Who is Firaxis: - Page 2

campmajor! · January 14, 2002, 15:20

1. Colonies are useful, but vulnerable. So protect them!
2. My cavalry loose a lot against rifleman, so there I also don't agree.
3. Phalanx beating tank is true, but that was a design decision, not a flaw. They did that on purpose, to make it more difficult for even advanced tech civs to blitzkrieg.
4. Bombarding isn't useless, it's just not as effective as in civ2. If you want to use them properly, you bombard and then finish them off with ground troops, like in real life.
5. Corruption is a problem for a large civ, but this is also a design decision, no flaw. Just to make it harder to maintain a large property.
6. The government Fundamentalism in civ2 was very unrealistic, so that is corrected.

And I can continue like this but I don't think it's any use. You made up your mind, you think civ3 stinks. That is your right, but I simply disagree. Sure, civ3 is much more difficult than civ2, but some people quit and others face the difficulties and try even harder....

Grrr · January 14, 2002, 19:47

Quote:

Originally posted by campmajor!
5. Corruption is a problem for a large civ, but this is also a design decision, no flaw. Just to make it harder to maintain a large property.

The point is that two of the six ways of winning require a huge empire:
-Winning be domination.
-Winning militaristically.

I mean, if you raze every city, then the Ai just goes and rebuilds them, so you never win! Large empires are a necessity.

campmajor!

Trifna · January 14, 2002, 19:59

Quote:

Originally posted by campmajor!
1. Colonies are useful, but vulnerable. So protect them!
2. My cavalry loose a lot against rifleman, so there I also don't agree.
3. Phalanx beating tank is true, but that was a design decision, not a flaw. They did that on purpose, to make it more difficult for even advanced tech civs to blitzkrieg.
4. Bombarding isn't useless, it's just not as effective as in civ2. If you want to use them properly, you bombard and then finish them off with ground troops, like in real life.
5. Corruption is a problem for a large civ, but this is also a design decision, no flaw. Just to make it harder to maintain a large property.
6. The government Fundamentalism in civ2 was very unrealistic, so that is corrected.

And I can continue like this but I don't think it's any use. You made up your mind, you think civ3 stinks. That is your right, but I simply disagree. Sure, civ3 is much more difficult than civ2, but some people quit and others face the difficulties and try even harder....

I don't think that I'm the kind "I think the game is bad and my idea is fixed". I wont change my mind without arguments. And my mind wasn't formed without arguments.

1- About colonies, they are unuseful compared t reality. Of course they have a limited use but it is so limited compared to what colonies are where human is...

2- Yes they do die face to a rifleman or whattever. The problem isn't there, but that they are able to regenerate after that they would have lost a battle (but they didn't since they escaped). It is an artificial new cavalry. Etirely new. You know what I tend to think in my mind when I see cavalry armies recovering from the dead? "Where's the necro so I kill him!!!"

3- Phalanx vs tank? Artificial. Science-fiction. They created an artificial combat system instead of regularating the situation by puting the aspects that do exist in reality that could temper whattever they've wated to temper by making such a system. Reality's battles are perfectly balanced. They are balanced within a referencial, a system: its own.

4- Bombarding isn't useless? Well let's give a definition of useful, ok? When I say useless, it's not that it doesn't put a health bar after 10 tries, it's that compared to what it should be, it's not enough. Simply.

5- For corruption, I wasn't exactly giving only my personal opiion but put it there because that it was the opinion of many... Personnally, I find it respectable with the patch. I'm not sure that simple luxuries are making things okay with humans, but stil it is a pretty good introduction to the Civ sery. It's a little like efficiency in SMAC. But I liked the efficiency style maybe more.

5- About governments, I wasn't talking about this fundamentalism thing. I was talking in general. It's not representative of human's ingeniosity in socio-politics.

Trifna · January 14, 2002, 20:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Grrr

The point is that two of the six ways of winning require a huge empire:
-Winning be domination.
-Winning militaristically.

I mean, if you raze every city, then the Ai just goes and rebuilds them, so you never win! Large empires are a necessity.

campmajor!

Do you think you,re able to ruling over so many humans just like that? It's very hard compared to dominate by some other ways such as expanding in space or culture...

Grrr · January 14, 2002, 20:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Trifna
Do you think you,re able to ruling over so many humans just like that? It's very hard compared to dominate by some other ways such as expanding in space or culture...

It is would be rather difficult, yes, but a city like Hawaii isn't 99.9% corrupt because it is thousands of kilometers from Washington. I mean, even under despotism such corruption would be unachievable. The Despot would send his army over to sort them out!

To the corrupters!

Trifna · January 14, 2002, 20:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Grrr

It is would be rather difficult, yes, but a city like Hawaii isn't 99.9% corrupt because it is thousands of kilometers from Washington. I mean, even under despotism such corruption would be unachievable. The Despot would send his army over to sort them out!

To the corrupters!

Take USSR as an example. All those countries around Russia... I do not think it is that easy. Okay, I realy agree that there are different levels of corruption though... There is corruption and CORRUPTION.

Grrr · January 14, 2002, 21:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Trifna
Take USSR as an example. All those countries around Russia... I do not think it is that easy. Okay, I realy agree that there are different levels of corruption though... There is corruption and CORRUPTION.

This is local corruption, and not distance from Moscow corruption!

Trifna · January 15, 2002, 01:13

I was talking of both of them. Notice that the term corruption in Civ III does not refer to simple criminality but to the entire concept of stability. That's why you have more "corruption" in civs you just took. I guess it's because of the effects of instability on corruption. The SMAC translation for corruption was efficiency.