There should be NO replies to this post if I'm right.

[Ghengis Brom]

I'm actually happy with the number of governments. I always thought Fundamentalism was over-powered. What I would have liked to have seen was more civs. I really miss the Mongols

[Thrawn05]

I am totaly cool with the number of governments in the game. No probs with them here.

[The Andy-Man]

not to sure about the unit builder as a civ thing, but then again, the way you put it makes it seems great for a civ2:SMAC edition

[Egyptian]

I think the amount of gov'ts is OK, but I think that modern democracy is weak in Civ III. Corruption is my issue.

Take the United States of America for example. If we were playing CivIII, states like Hawaii, Alaska, California and other west coast states would be loaded with corruption, and would only produce one good shield. In reality, California is currently the fifth largest economy in the entire world. That means that if it were its own country, its GNP would be ranked fifth. It produces enormous quantities of products and 25% of the nations produce. These are facts. The idea that corruption increases due to distance from the capital under democracy is ridiculous. The FACT is that in the USA, the most corrupted city IS the capital, Washington DC. There are tons of shady deals that our politicians conduct day after day: PAC money, pork barrel politics, corrporate gifts for congressional votes, etc., etc. Mot to mention the millions of dollars that are wasted on paying for specila benefits for the gov't. Under democracy, the parameters for corruption should change. Maybe a 10% or 15% corruption rate across the board. Another possible solution is to have the opption to build two or three mini-palaces, state capitals, or province headquarters when democracy is discovered. These mini-palaces would reduce corruption like the forbidden palace, maybe to a lesser extent. In any case, the distance = corruption thing under democracy is stupid.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Egyptian
I think the amount of gov'ts is OK, but I think that modern democracy is weak in Civ III. Corruption is my issue.

The word "corruption" is throwing you off the trail. What is really depicted is the amount of income and production which is being made available to the bureaucrats in the capital. In the U.S., like most places, people make a great effort to avoid giving any more to the central government than they have to. This avoidance is abstracted as distance from the capital.

Not to mention that the U.S. only crosses 12% of the globe's longitude, and about 8% of the globe's latitude. That does not really compare to some player empires which easily rival the short-lived Mongolian Empire in size.

[Mars]

I think distance from the captial caused corruption should reduce Greatly as new technologies are discovered. I mean the effects generated in civ's current corruption system is an excellent model of corruption say in Assyria, but for the modern age where every single country is connected, transactions can be almost instant, and as the statement goes we basically have achived "the annilation of time and space". I mean we can send a message half way around the world almost instantly and a man can fly all the way around the world in an hour (that is in space). The system suggest, as in one of my games, even after the invention of radio that on the huge world map it's severally deductable to have the capital in brazil and another city in argentina. The corruption should go down as age increases.

To take the US example: If you had the capital in DC on the huge world map, and a city reasonable spaced throughout all of the US territory the outer most regions like the west coast, hawaii, and alaska would be producing one sheild. That is to suggest that during a war such as WW2 it would take you about the time from the war's start until about the end of the game to build one tank. Also, for another comparison even farther back in history. They also suggest that to raise even the a light unit in WW1 in British India would take just as long as well. If that's not unrealistic i don't know what is. Inventions like telegraph cables, radios, TVs, Inernet, automobiles, steam engines, or anything that promotes fast movement, and therefore faster communication should give a bonus to distance. Also the limit on cities is unrealistic. In a huge map (it should be know that's what i prmarily play) you can only have 32 cities before every subsequent city is effectively useless expect for culture. That makes it nearly impossible to conquer the world as you have to painstakenly transport units long distances from your industrial base to the front. Then when you take over you basically have to burn the city because its effectively useless making conquering almost worthless. I hate the high corruption in civ3 governments.

BTW Zachriel, so you're saying that companies in the west get to pay lower taxes and contribute less to the government than companies on the east coast, cuz that is effectively what you are saying.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Mars
BTW Zachriel, so you're saying that companies in the west get to pay lower taxes and contribute less to the government than companies on the east coast, cuz that is effectively what you are saying.

Actually, I said, "This avoidance is abstracted as distance from the capital." Please note the word abstracted. In addition, I suggested that the word "corruption" was arbitrary. The concept may represent different things during different eras.

India was never a major production center for the British Empire, but did contribute vast resources to the Crown. Alaska is not a major production center for the U.S., but does contribute a strategic resource. Hawaii has only limited heavy industry, but is a strategic location. Pearl Harbor and the ships stationed there were built with money from the central government.

PS. I am certainly not against changes in the game, through the editor or by the gamemakers. Many of the suggestion on this thread may work just fine. However, I find Civ3 quite playable in its current incarnation. What most players are complaining about is that they want a democracy, but they want to conquer the world. It's sort of a contradiction.

[Zachriel]

This thread is up to 36 replies.

[Velociryx]

Me! Me! Democracy in the game is soooooo realistic! Exquisitely modelled for maximum realism (everybody knows democracies can't fight wars without worrying about descent into anarchy) and fun in mind (and it's SUCH fun to go back and tweak civil disorder/happiness levels EVERY FREAKIN TURN in every city you control! THAT makes the game for me!)

Likewise, Communism is simply a MASTERMIND of game balance and realism.

As to how to fix it:

Give us a working, completed editor (I know....first time ANYBODY has ever asked for that), and open up more of the game IN the editor (ditto....something that's never been asked for till this very moment), and let the modders perfect the game.

-=Vel=-
(still holding on to a few shreds of "I really love this game," but not many.... )

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Velociryx
(and it's SUCH fun to go back and tweak civil disorder/happiness levels EVERY FREAKIN TURN in every city you control! THAT makes the game for me!)

Use the mayor for allocating labor. I use it for nearly the entire game (except before hospitals and pop12). It works fine and makes the game easy to play.

[Velociryx]

Oh, I know you can....trouble is....see, everybody pretty well agrees that Civ3 is a more simplified version of the game.

Which means that the meat of your choices will reside in the micromanagement.

But the game's STRUCTURE is such that you go NUTS micromanaging, and so you're prompted to automate as much as possible.

At that point, isn't it kinna like just letting 8-16 computer civs play and just watching the screen tho?

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Oh, I know you can....trouble is....see, everybody pretty well agrees that Civ3 is a more simplified version of the game.

Which means that the meat of your choices will reside in the micromanagement.

But the game's STRUCTURE is such that you go NUTS micromanaging, and so you're prompted to automate as much as possible.

At that point, isn't it kinna like just letting 8-16 computer civs play and just watching the screen tho?

-=Vel=-

Oh my, Vel.

Well, I would like to contest one thing you said: "Which means that the meat of your choices will reside in the micromanagement." Hmm. I don't know about that. There are the resources (which I think are an awesome addition to the Civ series), the choice between warrior and builder style of play or a balance between the two, which wonders to shoot for, which techs to beeline for... what civ to play...

Yes, I know that the tech beelines are limited - that has been discussed at length, and I grant you the point. I will also acknowledge that the game design is more spartan than Civ II (B.Reynolds = more is better, full speed ahead and damn the AI that can't handle it), and that was not, in the final analysis, necessarily the correct decision, despite the fact that it makes the AI more competitive.

I just think you overstated things a bit, perhaps out of frustration. There is strategic choice in Civ III, just not as much as you would like.

-Arrian

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Velociryx


Me! Me! Democracy in the game is soooooo realistic! Exquisitely modelled for maximum realism (everybody knows democracies can't fight wars without worrying about descent into anarchy) and fun in mind (and it's SUCH fun to go back and tweak civil disorder/happiness levels EVERY FREAKIN TURN in every city you control! THAT makes the game for me!)

Likewise, Communism is simply a MASTERMIND of game balance and realism. [QUOTE]

I've read many of the 'Ancient' threads, but off course not all.
Coincidentally I yesterday kept wondering on the use of communism. I NEVER, NEVER use it.

Why is it a mastermind?

Is it too (rep., democr.) a winning government for civ3?

Kind regards,
AJ

[Velociryx]

You're right, Arrian...and thank ya for keepin me in line.... Yeah...the case is certainly over-simplified. ::sigh:: I guess my main beef is that the whole game got oversimplified. There is some amount of strategy to be had, but the vast bulk of in-game choices, in my mind, are far more tactical in their nature than strategic (I would even take the position that resources--which I totally agree are a good concept, and make for an improved game--are more tactical in their nature than strategic). Specifically with regards to resources, I say this because of the aforementioned "tech tree with too few branches" and the overall speed with which resources become obsolete. There's just not enough game time for the resources to be truly strategic, in my mind.

But you're right....it was mostly frustration talking....::sheepish grin::

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

AJ - I regret to say that I was teasin'....Dem and Comm are broken and overly simplified extremes as government types.

Perhaps one day, with the right tools, we'll be able to truly do something about that....

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

Not that this justifies anything, but of course Dem and Comm have always been broken in the Civ series... well, in Civ II it was Fundy instead of Commie, but whatever.

The governments are definitely simplistic, but I think that was the idea. Sid always thought demo was best, and this is clearly reflected in the games.

I wouldn't mind more government choice, and more variety in what each choice offers (strengths/weaknesses), but there will probably always be preferred gov't types for warmongers and peaceful types.

-Arrian

p.s. Shouldn't "militaristic" help out with war weariness?
p.p.s. Shouldn't "religious" civs have issues with switching to communism?

[Velociryx]

I love your "ps" ideas, Arrian! See!? It's stuff like that...little details like those you just pointed out that coulda made all the difference in the world.....wanna job? We're always looking for new ideas over at my site.....

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

Vel,

The Devil's in the details, right? I will confess that I am not a detail oriented guy, and so I think that stuff bothers me less. I'm the type of guy who watched the Civ II wonder videos once, and then shut them off, because they took up precious seconds during which I could have been moving my little pixels toward greatness.

I should swing by and check out your site... although I bet the discussion has been going for a while and I'd have *just a bit* of catching up to do before being able to offer suggestions with any degree of confidence.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

Hey man! Swing by anytime you like! We'd be glad to have ya!

-=Vel=-

[Mars]

Getting back on topic...

I think war wearness, although a good concept some of the time, needs to be reworked. For instance, although war was greatly discouraged in Vietnam and protests nearly tore this country apart, the war in WW2 was fought with a lot of support from the people.
Now you may ask how could we implement these things. I mean how would the computer decided wether the war weariness should be so high it should send your country into choas or instead your people should get into the war spirit and contribute to production. (if you remember correctly US went into overdrive during WW2 kicking out armors and what not faster than ever before. this coupled with other things led to the US coming from a middle of the line power to one of the superpowers.)

[Mars]

alright i accidently sent it and don't feel like going back to editing it so get over it...

Several possible solutions to this delamia.

1) If very few units our dying and a great number of the enemys units are dying people are satisfied with the war. Vice versa and they go into revolt. The problem with this is that, like in WW2, it is not always the case that people care about the kill to loss ration. So..

2) Make a new variable in the program. Call it a resentment number. Every time a country does something bad to your nation it adds to this number. The worse the action against the more the number added. Likewise everytime they do something good to you subtract it from the resentment number. IF the country does something really bad, or they continuely reject your country your people will love to go to war with them. If the kill to loss ration remains somewhat equal and the resentment number is moderate nothing happens. If the resentment number is high then you get a production boast similar to that of being mobilized, if it is low youir people will revolt. However if you start losing the war by significant amounts your people will start to beg to get out. Also their should have to be a reason to enter the war. Say they took your city, refused to give you a vital resource or asked outragous amounst for it, or they just be plan rude to you and keep moving their units in your territory. That will be sufficent cause to go to war, rally your people against the common foe they resent dearly and fight for all the marbles. Repeated brutal warfare, unless you civ is militristic, will result in a less motivated people which will be reflected by higher nessicary resentment numbers to achive the same results. Also the resentment number will not be directly know by you except that your foreign advisor will tell you if your people love the nation, hate them, or whatever.

This will allow for greater realism without much added complication to the user. All you have to do is go to the foreign advisor and see your peoples attidue towards a nation. If they love them don't go to war, if they don't care much you better think long and hard, otherwise go for it whenever you please.

There can also be a length number. Something that determines when a war even with a terrible foe has gone on to long. This will not be measured in time, but in number of units killed by the foe and the results you have achived. For instance if you've gone no where in tthe war , such as WW1, but have lost enourmous numbers of troops then it would be high, however for every four units loss you've gained an enemy city and have almost won the war then it won't be that bad.

Although this may sound confusing, it would only be more extra work for the programmer not the user. After all you don't have to remember those numbers. All the user has to know is that i should only enter the war with people my people hate, or i should think it over long and hard, as it is in the real world. And that if you're not getting anywhere in a war and losing a tremendous number of troops then you should sue for peace otherwise keep on going for it.

[Cairo_East]

I think the governments need to be tweaked. A governmental system of "imperialism" would be beneficial to those who colonize portions of the map for the resource. A government that benefits this form of cash-cropping at the expense of corruption would be extremely helpful.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Cairo_East
I think the governments need to be tweaked. A governmental system of "imperialism" would be beneficial to those who colonize portions of the map for the resource. A government that benefits this form of cash-cropping at the expense of corruption would be extremely helpful.

Good idea.

[aahz_capone]

I think I totally lost control of this thread. There should be NO replies if you are satisfied about govs, and there are now 50! mostly complaining! Well, at least there are a lot fo good ideas being thrown around

[Brutus66]

I think that if your country is attacked and you have no choice but to fight to survive, war weariness should not be an issue.

As for fundamentalism, I think it should have been included but done differently than Civ II. There's just no denying that it exists and is a significant form of government in the world today. To omit it is to ignore states like Iran.

Lastly, the corruption does need to be fixed. I can't understand why this hasn't been satisfactorily patched yet- they have fixed so many other lesser things! Although personally I would like to see an option to turn off pollution first and foremost, the corruption thing is really driving some folks bonkers depending on which civ they like to play.