Mind worms

Hippi · December 24, 2001, 06:25

Civ3 does indeed need some mind worms to increase the gameplay. Mind worms could migrate from Alpha Centari and arrive in the 20th century.

Prince · January 5, 2002, 09:47

I think modern barbarians - guerillas, cities/city clusters wanting independance, terrorists - would be far better suited to this game if you want stuff like that.

Fresno · January 5, 2002, 10:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince
I think modern barbarians - guerillas, cities/city clusters wanting independance, terrorists - would be far better suited to this game if you want stuff like that.

I especially like the city clusters wanting independence. So you could include younger civilizations and keep the game historically accurate.

DaShi · January 6, 2002, 04:11

How about genetically engineered monsters, cloned dinosaurs, or, best of all, Alien Invaders?

I might buy CivIII, if these features were fully implemented.

CB2034 · January 6, 2002, 08:19

How about 2mice. One really smart and the other one goofy and named after a finger on your hand, and they try to take over the world the whole time your are playing and every once in a while they come up with a good plan but it backfires. That would be way cool.

Prince · January 6, 2002, 08:54

I don't think you should be interested in Civ if you want that stuff

Fresno · January 6, 2002, 14:41

That's true; civ is a game about history; let's keep it that way.

I only like the city-clusters thing because it would add historical accuracy.

Prince · January 6, 2002, 15:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Fresno
That's true; civ is a game about history; let's keep it that way.

I only like the city-clusters thing because it would add historical accuracy.

But of course, so would guerillas (Cuban revolution.. Che Guevara, etc). The Civ2 patriots and fanatics were kinda cool! And in Civ1, later ages also had barbarians, I can still see it: "Guerilla uprising near..."

Fresno · January 6, 2002, 17:23

Yes, and I also still don't understand why they removed the fundamentalism-government. Why not adding some governments instead (like feudalism, aristocracy, fascism, and so on)?

In some aspects, Civ1 and 2 were better then Civ3.

Ironikinit · January 6, 2002, 17:55

I suspect that fundamentalism was removed because it was too powerful in Civ 2. Additionally, I can't think of a major power that has used a fundamentalist government since, say, the industrial revolution. There easily could be many that have, I just can't think of any. Fascism and communism work out to be pretty much the same thing, so there's not much point in putting in a whole other government for fascism.

I'm glad someone made fun of DaShi. Good work, CB2034.

GeneralTacticus · January 7, 2002, 23:11

I agree with the idea of adding fanatics/guerillas, but I think in Civ II they were way too common. Does the U.S. periodically have to deal with guerilla attacks on San Fransisco?? Terrorist activities should basically be damaging military units, blowing up improvements or killing people. Kind of like random bombardment. And there should be a spy mission to root out terrorists.
As for fanatics, I think the main effect of them cropping up should be to cause unhappiness, damage infrastructure and scare people.

GeneralTacticus · January 7, 2002, 23:13

Also, on the subject of Fundy, if they left it as it was it would be even more powerful, cos of culture and money. They would have a whole stack of cultural improvements that they could build with no maintenance, and they'd have the money to buy all their tech from everyone else.

Fresno · January 9, 2002, 17:49

Quote:

Fascism and communism work out to be pretty much the same thing, so there's not much point in putting in a whole other government for fascism.

You're right if you mean it were dictatorial governments. But further, they weren't that similar.

By the way, I don't think Hitler and Mussolini would like it that they are called communists now...

DaShi · January 12, 2002, 04:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Fresno
That's true; civ is a game about history; let's keep it that way.

I only like the city-clusters thing because it would add historical accuracy.

Nonsense! It's about civilization. So if I wanted to start of society of cybernetic monkey/donkey halfbreeds, I should be able to.

Fresno · January 24, 2002, 11:26

Your reaction surprises me; everything in the game shows it is about history. If you think not, just read chapter 4 of the Civ1 manual; that says it all.

Method · January 25, 2002, 17:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Fresno
Your reaction surprises me; everything in the game shows it is about history. If you think not, just read chapter 4 of the Civ1 manual; that says it all.

uh, just for those of us who dont have the civ1 manual, what basically does it say?

steelehc · January 30, 2002, 00:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironiknit

I suspect that fundamentalism was removed because it was too powerful in Civ 2. Additionally, I can't think of a major power that has used a fundamentalist government since, say, the industrial revolution. There easily could be many that have, I just can't think of any. Fascism and communism work out to be pretty much the same thing, so there's not much point in putting in a whole other government for fascism.

Iran is a fundamentalist government. The late Taliban of Afghanistan was a fundamentalist government. A number of sub-Saharan African nations are similiarly fundamentalist.

Quote:

Originally posted by Fresno

You're right if you mean it were dictatorial governments. But further, they weren't that similar.

By the way, I don't think Hitler and Mussolini would like it that they are called communists now...

Fascism and Communism are not the same thing. They are very different, with a number of similiarities. Fascism is a revolt from the middle, the middle-class wanting to hold on to gains from the past, and to perhaps gain something in the future. Communism is a revolt from below, the lower class, with nothing to lose, wanting at least to gain something. The similiarties lie in the fact that true Communism has never been achieved. It isn't possible to place that much power in the hands of so few, and come away with out corruption.

I don't think anyone who calls Hitler and Mussolini Communists knows anything at all about history.

Steele

Fresno · January 30, 2002, 07:23

Quote:

Originally posted by TKG
uh, just for those of us who dont have the civ1 manual, what basically does it say?

The chapter is actually a summary of the history of the world, focused on 'the advance of knowledge'. It starts wit Antiquity and it ends with the Industrial Age (which in Civ1 also contains the modern age).

Fresno · January 30, 2002, 07:27

Quote:

Originally posted by steelehc
I don't think anyone who calls Hitler and Mussolini Communists knows anything at all about history.

Well that's exactly what I meant. It wasn't me who said communism and nazism are the same, I said exactly the opposite.

Herr David · February 5, 2002, 17:50

This game covers about 6000 years of civilization, and how many fundamentalist or fascist nations have we seen???? Two notable fascist countries, one of them for twelve years (driving the country into utter destruction) and one for 21 years (isolating itself from the rest of the world, losing all but one of its wars, collapsing before the war is over)

Fundamentalists - well, there certainly were a bunch of pretty fundamentalist crackheads throughout the middle ages, but they never got far wherever they ursurped power and since the Civ2 Fundamentalism was more of an endgame thing, we should count the modern examples - Afghanistan (ruled by the Taliban for about seven years, big country...) Sudan (wow) and maybe Saudi-Arabia. Saudi-Arabia fits best into the picture since it's rich and ruled by arrogant fools, like the Fundis in Civ2. But Saudi-Arabia is far from a self-sustaining country and utterly dependant on foreign support against their poorer neighbours.

I'd much more like to see variants of Democracy and Communism. Having only two efficient systems of government for the modern age is both boring and overly simplified. How about variants of both? Or the nice social engineering system of SMAC?

godinex · February 5, 2002, 19:08

left the strategie gamers, just for the academics autorities in the schools.

Dry · February 6, 2002, 11:29

Quote:

Originally posted by steelehc
Fascism is a revolt from the middle, the middle-class wanting to hold on to gains from the past, and to perhaps gain something in the future.

I disagree.
Fascism is coup from a part of the upper-class, fearing a change in their priviledges. They want more police, in order to protect their goods, and this please those afraid of the current insecurity (drugstore owners). They don't want the new technology - their activity sector is X, progress show it will be Y in the future, so either they evolve or they will be ruined - this please those who indeed were workers of the X sector and lose their job.
In Germany, Hitler was supported by the heavy industry lobby, mainly scared by communism and interested in increasing their benefit in war industry. Not much for a fear in a change of leading activity.
In Spain, Franco was supported by landowners in general and Catholic Church in particular - let's stay an agricultural, religious country and fight those atheist industrials. In their mind, they were the elves, hobbits, dwarves, humans fighting against the dark forces of the mordor and their hellish forge.

Quote:

Communism is a revolt from below, the lower class, with nothing to lose, wanting at least to gain something.

Yes. But I would add that the communist speach is to say that if you are in misery, it is not because of you, but because others. They are stealing you, exploiting your work, they are not rewarding for your efforts. You are a real good guy, honest worker, but underpaid.
You are poor, but you have a status: you are a Worker. Commies are ready to sell the whole country in order to keep everyone's status, cause if you lose your status, you are in danger to become a fascist.

A middle-class is in fact the guarantee for Democracy. Look at all countries where democracy failed and you will find almost no middle-class. Look in many South-american countries where they go from right-dictatorship to Left-dictatorship, and you will find a society with upper-class/lower-class split and almost no middle-class.

Quote:

I don't think anyone who calls Hitler and Mussolini Communists knows anything at all about history.

Right.

Fresno · February 9, 2002, 15:11

And again: I never said I thought they were communists.

Willem · February 9, 2002, 17:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironikinit
I suspect that fundamentalism was removed because it was too powerful in Civ 2. Additionally, I can't think of a major power that has used a fundamentalist government since, say, the industrial revolution. There easily could be many that have, I just can't think of any. Fascism and communism work out to be pretty much the same thing, so there's not much point in putting in a whole other government for fascism.

I'm glad someone made fun of DaShi. Good work, CB2034.

Where have you been hiding lately? Does Afghanistan ring a bell? Or how about Iran? They may not be major powers but they're still a civilization.

Almost all the mid east countries use the Koran as the basis for their rule of law. So in that sense, they're all Fundamentalist. Some are just more so than others. You could also argue, though it would be stretching it somewhat, that Isreal should also be considered a Fundamentalist government. The religious right has a great deal of inflluence in government policy, and the Torah is a major component of their rule of law.

belchingjester · February 12, 2002, 18:19

Quote:

This game covers about 6000 years of civilization, and how many fundamentalist or fascist nations have we seen???? Two notable fascist countries, one of them for twelve years (driving the country into utter destruction) and one for 21 years (isolating itself from the rest of the world, losing all but one of its wars, collapsing before the war is over)

David - what about the Spanish Inquisition and repressive Catholic regimes in the "Dark" ages? These succeeded in maintaining a status quo for centuries, but were very effective at amassing wealth and manpower (Crusades, anyone?).

I agree that the main reason Fundamentalism was removed was that it was too powerful. Instead we've got mobilizing for warfare - a poor substitute. Even so, it's tough to play a builder strategy on higher levels - warmongers tend to win out.
- belchingjester

Fresno · February 19, 2002, 17:36

The crusades were clearly fundamentalist actions. And about fascism - just look at some regimes in the third world during the last century. If the dictators weren't communist, they were often fascist.

Ironikinit · February 19, 2002, 19:33

So far, nobody has listed a great power that has ever been fundamentalist. Regional powers, yes. Major powers, no.

Even the fundamentalist countries listed have suffered more from their government IMO than benefitted. In Civ 2, fundamentalism's benefits were quite good.

While communism and fascism might be philosophically diametrically opposed, IRL they seem to work about the same. And just because Hitler had a wild hair up his hinder over the bolshies doesn't mean that Stalin wouldn't've allied with Hitler and liked it.

Fresno · February 20, 2002, 07:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironikinit
So far, nobody has listed a great power that has ever been fundamentalist. Regional powers, yes. Major powers, no.

So you think the crusades were a regional action?

Quote:

Even the fundamentalist countries listed have suffered more from their government IMO than benefitted. In Civ 2, fundamentalism's benefits were quite good.

What about the empire Mohamed conquered after he became the leader of Mecca?