 |
|
JMarks
|
 |
formerly known as the artist
Mar 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Ok, we don't know exactly how everything will work, but this is a valid question. Personally, I think that such delemas should exist. Besides, they say you'll start with a worker, so he'll be able to start a colony which could help with in your finacial area. Besides, what if we start out with some money. Sure, there'll be tough times, but that adds flavor. I like the idea of small armies due to finances. Either one must concentrate mainly on defense, or one must continually conquer to support the army. (like the Romans)
All I'm saying is - Don't worry.
If you still have problems when you get the game, then come back and we can all discuss it!
Ioanes
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JMarks
All I'm saying is - Don't worry.
If you still have problems when you get the game, then come back and we can all discuss it!
Ioanes |
Exactly, why post a pseudo complaint about something (TechWins) when you have little or no information to base your complaint on.
If you want to talk about how Civ 2 works, and how you think Civ 3 should work, then fine. Lets talk.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
|
|
Salt Lake City, USA
Oct 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'm almost certain that you will get a number of "free units" per city; 1 or 2, say. That way the early expansion won't be too painful. Wille, do you have any idea what you're talking about? Tell me: what is money? Just give me the definition that you're using. |
What? I would hate civ3 if Firaxis made the game that easy. If everyone got off lucky with 1 or 2 units at the beginning, the game would be dull and not hard.
Just look at how we Americans started, we had zero money, in fact, we were in debt by the hundreds of thousands, yet we made it. That was just an example, and I have plenty more if you are interested. I am 110% opposed to having free units at the beginning, it would take away the feeling of how hard history was, and it would take away the pride that all americans feel when they (I) reflect on the American Revolution, that we did make it, although it was as hard as hell.
please dont take offense, any of you British who read this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I would suspect early unit will not cost that much. However later units will surely cost a lot more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
This is you making assumptions about the rules of Money/Income:
quote:
Originally posted by TechWins
I'm not real sure how I'm going to make money in the very beginning. Let's say I build my first city and I get a tax of 1. So I'm making an income of 1 gold per turn. |
This is you complaining about the assumed rules:
quote:
I build my first unit, for defense. So now I'm not making any money. I then decided to... oh wait I can't build anything until my citie grows so I can get at least a tax of 2. Who knows how long that could take. What to do. You have to build a military unit right away for defense but you could also use a temple to get some of those valuable resources. |
This is a summary of your complaint, formed in a question.
quote:
My question is how is there going to be enough money to support all your needs? |
You can call it "talking" about Civ 3; I call it an attempt to identify a weakness you believe to be present in the design of the game.
There are many things about gameplay in which we simply DO NOT know.
Your point may yet be valid, but we have no hint of that as of this time.
It would be a comparison to Civ 2 to what you expect for Civ 3 if you had the "problem" you are speaking of in Civ 2. But of course you didn't, none of us did.
This is how rumors get started.
Speculations on gameplay are fine in my opinion, but when you carry that to the point of:
(simplified) The game may play like this......., if it does, then we have a problem.
I would rather see speculations about what you would like to see in the game, some sort of positive input, or even contructive criticism of Civ 2 or of specific "official" Civ 3 gameplay issues.
All else is banter that is without merit or worth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JMarks
|
|
formerly known as the artist
Mar 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
quote:
UberKrux,
Do you think your comments are funny or witty? Stop wasting forum space. People come here to exchange information about the games, not read childish insults directed at people of other nations. |
I agree, even though this is a gaming forum, that is no reason to become an immature malcontent. Being a teen is not excuse.
quote:
What? I would hate civ3 if Firaxis made the game that easy. If everyone got off lucky with 1 or 2 units at the beginning, the game would be dull and not hard. |
I kinda agree here too. If you were talking about military units (which I am assuming you are) then you're totally right. Those should be worked for. However, how can you start without any units? Unless you start with just a city of course.
What I'm wondering is would each unit spend one coin, and be directly translated from the civ 2 shield system where there are free unit support, or if it will be a bit more dynamic. Hey, lets face it, a battleship costs way more to support than a rifleman.
Ioanes
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kenobi
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Grumbold
Going into debt is certaily something that would make Civ more like the real world and would certainly help avoid the exponential climb from the bronze age uninterrupted to the space age. Massive debts incurred from constant warfare were often the factor that saw once great nations fall back into obscurity. |
Getting away from the less relevant issue of exchange rates, debt is a crucial issue. If we move away from a system where units are funded by shields (which every city receives "free") to a tax-based system of government funding, yielding enough income to sustain your army becomes critical.
As Grumbold rightly points out, throughout history nations have usually only been able to fund major military campaigns by borrowing money. Paul Kennedy's book, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" hits this issue on the head - the superpowers of the last five centuries have been those countries with economies and financial systems able to bear the financial strain of sustaining large armies for long periods.
You could argue that Britain was able to achieve superpower status in the 18/19th centuries because: 1) it developed into the richest economy; but also 2) it developed capital markets able to finance the various wars (Seven Years War, the Revolutionary War - sorry, War of Independence - and the Napoleonic wars) it engaged in over the period.
I suggest an improvement to the game: enable civs to borrow money once they develop to the appropriate level, say, after researching "trade" technology. The rate of interest charged every period would be a function of existing debt levels, income and default history (some civs just simply wouldn't be able to borrow). You could prevent cheating by plunging your civ into anarchy in cases of borrowing defaults, and limiting loan size.
You could then have a new technology, e.g. "capital markets", that enables your civ to borrow at lower rates or enhance your financing ability in other ways.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-06-2001 23:45
Tycoon of the world in a night!
|