Governments

hannibcannib · January 29, 2002, 19:24

Does anybody else feel like civ3 does not include enough government styles?

Kilroy_Alpha · January 29, 2002, 19:33

Yes. I really would have liked to see governments differ on a lot more things than what they do. Things like production. That was my favorite aspect of the CTP series and it's too bad it didn't get carried over. Also government-specific units were nice, too.

hannibcannib · January 29, 2002, 19:44

even if you dont speak up!

MGamer07 · January 29, 2002, 22:42

I wish they would've included a similiar government system to AC's. In RL, no two governments are exactly the same, and that system allows you to make small changes to your governmnet to suite your civilization.

barefootbadass · January 30, 2002, 17:00

Quote:

Originally posted by MGamer07
In RL, no two governments are exactly the same, and that system allows you to make small changes to your governmnet to suite your civilization.

I don't know, it seems less like a civ series game(civ 1, civ 2, and now civ 3, not CTP or AC).

The only thing I miss and is really missing is Fundamentalism.

Willem · January 30, 2002, 18:01

Quote:

Originally posted by barefootbadass

The only thing I miss and is really missing is Fundamentalism.

Apparently that was removed after Sept. 11, as well as a couple of Espionage abilities that involved Nuclear weapons and Germ Warfare.

Platypus · January 30, 2002, 18:02

In an online chat, one of the Firaxis people said that Fundamentalism was pulled as a government type in the weeks following the September 11 attacks in NYC and DC.

Ironikinit · January 30, 2002, 18:16

Fundie as it was in Civ 2 was too powerful. If it was in Civ 3 I hope they'd weaken it.

Gutz · January 30, 2002, 18:54

More government types would have been nice but making each of the current types a bit more distinct would help too.

player1 · January 30, 2002, 19:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

Apparently that was removed after Sept. 11, as well as a couple of Espionage abilities that involved Nuclear weapons and Germ Warfare.

In one of the first previews of Civ3 (before first screnshoot came out, early 2001) they said that they removed Fund. because it was unbalancing.

Poinsion city was removed after 11sept. (YOU CAN STILL FIND IT IN MANUAL)

player1 · January 30, 2002, 19:11

question in chat was something like:
Did you removed poision city & fundy after the 11sept?

and they said yes.
although they meant that poison city was removed after 11sept,
not fundy (which was removed much earlier)

Unregistered · January 30, 2002, 19:38

Well, I was disappointed when the social engineering from smac was left out. Another thing I'm hearing is that there really isn't much difference between republic & democracy. In civ & civ II going from a republic to a democracy yeilded a large increase in gnp. That's apparently no longer the case. Now you get more efficient workers, which is ok, but no trade increase. This seems wrong, both from the previous games perspective and from a historical one. I guess there is also some difference in corruption levels that might simulate that, but I'll to do some testing to see about that, since I jumped from monarchy straight to democracy. & the with the war-wearyness & default optimal city number for a huge map I can see why the ai civs spend 99.9% of their time in a communist form of gov in my game. Kind of disturbing to see the Americans & English as full-time communist governments. But to be expansionist, I guess you'd have to be...

So the short answer is yes, I wish they had.

Cheers,

barefootbadass · January 31, 2002, 17:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Fundie as it was in Civ 2 was too powerful. If it was in Civ 3 I hope they'd weaken it.

I think they would have, had it not been dropped. They weakened Democracy too I think, no more 'growing' cities with WLTKD or unbribable cities(I think propaganda can work on democracy in civ 3). Although I agree too that Fundamentalism was much more powerful.

Worthingtons · January 31, 2002, 19:51

Hmm, I think Fundementalism was completely flawed on the basis of Reality...
a nation cannot simply become Fundementalist over a 'few turns', Fundamentalism is born from centuries of religious culture. It's more a way of life, not a way of controling of a nation.

It's completely unrealistic, and takes a lot out of the game also, when it way far and away the best government, thus missing out on the challenge of happyness...

There should be the option for a Facsist dictatorship tho

vmxa1 · January 31, 2002, 20:11

Reality, it is a game, there is no reality. I only ask that they stick to their own rules. Govs can be anything they want, just publish the behavior and stay true to it.

Worthingtons · February 1, 2002, 12:02

Quote:

and takes a lot out of the game also, when it way far and away the best government, thus missing out on the challenge of happyness...

Hence that Quote