 |
|
Libertarian
|
|
quote:
Nowhere has Culture Flipping been precisely explained. And my definition of 'precise' is: You get the exact numbers and formulas. |
Amen.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chronus
Indeed, this does sound a bit too much like EU. If managing your empire and home province is seriously reduced to high level functions, then what you have left, for the most part, is moving your armies. This seems to describe a war game, not an empire building game. |
I agree that EU is a bit too military-focused. If you want to be peaceful all the time, you will run out of things to do. But...
Unlike EU, managing your Empire and Home Province will not be easy. Rest assured, there will be no complaints about a lack of complexity/difficulty in the economic subgame. If anything, the complaints will be the oppposite. 
Generally speaking, Empire Building in history was mostly about a) Managing the Economy, and b) Going to War. The game will focus about equally on those two.
quote:
However, I am genuinely curious about your model. Would you mind elaborating on points 4a and 4b? Perhaps you're willing to give some specific examples? |
More elaborating soon in the Alternative Civs section.  Please post any questions and comments here: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=40675
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
|
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OneInTen
There are certainly people who would contend that if your civ falls into permanent anarchy there is a lot right with it and it should be a winning condition! |
Heh, heh! That is a good one!
quote:
Anarchy should be a proper "government" type if you're going to do a simulation style game ... government from a grass roots level by the people for the people, and with no private ownership. - as anarchist theory describes. |
Seriously: I see what you mean. My answer to this pretty complicated question is twofold:
1) Semantically, I would call what you are proposing 'Utopian Socialism'. I use the term 'Anarchy' in the sense it is commonly used, to describe a state of chaos and dissolution.
2) As to Utopian Socialism: IF and HOW to include this concept is still under review, and will not be decided in the immediate future. As this does, however, sound a bit too much like a typical Firaxis statement  , I am going to add an explanation WHY this is difficult to resolve, and therefore postponed:
The difficulty is that Utopian Socialism -unlike Soviet-style Communism- has nowhere been empirically tested. The assumptions how Utopian Socialism would work will predictably differ a lot between champions and opponents of the concept. It will be hard work to find an approach that *both* sides do consider even-handed. And I very much want to avoid the CivIII method of imposing the designers` political philosophy with a sledge hammer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tribune
|
|
Vienna, Austria
Nov 1999
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by pg
in a simulation you really don't have win or lose situations. |
You think. Have you ever tried out what happens in SimCity2000, if you run your debt into the millions?
quote:
especially if you are simulating history there is no such thing as permanent anarchy or a hopeless position. |
I beg to differ. When the Roman Empire finally fell, its situation had already been hopeless for a few generations.
quote:
there are periods of time where certain conditions persist but it eventually changes for better or worse. |
Exactly. Worse meaning leaving the scene.
quote:
if you are going for chess ideals mixed with simulation you will fail imo. |
Depends. A Sim should not be as abstract as Chess, but it should be as impeccably logical. Especially it should be as unforgiving as Chess. 
quote:
chess is pure strategy, while a simulation is something that is fun to play with because of all the possibilities and interesting results. |
If you value your life, donīt say that to a Chess enthusiast.
quote:
you can't really win a simulation |
...but you can lose it.
quote:
victory points to me sound about as fun as culture points in civ3. wow, if i get 20,000 culture in one city i win! talk about artificial, and breaking the feeling of playing in a real working alternate history simulation. |
OUCH! Being compared to CivIII is as bad as it gets. Spare my feelings, man! 
Seriously, I think there is a difference: Victory Points compare to the Score rather than to Culture Points. I think a good scoring system is important. In CivIII, your score is absolutely meaningless: You donīt even get points for building a Wonder. But you DO get points for having a large population which, in and by itself, means nothing: After all, there are some third world countries with a pretty large population!
It would certainly be artificial to quantify Culture, but I wonīt do that. CivIII Culture is replaced by Social Engineering, which is not at all one-dimensional, but will make your Civ distinct.
On the other hand, VPs are about something that is quantifiable: Quite simply, they quantify how good, overall, you are at playing the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gaikokujin
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
b) There is a Cultural Habit (Social Engineering) setting called 'Nomadic'. Being a Mongol-like mostly Nomadic civilization has LARGE benefits in offensive warfare: Not only do you get some units others havenīt, you also donīt have to pay for your offensives. (You canīt build or research much, however.) At some point, like it or not, you will become civilized enough Nomadic is no longer an option. But when you settle down, you will lose your offensive edge, and have a very difficult transition period. A good time for your empire to fall apart again.
(More extremely nasty ideas tomorrow.) |
Yep, an old, obscure boardgame called "Barbarian, Kingdom & Empire" did this, and more, with a simple set of game rules and components. But enough said - if you knew this game, you'll know what I am talking about.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironikinit
|
|
Less talk and more results would be nice. If you think you can do better than Civ III, please do, I'd really like to see it.
Talk is cheap.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
And opinions are worthless.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironikinit
|
|
Yours certainly are, IMO.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:17
|
|
Ok,
In an effort to tone down what has become on these forums as yet another dart throwing fest. Let me say first off I normally abhor whining and complaining. And in fact I do enjoy the early part of the CIV 3 game as it now stands. Unlike someothers, I think some of the innovations were great. I love the strategic resource approach (but think it could have been tweaked), culture and borders etc.
But....
Let me compare and contrast why the late game holds no joy. (I use SMAC but could just as easily use CIV2 as an example.) Being a sandbox kind of player, I like to see the late game offer significant builder and/or warring options. In SMAC the ability in the late game to aquire an almost exponential means to create units a plethora of late game facility build options and SP's(read wonders) was an allure unto itself. (I don't care that I'm crushing the AI at this point, I want to see what a quantum reactor dis wave, blink, best weapon psi armored grav tank can do) To a lesser extent this holds true for CIV2 as well. OTOH what this means is the AI is incapable of masterfully dealing with these options and gets completely outclassed by a human opponent. The point really tho' is as you go up the technology pyramid in CIV3 your options become less and less thus allowing the AI some ability to deal with the complexity of the game. It also means tho' that we players who play the late game simply to find new and different nuances don't have that option available to us. So the option is as Zach says start over and play another primitive era game.
Now the real question comes into play. Which game will hold my attention longer and provide me more enjoyable play time? The one that is challenging yet limits my options as the game progresses or something like SMAC. For me its the game where I continually learn something new and that means the longer the game goes on the more options I have available to me. If this means I have to sacrifice some improved AI game management, I'll sacrifice it. The way I see it I'm currently using only about half the game b/c of late game tedium and lack of late game options and as a consequence I'll get tired of the game twice as fast as I did of SMAC. At this point I can't say I'm totally sick of either one, but CIV3 feels incomplete vs. what I consider a more fully featured SMAC(x).
Anyhoo,
Jus my two cents added to the over full bank of dissent.
Og
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Nideca
|
|
Tokyo, Japan
Jan 2002
time: 14:17
|
|
Now That is a great Idea to Counter ICS instead of current Corruption model.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-01-2002 23:41
|