Civilization V-An Improved Combat System

Although Civilization V received many good reviews from professional reviewing groups, popular reception was mixed. Many complained that changes to the game just left them clicking the end turn button repeatedly since there just wasn't much to do in a typical turn. Although I agree with many of those comments, one aspect of the game that I found much improved was the combat system.

The Major Changes
The single largest change is that you can no longer stack units together on the same hex. Every unit needs its own hex space. This changes the look of a major battle from this:


San Antonio is besieged by an entire army, from artillery to cavalry to infantry, all secure in one hex of jungle terrain.

To this:


Two sides face off in Civilization 5

Just from a glance at the game's main map, you can tell how much opposition you will be facing. In previous civilization games, a player can store an entire legion of troops in one hex that slowly advances toward your cities. In Civilization V, you see the entire horde spread out and can also easily tell what kind of units are attacking.

Another advantage of this system is that it requires players to think more about the terrain they are advancing through. In previous games it was easy to throw all your troops up on top of a mountain or another formidable defensive bastion, but now terrain with more marginal defensive benefits have to be considered as well. After all, only one unit can go up on the mountain or inside the city, the rest need to find a place to camp out as well.

The last major change is that certain units, such as archers and artillery, can fire at enemy soldiers from a distance rather than having to just directly attack like every other unit in the game. In the past, this ranged advantage was noted by making archers have defensive advantages or by allowing them to inflict some damage on attacking units before the random dice rolls began to play out. Now archers can pick off some enemy soldiers before they get in range to retaliate, a much more interesting system. Additionally, it requires a player using archers or artillery to protect them with melee units in front so that these valuable soldiers don't get slaughtered in close combat.

Why is this an improvement?
My biggest complaint with the combat systems in Civilization II-IV is that the defender received an overwhelming advantage at times. If an enemy is advancing, the solution is to garrison your towns and cities with every nearby unit, which apparently have no trouble housing or feeding the entire army of a nation, and it will be very difficult for the attacker to defeat them unless they brought a far superior number or quality of units along for the fight.


The entire population of Greece defends Athens.

Civilization II at least had a couple features that made it a little easier to take out a defending army. If you stacked units outside of a city or a fortress and you lost a defensive battle, the entire stack of units was destroyed. Additionally, when a unit defending a city lost a battle, the city lost one unit of population. This could even cause a city to be destroyed if it was reduced to a population of 1. Unfortunately, these were removed in Civilization III and IV.

The worst part for Civilization IV is that there are so many features that should add depth to the combat system. There are many units with bonuses against other units. For example, macemen gain a significant bonus in strength against other melee units like swordsmen and pikemen gain a significant bonus when fighting cavalry. There is also unit veterancy, which allows for units to gain bonuses to their basic combat abilities or to gain extra potency against the units they specialize in fighting. Unfortunately, these don't add a lot of depth to combat because of two problems. One is the ability to stack a limitless number of units on top of each other. The other is that when attacking a stack of units, the best defensive unit is always picked to defend. So, if you're attacking a archer and a knight with a pikemen and a horse archer, the archer will be chosen to defend against the pikemen and the knight against the horse archer. This means that you are guaranteed to lose either way when you attack.


Even Landsknecht in their snazzy uniforms have to follow those rules.

All of this isn't to say that winning a military victory was impossible in previous Civilization games, but it was only possible if your opponents didn't know what they were doing. All you have to do to survive an assault is spam units to defend your cities with and it becomes cost prohibitive to try and defeat an opponent in warfare. Although Civilization V was a step backward in many respects, the combat system certainly added a lot of depth and interest for me.

Vladimir Putin-Action Hero

Vladimir Putin, the current Prime Minister and former President of Russia, has taken greater advantage of masculine photo-opportunities than any other current political leader. This is partly because he's stayed in great shape for his age, still participating regularly in Judo. Compared with Boris Yeltsin, who was wracked with heart failure for much of his Presidency, Putin's general good health has allowed him to participate in many physically taxing jobs that his constituents hazard on a regular basis.


Such as tiger tracking.

Here's a collection of photos from Putin's political career, showing the various jobs that needed the assistance of a Russian leader to tackle.


Check it out or Prime Minister Putin might take you out!

The Future of NATO

Shortly before his retirement from the position of U.S. Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates made a speech regarding the future of NATO. Support of NATO has been a fixture of U.S. foreign policy since 1949, but the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991 calls its purpose into question. Even though NATO membership has grown since the end of the Cold War, the United States still provides the lion's share of military support for the alliance. As Gates noted in his speech, there is a "two-tiered" membership structure where there are members "willing to and able to pay the price and bear the burdens of commitments, and those who enjoy the benefits of NATO membership but don’t want to share the risks and the costs." Europe's military spending has continued to drop over the last decade or so in comparison with the United States. Looking at the military budget's of all of NATO for 2010, the United States leads with 687 billion dollars, trailed distantly by France and the UK with 61 and 57 billion dollars respectively. Even if you combine the military budgets of the rest of NATO together, the United States still spends about twice as much each year as all of the rest of the alliance.


Although every member still gets an equal seat at NATO's master planning conference table.

The NATO military interventions in Afghanistan and Libya certainly show the differences in military strength and willingness to fight between the United States and its allies. Looking at Afghanistan, for example, the United States currently has 90,000 soldiers deployed, more than double the rest of the International Security Assistance Force combined. The initial air campaign against the Taliban was also largely led by the United States, including helicopters, carrier-based airstrikes, and AC-130 gunship assaults.


American air-power at work.

Even though every NATO member endorsed intervention in Libya, more than half have not contributed anything at all to the effort. Even the NATO allies that did deploy aircraft to Libya are sometimes placed under severe restrictions by their home countries that limit their usefulness. For example, many allies deploying aircraft to Libya only authorize their air forces to enforce the no-fly zone and not conduct any bombing at all. This means that they may shoot down Libyan aircraft in the air. As there are no Libyan aircraft flying around anymore, that's not a very challenging task.


Mr. Gates sees a problem with this situation.

The question becomes, will the United States continue to provide the bulk of funding and military support for this alliance when the rest of the allies are not contributing an equal share of the budget? Given the current financial problems in the United States, it seems likely that NATO contributions will be one promising area to cut in the future.


After all, these things are expensive!

Conclusion
The contributions of NATO members to conflicts in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Libya are certainly appreciated by the United States, but the unequal military contributions of the United States and the rest of the alliance will lead to tension in the future. It may reduce the importance of NATO or simply end the alliance altogether. Europe needs to take more responsibility for their own defense and not rely on the United States to take the lead in every major military action.


Particularly when a little bit of ocean separates the United States from the conflict zones in North Africa and the Middle East.

College is an Investment

The current perception in the United States is that a four year college degree is the secret to financial success. Many high schools expect their graduates to move on to a university and continue their education. Students who don't plan to move on tend to be lectured by counselors, teachers, and principals about how they are giving up on their future dreams by not getting a degree. For those who do choose to advance their education, there are many scholarships that can be applied for. Unfortunately, for most students, scholarships alone are not going to be enough to pay for books, tuition, rent, and other expenses. This leaves loans, either through the government or private parties, as the only option to afford a four year degree. This is where it becomes critical to plan ahead when seeking a degree.

The Reality of a Degree
When considering college, the first question to consider is "why am I doing this?" Unless your family is independently wealthy, the purpose is usually to increase your lifetime earnings potential and find a good career. You may also learn a lot of interesting facts, make some good lifelong friends, find a girlfriend/boyfriend, and have other valuable experiences, but your financial future should be one of the primary reasons for attending.


If your degree isn't passing these out, you might want to pass on it.

It's true that those who have a college degree tend to make more money overall than those who don't. Unfortunately, that depends strongly on what degree you get while you're there. Some majors don't leave students with great job prospects after graduation. For instance, you might go through four years of college, get an English degree, and be completely unable to find a job or only find one that barely pays above minimum wage. Additionally, tuition fees have risen dramatically over the last decade and financial aid has not risen correspondingly. For instance, one political science student in this story has $140,000 in debt and was only able to find a position at a non-profit that pays poorly.

It's important to look at what job opportunities are out there for your prospective degree choice. Look through job postings that you would qualify for with that degree, take a peek at the average salary, and evaluate the tuition and fees of your college to see whether you can make a living doing that. Consider whether you're willing to move to find a job or not-if you are you're likely going to have a lot more options. If you live in a state like Michigan that's currently losing a lot of the population, you're likely to have a lot more difficulty finding work than if you live in Texas.

Where to go to School
One factor that makes a huge difference in the price of a school is whether you attend a public or private university. For example, compare the price of one year at private Albion College with the public University of Michigan. One full year of tuition at Albion is about $32,100. A full year at the University of Michigan is about $12,634. If you include room and board, Albion costs significantly less there and the prices become closer, but are still roughly a $10,000 a year difference.

Another significant expense is choosing to attend school outside of the state you have residency status in. At the University of Michigan, Michigan residents pay that $12,634 a year fee, but out-of-state residents have to pay $37,782, about three times as much. Over four years of school, that's a solid $90,000 price difference. Some universities allow certain out-of-state attendees to receive in-state tuition, but it's very important to look into that before picking a school.


You may not need a passport to cross this line, but it will certainly make college more expensive!

Attending a community college, even though it is not as prestigious as a four year university, can save you a huge amount of money. 18 credits for two semesters at Washtenaw Community College is only about $3,500 for a resident. Compared with $12,000 for a year at the University of Michigan that's quite a bargain! One nice way to utilize community colleges is to take classes that transfer to a four year university. That way you get the prestige of a bachelor's degree from that larger university but pay significantly less money.


The only downside is the line for using the Community College's computer.

Where to Live
The final major component of the price of college is housing-and there are important choices to make here too. Living in the housing provided by colleges and universities is rarely a good deal. Usually you will end up paying $5,000-$10,000 for two semesters of housing. Assuming you're at school for about 9 months of the year, that's %555-1,111 a month! That fee also typically includes a roommate and sub-par housing conditions.


Roommates are also typically randomly assigned.

A less expensive option is to live off-campus. Most colleges and universities tend to draw a large number of rental properties in the area, ranging from apartments to houses. With the aid of a few friends, the rent for these living arrangements can be quite reasonable.

By far the best deal, if you can get it, is to live with your parents until you're done with school. It may be a bit hindering but it saves you around $10,000 or so a year in room and board. For a 4 year degree, that's $40,000 in your pocket. For a lot of college graduates I know, that 40K would be enough to pay off all their student loan debt and leave them with no debt as they begin their careers.


Good times!

Conclusion
Before planning which college to attend and what degree to major in, look at what the purpose of college is for you. For most, the purpose is to achieve financial independence and to find a solid lifetime career. Hold that purpose foremost in your thought process when looking for schools to attend and you will graduate with much less debt and a better career future than many of your compatriots.

National Balanced Budget Amendment

One of the more popular ideas circulating to reduce federal government spending is for a balanced budget amendment to be added to the U.S. Constitution. Almost every U.S. state constitution currently has some version of a balanced budget amendment in place. Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry has said that it is one change to the Constitution that he would strongly support. Newt Gingrich and several other presidential candidates agree with Perry, a balanced budget must be a short-term goal for the United States. It's also a popular idea with voters; one poll shows that about 66% of Americans want a balanced budget for the federal government.


Governor Perry's preferred method to deal with federal overspending.

But what is popular is not necessarily a good idea. Let's look at the history of the U.S. budget and show how a balanced budget amendment would work and see if it seems like a great idea for the federal government.

A look at Federal Debt
One important fact to keep in mind when considering a balanced federal budget is that the United States government has always been in debt. Budget surpluses have occasionally allowed for a large portion of that debt to be paid back, but it has never been paid off. Even when it has been mostly paid off, a war usually ensued that rapidly escalated the debt back to a high level. For a recent picture of the debt, here's an image showing it since 1940, with a sharp increase right at the start due to WWII.



Since the United States is still involved with two wars and also invests a significant amount of money into combating worldwide terrorism, it doesn't seem out of place for there to be significant government debt right now. Perhaps once President Obama's withdrawal plan for Afghanistan is completed it will be possible for the debt to be reduced significantly. Wars are expensive, so it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the debt has kept increasing.


Military supplies brought to you courtesy of the national debt.

The addition of revenue loss due to the large tax cuts passed during the last decade basically guaranteed that the national debt was going to be quite large. With the description of the current situation out of the way, let's look at the inner workings of a balanced budget plan for the government.

How a Balanced Budget Amendment Works
Fortunately, it's easy to see how a balanced budget amendment works since most states have one in place. They force the state's legislature to make up for any budget shortfalls each year by reducing spending or increasing taxes to ensure that the state does not fall into debt. There isn't much tolerance for increases in taxes lately in the U.S. so states have had to rely on spending cuts in order to meet their balanced budgets. This has resulted in layoffs of state employees and deep cuts in spending due to falling tax revenues stemming from economic turmoil from the recession. Although this has been painful for vulnerable segments of society that are reliant on state programs for support, state spending cuts typically are not that noticeable for citizens who can support themselves financially. Unfortunately, that would probably not be the case for federal spending cuts.

State vs. Federal Balanced Budget Amendments
The biggest reason that state spending cuts are not all that noticeable for most of the population is that a lot of the most important spending, such as Defense, Medicare, and Social Security, takes place at a federal level. The federal government also gives a lot of money to states to fund education and other state programs. So, even if Maryland decided to not spend any money for a year, they would not be vulnerable to foreign invasion since they're still protected by the national military and some services, particularly those directed toward the elderly, would still be provided courtesy of federal spending. Additionally, while it would be painful for residents of Maryland, the rest of the country would likely not even notice.

In comparison, if the federal government needed to cut back on spending suddenly, the entire country would feel the impact. The federal government spends trillions of dollars each year, including billions of dollars that go to each state in the union. The problem with a balanced budget amendment is that the federal government responds to major challenges for the country.


Such as this, for example.

So, if something like Pearl Harbor were to occur today, the states are not responsible for the response to it. It's the federal government that has to rebuild the Pacific fleet and create a military capable of fighting in Asia and Europe. This is why it's acceptable for states to have balanced budget amendments, they are not the level of government that responds to large-scale disasters. Even with major floods and hurricanes, it's the federal government that provides the bulk of the money for rebuilding efforts.

One important point to bring up is that proponents of balanced budget amendments do typically allow for an exception to be made in times of war and national emergency. Congress would be able to vote for a time of national emergency to be declared so that the need for a balanced budget could be ignored for a few years while the war or whatever is resolved. However, the current political environment in Washington shows that it may not be possible for Congress to agree on whether the country is in a major emergency or not. Earlier this year, Republicans and Democrats could not even come to agreement on raising the federal debt limit, even with months of warning, resulting in the United State's credit rating being reduced for the first time. Compromise just seems to be impossible in the government right now, so I wouldn't count on the political parties putting aside their differences to allow a little matter like a major war to determine that the balanced budget needs to be ignored for a year or two.


Particularly when some members of government point to federal spending as being a worse enemy than the Nazis.

The Potential Consequences of a Balanced Budget Amendment
So, let's say the worst case scenario of a major war or other unanticipated and extremely expensive disaster occurs and Congress doesn't agree to lift the balanced budget requirement to deal with the problem. Let's use the example of the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan as a new budget issue. They have cost around $3.7 trillion so far. That number is as large as the entire yearly U.S. budget! Now, that cost has to be spread over 10 years of budgets, but that's still a hell of a large unanticipated expense. Well, here's the budget:


What do you want to cut out?

Basically, no matter what part of the budget you want to cut, it will be a hell of a painful cost for the country. Perhaps that's part of the point of a balanced budget amendment, it makes for some really hard decisions that maybe the United States should have to make. But still, do you really want those decisions to have to be made while we're in the middle of a national disaster? In this instance, I think Rick Perry and other supporters are a little off the mark in what needs to be done to fix the U.S. budget. Yes, it needs to be reduced, but it should not be forced in this manner.


Without a serious discussion on the budget, we may end up not aiming at the right parts to cut.