Governments: CivIII is broken

[KoenigMkII]

I am playing v1.16f on a huge world with 12 starting civs. (system: 500MHz PIII, 384MB Ram.)

Larger worlds can have more AI's; more AI's meen it is possible to be at war with a larger number simultaneously.

Each separate war seems to cause its own quota of war warriness if the gamer has a Democratic or Republic gov.

So if you are attacked by distant AI civs you're government will be forced to regress to Monarchy or Communism, and no amount of luxeries/or luxury setting can prevent a plague of unhappy citizens.

If this was a response to a democracy attempting aggressive war, it would be fully justified in gaming terms. But a democracy falling beause it is attacked, and wins every battle??

let me pick a colorful historical example:

Pearl Harbour: Japan attacks US fleet: US Democracy unites against external agression and fights a victorious total war against Japan.

Now at what stage during this war did the US cities start to burn down in Riots?? At what stage did a workers insurrrection occur? What year did America invite the King of England back to run her war for her?

Can we have this error corrected in a future patch please.

Perhaps a sensible restriction of Democracies would be to ban them from raising cities to the ground.

Again, first use of Nuclear weapons should cause unhappiness in the home cites. But if the AI starts a nuclear war, then the gamer should be allowed full and total freedom in nuclear targeting, if he/she is just retaliating.

The alternative is to allow a Democarcy/Republic to switch to a Facist government (As Republic but with 3 Mil units as Military police, 30% science penalty, full mobilisation restrctions [no civilian improvments], all moral restrictions removed, perhaps with a special 8 turn time penalty to change back to Democracy.

With Facism, it the science penalty could grow with time, as long term restrictions on freedom of expression will allways slow science down. It would also discourage use of Facism except as a last resort.

All of the above is just IMHO of course :-)

[cassembler]

Your peeps are pissed 'cause you're SENDING troops out of your territory. If you fight the defensive war, your peeps will be a little more tollerant. Tell me that Vietnam had no protests... Korean War anyone???

WWII is, however, a fine example of your argument, and I think Civ3 should have a model of this type of scenario... Perhaps, if you're attacked (within your own borders) war weariness doesn't kick in for 20 turns or something...

I also think that there should also be a model of Fat Tuesday and Mardi Gras where you get like a free six pack in the mail or something...

[player1]

Originally posted by cassembler
Your peeps are pissed 'cause you're SENDING troops out of your territory. If you fight the defensive war, your peeps will be a little more tollerant. Tell me that Vietnam had no protests... Korean War anyone???

No, they won't.
Competly tested in one of my games.
Still same pace for war warriness.

[KoenigMkII]

I am not sure about having troops outside my (cultural) borders increasing War weariness - it seems to be more a function of total number of AI players I am at war with, and the length of time each war has lasted.

But if the AI has a 6 x Cavalry stack inside my territory, two tiles away from an important city, and he responds to a request to leave with a DOW, why is my Civ forced to regress to a primitive form of government 10-25 turns later as war weariness accumulates?

I play Civ on a huge Map, so ending a war in 10-25 turns is not a realistic possibility, especially if my civ is attacked and I am just defending.

Is there a correct scale factor to reduce war weariness on progressively larger Civ Maps? There should be.

Dont try to tell me I can negotiate with the AI to end the war, they all make absurd demands, even if they agree to talk at all.

As for Vietnam, that was more a US Intervention in a long term Civil war (for what ever reason). There was never a US DOW on North Vietnam, only the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

If Ho Chi Minh had landed 6 NVA Infantry divisions in California in 1960, and proceeded to raise L.A. to the ground, do you think there would have been any anti-war protests??

And dont get me started on the absurdly high level of corruption experienced (This is with courthouse & police station in each city, Forbidden Palace constructed in a reasonable location) with a Democratic government.

The whole idea of corruption being linked to Capital location in a Republic or Democratic city makes no sense. It should be low, and evenly spread, providing all your citizens are of the same nationality.

Why should California be more corrupt than Florida, Just because Florida is closer to Washington D.C.??

For Monachy, Facism and Communism, Corruption as a function of Capital location makes good sense, since government is in the hands of a single individual, who by definition can only be in one place at a time.

The whole point of a democracy is the de-centralization of power to make decisions to a local level, where it is logical to do so. Local accountability tends to limit corruption.

The more advanced governments are broken in Civ III and they need fixing.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by KoenigMkII
Why should California be more corrupt than Florida, Just because Florida is closer to Washington D.C.??

The U.S. is actually a small country and a nation of comparable size in Civ3 has low corruption. A larger country, such as the Soviet Union or the Mongol conquests experiences much higher corruption, which is historically accurate.

Corruption in the game is not really a problem. Most towns do not have Cathedrals or Universities. If you need to have one in a strategic position, just pay for it.

Even in the U.S. people complain that the government in Washington is too removed from their daily concerns, wastes their money, and doesn't provide the benefits they believe they have paid for. The money just disappears.

[DrFell]

Originally posted by Zachriel
The U.S. is actually a small country and a nation of comparable size in Civ3 has low corruption. A larger country, such as the Soviet Union or the Mongol conquests experiences much higher corruption, which is historically accurate.

It's not accurate if you take the British Empire as an example. It's not as if Australia or India were ridiculously corrupt, they weren't particularly productive industrially but this was more due to them being underdeveloped.

[Sovereign]

I think war weariness is a good thing. It can help to curtail the human player's bloodthirsty desire for 10 wars at once. Seriously, has America or most any other nation or civ in the world fought 10 wars at once? Never. Germany did two, one with Russia and one with Allies. America engaged in cold wars in many South America countries, but that isn't the same thing as actual war. Tribes or small war-mongering cultures like Mongolia warred with several other tribes, but no 3+ font major wars that human players sometimes do in Civ 3.

But I do agree in two aspects. War weariness should only be applied to aggressive wars, and no war weariness for a defensive war with the fighting inside your civ's cultural borders. Second, the war weariness penalty should be applied to AI. I'm not sure about this because I heard a few players did see the AI civ's collapse from war weariness in their games. Maybe this is dependent if its the Indians and Frenc (pacificist) compared to Zulu and Germans (Aggressive and War-mongering).

Thats just my two cents for now.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by DrFell
It's not accurate if you take the British Empire as an example. It's not as if Australia or India were ridiculously corrupt, they weren't particularly productive industrially but this was more due to them being underdeveloped.

Remembering that Civ3 is just a game abstraction:

India generated quite a bit of wealth through the sale of luxuries, by London, to other European Civs. The British had their Colonial (Forbidden) Palace in India, and low enough corruption to build Barracks and Native Infantry units. Most of the other minor improvements were made by spending London's tax money. London was rich on trade. The Forbidden Palace was built by let's say Great Leader Wellington, whose brilliant campaign brought British control to large segments of India. Before Wellington, India had been in danger of flipping. He subdued the population. *

the Colonial Palace is rushed by Great Leader Wellington as a result of the military campaign to gain control of the Indian Sub-Continent. **

Australia, on the other hand, has never provided much revenue for London. However, over time, with little help from London, they have built a nice infrastructure; including Factories, but no Wonders, yet.

---------------------------------------------

* In a road-poor India, Wellington established the Principle of the Ox. If he could find enough Ox's, he could move his infantry and win through superior firepower. Logistics was the essence of his campaign, a lesson he took to the Napoleonic Wars.

** Avoid building the Forbidden Palace as your first improvement. The town could flip and you would lose your Palace. Build Temple first, at least. The British in India built Barracks, too.

[KoenigMkII]

Originally posted by Zachriel


The U.S. is actually a small country and a nation of comparable size in Civ3 has low corruption. A larger country, such as the Soviet Union or the Mongol conquests experiences much higher corruption, which is historically accurate.

Corruption in the game is not really a problem. Most towns do not have Cathedrals or Universities. If you need to have one in a strategic position, just pay for it.

Even in the U.S. people complain that the government in Washington is too removed from their daily concerns, wastes their money, and doesn't provide the benefits they believe they have paid for. The money just disappears.

Ko's reply:
O.K. lets take para. one. The US is just under a Continent in size, and on a huge Civ map, a comparable continental democracy would have apalling corruption problems if it had a single capital stuck in the North eastern corner.

Para two. Corruption in the game (I am talking about a huge map here) is a severe and crippling problem. This is because in order to acquire and defend luxuries and strategic resources you MUST expand beyond one continent to 1.5 or 2.5 times what the games designers think you should be allowed. The limit of 32 cities is far too little for a huge map size.

Outlying cities are totally crippled by corruption (gold) and waste (shields), indeed because of maintenance costs, a fully developed city on the edge of your Democracy begins to drain your entire Civ. Anti-corruption improvements and wonders only help to a limited degree.

Most cities do have Cathedrals and Universities in order to keep them happy and productive, if you have 12+ (metros.) they are very usefull. But if the city is too far away from the Capital/Forbidden palace focus points - forget it they just drain you.

As for Para three, while many citizens in the US may question that the Federal Gov. gives them value for money, the Local state gov. is more responsive. But imagine if corruption was as bad as Civ III, the US would simply disintegrate into smaller nations.

Modern communications, both infomation and physical enable continental sized democracies. the game could easily be adjusted in terms of some techs/improvements reducing corruption.

The Civ III government model is flawed. Corruption for these more advanced gov. types is insane.

Up to a certain point Civ III is the greatest game I have ever played - then you realise that the game is unplayable as a democracy on the huge map setting due to corruption/waste/defensive war- based war weariness.

The AI effectively vetoes your government type with long distance DOWS. I personally find it an insult to my intelligence to have to regress to Monarchy/Communism in order to deal with silly AI DOW'S.

Government switching takes 7 turns to go from demo to monarchy, during which my Civ produces NOTHING.

Time to fix the Civ III Gov. problem - another patch anyone?? :-)

[player1]

Originally posted by KoenigMkII
The AI effectively vetoes your government type with long distance DOWS. I personally find it an insult to my intelligence to have to regress to Monarchy/Communism in order to deal with silly AI DOW'S.

One thing:
Monarchy & Communism should never be silly governments.
Stupid simplication wich says that these government are only good for war is WRONG.

Those govenment should be much better in unrest solving (true in Civ3 to some extent) and not that much crippled in science as they are now.
They should be only option for large pre-railroad empires.
There is a reson why Rome reverted to Monrachy (and that's not a war)

Also, Communism should be GOOD in Industalization:
Cheap Factories quick tile impoving etc...

Even in modern days Despotism should have its role.
Since modern Despotism is called DICTATORSHIP (ever played Civ1?)
Its role should be in having high military in SMALL empire.
Most modern Despotisms were small conties anyway.

Fascism is probably a variation of Despotism, Communism and Republic.

Republic should be more effetive for smaller conties then Democracy.
(democracy should be more federal like)


Of couse all of this needs lot of balanciong.
But the way it is, is just poor simplification.

Anyway I doubt that govenments would be properly done in some Civ3 XP, but at least hope that they will be a little more balanced, if not accurate.



P.S.
And of course:
Revolutions should be more deadly (but less deadly for religious civs) to prevent too much Gov-swapping (it is unrealistic).

Now, I wait for MOO3 (Master of Orion 3) to see how they solved government problem.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by KoenigMkII
Ko's reply:
O.K. lets take para. one. The US is just under a Continent in size, and on a huge Civ map, a comparable continental democracy would have apalling corruption problems if it had a single capital stuck in the North eastern corner.

The U.S. occupies approximately 6% of the world's land area.

[KoenigMkII]

I was thinking more of the USA economically (some might say culturally) dominating the entire North American Continent, which, excluding Antarctica, is just a bit under 18% of the Worlds land area.

I exclude antarctica, since it cant be shown on a Civ 2D map. I dont think anyone plays the bottom/top line of border tiles in a Civ game - maybe just a few tiles come into play because they are bordering more hospitable territory.

I still stick to the point that corruption for a large democracy in Civ III is insanely high. Lets suppose, for the sake of arguement Quebec left the Canadanian federation, and the English speaking states joined the USA.

In Civ III terms the cities at the furthest points would suffer terrible curruption would they not?

The Idea of a capital city or ancient monument (Forbidden city) affecting corruption in a modern technologically advanced Democracy is simply not serious.

The Government of the US could be in anyone of the states - its physical position has no effect on the other states levels of corruption. This is the effect of modern communications.

Its a simple idea really: why cant people see it?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by KoenigMkII
I was thinking more of the USA economically (some might say culturally) dominating the entire North American Continent, which, excluding Antarctica, is just a bit under 18% of the Worlds land area.

There are three main national capitals (Washington, Ottawa and Mexico City) and several smaller ones in North America.

If you use the number 6%, that means the U.S. takes up 1/16 of the world, or an equal share between 16 civs.

If you use the exaggerated number of 18%, that means an equal share between 5 civs. Corruption should be controllable if you occupy only a fifth of the map.

[The Andy-Man]

corruption is just stupid. i mean, the USA has more cities then the corruprtion threashold, (52states, plus more cities), so they would still have corruption probs.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
corruption is just stupid. i mean, the USA has more cities then the corruprtion threashold, (52states, plus more cities), so they would still have corruption probs.

That would be one way to count major cities, but probably not the most meanful way. In any case, Civ3 is just an abstraction, so one wouldn't expect a one-to-one correspondence.

[KoenigMkII]

Originally posted by Zachriel


There are three main national capitals (Washington, Ottawa and Mexico City) and several smaller ones in North America.

If you use the number 6%, that means the U.S. takes up 1/16 of the world, or an equal share between 16 civs.

If you use the exaggerated number of 18%, that means an equal share between 5 civs. Corruption should be controllable if you occupy only a fifth of the map.

Ko's reply:-

Para 1. yes there are 3 capitals, the physical location of which is totally irrelevent to the level of corruption experienced by a democratic government - unlike Civ III in which the location of the capital /Forbidden city are absolutely crucial.

This is a near perfect model for a Despotism/Monarchy/Communism, sort of OK for republic (but corruption shoul still be less intense for republic), but an absurd one for a high tech democracy.

And for para 3, corruption is not controllable once a democracy is a fifth of the land area of the map [a huge map] - the peripheral cities are horribly crippled. But a lot depends on the shape of the Civ's territory - its the distance from Cap. /F.C. factor that kills your production.

Since the location of vital resources is not known until you have the tech to see them on the map, axis of previous expansion may leave a gamer with extremely poorly placed capital and F.C. for future desired expansion -its not enough to build a colony/isolated city near enough to a vital resource, its a sitting duck for the AI's naval-heavy strategy. Once the Harbour allowing access to a distant resource is destroyed- zap, no coal/oil/iron etc.

To protect your vital resorces securely only defence in depth will do. This meens ideally a ring of productive cities with strong garrisons. Because of the illogical "curruption is a function of distance from capital" in Civ III for a Democratic government, you can easily find yourself building totally crippled cities, and forced to buy cultural city improvements at high cost.

Now add in the long distance DOW's that the AI are so fond of. Even fighting a defensive war you will find yourself forced to regress from Democracy to Monarchy/Communism due to accumulated war weariness. And a 7 turn wait during which your civ produces no shields, nothing (except more of that damn pollution- ha! that still pours out)

What else can I say?

Time to fix the higher govs.

[DrFell]

'Para two. Corruption in the game (I am talking about a huge map here) is a severe and crippling problem. This is because in order to acquire and defend luxuries and strategic resources you MUST expand beyond one continent to 1.5 or 2.5 times what the games designers think you should be allowed. The limit of 32 cities is far too little for a huge map size.'

Yeah but the outer cities don't really need to be productive - they only need to be there to control the resources.

'Outlying cities are totally crippled by corruption (gold) and waste (shields), indeed because of maintenance costs, a fully developed city on the edge of your Democracy begins to drain your entire Civ. Anti-corruption improvements and wonders only help to a limited degree.'

There are also ways of getting round corruption - although I've not tried it, you can support scientists/tax collectors in the city and I believe they do not suffer from corruption, or you can use despot/commie rush.

'The Civ III government model is flawed. Corruption for these more advanced gov. types is insane. '

The other corruption realism issues I agree with mostly, it is silly that a modern democracy or even communism can suffer SO much corruption. Modern communications etc. are so much more efficient, and if the governors of a city were found to be so corrupt that they drained 90%+ of the cities production for themselves then they would probably be replaced promptly. This kind of corruption is however realistic in (ancient) despo, and reasonable in (ancient) monarchy and republic. Probably railroads should have a great effect on corruption to represent modern communication.

[FrantzX]

If I remember correctly, Denver has the highest amount of federal building outside of Washington D.C. If you consider Denver to be the equivilent of a Forbidden palace, everything works out.

[KoenigMkII]

I don't wish to be cruel, but if Denver vanished tomorrow, what effect of corruption do you think it would have on L.A. or Chicago curruption??

I doubt anyone would notice any difference.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Zachriel


The U.S. is actually a small country and a nation of comparable size in Civ3 has low corruption. A larger country, such as the Soviet Union or the Mongol conquests experiences much higher corruption, which is historically accurate.

Corruption in the game is not really a problem. Most towns do not have Cathedrals or Universities. If you need to have one in a strategic position, just pay for it.

Even in the U.S. people complain that the government in Washington is too removed from their daily concerns, wastes their money, and doesn't provide the benefits they believe they have paid for. The money just disappears.

Here in Canada, we have the second largest country in the world, after Russia. There's no way that Vancouver is more corrupt simply because it's further away from our capital in Ottawa. Distance is irrelevant, as it should be in the game as well.

A better approach would have been, at least for Democracy, every few years the people of the city elect a Governor. If that official is corrupt, so's the city, if he's honest, the city produces well. That would still allow the use of corruption as a limiting factor, though it wouldn't be a constant thing. At least some of the time it would be able to produce something.

[Ironikinit]

I'm glad Zach has the patience to post to these.

The US example, you wouldn't even need a forbidden palace, just move your palace to, say, Missouri, and you'd have acceptable corruption coverage in the continental US.

Yes, that's silly that location is so important, but it's an abstraction.

Just as cities... there's more cities in my state irl than you could fit in North America on a huge Earth map in civ. The degree of realism in Civ just isn't very high. It's all an abstraction.

With the editor you can make a lot of adjustments to corruption, and that should please those who really just gotta have empires spread all over the place. People even make up their own governments. Eventually I'll start tinkering with the editor, but for now I'm getting comfortable with the game as it is.

It's a pretty good game if you take the time to learn to play it.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Willem
Here in Canada, we have the second largest country in the world, after Russia. There's no way that Vancouver is more corrupt simply because it's further away from our capital in Ottawa. Distance is irrelevant, as it should be in the game as well.

Remembering that Civ3 is just a game abstraction, Canada still takes up only a small portion of the land area of the Earth, the entire of North America being 1/5 of the total.

Unless Canada were to try to take over the entire Americas, then there would be huge problem with corruption in Brazil being so far from the Imperialist capital in Ottawa.

In the U.S., nearly everyone complains about our capital is so far away culturally that they don't understand the problems of people in "real people" in California or Texas. Canada is a good example, because as you know, it is having troubles just staying in one piece due to the Quebec separatist movement.

[Zachriel]

Another way to put it is like this:

Canada, a very large country, is holding it together (barely).
Russia is using military force to hold theirs together (Chechnya).
The U.S. has had only one Civil War (that is considered "good" by historical standards).

Anything larger falls aparts (Soviet Union, Colonial Empires, Mongul Conquests).

No one has yet found a way to knit together larger political units than what exist today.

[player1]

Wake up guys!

Don't you see that there "abstractions" are just one big JOKE!

[player1]

Wake up guys!

Don't you see that there "abstractions" are just one big JOKE!



Having big contry means trobulbe, but that doesn't depend form distance to capitol (at least in modern, post-railroad age).


P.S.
I always thought that corruption model needs more too many cities factor, and LESS DISTACNE FROM CAPITOL FACTOR. A little more closer to Civ3 Communism.

[TacticalGrace]

Originally posted by DrFell
The other corruption realism issues I agree with mostly, it is silly that a modern democracy or even communism can suffer SO much corruption. Modern communications etc. are so much more efficient, and if the governors of a city were found to be so corrupt that they drained 90%+ of the cities production for themselves then they would probably be replaced promptly. This kind of corruption is however realistic in (ancient) despo, and reasonable in (ancient) monarchy and republic. Probably railroads should have a great effect on corruption to represent modern communication.

Modern communications is an important factor. Could try editing the game: add a "telegraph station" improvement or something that has a big effect on the corruption and that requires electricity advance.

Also use the editor to increase the effect of courthouses.

It's not perfect but it might help.

[Ironikinit]

Looking back at notes of an old game, I've gotten corruption as a democracy under 15% of income from cities. Maintainance and science were the big expenses. I'm not talking about a weakling tiny civ, either, this was when I was leading or at worst in second. The level was monarch.

I'm curious as to why people find corruption unacceptable when other expenditures are more. Is it because in Civ 2 you could completely eliminate corruption just by going to democracy?

Is it the waste? In the same game I had some off shore cities that were pretty corrupt, but if I kept them in WLTK status they'd produce. One was quite far away.

Is 15% really that bad? So bad that you can't adjust it further with the editor and live with it? I'm willing to bet that in my current game it's even lower, going to go check.

I checked. In my current game, corruption eats up 12% of my income from cities. Now, I don't have the stats right here in front of me but I'm pretty sure that the IRS (US tax service) misses out on more than 12% of the taxes it could be collecting, just on black market alone. I think I should make it clear that I haven't modified my game, either. 12%, that's it. Again, I'm in the lead, too. Monarch level. I have an emperor level game saved, but I bet the corruption is higher because I did a lot of conquering and I hadn't got my patterns down as good as I do now.

I'm not even sure if 12% corruption is anything to brag about, but I sure can live with it. As I said, it's probably low compared to the current corruption levels in the US.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by player1
Wake up guys!
Don't you see that there "abstractions" are just one big JOKE!
Having big contry means trobulbe, but that doesn't depend form distance to capitol (at least in modern, post-railroad age).

It took federal troops to enforce desegregation, so not everyone will quietly accept rule from Washington even in the post-modern age. The U.S. has had quite a few good years without regional tensions, but it is not indicative of the overall history of the country. And to repeat, the U.S. is small and very wealthy compared to the size of the empires people are trying to build.

I am all for various improvements to the game model, but the current game is quite playable.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Another way to put it is like this:

Canada, a very large country, is holding it together (barely).
Russia is using military force to hold theirs together (Chechnya).
The U.S. has had only one Civil War (that is considered "good" by historical standards).

Anything larger falls aparts (Soviet Union, Colonial Empires, Mongul Conquests).

No one has yet found a way to knit together larger political units than what exist today.

Yes, I understand the underlying concept behind the corruption model, and personally I don't mind it. But that's only because I've created several versions of the Forbidden Palace for my game. If they had provided more tools with which to combat the problem, and the same goes for War Weariness, I don't think people would be complaining so much. As it stands now though, the game forces everyone to play the same way. You can't get to big because of corruption, you can't stay small or the other civs will run over you. It's trying to force you into this middle path with few options, and that shouldn't be. I don't think there's anything wrong with an ICS game myself, yet the corruption hobbles anyone who tries to play that way.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Looking back at notes of an old game, I've gotten corruption as a democracy under 15% of income from cities. Maintainance and science were the big expenses. I'm not talking about a weakling tiny civ, either, this was when I was leading or at worst in second. The level was monarch.

I'm curious as to why people find corruption unacceptable when other expenditures are more. Is it because in Civ 2 you could completely eliminate corruption just by going to democracy?

Is it the waste? In the same game I had some off shore cities that were pretty corrupt, but if I kept them in WLTK status they'd produce. One was quite far away.

Is 15% really that bad? So bad that you can't adjust it further with the editor and live with it? I'm willing to bet that in my current game it's even lower, going to go check.

I checked. In my current game, corruption eats up 12% of my income from cities. Now, I don't have the stats right here in front of me but I'm pretty sure that the IRS (US tax service) misses out on more than 12% of the taxes it could be collecting, just on black market alone. I think I should make it clear that I haven't modified my game, either. 12%, that's it. Again, I'm in the lead, too. Monarch level. I have an emperor level game saved, but I bet the corruption is higher because I did a lot of conquering and I hadn't got my patterns down as good as I do now.

I'm not even sure if 12% corruption is anything to brag about, but I sure can live with it. As I said, it's probably low compared to the current corruption levels in the US.

It's not the loss of income that bugs people, it's the loss of production. More importantly, it's the complete inabilty to do anything about it. At least if there were some improvements you could build to make these cities more or less productive, there would be some sense of control, but the Forbidden Palace is all there is. Like I said, I don't really care since I've created several versions of it in my own game, but I can understand why people would feel annoyed. They've been left with no choices, no options, no control.