 |
|  |
 |
|
JamesJKirk
|
 |
Dixon, CA USA
Jan 1970 time: 21:14
|
|
Well there's always the oft-pointed-to-at-least-around-here example that there hasn't been a country that has been communist in any sense of the word, other than that they dub themselves that or others do in order to demonize them.
About Rome:
Even centuries before it fell, the overwhelming bulk of its military force were "barbarians," guys from conquered cities. In Civ3 terms, these cities would have a lower culture rating, and be easily captured, and we all know what happens to units when their home city is captured, so the cultured parts of the Empire (mainly Italy and Greece) would have had major problems if most of their army disappeared. And if you look at it like that, Rome didn't get through it ALL that bad, the Byzantine Empire flourished for centuries
|
|
|  |
 |
|
To_Serve_Man
|
 |
Albany, NY, USA
Apr 1999 time: 00:14
|
|
Ah jeez guys, read your Communist Manifesto and 1844 Manuscripts by Marx. You all think of communism as a government, but its really a way of life. All the 'communist' countries today are barely what Marx calls, 'Raw Communism'. There is another type, 'Ultimate Communism' which is truely (supposedly) classesless. Where humans do not worship the Money-God and the people produce things forthemselves . Like I said, it only works on paper.
Everyone totally skipped the last part of my post! I feel that there are other parts of the game that have been added (from what we all have read from previews and what not) will be strong combators against ICS. With the addition of Culture, one needs to build librarys, temples, markets, etc. One cannot just build settlers continiously. Also, a player will need that cultural border to gain resources. Without those resources, your people will be unhappy and possably revolt? A player aslo needs those resources to build units and city improvements. So this addition, to me is a much stronger, and less discriminating to ICS.
In theory this is a nice idea, i'm not trying to hurt anyones feelings. I just wouldn't like to see something like this, discriminate against the way a person is playing a computer game. We should think Black&White, there really is no real Right way to play the game, so is with Civ. With the addition of Culture, we mearly add a direction for the game to go for all players, equaly. Not a ban on all those grimmy, icky, sub-human ICS players 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001 time: 00:14
|
|
What discrimination? To the majority of players it is an inherent weakness in the game that ICS is so easy, yet so powerful. We're allowed to want a game where this isn't so.
Last edited by KrazyHorse on 01-07-2001 at 07:05
|
|
|  |
 |
|
TechWins
|
 |
Arizona
Apr 2001 time: 22:14
|
|
quote: Your strong point isn't math, evidently. Let's say temples are worth 2 culture points and libraries are worth 1. If I've got 20 cities, each with a temple and a library, then my total culture points are 20*(2+1)=60, so my "Culture Density" is 60/20=3, so "Barbarian Strength" = 1/3. If I've only got five cities, each with a library and a temple, then my total cuture points are 5*(2+1)=15, so my "Culture Density" is 15/5=3, so "Barbarian Strength" is 1/3. |
Ok, so maybe I didn't think what I said through. Actually math is one of my strong points in school. In my math class this year I got 100 percents on all my tests except for two, where I got a 89% and a 93%. On my 2 semester finals I got a 94% and a 98%.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001 time: 00:14
|
|
Let's say I don't like being punished because all I build are warriors. I like my luxuries at 60% and my taxes at 40% because I hate the beaker icon. Wait...Civ 2 punishes my style of play! I find it difficult to win! [/facetiousness]
Any change in the rules from Civ2 to Civ3 will necessitate a change in playing strategies. The Civ team learns by their mistakes, and they've learned the ICS lesson from Civ1 and Civ2. They're attempting to design a game that's fun and interesting for the Civ crowd and for the general public, and one of the complaints of the majority of Civvers is that ICS was too easy and too powerful. Beating ICS is possible, but doing so takes a great deal of skill. In the end, ICS is too much like the "one best way" to approach the game. Playing to win often means playing ICS, and most people don't enjoy ICSing. Why should the barbarians be random, any more than anything else in the game? Should tech discovery be random? The greater the layers of complexity in a game, the richer the strategies will be and the more replayable the game will be. This isn't a stab at any ICS players; those who sleazed were simply finding a workable strategy given the rules of the game. They're welcome to try and find the game-breaking strategy this time 'round as well.
Last edited by KrazyHorse on 01-07-2001 at 07:46
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000 time: 06:14
|
|
Barbarians should appear more often if the player choose a more risky empire expanding-style.
That is, if he found new cities without bother to build connecting roads in advance, and without accompany the settler with a guard-unit for immidiate city-protection. The AI-programmers should tweak the game to recognize this risky HP-behaviour and tease him a little more, with increased barbarian-harassments.
I think above is enough, to disfavour a risky & sloppy expanding-style (although sometimes it can be wortwhile).
Last edited by Ralf on 01-07-2001 at 10:47
|
|
|  |
 |
|
To_Serve_Man
|
 |
Albany, NY, USA
Apr 1999 time: 00:14
|
|
KrazyHorse, that example you gave is perfectly acceptable. The game supports it. The game also supports ICS. I think.. and its just a theory that people still fear that Civ2 ICS will fall into Civ3 ICS. But there are so many new things that will not destory ICS gampley, or your example. They will instead support and promote gameplay in a certian way. And, IMHO, that direction is away from ICS. But I don't like the idea of having special rules that are a direct and obvious attack on ICS and ICS only. Instead and idea much like some of the new additions to Civ3 that we have heard, (Culture, Lux. Items, Colonies, etc) will instead, not just be a direct embargo on ICS, but will change, distort, and promote all different types of gameplay through out the whole of Civ3.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Juggernaut
|
 |
Hint: the flag
Jun 2001 time: 06:14
|
|
quote: Originally posted by To_Serve_Man
KrazyHorse, that example you gave is perfectly acceptable. The game supports it. The game also supports ICS. I think.. and its just a theory that people still fear that Civ2 ICS will fall into Civ3 ICS. But there are so many new things that will not destory ICS gampley, or your example. They will instead support and promote gameplay in a certian way. And, IMHO, that direction is away from ICS. But I don't like the idea of having special rules that are a direct and obvious attack on ICS and ICS only. Instead and idea much like some of the new additions to Civ3 that we have heard, (Culture, Lux. Items, Colonies, etc) will instead, not just be a direct embargo on ICS, but will change, distort, and promote all different types of gameplay through out the whole of Civ3. |
heh...couldnŽt agree more...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
To_Serve_Man
|
 |
Albany, NY, USA
Apr 1999 time: 00:14
|
|
quote: This only becomes an issue late in the game, anyway. It really wouldn't have an effect on ICS, as the ICS advantage really makes its appearance around 0 a.d. |
(Also for JamesJKirk)And Resources will probably be an ever greater issue throught the game, and being the greatest of all issues during the industrial age. As I see it, an ICSer will already have to combat with; Settlers taking 2 pop units (which i'm still dont fully feel comfortable with), building city improvements to gain culture points thus expanding border, building military units to defend (this is optional of course) creating Worker Units that are seperate from Settlers to make roads, irrigation, mines, etc, Find and obtain Luxuary Items/resources to keep citizens happy, as well as Random barbarians. Isnt this enough!? If ICS booms around 0 a.d. in Civ2, maybe it will boom in 1700 a.d. in Civ3. And By then the games almost over.
Personally, some ideas on how to make the end game interesting instead of a mad rush for a certian technology and then just steamshipping ahead of the pack to victory is much more needed than this simple ICS game style. Let ICS live. It has its pros and cons just like any other game play style. I agree with the 'At first this was fun, but now its just sad' thread... The ideas that are coming in, are becoming very pin-pointed and aimmed at something very very specific, that may not need fixing or at something that is personally ditasteful to their gaming. Now sometimes thats good, and i'm not trying to put people down and say their ideas are bad, but if fellow forumers could think of revolutionizing ideas, like Culture, Luxuary items, these boards would be more useful to its purpose.
Well enough with my ranting i just needed to let some steam of and get that off my chest you can ignore some of that last paragraph.. its just my little version of 'common sense' for Civ forums.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
polypheus
|
|
United Nations of Earth
Jun 2001 time: 21:14
|
|
quote: Originally posted by To_Serve_Man
Personally, some ideas on how to make the end game interesting instead of a mad rush for a certian technology and then just steamshipping ahead of the pack to victory is much more needed than this simple ICS game style. Let ICS live. It has its pros and cons just like any other game play style. |
The problem, at least in Civ2, was that ICS had no cons and only pros. In fact it was the optimum strategy to employ all the time. In other words, it always worked!
If this is indeed fixed so that ICS strategy becomes risky, then that is fine. However, if this is not the case, then programming babarian hostility based on ICS would add in this risk so that ICS no longer becomes the optimum strategy that one would use all the time. Instead ICS would be a possible strategy but one with a great deal of risk and one which is not necessarily optimal.
Playtesting will be key in this regard and it is imperative that veteran, expert ICSers should try and see if indeed ICS works as well as it did in Civ2. If yes, then re-programming the barbarians would be a good counter-balance.
|
|
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|