In the game this would lead to civs being classified based on the state of the game, and not the state of the game based on classifications of civs.

"Developed nations" and "developing nations" are the generally accepted terms now.

quote: Originally posted by Tical_2000 on 11-24-2000 04:45 PM you're an idiot.

Who's an idiot?

I wonder why no one ever speaks of the 4th world countries.

Thanks for the idea of 4th world countries, DarkCloud. I didn't know they even existed, but here in Webster's fourth world countries are defined as 'the poorest, most underdeveloped countries of the third world.'

THIRD WORLD. The term Third World was originally coined in French (tiers monde) in 1952 to describe a group of countries that chose to stay out of the Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union (the First and Second worlds). Among these nations were Yugoslavia, Egypt, India, Ghana, and Indonesia. (See also Cold War; International Relations, "The Third World.")
By the mid-1950s the term was taking on a broader meaning. It became a collective reference to all underdeveloped nations. The meaning of Third World, therefore, had changed from a geographic one to an economic one. The underdeveloped countries encompassed all of Latin America, all of Africa except for the nation of South Africa, of Asia except for Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Israel.
Some areas such as sub-Saharan Africa, Haiti, and Bangladesh remained mired in poverty and squalor. They became known as the Fourth World to differentiate them from places that showed a measure of economic growth.
Economics. Taken together, most of the Third World societies and all of those in the Fourth World share certain economic characteristics. They may, like Haiti, be poor in natural resources with neither economic development nor growth. Or they may have undergone some economic development without economic growth.
There is a significant difference between development and growth. Development is brought in from the outside, while growth is initiated from within. The petroleum-rich nations of the Middle East, for example, have known a great deal of economic development since the end of World War II. The technology, money, and know-how brought in from the United States and other Western nations has enabled them to earn billions of dollars by exporting oil. But they have had very little economic growth--the emergence of home-grown manufacturing and agriculture that create wealth. If the oil is ever depleted, it is very likely that these countries will sink back into poverty again.
Without the growth of economies at home, Third- and Fourth-World countries remain little more than supply regions for the industrialized nations. They offer their natural resources as exports, but if the market for these resources collapses they have nothing to fall back on.
Politics. Many Third World countries are governed by extremely inefficient, repressive, and dishonest regimes. Such regimes, with few exceptions, have been unable to guide their nations into prosperity. (South Korea is a notable exception.) They depend on money brought in from the outside for development, but much of this money finds its way into the private bank accounts of the officers of government.
Repressive regimes are rarely stable. They are vulnerable to rebellion and guerrilla warfare, as has happened in Iran, The Philippines, and much of Central and South America. Even the Third World countries that have experienced revolutions usually find themselves no better off. The new governments turn out to be as repressive and ineffectual as the ones they replaced.
Population and debt. The two worst problems facing underdeveloped countries are population increase and the burden of debt. The highest birthrates in the world are in Third- and Fourth-World nations. It is expected that the world population will increase by 2 billion in about the next 20 years. Ninety percent of this increase will be in underdeveloped nations.
Increases of this magnitude aggravate already serious problems of food supply, unemployment, and public services. City populations also burgeon as people move from the countryside to urban areas in search of work or welfare.
Billions of dollars in aid--in the form of loans--have been sent to most underdeveloped countries since the early 1960s. Much of the borrowing was done when the industrial nations were prosperous and interest rates were low. Today many Third- and Fourth-World countries are overburdened with huge debts and see no way to repay them. The total debt of these nations is more than 800 billion dollars. The largest debtors are Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Nigeria, Peru, Chile, and Poland. To keep these nations afloat, lenders are forced to refinance the loans or face the threat of default, or total nonpayment. A default of such size would wreck the international financial system. Yet the vast amount of money poured into the underdeveloped world has done little to make it economically self-sufficient.
Multinational corporations. Many large corporations based in Western Europe, North America, and Japan operate manufacturing and other business facilities in underdeveloped countries. In some cases entire factories have been built--the German auto manufacturer Volkswagen has an automobile plant in Brazil, for example. The subdivision of production processes has also enabled companies to have some of their work done in countries with lower wages, while final assembly is at the home plant.
The operations of multinational corporations have served to make the world economically interdependent. One result, however, has been to increase unemployment in the industrialized world by shipping jobs overseas. Another result has been increased control of the economies of underdeveloped nations while not raising their standards of living appreciably.

FOURTH WORLD. A group of nations especially in Africa and Asia characterized by extremely low per capita income and an absence of valuable natural resources.

1st - the developed nations of the world that have both freedom and money.

2nd - the developed nations of the world that have money, but no freedom.

3rd - the underdeveloped nations of the world that have weak economies and rely entirely on trade using their own natural resources to keep from "falling back."

4th - the underdeveloped nations of the world that have very weak or no economies at all and have little or no natural resources to trade with.

If the game were set up this way, regardless of the state of the game, their may only be 3rd and 4th world countries to start and as time goes by and new forms of government are discovered and nations rise up to power, 1st and 2nd world countries will begin to appear.

Ok, I'm ready to get bashed now. . .

First World - Europe + Mediterranean (the old powers)

Second World - Colonies that took to parental culture and state of development (USA, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, South Africa)

Third World - Colonies that failed to do so

which left only a few countries to escape the terminology (mainly China, Korea and Japan). Some others are borderline (Mexico, Mongolia).

But I may be wrong, I couldn't find a reference.

quote: Originally posted by Zero_Tolerance on 11-25-2000 10:54 PM If the game were set up this way, regardless of the state of the game, their may only be 3rd and 4th world countries to start and as time goes by and new forms of government are discovered and nations rise up to power, 1st and 2nd world countries will begin to appear. Ok, I'm ready to get bashed now. . .

Like I said, I'm ready to get bashed now, but I was only kidding. . .

And if you think that's unrealistic, who cares about when the terms 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th world were invented. Just because these terms were not invented until the 20th Century doesn't mean we can't use them in Civ3. The game is NOT gonna know the difference!

There's my two cents.

quote: Originally posted by Tical_2000 on 11-30-2000 04:39 PM Mr. Dictionary...err, I mean Zero Tolerance: Where do you suggest this 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world idea fit into actual gameplay. Is this whole thread dedicated to a useless statistic people would like to see on the demographics window??? Seriously though, what's the point? Where's the substance to these ideas???

It could fit actual gameplay if the concept of colonizing were introduced (as in Imperialism). First world countries could colonize Third world countries, with a chance that these would develop into Second world countries (ie a minor power could at some point bceome a major power).

quote: Originally posted by Zero_Tolerance on 12-01-2000 12:51 AM Sweden is pretty much developed and has benifited from trade by using a strict code of neutrality, so Sweden would probably be best classified as either a 1st or 2nd world nation. There are other nations in the world that are much poorer and worse off than Sweden (take Ethiopia for example)

huh?? sweden a 2nd world country??? sweden is one of the richest countries of the world and both socially and economicly leading in northern europe. plus they had huge military influence on the main continent in the late middle ages.

maybe you learn your geography/history lesson!

------------------
mankind made alcohol, god made weed.....whom do you trust?

quote: Originally posted by Zero_Tolerance on 12-01-2000 12:51 AM Well, alot of people around here talk about "playing Sweden" and say that Sweden is a good example of a minor nation. In my opinion, probably not. Sweden is pretty much developed and has benifited from trade by using a strict code of neutrality, so Sweden would probably be best classified as either a 1st or 2nd world nation. There are other nations in the world that are much poorer and worse off than Sweden (take Ethiopia for example), so they would best fit in other classifications. Just because a nation has a small population doesn't mean it should be classified as "minor."

Sweden being poor? Where u from? Sweden is one of the most technological advanced countries in the world, and it's certianly not poor.

quote: Originally posted by Zero_Tolerance on 12-01-2000 12:51 AM Well, alot of people around here talk about "playing Sweden" and say that Sweden is a good example of a minor nation. In my opinion, probably not. Sweden is pretty much developed and has benifited from trade by using a strict code of neutrality, so Sweden would probably be best classified as either a 1st or 2nd world nation. There are other nations in the world that are much poorer and worse off than Sweden (take Ethiopia for example), ...

Ethiopia for example?

Just because it's relatively poor NOW, doesn't mean it's a minor civ in human history. Ethiopia was the first sub-Saharan African nation (1000 BC), and was never colonized. This makes it either a first-world nation or numberless.

This thread is going nowhere. I have not read anything that would contribute anything meaningful to Civ III.

As I stated before, the latest Master's circulums of Human Geography have done away with the terminologies "first, second and third world."

quote: Originally posted by Stuff2 on 12-04-2000 11:03 AM Sweden being poor? Where u from? Sweden is one of the most technological advanced countries in the world, and it's certianly not poor.

Uh, EXCUSE ME! I NEVER said that Sweden was a poor country. I SAID that other people on these boards have used Sweden as an example of a minor nation and I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THAT!!!

The mini civs would be like the Barbarian units that stock you and try to overun your empire in civ2, except that in civ3 they should be more like a *mini* civ, they would have minor settlements here and there, depending on the diffeculty you are playing on. and the size of the map

the regular civs would be as they are.

quote: Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto on 12-06-2000 04:30 PM Its just that it wouldn't work.

Well, why not???

I don't see the point of putting something like this in the game if it isn't going to do anything.

------------------
- Biddles

quote: Originally posted by Biddles on 12-06-2000 09:24 PM I don't see the point of putting something like this in the game if it isn't going to do anything.

Let me repeat my post above which apparently went unnoticed.

It could fit actual gameplay if the concept of colonizing were introduced (as in Imperialism). First world countries could colonize Third world countries, with a chance that these would develop into Second world countries (ie a minor power could at some point become a major power).

If cultural identity was more acurately modelled then it would indeed be possible for "1st world" nations to colonise parts of the world, strip them of resources for a while (or develop their economy to be able to provide resources), then return them to their previous national control when the cost of ownership became too high to make continued occupation worthwhile.

quote: Originally posted by Ribannah on 12-07-2000 09:50 AM It could fit actual gameplay if the concept of colonizing were introduced (as in Imperialism). First world countries could colonize Third world countries, with a chance that these would develop into Second world countries (ie a minor power could at some point become a major power).

Uh...first world countries didn't colonize third world countries. They settled uninhabited land or lands inhabited by technologically inferior peoples. The USA was never a third world country-it was created by English colonists. I also think that in a game such as Civ, it would be hard to distinguish colonization from just building cities (there's no difference in the actual game). The concept of colonization would be extremely hard to implement in Civ3.

quote: Originally posted by Tical_2000 on 12-07-2000 04:36 PM Uh...first world countries didn't colonize third world countries.

Call them territories if you like.

quote: They settled uninhabited land or lands inhabited by technologically inferior peoples. The USA was never a third world country-it was created by English colonists.

I am certain the people who lived in North America and saw their land taken by force felt a little different about this . Whether or not their nations could be described as Third World countries or as "unnumbered" (ie potentially first-world) is another matter. Gamewise, a Third World country would simply offer additional options to connect it to the empire other than conquest.

A major empty terrain that was taken in the relevant time frame is South Africa - by the Dutch and English from the south, and the Zulus from the north.

quote: I also think that in a game such as Civ, it would be hard to distinguish colonization from just building cities.

Using national borders would probably help here. Any new city that is too far away to connect to the "homeland" border is a colony, built or taken makes no difference. The game could perhaps allow building a single city within the borders of a Third World nation, without changing those borders.