this is why I think a terrorism factor would be a great
>>addition! Such as democracies having a higher terrorism risk than facism,
>>and that your terrorism risk would increase on your breaking of policies,
>>invading countries (having towns that used to belong to other countries and
>>what not). Perhaps terrorism going on in cities far from the capital, as
>>they want independence....obviously there would have to be improvements that
>>would limit such things, such as wonders or other ones that don't exist.
>
>I don't think democracy has anything to do with it. Terrorists attack
>fascists and communists too. It's just that when they do, we call them
>"freedom fighters" or "the resistance". We characterize them as brave
>soldiers fighting a just cause.

Terrorism is principally an attack on public opinion, and that
matters more to democracies than autocracies. Insurgency, OTOH, can
be directed more at the material resources of the enemy, and be
effective even if *no* casualties occur -- terrorists want to kill
people, especially relatively innocent people, as part of the goal of
causing terror.

>Humans aren't very good at understanding the motivations of people
>from other cultures. That's why in America, we refer to everyone who
>attacks an American in Iraq as a terrorist. We refuse to consider that
>these terrorists might believe they are defending their homeland.***

Not everyone does that, including the military leaders over there.

There are three major groups, with different goals.

First, there are the terrorists -- the real ones. They are a
minority -- they never get thousands of recruits. Their targets are
not just Americans, and civilians and culture targets are more often
engaged than the enemy military.

Second, there are the political insurgents. These have an agenda of
war, a goal of conquest - or at least influence over. They target
"enemy" military forces and may also go after political leaders, but
have no interest in killing for publicity.

Third, the angry mob. Some of these include criminal opportunists
taking advantage of the chaos, but all tend to have no greater goal
than to vent hostility -- on the perceived enemy or random property
(police stations and government offices for example).

Group one is plainly trouble and can't really be appeased
politically. They have no constituency to satisfy, and if the hated
enemy goes away, they follow.

Group two can be engaged politically as well as militarily, and
given time (and anything resembling a democracy), they tend to be
defused -- with some ex-members sliding into the terrorist role, but
most turning into ordinary politicians.

Group three is most easily dealt with -- make conditions better and
they'll be happy. Criminals exist in all cases, but with a stable
police force they're less likely to go out and loot, rob, kidnap and
murder so overtly, or expect that others will believe that they are
doing it for a political cause.


In terms of strategic effects -- terrorism looks a lot like riots,
which the game includes. Productivity is reduced or stopped due to
people being unhappy or afraid, but the overall impact is pretty
minimal.

Insurgency looks like resistance -- the game has that too. Occupied
regions eventally lose resistance, but while it is present the area is
unproductive, and risks active, dangerous rebellion.



>***Generalizations used in my posts are not intended to represent the
>views of all Americans, and in fact, might not even represent my own
>views in some cases.
>
>>> More importantly, The next Civ should include a more complex terrorism
>>> model and the potential (ala Civ 2) for nations to split into distinct
>>> factions when conditions get bad enough.
>>
>>I didn't play civ2, but that does sound like a good idea! How did that
>>work?
>
>As I recall, if enough cities were in a state of anarchy, they'd just
>split off and assume the identity of a civ that wasn't already in the
>game. I recall once I was wailing on Russia with a hellish fury, and
>in fact, they deserved it... But suddenly, half the Russian cities
>changed color and started calling themselves The Celts... And these
>strange new Celtish people didn't seem nearly as disagreeable as the
>Russians did.

Civ2 had two requirements for this.

#1 -- the capital city must be taken by an enemy.
#2 -- the civ must be larger than the player's civ in population.

Anarchy wouldn't cause the split.

A civil war/empire break up thing would be hard to model well. The
civilization board game had a disaster event which triggered a civil
war, but it was basically a sort of special event, not simply a
condition resulting from anarchy. But in that game, the effect was to
slow down a leader -- the civil war event split off more of the empire
as its size grew larger, rather than simply cutting it up evenly.

Still, it could be cool to have such events in Civ3, even if they
were scenario-specific things.

--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:30:11 -0500, Jeffery S. Jones
<jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 07 May 2004 11:19:37 GMT, Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister
><stopthespamfrom@aol.org> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:31:38 +0100, "Contro"
>><moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>wrote:
>>

>
> In terms of strategic effects -- terrorism looks a lot like riots,
>which the game includes. Productivity is reduced or stopped due to
>people being unhappy or afraid, but the overall impact is pretty
>minimal.
>
> Insurgency looks like resistance -- the game has that too. Occupied
>regions eventally lose resistance, but while it is present the area is
>unproductive, and risks active, dangerous rebellion.

One more thing: modern terrorism depends on chemical explosives, or
weapons of similar potential. A terrorist using a spear or bow might
kill a couple of random targets, if lucky, before being forced away or
killed. Terror attacks *did* exist before gunpowder, but the effect
was far less frightening, with little chance that the public would
worry too much about a handful of assassins rising up, killing a few
people before being taken down.

Insurgency and riots, OTOH, don't have that dependency. You always
can have rebel military/militia forces and unruly citizens, even if
they are using pointy sticks and rocks.

Roughly, the advent of riflemen might make some terrorism possible,
but the significant threat required more advanced weapons to make
sustained terrorist organizations worthwhile.

The net effect, though, is small enough that it isn't really
necessary to try to model it. Terrorists field no military units at
all, their numbers are tiny, and the overall casualties are tiny --
less than accidental deaths by far. The greatest impact is
psychological, public opinion reacts in panic to the threat that a
hidden inscrutable enemy may kill, for no obvious reason, without
warning and without regard to personal survival of the terrorist.



--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingd
om> wrote in news:c7id03$ep1$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk:

[snip]
>
> I know what you mean, as my cities would still be very much in
> development when I switch to a new government type. or seem to be
> so far! I'd just have to see how I can get by with the workers.
> Do you normally make a worker per city you build?

At least one worker per city. It depends though, if you can get
your hands on a lot of slave workers then you won't need as many of
your own.

--
ICQ: 8105495
AIM: KeeperGFA
EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
"If we did the things we are capable of,
we would astound ourselves." - Edison

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message news:c7if9c$i1i$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...

> ahh, I see! What are the limitations in other government types for
military
> units in cities? Happiness wise or what not?

Just check the civilopedia...there's only like 8 governments to go thru to
see about military police, etc.

> Is it still worth the anarchy time it takes to get to and from feudalism
> though?

If you are a religious civ it's a no brainer. If I was a non-religious civ,
I might hold off on feudalism and go to Republic maybe. The typical answer
of "it depends" applies.

GWB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Fri, 07 May 2004 14:31:21 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 07 May 2004 11:03:53 GMT, Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister
><stopthespamfrom@aol.org> wrote:
>
>>At the risk of being too go***mned intellectual about this... I don't
>>really understand why jungles and floodplains actually cause disease
>>in Civ 3, but I imagine it might be due to some unintentional
>>ethnocentrism.
>>
>No, it's caused by jungles supporting disease.

Hey! This isn't The West Wing newsgroup 🙂 You don't have to be so
terse 🙂

>>When white guys with metal hats and wooden ships came to Africa, South
>>America, etc... They encountered jungles and many fell from odd
>>illnesses like malaria. Thus, the designers made jungles cause
>>illness.
>
>No, malaria is not caused by jungles. But it happens mostly near
>jungles.

I'll merely point out that I never said malaria is caused by jungles.
I said that upon encountering jungles, explorers also encountered
malaria.

>>Did the Aztecs have rampant bouts with Malaria? Did any of the
>>indigenous peoples of the Congo, or the Amazon, or Central America
>>deal with horrible crippling viruses on a regular basis?
>
>Yes. And they still do. See
>http://www.unicef.org/newsline/2003/03pr26malaria.htm
>
>"Press Centre
>Press Release
>Malaria is alive and well and killing more than 3000 children every
>day"

Compelling reading... Color me educated...

Of course your stats now have me asking a new question... But first,
Malaria occurs in South America and is famous (in America) for
claiming so many American lives during the construction of the Panama
Canal... But the article states that 90% of the malaria deaths happen
in Africa.

Well, only a fool would dispute that Africa is rife with some of the
most abject poverty and misery on Earth. Africa suffers from a
tremendous AIDS problem as well. Clearly, health is a precarious thing
for the poor in any society, and when you are "African" poor your
exposure to health risks increase dramatically.

So I have two questions. 1) South American poverty is also well known,
and South America is a place where malaria can occur. Why isn't it
also suffering from similar numbers of Malaria deaths? 2) And it's an
evil question, but a critical one... There are over 6 billion people
on Earth and the explosion of numbers is rising fast. This article
exposes only one major cause of death in Africa, claiming over a
million a year. Given the problems of poverty, health, etc., IF Unicef
and WHO can solve the malaria problem, then how will the address the
new problems created by the population boom, and what would those
problems be?

> Actually,
>>they built up tolerances to the bugs in their native lands, and
>>understood how to use the natural medicines of the land.
>
>Show me a native medicine that stops ebola. I want to buy some.

As it happens, I do have something called T's Miracle Elixir, and if
you'd like a bottle I'd be happy to sell it to you.


-

T.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sat, 08 May 2004 04:15:07 GMT, "GWB" <capture_ctl@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister" <stopthespamfrom@aol.org> wrote in
>message news:u7qm90t1ljvp4s2h0muls9kthb2k8kmpjp@4ax.com...

>> So... It makes no sense that if you play a civ that starts in jungle,
>> you would be particularly susceptible to illness. On the other hand,
>> maybe illnesses should attack your population when you make contact
>> with a new civ.
>>
>> -
>>
>> T.
>
>Twin Sister, you speaking the truth! Couldn't have said it better.
>
>GWB

Well, you could have if you were Steve Bartman... Who effectively
demonstrated several flaws in my logic...

But Steve needs to remember that I am a Chicago Cubs fan... And I will
not forget what he did to my Cubbies 🙂


-

T.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:13:30 -0500, Jeffery S. Jones
<jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 07 May 2004 11:03:53 GMT, Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister
><stopthespamfrom@aol.org> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:06:42 +0100, "Contro"
>><moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>ahh, I see! Seems a lot more complicated than I thought it was! But well,
>>>it all sounds fair enough. I thought floodplanes were a bad thing though?
>>>Do they provide the benefits of irrgated land?
>>
>>At the risk of being too go***mned intellectual about this... I don't
>>really understand why jungles and floodplains actually cause disease
>>in Civ 3, but I imagine it might be due to some unintentional
>>ethnocentrism.
>>
>>I'm just guessing, but I imagine most if not all of the Civ design
>>team were comprised of white guys of European descent.
>
> Mostly, but I don't think that has everything to do with this.

To be frank, I doubt it has very little at all to do with it. Ethnic
biases tend to be innocent, even when they are real. It's just the
nature of humanity. The worse of us ignore it when it is revealed and
the best of us try to do better next time.

>>Essentially, the game has you start as a guy with a shovel, and from
>>there you build a civilization. If your shovel guy happens to start
>>near jungle, however, you run the risk of having your population's
>>growth impeded by diseases that your scientists believe are coming
>>from the jungle near the city... Why?
>
> City building in jungles has always been a problem. Disease is a
>hazard (BTW, this still applies -- you don't see a lot of cities all
>over Florida's swamp and jungle regions either.

Sure you do... But only after considerable "teraforming"... So your
point stands and is well taken.

> The flood plain is a definite problem -- the issue of cyclic
>outbreaks applied to Egypt and Mesopotamia (Assyria/Persia), among
>others.
>
> I do think that the effect is not entirely disease, but there are
>definite health problems associated with close proximity to
>uncontrolled warm wetlands.
>
> The solution, to make them useful for cities, has required good
>sanitation and when possible, clearing. The game makes you do that.
>
> Note that cut jungle is quite useful land, very good property. But
>it, like swampland, requires more effort in order to turn it into
>highly productive urban areas.

Fair points all including what I snipped... and it's fair to note that
we know now that clear cutting a whole rain forest is not a very wise
thing to do... But we did not know that way back then when we started
doing it... Thus the game model is pretty good in that it forces you
to cut jungles... then later in the game, you get punished with global
warming (which is not a result of cutting in the game engine but
occurs after a lot of jungle gets cut.

It seems like there ought to be a reward for preserving a percentage
of jungle land in the modern era.. Say if X amount of jungle still
stands, a jungle resource could appear that represents a valuable
medicine or such... Of course, the resource would simply be a trade
good to the game, not actually something that fights an illness. It's
appearance would be triggered by a change in eras or the discovery of
a tech.

It also seems to me that if you have squares of land that are not
developed, that forest and jungle should be able to have a chance of
encroaching on that territory.

That would give me greater incentive not to automate my workers, but
rather to strategically create "environmental conservation zones." It
would be cool, if the modern era could have an option like an
environmental victory or some sort of benefit from expanding certain
types of terrain.

I'm not sure about turning mountains into grassland, which could be
done in Civ2 if you were patient enough, but a certain degree or
reasonable teraforming ought to be possible. Say simply plains to
grassland or something subtle like that.
-

T.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sun, 09 May 2004 07:25:17 GMT, Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister
<stopthespamfrom@aol.org> wrote:

>Hey! This isn't The West Wing newsgroup 🙂 You don't have to be so
>terse 🙂

What sig do you use there?

>>No, malaria is not caused by jungles. But it happens mostly near
>>jungles.
>
>I'll merely point out that I never said malaria is caused by jungles.
>I said that upon encountering jungles, explorers also encountered
>malaria.

True. I was merely responding to the incorrect assertion made by
someone that it's unfair to have jungles in Civ3 "cause" more disease
than, say, tundra. Germs love heat and water.

>Of course your stats now have me asking a new question... But first,
>Malaria occurs in South America and is famous (in America) for
>claiming so many American lives during the construction of the Panama
>Canal...

From memory, the Panama deaths were due to Yellow Fever (aka "yellow
jack") also carried by mosquitoes. The cause and cure was discovered
by US Army doctor Walter Reed, he of the huge Washington medical
center name.

>So I have two questions. 1) South American poverty is also well known,

A lot, but not nearly as much as Africa and some countries there are
First World. A lot of SA is also mountainous or grasslands.

Malaria can be combated very easily with cheap drugs--even quinine
water. Cents a week. Too much even so for many African societies. Not
so much the cost, but there don't exist distribution networks. SA
nations mostly do have such networks.

>and South America is a place where malaria can occur. Why isn't it
>also suffering from similar numbers of Malaria deaths? 2) And it's an
>evil question, but a critical one... There are over 6 billion people
>on Earth and the explosion of numbers is rising fast. This article
>exposes only one major cause of death in Africa, claiming over a
>million a year. Given the problems of poverty, health, etc., IF Unicef
>and WHO can solve the malaria problem, then how will the address the
>new problems created by the population boom, and what would those
>problems be?

I think the short answer is those problems won't be addressed. Those
who don't get malaria will die of something else, unless and until the
continent can stop acting tribally and start acting cooperatively.

Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sun, 09 May 2004 07:30:35 GMT, Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister
<stopthespamfrom@aol.org> wrote:


>But Steve needs to remember that I am a Chicago Cubs fan... And I will
>not forget what he did to my Cubbies 🙂

Please call Paula Zahn's scheduler and tell her it's The Other Steve
Bartman they're looking for. <g>

Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:26:17 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 09 May 2004 07:25:17 GMT, Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister
><stopthespamfrom@aol.org> wrote:
>
>>Hey! This isn't The West Wing newsgroup 🙂 You don't have to be so
>>terse 🙂
>
>What sig do you use there?

This one... But I've posted maybe twice... It isn't the flamefest that
most groups are, but I see no good reason to consume hours of my time
telling DMN why he's wrong. He went to Princeton. He should already
know that he's wrong.

>>>No, malaria is not caused by jungles. But it happens mostly near
>>>jungles.
>>
>>I'll merely point out that I never said malaria is caused by jungles.
>>I said that upon encountering jungles, explorers also encountered
>>malaria.
>
>True. I was merely responding to the incorrect assertion made by
>someone that it's unfair to have jungles in Civ3 "cause" more disease
>than, say, tundra. Germs love heat and water.

That was me and I do stand corrected... however, within the game,
jungles actually do cause disease

>>and South America is a place where malaria can occur. Why isn't it
>>also suffering from similar numbers of Malaria deaths? 2) And it's an
>>evil question, but a critical one... There are over 6 billion people
>>on Earth and the explosion of numbers is rising fast. This article
>>exposes only one major cause of death in Africa, claiming over a
>>million a year. Given the problems of poverty, health, etc., IF Unicef
>>and WHO can solve the malaria problem, then how will the address the
>>new problems created by the population boom, and what would those
>>problems be?
>
>I think the short answer is those problems won't be addressed. Those
>who don't get malaria will die of something else, unless and until the
>continent can stop acting tribally and start acting cooperatively.

There is an answer that isn't too dissimilar to the answer Peter
O'Toole gave to Omar Shariff in Lawrence of Arabia. 🙂


-

T.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sun, 09 May 2004 13:27:25 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 09 May 2004 07:30:35 GMT, Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister
><stopthespamfrom@aol.org> wrote:
>
>
>>But Steve needs to remember that I am a Chicago Cubs fan... And I will
>>not forget what he did to my Cubbies 🙂
>
>Please call Paula Zahn's scheduler and tell her it's The Other Steve
>Bartman they're looking for. <g>

You must hunt him down and kill him.. You know... Because "THERE CAN
BE ONLY ONE"


-

T.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sat, 8 May 2004 12:49:52 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 May 2004 10:31:38 +0100, "Contro"
>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Without adding to any arguments, you aren't gonna see the end of
>>>> terrorism anyway. Not that I endorse raizing any cities to the
>>>> ground... but terrorism is a part of the human condition, it always
>>>> has been, and it always will be. It's the natural by product of
>>>> oppression, real or perceived.
>>>
>>> Very true! this is why I think a terrorism factor would be a great
>>> addition! Such as democracies having a higher terrorism risk than
>>> facism, and that your terrorism risk would increase on your breaking
>>> of policies, invading countries (having towns that used to belong to
>>> other countries and what not). Perhaps terrorism going on in cities
>>> far from the capital, as they want independence....obviously there
>>> would have to be improvements that would limit such things, such as
>>> wonders or other ones that don't exist.
>>
>> I don't think democracy has anything to do with it. Terrorists attack
>> fascists and communists too. It's just that when they do, we call them
>> "freedom fighters" or "the resistance". We characterize them as brave
>> soldiers fighting a just cause.
>
>Well when they attack a fascist or "communist" state, they get executed.
>Zero tollerance for terrorism in those kind of places!

You aren't suggesting, are you, that there is a lot of tolerance for
Terror in democracies? Timothy McViegh was put to death, for example.

Speaking as a member of the liberal wing of America's collective
voice, I suppose you could assume there is a degree of tolerance
seeing as our "president" has never been very committed to waging a
war on terror since 9 - 11... Although he has been a stalwart
opponent of phantom terror in Iraq.


-

T.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sat, 08 May 2004 15:30:11 -0500, Jeffery S. Jones
<jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 07 May 2004 11:19:37 GMT, Ving Rhames' Identical Twin Sister
><stopthespamfrom@aol.org> wrote:
>
>>I don't think democracy has anything to do with it. Terrorists attack
>>fascists and communists too. It's just that when they do, we call them
>>"freedom fighters" or "the resistance". We characterize them as brave
>>soldiers fighting a just cause.
>
> Terrorism is principally an attack on public opinion, and that
>matters more to democracies than autocracies. Insurgency, OTOH, can
>be directed more at the material resources of the enemy, and be
>effective even if *no* casualties occur -- terrorists want to kill
>people, especially relatively innocent people, as part of the goal of
>causing terror.

And a fair point of distinction is made... Still, history does show us
examples where the line is blurry...

As for innocence... I think 9/11 victims were innocent, and you think
they were innocent, and I'm confident that we are right... But that
doesn't change the fact that their killers, for whatever reasons, did
not view them or any of us as innocent.

Were they a force that actually could wage a legitimate war, and were
they to engage the US and win ((perhaps a hundred trillion to one
shot, maybe, if the planets aligned, and we had severely bad luck))
then history would treat them as heroes, and us as guilty villains.

And it bears pointing out that while its true that terrorisms goal is
to kill innocent people, it should be noted that these aren't
bloodthirsty lunatics. I see their tactics as being as far from
honorable as can be, but it isn't random mayhem they seek. They are
waging a kind of war and they have very clear goals and they are not
misjudging our resolve. They simply believe they can evade and endure
long enough to change our resolve.

Though, I wouldn't be willing to bet they are right.

>>Humans aren't very good at understanding the motivations of people
>>from other cultures. That's why in America, we refer to everyone who
>>attacks an American in Iraq as a terrorist. We refuse to consider that
>>these terrorists might believe they are defending their homeland.***
>
> Not everyone does that, including the military leaders over there.
>
> There are three major groups, with different goals.

I snipped for brevity... Of course you are right. And I spoke
generally. My observation is that careful journalists, thoughtful
military spokesmen, observant citizens who speak up, etc... do make
the distinctions.

But the Bush Administration does not. The White House is engaged in a
campaign of propaganda designed to paint the situation in the most
simplistic terms, and the lazier and not so bright among us are
willing to follow along.

White House talking points are happy to ignore over a half century of
complex history and our own complicity in much of it. They are happy
to allow many citizens see it is a case of "Muslims are bad and want
to kill us because they hate freedom" (Whatever the hell that means).
They are happy to characterize dissident voices as anti-American and
traitorous.

They need to, because if too many of us pay attention, the glaring
failures of this administration will become all too obvious.
-

T.