 |
|
Christantine The Great
|
|
Massachusetts
Jun 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
SE=Social Engineering
I think there was some heavy negitive feedback about having SE in CivIII a while back so it is definitly not in.
I borrow a quote from some guy in the annals of history:
"[regarding the H. Roman Empire] It is neither "Holy", nor "Roman", nor an empire."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jsw363
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
I love this idea. I asked Firaxis in the "askthecivteam" mail if we would be able to make our own gov. types. |
I'd like to see this as well. It seems unlikely though, because wouldn't we have seen evidence of SE in some of the screens? Could they have hid it that well and left it unmentioned? At the very least I'd like to see more gov'ts. The basic five or six just aren't gonna be enough.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
I borrow a quote from some guy in the annals of history:
"[regarding the H. Roman Empire] It is neither "Holy", nor "Roman", nor an empire." |
Bertrand Russel. Still my favorite example when explaining definite descriptions. (unfortunately, high schools don't seem to teach history anymore so my students usually stare blankly until I explain it).
Techwins:
Great Idea. I'm more a pure SE supporter, but the idea of a base gov is pretty cool. I take it the base gov would also limit some of the SE choices (no fundy under democracy, no free market under communism, that sort of thing?).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
Despotism
Monarchy
Republic
Democracy
Communism
Is that it? Please, let there be more! |
Remember that you can do more with those gov-types than you could in Civ-1 & 2, thanks to the added 3-way nationalistic mobilized economy-factor. Also; maybe the modern upgraded variant of despotism is understated totalitarianism. Maybe both ancient-/ medieval-style despotism and monarchy is somewhat upgradeable, so they in practice can play a viable role in modern times, as well. I hope so.
Last edited by Ralf on 15-09-2001 at 12:09
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jason Beaudoin
|
|
Canada
Jan 1970
time: 00:15
|
|
I thought governments were going to be handled much in the same way as they were in SMAC? Isn't that true?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jason Beaudoin
|
|
Canada
Jan 1970
time: 00:15
|
|
Why do you think that is so funny? I thought that the SMAC type of government was always going to be a part of CIV3. I thought that Firaxis was going to keep the things that worked in SMAC and toss the ones that didn't.
Anyone actually know anything about this? Speak now and be heard!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
|
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SoulAssassin
You guys do realize that there are really no governments in Civ games, right. You, the player, control everything. Basically, you are a supreme dictator. I think that its silly to have these pseudo-governments. The only thing that they do is create production/science bonuses and such. |
You have a point there. With diplomacy, trade & military units, you actively interact with other foreign civs. With an overcomplex SE-style government-model however, all you really do is to finetune a passive work-platform, which to actively interact from. Also, even if we had 100+ SE gov-attributes - it would only mean that each attribute was about 1% difference worth. Gameplay-Inflation, if you ask me.
Thats why I think that Civ-2 style fixed governments are more then enough in Civ-3, as well. We can tweak each government-choice by using special workers (They are still in, are way?) and we have the new 3-way economical mobilization-feature.
quote:
Except in Democracy where you can't wage war at will. |
I have tried to promote the idea of despotism, monarchy and communism being largely more civ-control friendly, but less production-beneficial, while republic & democracy should be the diametric opposite. More production-beneficial, but much less civ-control friendly. Especially democracy shouldnt allow the player to declare war without severe "casus belli", and it definitely shouldnt allow him to wage land-grabbing totalitarian Hitler-style conquering-wars, or switch to more totalitarian governments, totally at free will.
Civ-democracy must have disadvantages that counteracts all the positive & beneficial things as well. For some strange reason many civers want to have that totalitarian player-control, also under Civ-democracy. I dont know why, because it ruins both governmental game-balance and gameplay, and it works inflationary.
Last edited by Ralf on 15-09-2001 at 15:58
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TechWins
|
 |
Arizona
Apr 2001
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
This idea was already suggested before both of us became members of Apolyton |
When that thread got brought up again this summmer I actually saw the thread. I read Korn's first post at the time and I thought that it was only including ordinances and not base govs, as well. I again read Korn's post today and thought the same thing until I read a few more posts into the thread, then I realized that his idea was just like "my" idea. Sorry Korn for saying that the idea is mine. I thought of the idea sometime in early May and had no idea that the idea had already been thought of. Also, as I read onto the second page of the thread I notice somebody else, Connorkimbro, had the same idea before too but never mentioned it. This idea, regardless of who thought of it first , is great and should be used in Civ3. Although, "my" idea is a little bit different than Korn's idea.
That should answer your question about me having a DL.
quote:
we have the new 3-way economical mobilization-feature. |
I think that option has some restrictions on it, I believe. First you must have researched Nationalism. For you to be in the war stage you first must declare war on somebody and for you to be in the peace stage you must be at peace with all nations. For you to exit the war stage you must first end your war. I think these are just some of the restrictions that come with the option, so I don't think it is exactly how you think it is.
quote:
We can tweak each government-choice by using special workers |
What?
quote:
Civ-democracy must have disadvantages that counteracts all the positive & beneficial things as well |
I remember your mentioning of this, but I don't remember if you feel that the Civ2 disadvantages for a Democracy were enough. I agree about your last few sentences, though. I was actually one of your few supporters on this subject at the time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
|
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TechWins
I think that option has some restrictions on it, I believe. First you must have researched Nationalism. For you to be in the war stage you first must declare war on somebody and for you to be in the peace stage you must be at peace with all nations. For you to exit the war stage you must first end your war. I think these are just some of the restrictions that come with the option, so I don't think it is exactly how you think it is. |
I didnt think of that, but above restrictions sounds reasonable, now that you mention it. No erratic economy-mobilization back and forth. The same goes for government-switching.
quote:
What? |
Hmm. I meant government-policy. In Civ-2 you could take out field-workers, and let them work as specialists instead (scientists, entertainers and tax-collectors). Maybe farfetched, but in a way one could argue that above represented a way to tweak your government-policy. Anyway, are these specialists still in?
quote:
I remember your mentioning of this, but I don't remember if you feel that the Civ2 disadvantages for a Democracy were enough. |
No, I sure dont think so. Once you had the FN-wonder, and enough happiness-related city-improvements and Wonders, conducting war with totalitarian Hitler-style conquer-the-world objectives was infact quite easy, under Civ-2 democracy. Far too easy, infact.
quote:
I agree about your last few sentences, though. I was actually one of your few supporters on this subject at the time. |
Glad to hear that.  One of the very few advantages with ancient Civ-despotism, is that you can wage conquering-wars without "casus belli", and without much domestic problems. For game-balance reasons, modern democracy should represent the complete opposite end of the scale, in terms of pulling of these pre-modern landgrabbing conquering-to-keep war-projects.
Now dont missunderstand me. IF your Civ-3 democracy faces a severe invasion, with one or more of your cities already captured - then your big war-economy mobilized democracy represents an absolutely formidable war-machine. But one shouldnt be able to military conquer foreign empires in order to keep them forever, like Alexander, Napoleon and Hitler intended to, but the democratic west-allied forces never did (WW-2 Japan & germany was eventually given back their independance).
Also, (again) the player shouldnt be able to act totalitarian when it comes to swithing from democracy to more dictatorial gov-types. That was far too easy in Civ-2.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TechWins
|
|
Arizona
Apr 2001
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Anyway, are these specialists still in? |
Ok, now I know what you mean. Well, I would imagine that they are still in. I would see no reason not to include them, seeing as they were in SMAC, as well.
quote:
No, I sure dont think so. |
Well, I agree that it was too easy if you did accomplish those tasks you mentioned. The difficulty does need to be increased but not to a point where it is impossible, for any government. There is a point where we have to set realism, that will make for a challenge, aside for some fun. So it should be more difficult but not impossible. Of course certain governments should be less difficult to perform this task compared to other governments.
quote:
IF your Civ-3 democracy faces a severe invasion, with one or more of your cities already captured - then your big war-economy mobilized democracy represents an absolutely formidable war-machine. But one shouldnt be able to military conquer foreign empires in order to keep them forever |
I disagree with that on a game basis. Go look up at my previous statements.
quote:
Also, (again) the player shouldnt be able to act totalitarian when it comes to swithing from democracy to more dictatorial gov-types. |
Yes, this is a must. The player should not be able to easily change from a democracy to a communism. There should be different levels of anarchy for each revolution of gov to gov. There should be more anarchy time for a revolution of democracy to communism than there would be for a republic revolting to a democracy. Other than that not much else can be done.
Overall, I agree with you but I'm not as far along on the extreme side as you are. There needs to be changes to governments to accomodate more realism and challenge, while incorporating fun. Don't let the increased challenge of all aspects of governments take away from the fun of the game.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-09-2001 02:40
yeah right, like that will be in the game
)
|