SeaMonkey Posted December 9, 2004 Author Share Posted December 9, 2004 Seriously Mark, do you really believe that the conquering hoards never fleeced the population of vanquished nations for things like coin/art collections, precious metals/jewelry, their land/crops, stocks and bonds, any valuable possessions at all? Do an historical search...I think you'll find the concept of "plunder" has long legs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retributar Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 We understand what you say Seamonkey & Lars , and you are absolutely correct. There must have been plunder...'to be sure!' and so it should be included...but, in the modern industrial age...i think its effect would not have been as decisive or noticable as in the days of 'Attila The Hun'!. Thats why i agree with bloodstar . Besides that, i think that the plunder in SC1 was way too high and unrealistic!...and would like to discourage that aspect. I would prefer a smaller 'Plunder-Bonus' and instead a system (which already is in place in SC1) of a monthly Stipend based on a realistic Gross-National-Product in the form of MPP's...based on existing operating industry - mines and so forth!. Lars: ...in the case you mentioned of the Captured Czech tanks and Tank Production Facilities ... i agree!...the German's should get the what-ever 200 + or - tanks and immediately form 1 or 2 more light-tank-divisions without having to buy them...as well as not needing to re-tool that particular Czech Light-Tank-Plant!...unless one wanted to convert it into a 'Medium' or 'Heavy' Tank Plant!. Also in this game...With aforesaid exception to the captured tank-industry...and perhaps some others...most captured 'Manufacturing Industry' should be forced to 're-tool' over a period of time to be able to then produce compliant-integratable equipment used for that particular nations forces...instead of just...automatically producing such items. I Know...I Know!!!...this will be construed as "Micro-Managing"...but, never-the-less...that is my opinion!. ***Anyone Here...Remember the 'War in Russia' game by Gary Grigsby???*** ... in that old-simple-game...you had to Re-Tool your Factories or Production Facilities if you wished to produce a different variant of production item...and that game was not such a complex game. Why can't we do that with SC2???. Please dont overplay that "Micro-Management" card again...give it a rest for a while so as to not wear it out!. [ December 09, 2004, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 Heh, I think all the free river barges and trucks had a greater effect than the Czech tanks. But at least I got you on the "quibbling" side instead of the "get rid of it" side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted December 9, 2004 Author Share Posted December 9, 2004 "But at least I got you on the "quibbling" side instead of the "get rid of it" side." Well what about it Mark alias bloodstar? You dah man Lars.....High Five Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 The problem isn't the concept of plunder. The problem is that occupied nations after they are plundered, still produce too high of a MPP. Thats why I call it Borg economics. If a conquered nation was reduced to a small fraction of its initial production (say 10%), the massive German MPP values wouldn't exist in the later stages of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodstar Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Originally posted by SeaMonkey: Seriously Mark, do you really believe that the conquering hoards never fleeced the population of vanquished nations for things like coin/art collections, precious metals/jewelry, their land/crops, stocks and bonds, any valuable possessions at all? Do an historical search...I think you'll find the concept of "plunder" has long legs. Plunder is fine, but how much of that plunder was used to create infantry and armor and bombers? RE: using captured equipment. With the Czech tanks. It wasn't so much the captured tanks as the captured tank *industry* that supplied the armor to the Germans. (also factor in that the takeover of Czechslovakia was a very peaceful one. so there wasn't the damage to infrastructure. a very... unusual (Potentially unique) situation. Counterpoint: how many polish designed/built tank divisions did the germans field, or French. I'm sure they would have loved to used the soviet tanks, but how many T-38's did the germans have in the field in world war 2? - Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted December 10, 2004 Author Share Posted December 10, 2004 Okay Mark I can see you have bought into the concept of plunder, we just have a definition problem. Remember SC uses abstracted features to simulate the real life occurrences. So imagine "create" eguates to "Buy", "purchase", "barter", etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodstar Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 *grins* I've bought into the idea of plundering. But I do agree with you. I disagree that any sort of instant gain should be a part of Conquest of a country. How does that work? :cool: -Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts