 |
| |
|
|
paulmagusnet
|
|
Boulder Creek,CA,USA
Nov 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
You should read the work by historian John Glubb, who studied how and why empires declined and came up with a theory of specific cycle that all empires appear to follow.
Many of the 'advances' in CIV (what ever flavor) are poorly thought out and rather arbitrary. Take for example 'Nationalism' and 'Philosophy'. Neither of these really do anything for the game but are very relevant to what you discuse here. Philosophy is not some generic ticket on the way to something useful, as if your were and engineering student selecting electives, but the choices made in philosophy porfoundly affect the future direction of your civilization. If you follow the Plato-Hegal camp you end up at Fascism & Communism, and it is difficult to change to other methods. Following Aristotle, your get to the enlightenment and more limited and effective types of governments.
Nationalism means something, not just a new unit build. It means that those groups raised under a strong nationalistic ethic are very difficult to conqour. Even if you hold their territory they will try again and again to recreate anew or rejoin an existing similar group. In game terms, nationalism should effect how the empire, its cities and its units behave and add or detract some capabilities. It should also make some future choices more difficult or impossible.
Once you have expanded beyond a point where a City State model workes for your empire, the capital becomes very very important. If it is lost through war or internal strife, their should be severe consiquences. On the other hand, if you look at the US model of govetnment, where power is diffused very thoroughly, losing your capital might even improve your empire. (You know, we did lose our capital in one war, no one noticed.)
One sure sign of the impending decline of an empire is the rise of Feminism. Nothing kills a civilization faster than when the women try to take over.
------------------------------------
The collaps of the Soviet Union was both a result of the inherent flaws of communism and or the underlying strong nationalistic feeling held by many of that empires territories, including Russia. In-fact the empire could have continued almost indefinitly through the use of its terror mechanisms which very successfully kept the populance in line. Only the fact that the leaders let go of that mechanism allowed nationalism to break up the empire. You must observe that the Chinese have tried to adapt to some reforms while holding on to their power and terror machine. Several things keep outside agencies from destroying the remains of these powers at the times of their vulnerability, that being WMD technology which makes it not worth the loses to make the effort and the remains of the enlightenment ideals that discourage military aggression.
As for CIV III, an implementation of some form of world engagement would be welcome, as done in 'Apha Centuri' and 'Empire of the Fadding Suns.' But it should not dominate the game play.
SOMETHING has to be done about the game, as currently it is just a race down the tech tree and pumping out as many units as you can. Not a whole lot different then the originial early 80's 'Empire' game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
death_head
|
|
Caledonia, IL, USA
Jul 2000
time: 23:14
|
|
You make a valid point, but as Tom Cadwell put it:
"A game should only be realistic if it enhances the gameplay." (paraphrase)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
paulmagusnet
|
|
Boulder Creek,CA,USA
Nov 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
The point being that the current 'unrealistic' advances offer very little to game play. It just seems like they ran out of ideas and made some very hasty, thoughtless, decisions as to what advances should do.
As a result, my CIV games are inverably similar, and there are no real choices, just follow the path down the tech tree and build everything.
Also, just because you know about something, like nationalism, doesn't mean that it is implemented.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TechWins
|
 |
Arizona
Apr 2001
time: 22:14
|
|
quote:
One sure sign of the impending decline of an empire is the rise of Feminism. Nothing kills a civilization faster than when the women try to take over. |
That is such a terrible statement to make. Women don't try to take over, what they try to do is contribute, which is the same thing men do. You need to keep stupid comments to yourself .
quote:
As a result, my CIV games are inverably similar, and there are no real choices, just follow the path down the tech tree and build everything. |
What's your point? The tech tree is set up to show how certain advances lead to new advances in technology. The basic premise of the tech tree is fine. The tech tree does need improvements in adding techs, modifying techs, and replacing techs in certain areas. Overall the concept of the tech tree is good. If you are so fanatically against it why do you play Civ?
quote:
Also, just because you know about something, like nationalism, doesn't mean that it is implemented. |
Yeah, we do know that Nationalism is implemented. It has been confirmed by Firaxis. Although, Nationalism as a gov. choice hasn't been confirmed by Firaxis (I'm 99% sure). Plus, rarely do any informed posters claim that certain things will be implemented into the game when Firaxis hasn't confirmed it. Don't go running your mouth about something you are very unaware about.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
paulmagusnet
|
|
Boulder Creek,CA,USA
Nov 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Mr techwin, connorkimbo, et al
Your very personal attacks are both juvenile and without merit. THOSE are the kind of things you should keep to yourself. I will not respond in kind. If you can express a rational thought or question I can comment upon that.
- - - - - -
Feminism has nothing to do with the contribution of women, it is an advocacy for superiority and destructive in more ways than constructive. This is not a proper forum for this discussion other than that it is included in the game with such unreserved accolads.
- - - - - - -
But to be an interesting and enjoyable game, CIV must reflect some reality or it becomes arbitrary and meaningless. Most things that people complain about are divergances from how the game acts and experience of such things in the 'real' world. CIV has not been promoted as an arbitrary 'game' but an expression of how the world takes shape, done in a way that is fun and interesting to manipulate.
For example, the rail road makes the game less fun because it acts in a way contrary to how we expect rails to function.
It is a pity that the best of CIV classic and CIV CTP can't be combined.
- - - - -
Rasputin. Thankyou for a rational question.
1] There is No record of any amazonian civilization, other than in Greek mythos. I'll accept that there is some reality to that because some of what was thought to be myth has been found in archealogical digs. If it did exist, it died real quick. In any case, of nearly ten millenia of human record (of one form or another) there is no instance of any feminist surviving long enough to leave any trace of its existance.
2] Empires tend to follow a generational cycle. Rapid expansion, wealth, welfare, greatworks, decadence and implosion. During the last cycle of decadence and decline, femmenin values begin to replace masculin values (the later Romans began complaining rather vocifferiously in their writings about how the women were taking over). I don't know if it a symtom or a cause of decline, but it is a closely associated situation. This should not be confused with individual leaders. There have been some very good leaders who have been women, but they acted as better men than the men around them at the time.
3] In comtemporary times, population specialists discovered that they could reduce birth rates by education women. This was going to be the mainstay of UN sponsered birth control until someone realized the biological consiquences of 'neutering' the best and brightest. (find and read 'tragedy of the commons') If you have even the remotest belief in the biological basis of abilites, you can recognize a negative value here. There are other issues but I don't have room here (nor is it really appropriate). Francis Fugikawa (sp) a contemporary historian and economist has some comments in this area worth reading.
IN Game terms, you would have to model an expansion of the labor force, decline in pay accross the board (you just hyper inflated you labor pool), a negative birth rate and a marginal increase in unhappiness.
Like it or not, biology has consequences.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TechWins
|
|
Arizona
Apr 2001
time: 22:14
|
|
SITS, I agree with everything you have to say.
quote:
cmon, give Paulmagusnet a break. he was not PC, so what. there is a pattern that he tried to rationalize, perhaps not completely successfully.... rise of feminism DOES weaken a society if it was really patriarchal and/or embedded fimly in masculine values. |
No, I won't give a break to him and I don't think anybody else will either. That is very disturbing for somebody to have the views of "Nothing kills a civilization faster than when the women try to take over". I'm not sure why you (Paul) said this but I don't think that you need to express these type of views in this forum nor in the off topic forum. If you (Paul) can't give some logical (humane) support on why you made that statement, I think you need to at least delete that statement.
quote:
as everything posted in the last couple of weeks, this is completely off topic. dan, put that website up! |
Well, I know you're lying for three reasons. 1)You have pulled this joke before. 2)If the site was up you wouldn't be posting here. 3)If for some reason you did decide to say that the site was up you wouldn't have said it so nonchalantly. Nice try, though.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-07-2001 12:58
|