Thread Tools
Old November 25, 2001, 13:56   #31
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
Quote:
Originally posted by Cian McGuire
Your sentence should be "as soon as you attack one of his units on his territory..."- the MPP activates only then.

I haven't seen what johnny says in action yet, but I do know the above is true. It allows to you repel an aggressor.
That's a namby pamby policy. If I get attacked, any actions I take until peace is declared should be considered a defensive action. If you get shot at, the solution isn't a bulletproof vest, it's to get the guy who's shooting you. Sometimes that means taking the battle to him...

This really needs to be changed...

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old November 25, 2001, 14:12   #32
Cian McGuire
Warlord
 
Local Time: 12:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 161
The only alternative is to go for a more aggresive government then- I see nothing wrong with this as it keeps people from just being able to roll over their opponents.
Cian McGuire is offline  
Old November 25, 2001, 14:17   #33
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
Quote:
Originally posted by Cian McGuire
The only alternative is to go for a more aggresive government then- I see nothing wrong with this as it keeps people from just being able to roll over their opponents.
??? Why should I have to stop being a democracy to successfulyl defend myself? All I ask is that if I get attacked first, that I be able to wage war against my attacker without it being seen as a war of aggression.

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old November 25, 2001, 14:26   #34
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
All you have to lose is your chains!!
This thread needs a subtitle: Whiners of the world, unite!
TCO is offline  
Old November 25, 2001, 14:40   #35
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
How did your gender reassignement surgery go?
Quote:
Originally posted by GP
This thread needs a subtitle: Whiners of the world, unite!
And here he goes AGAIN! Can you PLEASE try and actually either:

1) Comment about something related to the discussion

or

2) Skip these threads altogether

All we have to fear is not fear itself but rather GP showing up to toilet paper yet another thread while he runs off in his little skirt giggling to himself. Oh moderator, can we please ask that people who like to do this just OCCASSIONALLY have to be topical? I don't mind the occassional drift, but this bombthrowing into topics has to stop...

Venger
P.S. Feel free to choose option 3) Get hit by a bus
Venger is offline  
Old November 25, 2001, 15:00   #36
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
Quote:
Oh GIVE ME A STINKING BREAK. Yes, I've been at war with the Aztecs for a long time. And kicking their ass. You telling me a democracy doesn't like a successful war? Oh my lord...
I think that Firaxis have implemented democracy war-weariness correctly in Civ-3, and they shouldnt change it.

Many peace-demonstrating anti-war minded people dislike ALL kind of prolonged wars, regardless if the war is sucessfull or not. Why should a military stronger democracy automatically exploit its advantage, by launching huge-scale landgrabbing world wars, with Alexander-, Napoleon-, Stalin/Hitler-style war-objectives? Is it realistic to expect that people (at least the peace-loving ones) in todays democracys, openly applaud such goals?

I say; stop whining! If you guys want to "conquer the world", you just have to choose the appropriate government-type. In Civ-3 in the industrial/modern era, this means communism. You cant have a Civ-3 government with ONLY advantages. That would unbalance the game.
Ralf is offline  
Old November 25, 2001, 15:32   #37
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
Quote:
Originally posted by Ralf
I think that Firaxis have implemented democracy war-weariness correctly in Civ-3, and they shouldnt change it.

Many peace-demonstrating anti-war minded people dislike ALL kind of prolonged wars, regardless if the war is sucessfull or not.
What consitutes "many"? Every war in American history has enjoyed overwhelming popular support. Yes, even Vietnam - check the history on popular support of the war. This never led to the fall of the government, nor would it.

Quote:
Why should a military stronger democracy automatically exploit its advantage, by launching huge-scale landgrabbing world wars, with Alexander-, Napoleon-, Stalin/Hitler-style war-objectives?
Because I want mine too? Why should every communist government automatically attempt to control the world? Maybe I want my workers paradise without conflict? That should be an option for me.

Quote:
Is it realistic to expect that people (at least the peace-loving ones) in todays democracys, openly applaud such goals?
The vast majority of people in ANY society approve of successful wars. Name the last successful war that stopped because people were too happy with it...

Quote:
I say; stop whining! If you guys want to "conquer the world", you just have to choose the appropriate government-type. In Civ-3 in the industrial/modern era, this means communism. You cant have a Civ-3 government with ONLY advantages.
What do you think communism is? What disadvantage does communism have? None. But it get's two draft/turn, shared corruption, better espionage, free support, martial law, and population hurrying (better than gold rushing IMO).

What does democracy have advantage wise? Lower corruption supposedly, but I think everyone here will admit it doesn't seem to work. Immune to propoganda (big whoop). 50% bonus for workers. One extra arrow. Disadvantages? War weariness that doesn't just make you deal with unhappiness, but it destroys your government. That's self defeating. The lack of any martial law makes conquered or new cities extremely hard to deal with.

As I said, war weariness is clearly worse under democracy, and having to deal with it is the cost - but that cost shouldn't include the collapse of a government into anarchy.

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old November 25, 2001, 15:34   #38
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Re: How did your gender reassignement surgery go?
Quote:
Originally posted by Venger


And here he goes AGAIN! Can you PLEASE try and actually either:

1) Comment about something related to the discussion

or

2) Skip these threads altogether

All we have to fear is not fear itself but rather GP showing up to toilet paper yet another thread while he runs off in his little skirt giggling to himself. Oh moderator, can we please ask that people who like to do this just OCCASSIONALLY have to be topical? I don't mind the occassional drift, but this bombthrowing into topics has to stop...

Venger
P.S. Feel free to choose option 3) Get hit by a bus
I've been on 2 mostly now. That was just a little "kiss" to keep you aroused.
TCO is offline  
Old November 25, 2001, 15:38   #39
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
Heh, okay it worked...

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old November 25, 2001, 15:49   #40
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Feel the love...
Time for a group hug. Mark, take a picture!
TCO is offline  
Old November 25, 2001, 17:49   #41
Chronus
Prince
 
Local Time: 17:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 371
Quote:
If I get attacked, any actions I take until peace is declared should be considered a defensive action.
You call exterminating the entire Aztec empire by destroying their 16 cities within 6 turns a defensive action??!

Quote:
If you get shot at, the solution isn't a bulletproof vest, it's to get the guy who's shooting you. Sometimes that means taking the battle to him...
I fully understand. However, there are plenty of people who would disagree. Your civilization will always have to deal with them. If the U.S. was to start taking over Afghan cities, I'm pretty sure there would be a huge outcry from the world, our allies, even from our own citizens. No, it doesn't change our government, but it does change our policies (and even leadership). Civ games were not designed to handle changes in policy, so it's lumped up in a change of government.

By the way, regarding your offensive against the Aztecs: a Democratic government that allows you to do all that and still give you all the other bonuses is, in my opinion, WAY off balance. I guess this is boiling down to preferred game play. The thought of eliminating a 16 city opponent in 6 turns makes out for a boring game in my humble opinion. You, however, seem to enjoy this. That's cool . . . to each their own. Nevertheless, I seem to recall that Firaxis implemented these features (along with culture, resources, etc.) to TONE DOWN the ability to wipe opponents out so quickly. For me, this is good. For you, a nightmare!

Quote:
Clearly you weren't at war very long.
I'm guessing 10 turns. Any war longer than 10 turns is, in my book, a long war. You're probably laughing your head off with that last comment. Nevertheless, I set my small objective (taking over anywhere from 2 - 5 cities), move in and get the job done (or fail), and then get a peace settlement, even if costs some money (though this isn't required when I'm victorious). More than 10 turns, IMOHO, should create a lot of unrest and make it more difficult to wage war (and for reasons I already mentioned above).

Last of all, I asked you how many "sub-games" you've played. Sorry, bad wording. You mention earlier that your current game is your first "whole" game. By "whole" game, I'm assuming you mean a game you play from start to finish. By "sub-games" I'm referring to games you played part way and then decided to quit and start a new game. So then, if I understood you correctly, how many "half-games" have you played?

Quote:
Your sentence should be "as soon as you attack one of his units on his territory..."- the MPP activates only then.
Actually, I like this. Why should my MPP w/ England pull me into a war against Germany when it was England who invaded Germany? So then, should it be activated if the tide turns and Germany takes the fight to England's soil? I think so. It's kind of like family. Your younger brother may do something stupid and get beat up by some kids. Fine, he deserved it. However, if those other kids continued to gang up on him . . . you would come to your brother's rescue (I would hope ). I see it the same way with countries. You may not like what an ally does, but you, nevertheless, don't want them seriously hurt or destroyed. That's how I see a MPP (for whatever it's worth ). The one thing I do hope they add, however, is the option to break your MPP (w/ serious reputation penalties). I guess I could declare war on my MPP ally and then make peace w/ him, but this breaks all my other agreements w/ him and I still have to make peace with the original perpetrator. Hmmm, maybe it should be that way . . .
Chronus is offline  
Old November 25, 2001, 21:15   #42
Cian McGuire
Warlord
 
Local Time: 12:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 161
Quote:
Why should I have to stop being a democracy to successfulyl defend myself? All I ask is that if I get attacked first, that I be able to wage war against my attacker without it being seen as a war of aggression.
So defend yourself- just don't carry the war to his territory.

if you kick a country's ass enough it'll sue for peace.

Quote:
What do you think communism is? What disadvantage does communism have? None. But it get's two draft/turn, shared corruption, better espionage, free support, martial law, and population hurrying (better than gold rushing IMO).

What does democracy have advantage wise? Lower corruption supposedly, but I think everyone here will admit it doesn't seem to work. Immune to propoganda (big whoop). 50% bonus for workers. One extra arrow. Disadvantages? War weariness that doesn't just make you deal with unhappiness, but it destroys your government. That's self defeating. The lack of any martial law makes conquered or new cities extremely hard to deal with.

As I said, war weariness is clearly worse under democracy, and having to deal with it is the cost - but that cost shouldn't include the collapse of a government into anarchy.
But communism cannot acquire that massive amount of money and techs that democracy has- if it was so good why not just switch?
Cian McGuire is offline  
Old November 25, 2001, 23:10   #43
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
Quote:
Originally posted by Cian McGuire


So defend yourself- just don't carry the war to his territory.
Sorry, that's a totally unacceptable answer. Just lie back and take it. That's inane.

Quote:
if you kick a country's ass enough it'll sue for peace.
Meanwhile I wait to get attacked rather than preemptively take the battle to him. Come on...

Quote:
But communism cannot acquire that massive amount of money and techs that democracy has- if it was so good why not just switch?
I will never play a communist form of government, just as I wouldn't play a Nazi form of government...

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old November 25, 2001, 23:28   #44
GePap
Emperor
 
GePap's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: of the Big Apple
Posts: 4,109
No time to be moral
Hey Venger:

While i can sympathize with not wanting to do certain things in games for real-life moral reasons (i could never bring myself to exterminate capture pops in MOO2) sometimes a game gives you no choice or it allows us to take equally as attrocious actions that we don't think of, like razing cities (back to MOO2, I never felt that bad about bombing a colony out of existence).

As for dems and taking the war to them, the problem in your game is not that you took the war back to them, but that after a certain time it was no longer about you paying back, but you gaining space. We did fight Japan after Pearl and take the fight to them, but it did not take 50 years (according to you, this war was simmering for many turns, so remember, those that were alive when the war begun were dead long before) and we did not take mayor Japanese territory as 'compensation' (I don't see Okinawa bases, or those isalnds in the pacific as much of a gain). If a civ attacks you, hit back, destroy their army and maybe some infrastructure, and demand they give up and say uncle. Once you decide to destroy them though (states are not single people so your guy with gun argument is invalid) its no longer payback, but outwards aggression.Please tell me of one state the US ever destoryed utterly (I mean wipped of the map and took the land for itself) while in self defense? Japan, Germany, they are still there.
__________________
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
GePap is offline  
Old November 25, 2001, 23:35   #45
D4everman
Prince
 
D4everman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oberammergau, Germany
Posts: 371
I understand the people syaing "just live with it" but Venger has a point. I like to play mostly peaceful games and democracy is my preferred gov. But it impossible to survive as one with things the way they are...okay, almost impossinle. I did mange to win as a dem gov in a space race but I had to reload saved games a buncha times to avoid a war I didn't start and wanted no part of.

What are you going to tell me? stay outta MPP's. I wish. While Civ3 doesn't have the ol' "YOU REJECT OUR GENEROUS OFFER!? PREPARE FOR WAR!" thing, if you don't forge some alliances and you start to take a lead the AI will still tag team you.

I think the War Weariness for democracies should be reduced and / or erased if the attacking civ attacked first and then refused to make peace. What good is a democracy if someone can attack you and you don't fight back except for defense and still your nation goes nuts and produces nothing? Its unfair and it gives war mongers an advantage thats intolerable.

And how much do you have to kick someones ass to get them to sue for peace? In my last game I was attacked by THREE different civs. The first (iroquis) signed a treaty after i whooped them a little, the second and the third wouldn't stop fighting me no matter what. I *might* have been able to hurt the aztecs enough to make them leave me alone, and then direct attention to the japanese but War weariness made it impossible to build new troops so I lost. Thats fair? I had a good advantage that in no means gauranteed victory (modern armor0 but I lost because abunch of whiny punks think defending yourself is a bad thing.
Wimps.


And don't tell me that I can change governments. Thats like saying the US should change to a theocracy so we can better defeat terrorism.
__________________
"I know nobody likes me...why do we have to have Valentines Day to emphasize it?"- Charlie Brown
D4everman is offline  
Old November 25, 2001, 23:42   #46
WhiteElephants
King
 
WhiteElephants's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Toledo Ohio
Posts: 1,074
Quote:
Originally posted by Venger

I will never play a communist form of government, just as I wouldn't play a Nazi form of government...
Quote:
And don't tell me that I can change governments. Thats like saying the US should change to a theocracy so we can better defeat terrorism.
Well, well gentlemen another case of the realism blues got you down again?

I hate to say it fellas, but with this attitude you're never going to be satisfied.
WhiteElephants is offline  
Old November 25, 2001, 23:50   #47
D4everman
Prince
 
D4everman's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oberammergau, Germany
Posts: 371
Quote:
Well, well gentlemen another case of the realism blues got you down again?
Care to explain that comment? I can't speak for Venger, but I can for myself. I think the War Weariness for a democracy needs some changing. I've told you why. You disagree. Care to explain your position or do you just want to sound like someone that has an opinion with no basis?
__________________
"I know nobody likes me...why do we have to have Valentines Day to emphasize it?"- Charlie Brown
D4everman is offline  
Old November 25, 2001, 23:59   #48
WhiteElephants
King
 
WhiteElephants's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Toledo Ohio
Posts: 1,074
Quote:
Originally posted by D4everman


Care to explain that comment? I can't speak for Venger, but I can for myself. I think the War Weariness for a democracy needs some changing. I've told you why. You disagree. Care to explain your position or do you just want to sound like someone that has an opinion with no basis?
I'm suggesting that if you play the game as if it is a simulation of reality you are going to be let down.

Your quote --

Quote:
And don't tell me that I can change governments. Thats like saying the US should change to a theocracy so we can better defeat terrorism.
-- as well as Venger's suggests you are approaching the game as though it has "real world" effects and consequences.

Let me ask you a question: Why is suggesting to you that you should change your government to one more suited for war before going to war, or when someone declares war on you, such a bad suggestion?

The whole approach to this problem appears to be yet another incarnation of the combat realism debate.
WhiteElephants is offline  
Old November 26, 2001, 02:20   #49
GePap
Emperor
 
GePap's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: of the Big Apple
Posts: 4,109
Problem with A.I.
to D4everman:
The problem of the A.I. noty talking to you is a problem with the A.I., not with the concept of war weariness as has been instituted. I once had the problem you had, when while fighting a major war as a democracy my goverment went into extreme war weariness and I could not get many more troops. To make things worst, I tried to switch over from democracy but this lead to an endless bout of anarchy instead. Still, if you can beat his main armies and cripple his military, that should be enough to get the a.i. to back down. Also, try to take out their capitol to make them cry uncle.
I just thought of this, but have a period of anarchy and switch to a republic or just have anarchy, and go for dem again. I don't know if this would reset the war weariness or not. Its not pretty, but its there.
__________________
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
GePap is offline  
Old November 26, 2001, 03:07   #50
N. Machiavelli
Prince
 
N. Machiavelli's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: THE Prince
Posts: 359
Fighting a Democratic War
Sure, maintaining any form of a prolonged war as a Democracy can take some effort in Civ3, but I've learned to cope. Once I aquire Democracy, unless I'm currently at war, I switch to it, usually from a Republic. Up until the industrial age, I play aggressive only when it comes to colonization and spreading my borders. I usually play Switzerland for the majority of the game and stay neutral: no alliances and NO MPP's, unless it's with all the remaining civs. I have found that if you have MPP's with two civ's at war, they will ASK you to declare war on the opponent, but the game will not force you to hurt your rep by attacking the civ which you have a Right of Passage with.

Sounds wimpy? Sure. But that is simply to bide your time. All this time, I have used the 'trade' advantage to gain resources, stay ahead in tech, maintain a huge standing army, and keeping the luxeries at 60-70%. The other important thing is to maintain a high culture rating: this determines how many of the conquered citizens will be in 'resistance' when you take their city. Once the inevitable WW breaks out at around the industrial age (nearly every game I've played), you can be selective on who you attack. But if you are a Democracy, never, never, never fight a war that you cannot win. Once the tide turns against you, THAT'S when your cities start to give you grief that is uncontrollable. Otherwise, if you continue to be victorious (or even simply not lose), you have a few options available to you based on your situation.

1.) Make sure that the first city you conquer has access (road or harbor) to your main empire so luxeries can get in. That will ensure that once the resistance is over, there will be few citizens that are unhappy. This helps fight the city reverting back to the enemy civ once you have your entire army encamped there. By the time I evr go to a prolonged war, I am a economical and luxurious super giant, able to sway the citizens to my side. However, if the legitimate strategy of conquest is not enough even with luxeries....well, make sure that the only citizens left in those cities are more sympathetic to your cause.
It's called genocide folks. if the city you enter has too much resistance and unhappy people, starve them. It's cruel in real life, but cut off all food squares and let the population drop to nothing, then allow growth. The new citizens will be loyal to you, and resitant to subversion by the enemy. You'll be surprised how quickly a starving city becomes more hospitable to you, only a handfull of turns.

2.) Scorched Earth. If you cannot keep the citizens happy enough to stop them from going back to the enemy, conduct a more attritionistic war and raze the newly-conquered cities. Bring along some extra workers (with riflemen/infantry to protect them) and build new roads/railroads over the now 'neutral' ground. Rinse and repeat.

It seems a little extreme, but I have yet to plunge into Anarchy from a Democracy. Even in my current game, (played on emporor level, huge archapelago map w/12 civs as Americans), I have been a Democracy for 400 years and have been in near-constant warfare the entire time. At the begining, I was a mere 12 cities on my little island and now own neary the entire map and waging a successful campaign against the French and Babylonians, the only 2 civs left. Over the course of this entire game, I have lost 1 city to enemy subversion and that was 2 turns after I conquered the Egyptian capital.
N. Machiavelli is offline  
Old November 26, 2001, 04:20   #51
LaRusso
King
 
LaRusso's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:24
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: appendix of Europe
Posts: 1,634
Quote:
Originally posted by Venger
P.S. Thanks for being topical and not calling me a name...
but you still are the King O'Whiners
__________________
joseph 1944: LaRusso if you can remember past yesterday I never post a responce to one of your statement. I read most of your post with amusement however.
You are so anti-america that having a conversation with you would be poinless. You may or maynot feel you are an enemy of the United States, I don't care either way. However if I still worked for the Goverment I would turn over your e-mail address to my bosses and what ever happen, happens.
LaRusso is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 13:24.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team