This is only the 3rd thread that I've posted, yet I see a theme developing in my topics: money and economics.
I keep reading threads and posts and commercial ads about how great this game is and how rich in historical accuracy it is. And, the people who did all the reseach and the programmers who had to actually code this info paid great care to detail and accuracy and did a superb research job bordering on the psychotically obsessive. You got all the names right, all the dates, religions, generals, marriages, alliances...all that: Fantastic job. Pat yourselves on the back. Historical accuracy? You guys are blowing it big time with your boast of historical accuracy. You've only got HALF the historical accuracy down because your economic and financial engine is a joke and is completely grounded in fantasy; there is no semblence whatsoever to reality or 'historical accuracy' when it comes to the way this game deals with money.
A) I'd like to quote an except from a web article entitled: History of the Stock Market (www.carr.lib.md.us/ccps/orms/stkmkt/history.htm)
'...The French stock exchange can be traced as far back as the 12th century...Philip the Fair (1268-1314) created the forerunner of the modern French stockbroker....the institutional beginnings of stock exchanges appeared during the 16th and 17th century (EU time frame!) in other great trading centers throughout the world: Amsterdam, Great Britain, Denmark, Germany....etc, etc. The growth of trade created a need for banks (not represented in the game, except for your 'loan' when you go 'bankrupt': another money/financial game fantasy that i'll discuss further on in this article) and insurance companies. (Has anyone ever considered letting a player playing England receive a 'LLoyd's of London' income bonus for insuring all those ships we're all so fond of sailing, after all, wasn't that what Lloyds was famous for: insuring ships!?) There is no semblece to a historically accurate stock market sim in this game and it is therefore NOT historically accurate as you are all so proud to boast. If you try and tell me that the 'CoT' concept of the game is an attempt at a stock market sim, i'll laugh. Where's the speculation on the commodity market? Where's the shrewd manipulation of the commodities market that allows you to 'corner the market' on commodities? Where's the South Sea Company scandel that gave us the Worlds First stock market crash in England in 1720? Finally, how's a cunning player going to be able to manipulate and ruin the economy of his rival through the stock market rather than go to war and risk military failure over a militarily superior foe? It's not there. Until it is, this game is NOT historically accurate.
B) Money. The biggest fantasy of this 'historically accurate game':
When I play Spain, I look at the top right part of the main screen and I see that my money is represented by 'gold coins'. When I play England, I look at the top right corner of my screen and I see my money is represented by 'gold coins'. When I negotiate a peace treaty with Spain, they give me X amount of gold coins if I promise to stop beating them up and I put these gold coins with my gold gold coins and the exchange rate between spanish coins and english coins is one to one and this number is added to my gold coins. HELLO....reality calling..... Europeans of the 21st century can't even decide on a unified currency, why should I expect the same in a fragmented dis-oriented Europe of the 16th century which is what the 'gold coin' concept implies.....and while I'm on the subject, what is up with this 'gold coin' concept anyway? If I play England, I better be spending those wonderful Pounds or it is NOT historically accurate. If I play France, I better be spending all those wonderful francs or it is NOT historically accurate. How did Europe approach rates of exchange in the 16th century? Where are all the financial movers and shakers of the period represented in this game? Where is Sir Thomas Smythe, the first governor of the powerful East India Company represented in this game? Surely he and others like him had important impacts on the economy of their countries. Has anyone ever thought of adding them to the game to give economic boosts to their respective countries?
C) Game bankruptcy and the 'loan'. Here is another game fantasy that has no ground to historical reality whatsoever. Though my knowledge of European history is vague at best, the only country that I know of that even came close to declaring bankruptcy during the ENTIRE EU time frame was France after the financing of the American Revolution began to catch up to her. Countries didn't go 'bankrupt' in the sense of the term and they didn't take 'loans' in the sense of the term. Most countries, and ESPECIALLY those with solid stock markets, when financing major projects that they couldn't or didn't want to completely finance themselves, turned to issuing bonds. War bonds are an example of this. This is where banks come in. Issuing bonds was a hedge against bankruptcy. It allowed financially powerful nations to privately fund (sometimes through the monster trading companies of the day) the expensive venture, rather than the government. In return, shareholders were promised a certain 'return' on their 'investment'at the conclusion of the venture. So, the 'bankruptcy/loan' needs to assume a different character or the game is NOT historically acurate.
It is because England had such an awesome financial structure that she beat Spain in the global RISK game. If you look closely at most of England's colonial ventures, you will find at the heart, the almighty bottom line as the driving force behind it. England KNEW how to make and use money. While the Spanish plundered and saved souls in the name of Pope and Christ, the English were looking for new angles on how to expand their wealth. And anyway, isn't that what this game is really about anyway, the bottom line? It takes money to run an empire, and the more money you have, the better you are able to run it. I mean what good is general so-and-so with a 6-6-6 rating if his country can't scrape up enough money to put an army behind him?
If you really want to be the game company that will 'change strategy games forever' I suggest you step down from the pedestal that you worship yourself upon and do all gamers a favor by disposing of the insipid 'gold coin' financial engine and replace it with a more historically accurate one. Add a stockmarket sim too. Then you truely will be historically accurate.
....I really DO love the game...it's definately a winner. Also, if you want a beta tester with a critical eye for the economic financial, pm me.......
I keep reading threads and posts and commercial ads about how great this game is and how rich in historical accuracy it is. And, the people who did all the reseach and the programmers who had to actually code this info paid great care to detail and accuracy and did a superb research job bordering on the psychotically obsessive. You got all the names right, all the dates, religions, generals, marriages, alliances...all that: Fantastic job. Pat yourselves on the back. Historical accuracy? You guys are blowing it big time with your boast of historical accuracy. You've only got HALF the historical accuracy down because your economic and financial engine is a joke and is completely grounded in fantasy; there is no semblence whatsoever to reality or 'historical accuracy' when it comes to the way this game deals with money.
A) I'd like to quote an except from a web article entitled: History of the Stock Market (www.carr.lib.md.us/ccps/orms/stkmkt/history.htm)
'...The French stock exchange can be traced as far back as the 12th century...Philip the Fair (1268-1314) created the forerunner of the modern French stockbroker....the institutional beginnings of stock exchanges appeared during the 16th and 17th century (EU time frame!) in other great trading centers throughout the world: Amsterdam, Great Britain, Denmark, Germany....etc, etc. The growth of trade created a need for banks (not represented in the game, except for your 'loan' when you go 'bankrupt': another money/financial game fantasy that i'll discuss further on in this article) and insurance companies. (Has anyone ever considered letting a player playing England receive a 'LLoyd's of London' income bonus for insuring all those ships we're all so fond of sailing, after all, wasn't that what Lloyds was famous for: insuring ships!?) There is no semblece to a historically accurate stock market sim in this game and it is therefore NOT historically accurate as you are all so proud to boast. If you try and tell me that the 'CoT' concept of the game is an attempt at a stock market sim, i'll laugh. Where's the speculation on the commodity market? Where's the shrewd manipulation of the commodities market that allows you to 'corner the market' on commodities? Where's the South Sea Company scandel that gave us the Worlds First stock market crash in England in 1720? Finally, how's a cunning player going to be able to manipulate and ruin the economy of his rival through the stock market rather than go to war and risk military failure over a militarily superior foe? It's not there. Until it is, this game is NOT historically accurate.
B) Money. The biggest fantasy of this 'historically accurate game':
When I play Spain, I look at the top right part of the main screen and I see that my money is represented by 'gold coins'. When I play England, I look at the top right corner of my screen and I see my money is represented by 'gold coins'. When I negotiate a peace treaty with Spain, they give me X amount of gold coins if I promise to stop beating them up and I put these gold coins with my gold gold coins and the exchange rate between spanish coins and english coins is one to one and this number is added to my gold coins. HELLO....reality calling..... Europeans of the 21st century can't even decide on a unified currency, why should I expect the same in a fragmented dis-oriented Europe of the 16th century which is what the 'gold coin' concept implies.....and while I'm on the subject, what is up with this 'gold coin' concept anyway? If I play England, I better be spending those wonderful Pounds or it is NOT historically accurate. If I play France, I better be spending all those wonderful francs or it is NOT historically accurate. How did Europe approach rates of exchange in the 16th century? Where are all the financial movers and shakers of the period represented in this game? Where is Sir Thomas Smythe, the first governor of the powerful East India Company represented in this game? Surely he and others like him had important impacts on the economy of their countries. Has anyone ever thought of adding them to the game to give economic boosts to their respective countries?
C) Game bankruptcy and the 'loan'. Here is another game fantasy that has no ground to historical reality whatsoever. Though my knowledge of European history is vague at best, the only country that I know of that even came close to declaring bankruptcy during the ENTIRE EU time frame was France after the financing of the American Revolution began to catch up to her. Countries didn't go 'bankrupt' in the sense of the term and they didn't take 'loans' in the sense of the term. Most countries, and ESPECIALLY those with solid stock markets, when financing major projects that they couldn't or didn't want to completely finance themselves, turned to issuing bonds. War bonds are an example of this. This is where banks come in. Issuing bonds was a hedge against bankruptcy. It allowed financially powerful nations to privately fund (sometimes through the monster trading companies of the day) the expensive venture, rather than the government. In return, shareholders were promised a certain 'return' on their 'investment'at the conclusion of the venture. So, the 'bankruptcy/loan' needs to assume a different character or the game is NOT historically acurate.
It is because England had such an awesome financial structure that she beat Spain in the global RISK game. If you look closely at most of England's colonial ventures, you will find at the heart, the almighty bottom line as the driving force behind it. England KNEW how to make and use money. While the Spanish plundered and saved souls in the name of Pope and Christ, the English were looking for new angles on how to expand their wealth. And anyway, isn't that what this game is really about anyway, the bottom line? It takes money to run an empire, and the more money you have, the better you are able to run it. I mean what good is general so-and-so with a 6-6-6 rating if his country can't scrape up enough money to put an army behind him?
If you really want to be the game company that will 'change strategy games forever' I suggest you step down from the pedestal that you worship yourself upon and do all gamers a favor by disposing of the insipid 'gold coin' financial engine and replace it with a more historically accurate one. Add a stockmarket sim too. Then you truely will be historically accurate.
....I really DO love the game...it's definately a winner. Also, if you want a beta tester with a critical eye for the economic financial, pm me.......
