Game designs greatest challenge?

[unmerged(1973)]

Originally posted by Habbaku
Unfortunately, I highly doubt the majority of Americans know that. Then again, I also wonder at the number of, say, Polish or German citizens that know where the Rockies are. The Bayou? Great Lakes?

Citizens knowing lots about local or at least continental geography is to be expected. Knowing geography about other countries is, alas, barely encouraged here...

How is it in your section of Europe, Frodon?

I guess most schoolchildren would be able to point out the Great Lakes and the Rocky Mountains. But I wouldn't be surprised if most of them forget it as soon as they are finished with their last geography test

 

[unmerged(1973)]

Originally posted by Habbaku
Unfortunately, I highly doubt the majority of Americans know that. Then again, I also wonder at the number of, say, Polish or German citizens that know where the Rockies are. The Bayou? Great Lakes?

An interesting article here from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2496427.stm

If you are lost, don't ask a young person for directions - that is the message coming out of an international survey of 18-24 year olds conducted by America's National Geographic Society.
More than 3,000 young adults in nine countries were tested on their geographical knowledge - with some alarming results.

Despite a deluge of news about the prospect of a war against Saddam Hussein, only 13% of Americans tested could point Iraq out on a map of the world.

Perhaps even more worrying - when confronted with the same map, only 89% of Americans could find their own country!

The surveyors asked the youngsters to answer 56 questions on geographic knowledge and current events.

The results were then graded, using the traditional grading system used in the United States.

Disappointing scores

Not a single country managed the 42 points need for an A grade, even top scoring Sweden only got an average of 40 questions right.

They were followed by Italy and Germany, tied on 38 points each. America notched up a D grade with an average of 23 correct answers.

If young people can't find places on a map and lack awareness of current events, how can they understand the world's cultural, economic and natural resource issues that confront us?

John Fahey, National Geographic Society President

Britain came a disappointing fourth from the bottom and Mexico trailed into last place with an average score of just 21 out of 56.

But America did have some cause to celebrate, as it moved up from the last place it held in the previous survey in 1988.

The survey took place in June and July 2002 as a follow-up to a similar test carried out in 1988 by the National Geographic Society.

Results


11% of Americans could not find America.

71% of Americans could point out where the Pacific Ocean - the world's largest body of water - was located. Worldwide, three in 10 of those surveyed could not locate the Pacific Ocean.

Apart from the Swedes, only 40% or fewer young adults could name China and India as the two countries with a population over one billion.

Less than 25% of French, Canadian, Italian, British and Americans could name four countries that officially acknowledged owning nuclear weapons.

58% of Americans know the Taleban and al-Qaeda were based in Afghanistan, compared with 84% of Britons, but only 17% of Americans can locate the country.

34% of Americans know the tiny Marquesas Islands, where the last season of reality TV show "Survivor" was filmed, is located in the South Pacific. But only 30% could point to the location of New Jersey.

56% of Americans were unable to locate India, home to 17% of the world's population.

 

[Habbaku]

*nod* I saw that article a while back; very interesting stuff. Of course, it reinforces my belief that you Scandanavian people have the best countries in the world as far as education/living quality goes.

Of course, re-reading this article, I'm absolutely shocked that Canada did worse than America. And here, all the Canucks claim to be smarter.

 

[unmerged(1973)]

Originally posted by Habbaku
Of course, it reinforces my belief that you Scandanavian people have the best countries in the world as far as education/living quality goes.

Guess you don't know what a pint of beer costs here

 

[unmerged(13394)]

Shocking... I'm not surprised the bad results for USA and Mexico, but I though europeans should known better. Well, here and there are many kinds of people, some know, some don't... so maybe it's not so suprising. It would be nice to see those results form 1988, is the avarage knowing of geography increased or decreased.

Btw. I knew asnwers to every questions what was show in that article expect that survivor-island, never heard of it and don't watch survivor. Does they even show that program in all countries in test?

 

[unmerged(13394)]

Originally posted by Frodon
Guess you don't know what a pint of beer costs here

It's not cheap in Finland either. Well, maybe thats why we scandinavians are so smart ie. stuff what we have learned in school stays our heads better when we can't afford to drink all the time

Well actually, Finns drink about average 16 litres/year pure alcohol... So maybe the cost of beer doesn't affect that... And the Cheap-Booze-Estonia is near...

 

[Habbaku]

Originally posted by Frodon
Guess you don't know what a pint of beer costs here

Heh, considering the only alcohol I touch is sacramental, it doesn't make me quite so sad.

 

[Habbaku]

Yeesh...I just took the sample test (the twenty questions) and got them all right. And now I'm kinda depressed that so many countries scored as low as they did.

Highlights : 3% of Swedes/Italians don't know where Sweden/Italy are, respectively.
2% of Japanese don't know where Japan is.
A whopping 20% of Americans don't know where Mexico is...

 

[Dark Knight]

We've had several threads on the geography test. They're in the OT forum, if you're interested.

 

[Killerjes]

Originally posted by Duuk
I'm just getting hugely afraid reading these forums that the American Civil War won't be that big a deal, or won't be done even moderately well.

It doesn't need to be earth shakingly detailed. This is not a Civil War game. But it needs to be modelled well enough to 1) Occur, and 2) Be resolved without utterly destroying the US most of the time.

I'm not getting much hope so far

Getting back to topic:

I think the ACW could be modelled relatively easy, if just the US exists at the start date
Some have argued that it's much too important to be "reduced to a single event" - I don't really understand their concern, as if events are bad?
One event would certainly be to simplify it, but maybe several events leading to the war (maybe try to avoid it, secession without war as a (remote?) possibility?).
But events are great they are actually what makes it possible to ensure that the ACW accours in a realtively realistic / accurate manner.
And with all the ACW buffs around I'm sure there will be more than enough events to make it so!

 

[Duuk]

That's the best I'm hoping for as far as the ACW.

A series of events that lead to either the Civil War or a near-miss.

My reasons for this are very simple: The American Civil War, much like many events in EU2 (English Civil War), had been fairly well determined by the time VIC will start. While it should be avoidable, it's likely going to happen. This means that it needs to be modelled on a reasonable scale.

VIC is not a game solely about the ACW, but it is the most important event to hit the USA during that time frame. Doing it poorly would be a huge mistake. This is not an event at the extreme ends of the game. This is not the 100 years war, which will likely follow historical paths eventually, nor is it the Napoleanic Wars that occur so late in the game as to be a footnote.

This is dead-center of the action. Middle of the Game. And if this is done poorly, it will make the nation that a vast number of Paradox Customers live in become not worthwhile to play.

See the issue?

 

[Tim O]

Originally posted by Duuk
As a "Balance of Power" event, the ACW isn't that vital. Either or both American states will eventually need European trade again. It was simply unavoidable in the 1800s.

But from a MILITARY event point of view, the ACW was vastly important. It proved the ineffectiveness of cavalry against machine guns. It proved that machine guns were a defensive weapon bar none. It proved that the old style "fort and infantry" armies couldn't stand against a modern, mobile force.

It changed doctrines across the world.

And sadly... it coined the term "total war" and the modern incarnation of "scorched earth" warfare.

While this game isn't a civil war simulator, it has to be more than event driven. To put it in perspective: The CSA alone has as much land area as western europe. The north accounts for a similiar size. Saying that the US civil war should be event driven when _250,000_ Americans died in it is like saying that World War I should have a simple "Fight World War? Yes/No" event.

250,000 Americans. There were MILLIONS of troops under arms. It was the first modern war involving army and divisional level command capturing areas the size of western european nations in field battles.

I'd challenge any person to name a war that was more important prior to World War I.

The War was much larger even then that.


2.803 million served for the Union and 1.064 million served the Confedracy (9 of every 10 physiclly fit free white men in the South of age)

110,070 men fell in battle for the Union and other 249,458 died of dissease, cold, accidents and the general scourge of war. 275,125 men were wounded.

74,524 men fell in battle for the Confedracy and more than 124,000 men died from attriton. 137,000+ men were wounded.

That's 184,594 dead in combat, another 373,458 died of other causes. A total of 558,052 dead, and at least 399,125 wounded.
I have seen larger estimates from credible sources stating that 617,000 died in total, but this was the first thing I found in Google so here it is.

 

[unmerged(15470)]

That's interesting and surprising. I'd always imagined that as the North won the war, their losses would have been less. If more people on your side die, is it by definition a pyrrhic victory? Or is it worth it if (as for USA) it open the gates for power & prestige a couple of generations down the line?

 

[unmerged(8351)]

to get back on topic the thing i worry most about is the ai difficulty mainly because this will add to replayability...also the game will hopefully be able to model the economics well as i believe they were fairly dynamic having pre and post industrial economies in the same game could get messy if there is too little abstraction

 

[Tim O]

Originally posted by Oberstein
That's interesting and surprising. I'd always imagined that as the North won the war, their losses would have been less. If more people on your side die, is it by definition a pyrrhic victory? Or is it worth it if (as for USA) it open the gates for power & prestige a couple of generations down the line?

It is worth it because it freed over 3,000,000 people from the horror of being Human Chattel.

 

[IEX Totalview]

Originally posted by Timothy Ortiz
It is worth it because it freed over 3,000,000 people from the horror of being Human Chattel.

In that case, the North did a good job drawing out the war. Had they defeated the South in 1861-1862, it is likely the institution would have survived for a while longer.

Ironically enough, the war also destituted the South economically (and most free slaves lived in the South), caused great resentment among white Southerners and caused the death of 500,000 Americans and the wounding of 500,000 more. Was it worth it to free the slaves? To me that depends on when and if the institution would have died a natural death. Since no one really knows the answer, I will concede the freeing of the slaves was the greatest achievement of the war but still wonder if it was worth the human destruction it caused.

 

[unmerged(1973)]

Originally posted by Oberstein
That's interesting and surprising. I'd always imagined that as the North won the war, their losses would have been less. If more people on your side die, is it by definition a pyrrhic victory? Or is it worth it if (as for USA) it open the gates for power & prestige a couple of generations down the line?

Well, the side that attacks will usually suffer most casualties. Especially in the ACW period when techonlogy like rifles favored defensive warfare.

 

[unmerged(10262)]

Originally posted by azid
yeah the europe of today would be very different had they won

Well not as different as if Germany had won WW1 or if Prussia failed to unite Germany at all.

 

[unmerged(15764)]

I think that was kind of what i meant =D indirectly!
But yeah a german win in ww1 we couldve avoided ww2 maybe?

 

[unmerged(1973)]

Originally posted by azid
I think that was kind of what i meant =D indirectly!
But yeah a german win in ww1 we couldve avoided ww2 maybe?

It would at least lead to a different WW2. Perhaps with a revenge-seeking France?