 |
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by nbarclay
Further, players may or may not choose to switch to Fascism and start fighting the instant Fascism becomes available. (In Power of Communism, I ended up waiting all the way until I had the tech to build Modern Armor before staging my communist revolution.) |
I'm tempted to propose a restriction on the upcoming game so that this line of play is not possible; what is the point of Fascism if 99% of the game is played in Democracy, with the remaining 1% being a Modern Armor steamroll of the AI? But given the recent outcry against restrictions, it's probably best to just let each player decide to what extent he or she wants to explore Fascism.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by pvzh
In the Power of Fascism the restriction was that player cannot take cities until he is in comminism and can build Panzers, which means end of Industrial Era. |
IIRC, in the Power of Communism the only restriction was that you could not engage in offensive warfare while not in Communism. The fact that players waited until Panzers for the "big punch" was just a matter of strategy.
Most players (again, IIRC) found that they were doing quite well in Republic/Democracy, and rode that advantage until it was finally time to seal the deal. Communism was a secondary concern. What I would like to see in this course is players switching to Fascism at the first opportunity, in order to explore its unique benefits (and drawbacks) to the fullest.
If we know beforehand that Fascism is not the best government/strategy, does that make this course a waste of time? IMO, no.
Then again, I too would like to see us get some mileage out of the F-15. The problem is that, if the map is anything similar to that of Power of Communism, the game will be "over" by the time the player expands and builds up enough (far before the end of the Industrial era). Actually using the F-15 will be more of a matter of ceremony than anything else. A possible solution therefore is to ensure the map is not so "easy" early on: some crowding, fewer chokepoints, etc. But again players dislike such starts.
Enough of my rambling, let's just play!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Modo44
The point about Fascism, both historically and in Civ3, is about waging war. So to me, the sudden switch from peaceful builder to barbarian running amok is exactly what constitutes a good Fascist game. Simply switch the government an Mobilze 10 turns before the world learns to know you. |
What I'm hearing is that you want to switch to Fascism after a long buildup phase, then kick the world's butt in under X turns. Like I posted above, doing this will not really explore Fascism the government.
I see this as being one of those cases Sir Ralph and I argued about where I am trying to stifle the "fun" element, while others are neglecting the "scholastic" element. So the solution (at least in my mind) is to leave the game as open as possible, to let the fun players have their fun, and the "serious" players impose whatever additional restrictions they want on themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
 |
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
What I'm hearing is that you want to switch to Fascism after a long buildup phase, then kick the world's butt in under X turns. Like I posted above, doing this will not really explore Fascism the government. |
Yes, building up and only switching for war is how I use Fascism. Game mechanics dictate that. You don't get a real production bonus, because the Worker efficiency that would help finish rails is often lost by the turns of Anarchy needed to switch. Also, most players don't run huge food surpuluses required for extensive pop-rushing. However, it is useful to allow the cities to grow back to maximum size, before going on a rampage. And, as with Communism, you can use the sudded cash surpulus for some Espionage fun. But those two are minor points.
The government, is set to be efficient mostly after a war is started. This is it's power and there's no avoiding the facts, IMO. The better Workers and huge free upkeep start showing when an invasion is going on, big time (you can have 4 MP units everywhere, a large offensive army and still stay below the free limit). Also, the low corruption allows for large conquests without the need of Communism and without War Weariness, thus retaining an extremely productive core throughout the entire war. Plus there's the additional FP given by the AU Mod, which is perfect for fast and painless annexation af an entire country. Not to mention the pop-rushing that is both easy to do on conquered territory (which is often Irrigated Railroaded tiles galore) and efficient in stomping out any possible flips. As you probably noted, some of these points are common with Communism.
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
I see this as being one of those cases Sir Ralph and I argued about where I am trying to stifle the "fun" element, while others are neglecting the "scholastic" element. So the solution (at least in my mind) is to leave the game as open as possible, to let the fun players have their fun, and the "serious" players impose whatever additional restrictions they want on themselves. |
I think that forcing a delay of, say, 10 turns from the moment Fascism is established to the moment of going to war, would be ok. It would still keep the fun in, while making sure that players actually get to know how this government handles during peace. I would rather not enforce switching to Fascism right after it is researched. There's no real point doing that, since the technology is not mandatory anyway.
Last edited by Modo44 on 25-11-2004 at 01:30
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
I looked back at my DARs from Power of Communism, and I'd like to clarify something. My original plan was to switch to Communism once I had enough Panzers to start an offensive and start my conquests with those. But before I could get enough panzers to start an offensive, I ended up triggering my GA using panzers to defend against an AI invasion of my territory. There was no way I was going to waste a third of my GA in anarchy, and by the time my GA ended, I had (or at least was within a hair of having) the techs I needed to build MAs. In other words, my waiting so long was a natural byproduct of playing my civ intelligently based on how the game unfolded, and was the sort of thing that additional arbitrary restrictions would have made a mess of.
Regarding the question of having enough time to get a feel for a government, I don't view that as an issue. I'd like to make two points in that regard.
1) Fascism is not a peacetime government, and forcing players to wait between the time they turn fascist and the time they start their warfare would go directly against the way players would normally use Fascism (if they would) in regular games. I view that as doing more harm than good.
2) Even with Modern Armor, it takes a while to go from just the territory claimed REXing to the domination threshold - especially since without the economic boost of conquered territory, it's harder to build a big tech lead. I feel like I got a pretty good feel for what Communism was like using such tactics in Power of Communism, and I think any incremental advantage in learning if I'd switched governments sooner would have been too small to justify the intrusion into strategic choices.
Really, what it boils down to is that every game is different. Sometimes it makes sense to slug things out with infantry/artillery stacks (especially with the greater power of artillery in C3C), while other times, it makes more sense to save the major warfare until stronger offensive units are available. Since we don't know in advance how this game will unfold, I oppose the idea of setting restrictions on when players have to switch governments and start fighting that might or might not make sense in the situations we find ourselves in when we play.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The pirate
|
|
less restrictions gives us the choice of how to use the government - and discovering for ourselves, both individually and as a community what works and doesnt. At present the restrictions are presupposing what is good and bad, and then enforcing it. The goverment type will naturally push us down a certain route, and kudos to those who make the most of it.
I have always learnt more when things have gone badly, because I learnt what I was doing wrong, rather than when it goes well and I only learnce to reinforce my existing habits.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
Even though I won't play, I throw in my opinion anyway. Less restrictions is always good for the "fun" element and does not necessarily neglect the "scholastic" element. My advice would be to play an AU course like you would write an essay in school. You have a given theme and are free to play your game as you wish as long as you obide by the "general direction".
An example, if the theme is "Show the power of Fascism" and somebody plays out a game as a Democracy, just to switch to Fascism for the last ten turns and to blitz the AIs, he would just have largely missed the theme and would be told this by his fellow students in the discussion of his DAR. Let it be up to everyone, how he/she thinks to demonstrate the given theme best. The DAR/AAR part is for comparison of ideas, and there will be many "I could have thought of this myself" moments, which is good because it stimulates the learning effect.
If you, on the other hand, try to restrict a game in a way, that only one general playstyle is possible, all games will be more or less the same and I'd say, the scholastic effect for every individuum during gameplay is down the drain.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nbarclay
|
|
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
Theseus, here's an idea for a course description in case you don't want to come up with your own. Note that a lot of the "rules" part is copied almost word for word from the description of Power of Communism.
quote:
For thousands of years, the American people have been devout pacifists. Even persuading them to defend themselves has been difficult enough, and aggressive warfare has been completely out of the question no matter what the provocation. Sometimes it has seemed as if an enemy army could knock on the very gates of Washington and the most America's army might do would be to scold them and ask them to leave.
But in recent years, new leaders have started to emerge who are tired of having their beloved nation be viewed with contempt for its weakness. Those men and women desire a new order of things, an order in which weak individuals will no longer be allowed to undermine the power of the State. In that new order, every person will be expected to do his or her part to ensure that America will take its rightful place in the world. If some refuse to cooperate, well, there are ways of dealing with such traitors.
These followers of Fascism are now ready to seize power. It is up to you, as the leader of this great movement, to show the rest of the world what America’s rightful place in it truly is. If the leaders of other nations are wise, they will surrender peacefully. If not, well, your scientists have this idea for a nifty little airplane that might help convince them to reconsider.
-------
The goal of this course is to explore the uses of Fascism, a government that most players seem to use rarely if ever. In the process, we can consider whether the current AU Mod version of Fascism is worth considering using at least occasionally or whether further changes are needed if we want it to be useful in more than a tiny handful of situations. Toward that end, players are strongly encouraged to use Fascism enough to get a good feel for what it is like.
Rules:
1. No offensive aggression* unless Fascism is your current government.
2. The only victory conditions allowed are Conquest and Domination.
3. Automatic A for whoever makes the best use of Fascism.
If there are any questions (concerning fighting or whatever), please post here. Someone will resolve the issue quickly.
*Alright. No warrior-bopping, settler-jacking, or anything else that requires that you declare war. No attacking enemy units in their territory, no matter what (and that includes wounded units that just finished attacking you). No attacking cities, even if they belonged to you earlier. No moving units through enemy territory with the hopes that they declare war on you. I suggest that you are only allowed to declare war if you are being directly threatened. This is open to your interpretation of "threatened". |
Note that if I understand things correctly, the victory conditions other than Conquest and Domination were turned off in Power of Communism. Since this is supposed to be essentially a replay of that course, albeit with a different civ, map, and target government, it would probably make sense to do the same here.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-11-2004 19:08
That's also a reason, why I'd like to make it Germany.
Two days watching CSI should prolly be enough. 
|