 |
|
MORON
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Jun 2001
time: 13:14
|
|
I think rise and fall is STUPID.
CIV3 is not Sim-History 4000BC-2000AD
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO to rise and fall. **** realism.
Sure, I'd like to see giantic wars and barbarian invasions that redraw boarders dramicly, but I don't want to see my 4000year old city gone because of some idiot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
polypheus
|
|
United Nations of Earth
Jun 2001
time: 21:14
|
|
If "Rise and Fall" of civilization is not done right it can be frustrating and annoying but if done right it can make the game a lot more replayable and enjoyable.
So again, it just depends on how it is implemented.
There are certainly many players who enjoy Civ precisely because it is NOT just a strategy game but because (to the limited extent possible) it can "simulate" or recreate historical development. I am one of them.
I recall doing a poll a while back and 75% of respondents said they prefer to play Civ3 as a sort of "historical simulator" than as a strategy wargame.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by polypheus
So again, it just depends on how it is implemented. |
I agree. I voted Yes, but it all depends...
I really stupid way to implement "Rise-and-fall" would be in the form of totally random events completely unrelated to how you play the game.
A better way would be if you manage your empire in a risky & sloppy manner. Lets say that you painted yourself in a corner by letting your empire-financial surplus be very weak - even negative. Also; that you have let your city-happiness stand and fall too much with martial-laws unit-presence. On top of that; your enemy AI/MP-civs now join together and strangle your trade-routs. This now become "the straw that break the camels back".
A relatively big part of your finance-supported huge army refuses to follow your order (no wage) - perhaps even desert. As a result; several cities (perhaps 25-50%) start to revolt simultaneoulsy - and yes: even declare independence. If you dont act pretty quickly, everything self-feedingly spirals out of control.
The bottom line is: Managing an Civ-empire (especially a really big one) should be like rolling a ball along a narrow flat surface which blends over in a gradually more down-sloping surface, both left and right. If your ball rolls close to either slopes (as a result of risky/sloppy empire-managing) then things can easily (and self-feedingly) spiral out of your control. In short: the domino-effect.
Last edited by Ralf on 29-06-2001 at 02:56
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:14
|
|
I thought better of what I posted here. Damn, but it was funny.
Last edited by KrazyHorse on 29-06-2001 at 00:49
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MORON
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Jun 2001
time: 13:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ralf
A better way would be if you manage your empire in a risky & sloppy manner....
The bottom line is: Managing an Civ-empire (especially a really big one) should be like rolling a ball along a narrow flat surface which blends over in a gradually more down-sloping surface, both left and right. If your ball rolls close to either slopes (as a result of risky/sloppy empire-managing) then things can easily (and self-feedingly) spiral out of your control. In short: the domino-effect. |
What human being, after knowing this could result in death, would have a sloppily managed empire anyway?
Besides, what I'm seeing is a attempt to kill expansionism.  together with the war on ICS, BAB it just is the evil plans of mega city late game micromanager's plan to take over civilization.
quote:
Did you ever succeed winning CivII on Deity level with seven Civilizations, Raging Hordes, not building Wonders, preserving a spotless reputation, on a small map, and not cheating in any possible way? |
Does game exploits like bomber - land stacks count?
Anyway, I'd be toast with the evil cheating computer....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
|
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MORON
What human being, after knowing this could result in death, would have a sloppily managed empire anyway? |
Well, thats the point. One shouldnt.
Also: its not just risky behaviour (like founding early-game cities in the wilderness, without any connecting roads, and without accompanied guard-units, for immitiate city-protection) that should be more dangerous and potentially empire-devastating (the AI should dynamically increase barbarian attacks - although sometimes risk-taking can pay out successfully, of course).
Also, players who go for a compulsive one-sided "world conquest before 1 AD", or "producing combat-units only" playing-style. Compare with below encyclopedic ancient Assyrian note:
"Assurbanipal 626? B.C., king of ancient Assyria (669–633 B.C.), son and successor of Esar-Haddon. He was the last of the great kings of Assyria. Under him Assyria reached the height of sumptuous living, and art and learning flourished. A few years after his reign ended, Assyria succumbed to the Medes and the Persians. His great expenditures in wars to preserve the state contributed to its collapse".
Also, onesided peaceful (unrealistic ancient/medieval ultra-pacifist) playing-styles should become more risky and dangerous. Not only does warlike players get more battle-hardened units. In Civ-3, ONLY players who bother to engage their troops in battles, have a chance of spawning "great leaders". So a small empire pacifist defensive-only playing-style carry its own risks as well. As it should. Infact: I would even think it would be a good idea to add a small "battle-value degenerate" -factor here, as an counteracting "too peaceful" punishment.
quote:
Besides, what I'm seeing is a attempt to kill expansionism. together with the war on ICS, BAB it just is the evil plans of mega city late game micromanager's plan to take over civilization. |
No, not "kill" expansionism. To achieve some objectives, striving for a huge empire really should be the best strategy. While striving for some other objectives, the small perfectionist empire-style should be the best choice.
The "Rise-and-fall" idea is about punishing risky, sloppy and/or far too onesided playing-styles. Its also about gradually adding more domestic empire-control problems the bigger your empire gets. The latter can be counter-acted relatively succesfully, IF the player know how to play his cards. But, still - only too a certain point, and only so much.
Ultimately, "Rise-and-fall" is about adding a potential "the harder (and bigger) they come, the harder they (may) fall" factor to Civ-3. In Civ-2, by comparison; the harder & bigger they came, the more easy it was to avoid falls alltogether. Was that a good thing?
Last edited by Ralf on 01-07-2001 at 12:59
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-06-2001 06:24
|