 |
| |
|
|
Egyptian
|
|
California - The Promised Land
Feb 2002
time: 05:17
|
|
I think the amount of gov'ts is OK, but I think that modern democracy is weak in Civ III. Corruption is my issue.
Take the United States of America for example. If we were playing CivIII, states like Hawaii, Alaska, California and other west coast states would be loaded with corruption, and would only produce one good shield. In reality, California is currently the fifth largest economy in the entire world. That means that if it were its own country, its GNP would be ranked fifth. It produces enormous quantities of products and 25% of the nations produce. These are facts. The idea that corruption increases due to distance from the capital under democracy is ridiculous. The FACT is that in the USA, the most corrupted city IS the capital, Washington DC. There are tons of shady deals that our politicians conduct day after day: PAC money, pork barrel politics, corrporate gifts for congressional votes, etc., etc. Mot to mention the millions of dollars that are wasted on paying for specila benefits for the gov't. Under democracy, the parameters for corruption should change. Maybe a 10% or 15% corruption rate across the board. Another possible solution is to have the opption to build two or three mini-palaces, state capitals, or province headquarters when democracy is discovered. These mini-palaces would reduce corruption like the forbidden palace, maybe to a lesser extent. In any case, the distance = corruption thing under democracy is stupid. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mars
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Sep 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
I think distance from the captial caused corruption should reduce Greatly as new technologies are discovered. I mean the effects generated in civ's current corruption system is an excellent model of corruption say in Assyria, but for the modern age where every single country is connected, transactions can be almost instant, and as the statement goes we basically have achived "the annilation of time and space". I mean we can send a message half way around the world almost instantly and a man can fly all the way around the world in an hour (that is in space). The system suggest, as in one of my games, even after the invention of radio that on the huge world map it's severally deductable to have the capital in brazil and another city in argentina. The corruption should go down as age increases.
To take the US example: If you had the capital in DC on the huge world map, and a city reasonable spaced throughout all of the US territory the outer most regions like the west coast, hawaii, and alaska would be producing one sheild. That is to suggest that during a war such as WW2 it would take you about the time from the war's start until about the end of the game to build one tank. Also, for another comparison even farther back in history. They also suggest that to raise even the a light unit in WW1 in British India would take just as long as well. If that's not unrealistic i don't know what is. Inventions like telegraph cables, radios, TVs, Inernet, automobiles, steam engines, or anything that promotes fast movement, and therefore faster communication should give a bonus to distance. Also the limit on cities is unrealistic. In a huge map (it should be know that's what i prmarily play) you can only have 32 cities before every subsequent city is effectively useless expect for culture. That makes it nearly impossible to conquer the world as you have to painstakenly transport units long distances from your industrial base to the front. Then when you take over you basically have to burn the city because its effectively useless making conquering almost worthless. I hate the high corruption in civ3 governments.
BTW Zachriel, so you're saying that companies in the west get to pay lower taxes and contribute less to the government than companies on the east coast, cuz that is effectively what you are saying.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zachriel
|
 |
U.S.A.
Dec 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mars
BTW Zachriel, so you're saying that companies in the west get to pay lower taxes and contribute less to the government than companies on the east coast, cuz that is effectively what you are saying. |
Actually, I said, "This avoidance is abstracted as distance from the capital." Please note the word abstracted. In addition, I suggested that the word "corruption" was arbitrary. The concept may represent different things during different eras.
India was never a major production center for the British Empire, but did contribute vast resources to the Crown. Alaska is not a major production center for the U.S., but does contribute a strategic resource. Hawaii has only limited heavy industry, but is a strategic location. Pearl Harbor and the ships stationed there were built with money from the central government.
PS. I am certainly not against changes in the game, through the editor or by the gamemakers. Many of the suggestion on this thread may work just fine. However, I find Civ3 quite playable in its current incarnation. What most players are complaining about is that they want a democracy, but they want to conquer the world. It's sort of a contradiction.
Last edited by Zachriel on 07-03-2002 at 18:24
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Oh, I know you can....trouble is....see, everybody pretty well agrees that Civ3 is a more simplified version of the game.
Which means that the meat of your choices will reside in the micromanagement.
But the game's STRUCTURE is such that you go NUTS micromanaging, and so you're prompted to automate as much as possible.
At that point, isn't it kinna like just letting 8-16 computer civs play and just watching the screen tho?
-=Vel=- |
 Oh my, Vel.
Well, I would like to contest one thing you said: "Which means that the meat of your choices will reside in the micromanagement." Hmm. I don't know about that. There are the resources (which I think are an awesome addition to the Civ series), the choice between warrior and builder style of play or a balance between the two, which wonders to shoot for, which techs to beeline for... what civ to play...
Yes, I know that the tech beelines are limited - that has been discussed at length, and I grant you the point. I will also acknowledge that the game design is more spartan than Civ II (B.Reynolds = more is better, full speed ahead and damn the AI that can't handle it), and that was not, in the final analysis, necessarily the correct decision, despite the fact that it makes the AI more competitive.
I just think you overstated things a bit, perhaps out of frustration. There is strategic choice in Civ III, just not as much as you would like.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mars
|
|
Maryland, USA
Sep 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
alright i accidently sent it and don't feel like going back to editing it so get over it...
Several possible solutions to this delamia.
1) If very few units our dying and a great number of the enemys units are dying people are satisfied with the war. Vice versa and they go into revolt. The problem with this is that, like in WW2, it is not always the case that people care about the kill to loss ration. So..
2) Make a new variable in the program. Call it a resentment number. Every time a country does something bad to your nation it adds to this number. The worse the action against the more the number added. Likewise everytime they do something good to you subtract it from the resentment number. IF the country does something really bad, or they continuely reject your country your people will love to go to war with them. If the kill to loss ration remains somewhat equal and the resentment number is moderate nothing happens. If the resentment number is high then you get a production boast similar to that of being mobilized, if it is low youir people will revolt. However if you start losing the war by significant amounts your people will start to beg to get out. Also their should have to be a reason to enter the war. Say they took your city, refused to give you a vital resource or asked outragous amounst for it, or they just be plan rude to you and keep moving their units in your territory. That will be sufficent cause to go to war, rally your people against the common foe they resent dearly and fight for all the marbles. Repeated brutal warfare, unless you civ is militristic, will result in a less motivated people which will be reflected by higher nessicary resentment numbers to achive the same results. Also the resentment number will not be directly know by you except that your foreign advisor will tell you if your people love the nation, hate them, or whatever.
This will allow for greater realism without much added complication to the user. All you have to do is go to the foreign advisor and see your peoples attidue towards a nation. If they love them don't go to war, if they don't care much you better think long and hard, otherwise go for it whenever you please.
There can also be a length number. Something that determines when a war even with a terrible foe has gone on to long. This will not be measured in time, but in number of units killed by the foe and the results you have achived. For instance if you've gone no where in tthe war , such as WW1, but have lost enourmous numbers of troops then it would be high, however for every four units loss you've gained an enemy city and have almost won the war then it won't be that bad.
Although this may sound confusing, it would only be more extra work for the programmer not the user. After all you don't have to remember those numbers. All the user has to know is that i should only enter the war with people my people hate, or i should think it over long and hard, as it is in the real world. And that if you're not getting anywhere in a war and losing a tremendous number of troops then you should sue for peace otherwise keep on going for it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-03-2002 01:29
I love your "ps" ideas, Arrian! See!? It's stuff like that...little details like those you just pointed out that coulda made all the difference in the world.....wanna job? We're always looking for new ideas over at my site.....
Well, at least there are a lot fo good ideas being thrown around
|