Why did they remove Fundamentalism from vanilla Civilization III?

Mr. President · January 18, 2004, 20:27

It was like the best government in Civilization II, but I don't think it deserved to be removed.

vmxa1 · January 18, 2004, 23:00

I have no idea why, but given how the game works adding the ones they did in C3C shows we do not have room for them and surely not naother one.

Who can be bothered to use all the ones we have now in a given game? Even if you are religious, it makes little sens to change repeatedly.

Flip McWho · January 19, 2004, 00:25

Fundamentalism was only used at the end anyway. Well for me. I researched everything and then just changed to Fundamentalism to mop everybody up. I'm with vxma1 I have no clue why. But it probably was too powerful.

Antrine · January 19, 2004, 05:03

What mattereth it now? When you can tailor make your own kind of government in the editor.

mr Rura · January 19, 2004, 06:06

the argument "it was too strong" is imo little pointless - if firaxis wanted to add it, they would change it to make it worse. i think theres many similar governments [communism, fascizm] and it's not needed...

MrWhereItsAt · January 19, 2004, 07:21

The ten free units per city thing might have been a little bit too powerful in Civ3, and not fit with the other Governments. Also they may well have decided that changing its effects for Civ3 was too problematic - can you imagine every luxury and happy/content face getting you a gold per city? And having a slow tech rate is not much of a deal - with enough units swarming you should be able to wrest a tech or two from your enemies, then whore it around to catch up. Or just steal the tech with all those tithes....

I think with Feudalism and especially Fascism in the game now, Fundamentalism could be revisited. However perhaps Fascism can be considered the Civ3 equivalent of Fundamentalism. After all what more would you do to Fundamentalism different to Fascism that boths fits the game model of Civ3 and doesn't add something so horribly powerful like the tithes system...?

Daz · January 20, 2004, 05:12

Well definately not because it was too powerful. If that was the case, why didn't they just make it a bit less powerful?

I mean, if its broken, you try to fix it.... right?

MrWhereItsAt · January 20, 2004, 05:52

Perhaps they did by creating Fascism for C3C. Seems reasonable enough - resort to the classic governments for the first release of Civ and work on adjusting new ideas for a n add-on.

Kuciwalker · January 20, 2004, 20:28

Fundamentalism just doesn't have a niche with C3 government mechanics.

dworkin · January 20, 2004, 22:38

It was just silly.

No unrest? Take a look at a modern theocracy. No unrest? Hahahahahaha!

Tithes? Again, those theocracies. They surely are wealthy and their citizens prosperous. Hahahahahahaha!

Big heap of units.
Well here they're on to something. But since IRL these huge armies are poorly trained, ill equipped, seldom paid and fed troops I don't see this as supported units in the Civ sense. Again Hahahahahahaha!

Face it, the rules were silly. I laughed at it when I first played Civ2, Ilaugh at it now. The CTP theocracy government was much more sensible and may of had a lot to do with Fundementalist being dropped.

dworkin · January 20, 2004, 22:40

And the same can be said for the corruption effects for a democracy. I'm glad that's gone as well.

Switch · January 21, 2004, 00:11

dworkin -> actually, the Catholic Church is THE wealthiest organisation in the world, and it's only extremist fundamentalist countries that have problems with unrest and military.

I find it unfortunate that science penalties are considered a standard for any theocratic governments...but I guess the best way to model a government is simply to look at such past governments, and that was typically the case.

Mad Bomber · January 21, 2004, 04:19

It was way to controversial after Sept 11 and it got the axe shortly thereafter.

Daz · January 21, 2004, 04:24

well, again: if its broken, I say repair it. Fundamentalism was abused in the late game. Why not make it dissapear with electricity?

David Murray · January 21, 2004, 08:55

Because it was Orientalist.

I have learned the error of my ways and I see now that it was merely reflective of an American bias against all things 'Islam'. So how come the West is the sum of all its parts but the Muslim world is all about Islam? Why does Islam equate to terror and fundamentalism when crazies like McVeigh and born again Christian lunatic Presidents don't characterize Christianity? Why are illiberal figures like the Pope idolized by the Western media? Why is non-proliferation good for Iran and Iraq but not Israel?

Fundamentalism wasn't just overpowered, it was stereotypical and grossly offensive. See Said, 'Covering Islam' or 'Orientalism' for a much more detailed study of this (largely American) phenomena.

Capt Dizle · January 21, 2004, 10:51

Fundy ain't in because of people like David Murray. Spoilsport.

Capt Dizle · January 21, 2004, 10:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
It was way to controversial after Sept 11 and it got the axe shortly thereafter.

Sid was quoted as saying that they just couldn't make it work (balance) so they scrapped it. I think your version is closer to the truth.

Mr. President · January 21, 2004, 18:02

I remind you that we are not here to continue the OT wars.

Mr. President · January 21, 2004, 18:04

Having said that, I absolutely think it was too powerful in its previous form. Maybe adding something like in Alpha Centauri with a combat bonus, while removing some of the more overpowering advantages like massive unit support, would have helped.

Tattila the Hun · January 24, 2004, 17:18

Maybe ad a rank beyond elite to any fanatical governments? Fundamentalism, fascism...

Underseer · January 24, 2004, 17:38

Quote:

It was way to controversial after Sept 11 and it got the axe shortly thereafter.

What a crock. The Puritans (excuse me, "practicioners of the Official State-Sanctioned Religion") have been trying to turn us into a theocracy since Day 1. If anything not allowing fundamentalist governments is too controversial.

Kuciwalker · January 24, 2004, 22:17

So what? The point is, if adding it would cause fewer sales than not adding it, then they won't add it. No value judgements are being made; it's just business.

Switch · January 25, 2004, 05:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Underseer

What a crock. The Puritans (excuse me, "practicioners of the Official State-Sanctioned Religion") have been trying to turn us into a theocracy since Day 1. If anything not allowing fundamentalist governments is too controversial.

And just a little point, a theocracy is different than a fundamentalist gov't. Ancient Egypt and biblical Isreal were theocracies, modern afghanistan is fundamentalist.

Skanky Burns · January 25, 2004, 09:48

Too powerful, pointless government form.

CiverDan · January 25, 2004, 16:26

Mad Bomber, Fundamentalism was removed before 9/11 due to game balance issues. It was more or less "replaced" with Fascism in C3C, in the since they are both more or less all our war governments. The "Plant Nuke", "Poison Water Supply" "Destroy Building" spy options, were, on the other hand, removed for sensitivity reasons as the game was released late in 2001.

Underseer · January 25, 2004, 16:28

Quote:

And just a little point, a theocracy is different than a fundamentalist gov't. Ancient Egypt and biblical Isreal were theocracies, modern afghanistan is fundamentalist.

Yes. Fundamentalism is a way of looking at religion, theocracy is a form of government. I understand the difference. But even in the time of the founding fathers, a certain segment of certain relitions have been pushing for a theocracy and never quite got over the fact that we're not.

Stefu · January 25, 2004, 16:50

Quote:

crazies like McVeigh and born again Christian lunatic Presidents don't characterize Christianity?

McVeigh was an agnostic.

Slightly pointless, I know, but it's a pet peeve...

Underseer · January 25, 2004, 22:51

Quote:

McVeigh was an agnostic.

Slightly pointless, I know, but it's a pet peeve...

True, but he didn't exactly travel in secular circles, did he? Hence the confusion.

pauli · January 26, 2004, 02:55

Quote:

Originally posted by CiverDan
Mad Bomber, Fundamentalism was removed before 9/11 due to game balance issues. It was more or less "replaced" with Fascism in C3C, in the since they are both more or less all our war governments. The "Plant Nuke", "Poison Water Supply" "Destroy Building" spy options, were, on the other hand, removed for sensitivity reasons as the game was released late in 2001.

...and it's about time for them to put them back in.

i'd been really hoping they'd do so for c3c. oh well :/

Dis · January 28, 2004, 04:59

I think that's bogus. Those features should be put back in. True I never used them in civ2, so it's not big loss.