c#205 CIV3`S NOT SO GREAT LEAP FORWARD - Page 3

LaoTze · June 1, 2002, 12:27

Quote:

Originally posted by rhenric557
I put Communism in " " becuase it isn't an actual form of Government in a true Communist Society, There would be no need for a Government. Every man would Be the complete equal to the next as Karl Marx put it "A workers paradise". If you want to see the closest possible example of a working Communist Social System watch Star Trek.

Nor is capitalism as much of a free market as Adam Smith envisioned. Utopianism is a bit of a dream, so I'm not really going to debate its pros and cons. What I'm saying is that there could have been a politically working model of it that was not doomed to failure in the 20th century as the Soviet model was. There the idea was the leadership would remain in the hands of elite until the masses could rule themselves. It must be pointed out that fear of the West pushed any Communist society to a military. Just as most communists would admit that the Soviet model was not very communist. It would seem that since there is no "true" democracy in reality its not a crime that there is no "true" communist nationstate.

Anyways, the governments in the game are almost the exact same as they were in civ 2. I agree wholeheartedly that the designers could have provided all kinds of more options given the addition of culture into the game. Instead they left Democracy on top and left culture to flip cities and making conquering the world a pain in the butt.

lorddread · June 1, 2002, 15:53

So where's the fix for communism? Change its stats, and then defend it in the court of public opinion, ie, your fellow players.

LaoTze · June 1, 2002, 16:43

Quote:

Originally posted by lorddread
So where's the fix for communism? Change its stats, and then defend it in the court of public opinion, ie, your fellow players.

I think you failed to understand my point here. The Democracy model in this game is totally overpowered. Everything from workers getting 50% bonus to immunity to bribery. These are traits more in line with nationalism and patriotism not necessarily government style. In previous civ games culture was irrelevant. In civ 3 they just give dem. more benefits that IMHO are somewhat baseless. The governments in this are as simple as they were in the original civ. While many other complexities have been added into the game. There is alot of room for improvement in government choices. Anything from slider bars of work hours, wages, etc. If you really want a quick solution use shield production for communists as unit support. Considering wages are a fraction of what they would be in a capitalist society. And tone down the expenses of espionage so that a communist government can use its one in-game advantage. And remove the ridiculous advantages given to democracies. Did the US move a large portion of its factories in the face of a enemy invasion out to the Urals and still produce vast quantities of war materials? Its silly to say that only under a democracy can workers be motivated to work 50% faster?!

rhenric557 · June 1, 2002, 17:20

A bit of history for you LAO, A great deal of the T-34 tanks used by The Soviets in WWII were built by Cadillac here in the US. Along with the Bell Air Cobra, a fighter widely used by the Soviet Airforce in WWII. Yes they did a wonderful job of moving their industry base, but so did the Chinese who at the time were not under yet under a communist thumb. It has nothing to do with Governments it has to do with the fact that they had to do this or die.
And your forgeting it is a game. Communism is pretty much based on the Soviet version, And Democracy the US. The Soviets collapsed becuase of their economic weaknesses. Which is what communism does in the game.

lorddread · June 1, 2002, 18:16

Besides Lao, if you don't like either the communist or democracy model, change it. Let us know what you changed and if we agree with you, will make the same changes in our systems.

Was it in CTP that had the panel where you could change the hours, wages and food the people ate? That would be a great benefit to this game.

Oerdin · June 1, 2002, 18:29

Quote:

Originally posted by lorddread

I would like to see more governments. In CTP as you got to new ages, new governments appeared. The last is communism if I am not mistaken. Why not have something like the Corp Republic or Virtual Democracy or even something new?

Here we get to one of the most disappointing aspects of the game as it currently exists. The lack of depth. I wish there were more technologies, more government types, more units, and more ages. CTP2 had them; why doesn't Civ3?

Hopefully, this problem will be (at least partially) addressed by Civ3:PtW.

Oerdin · June 1, 2002, 18:34

Quote:

Originally posted by lorddread
Was it in CTP that had the panel where you could change the hours, wages and food the people ate? That would be a great benefit to this game.

Yes, it was the CTp series that let you do this. CTP1&2 also had lots of extra "fluf" like satistics, charts, graphs, histograms, and what not. I don't think it would cost much to include these types of things and it should be relatively easy for a computer to compile stats so I hope Firaxis decides to include them in the expansion pack. After all Civ2 had some of this. Why doesn't Civ3?

lorddread · June 1, 2002, 20:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
CTP1&2 also had lots of extra "fluf" like satistics, charts, graphs, histograms, and what not.

There was a call to power 2? Where the heck was I? I would have bought that instead of this!

Coracle · June 2, 2002, 00:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

Yes, it was the CTp series that let you do this. CTP1&2 also had lots of extra "fluf" like satistics, charts, graphs, histograms, and what not. I don't think it would cost much to include these types of things and it should be relatively easy for a computer to compile stats so I hope Firaxis decides to include them in the expansion pack. After all Civ2 had some of this. Why doesn't Civ3?

Answer: marketing decision that dumbed down the game to appeal to a wider audience.

Capt Dizle · June 2, 2002, 00:46

This is one time I have to disagree with Coracle. There is no question that Firaxis dumbed the game down to make the AI more competitive.

There is no question that Firaxis also dumbed the game down to appeal to a greater audience, they felt SMAC was over the head of the target market.

But the reason that the fluff was not there probably had more to do with the abbreviated developement cycle. They just had time to get a rough beta out the door, so they had no time to add fluff. Since meaningless fluff would appeal to the target market, I am sure they would have done some of it had they time.

lorddread · June 2, 2002, 01:04

It tees me off to no end though that we have to pay for the other half of the game. And software companies wonder why there is so much piracy online.

Frixaxis is beginning to become the Microsoft of the 21 century

Capt Dizle · June 2, 2002, 01:15

There is piracy and then there is piracy.

MarkG · June 2, 2002, 07:09

Quote:

we have to pay for the other half of the game

it's more irritating to read things like "have to pay". if you feel it's not worth the money, if you fell you've already payed more than you should, if you somehow feel cheated, then do NOT pay any longer!
it's YOUR choice.

LaoTze · June 2, 2002, 08:55

Quote:

Originally posted by rhenric557
A bit of history for you LAO, A great deal of the T-34 tanks used by The Soviets in WWII were built by Cadillac here in the US. Along with the Bell Air Cobra, a fighter widely used by the Soviet Airforce in WWII. Yes they did a wonderful job of moving their industry base, but so did the Chinese who at the time were not under yet under a communist thumb. It has nothing to do with Governments it has to do with the fact that they had to do this or die.
And your forgeting it is a game. Communism is pretty much based on the Soviet version, And Democracy the US. The Soviets collapsed becuase of their economic weaknesses. Which is what communism does in the game.

Why thankyou for proving my point which was why does only democracy get worker speed benefits? :-) At any rate the Russians built 30,000 tanks a year once in full swing, the US built an equivalent number. However, US industry dwarfed the Soviets in aircraft and ships. And the US didn't loose most of its Heartland to a foreign invasion if you really want to discuss production capabilities. Please explain the comment on China though.

I'm aware its a game. I also don't think the US has to win every friggin time which is the main point of my posting to begin with. Thats where the Americanism vs. Communism comment came from.

LaoTze · June 2, 2002, 09:16

Quote:

Originally posted by lorddread
Besides Lao, if you don't like either the communist or democracy model, change it. Let us know what you changed and if we agree with you, will make the same changes in our systems.

Was it in CTP that had the panel where you could change the hours, wages and food the people ate? That would be a great benefit to this game.

CTP:2 probably spoiled me with the governments. I appreciate your offer but the entire government structure in this game needs a complete overhaul. In its simple state the best fix is to switch maintenance back to shields so that military support is not so easy for Democracies. Gold would be fine for support if the game charged higher gold for bigger units giving some kind of benefit to the cheaper wages in a communist government. However, even thats not an option so what do you want me to tell you here? They introduce nationalism and culture but seem to think that only democracies have patriotism. IMHO the simplicity of the governments drive me nuts. One of those they could have done so much more kinda things. The US is a very successful government but what about all the other Democracies out there? It would be better if they had looked at several democracies from less industrialized nations and put their stats somewhere inbetween. Just as the Soviet model wasn't the only one to work with. Rhenric is right they used the Soviet model and assumed it would fail in the long run. The US would not be a beacon of the free world if it flipped to communism in times of war now would it? Perhaps a government switching penalty needs to be put in to prevent using communism as a war time economy only. These are things I can't just tweak on my own.

rhenric557 · June 2, 2002, 15:58

Ahhh, but there is a penalty. In late era change of Gov. you are stuck in anarchy for roughly 6 turns. If you are at war those six turns can be hell. And in all do reality isn't it the democracies of the world that maintain the largest and most powerful militaries in the world. You can argue that China's military is the largest, true it is but it is also outdated and under equiped. To me the game is correct with democracies having the largest militaries, becuase it shows that while we can stand being the stroongest we also don't like having to use our power. hence in the game we get thrown into anarchy. which is a bit over done. The game should give more room for a war when the democratic country is attacked. being sent into anarchy before a good late modern era war has a chance to be faught is a little harsh. Especially since you can't sue for peace. I mean if you have an embassy youo should be able to use it especially in a time of war. Have the Democratic citizens revolt if you choose to extend a war not when you have no choice.
And to those who think not being able to use enemy roads is a farse. It really isn't. It isn't a matter of culture but a matter of control and being behind enemy lines. If you try to use roads within enemy controlled territory, in reality, you'll just get the hell shot out of you. Believe me I have years military experience behind me.

Oerdin · June 2, 2002, 16:24

Quote:

Originally posted by lorddread
There was a call to power 2? Where the heck was I? I would have bought that instead of this!

I believe Amazon is now selling CTP2 for around $10 so it is not to late to get in on the action. The game out of the box was rushed, just like Civ3, but CTP2 had a built in scripting language so the talented people here at Apolyton have created several "patches" and Mods which have VASTLY improved the game.

I'd even go so far as to say I like CTP2 more then Civ3 and I'm not the only one. Try stopping by the CTP2 forum here at Apolyton.

MarkG · June 2, 2002, 18:48

actually it's ctp 1 that is sold for $9.99

ctp 2 is still sold for $19.99

lorddread · June 2, 2002, 21:42

Where can I find CTP 2?

Austin · June 3, 2002, 14:13

Quote:

Originally posted by LaoTze

Why thankyou for proving my point which was why does only democracy get worker speed benefits? :-) At any rate the Russians built 30,000 tanks a year once in full swing, the US built an equivalent number. However, US industry dwarfed the Soviets in aircraft and ships. And the US didn't loose most of its Heartland to a foreign invasion if you really want to discuss production capabilities. Please explain the comment on China though.

The only reason that the Soviets had such high production numbers during the war is because they pretty much build nothing but weaponry, and the US supplied them with everything else. Trucks, locomotives, rolling stock, food, gasoline, ammunition, uniforms, boots, radios, EVERYTHING.

And the US also underwrote most of Britian's war effort, as well as it's own production of course.

Incidentally, Britian will FINALLY be paying off the balance of it's war debt to the US at the end of this year.

Quote:

I'm aware its a game. I also don't think the US has to win every friggin time which is the main point of my posting to begin with. Thats where the Americanism vs. Communism comment came from.

Sorry, history's verdict is already in on that one.

Austin

rhenric557 · June 3, 2002, 15:19

Besides, Austin's point, The Soviet's were only able to get their War Industries back online after, The US and other allies got into the war, and after the Germans made the same mistakes as napolean. They weren't equiped for the weather and they could not keep their supply lines running smoothly, which in turn bogged them down to a stand still in Stalingrad/Leningrad/St.Petersburg, which ever name you wish to use for the city.
But the main problem is you have no real control over the set up of governments in the game. They need to change the Corruption level by Gov. Type to a slider bar, The War wariness, and the commerse levels also. But to give you what you want with support just change the number of free units for communism.

punkbass2000 · June 3, 2002, 18:30

Quote:

Originally posted by rhenric557
To me the game is correct with democracies having the largest militaries, becuase it shows that while we can stand being the stroongest we also don't like having to use our power.

I don't know what has given you the impression that democracies don't like to use their power. I would suggest the opposite. The whole war against communism would be an example.

Coracle · June 3, 2002, 20:03

Austin, I hope you remember after World War ONE in the 1920's, Britain and France reneged on their war-time debt to the U.S.

France save their asses twice from the German, once from the Reds after WW II, and let them get away with welching on their debts in the Twenties. So now they hate the U.S.
Bastards.

Centaur · June 3, 2002, 22:36

In CIV3 I am unable to find a government that I actually enjoy playing. And I hate to bring up SMAC, but the social engineering choices in that game are much more interesting. Maybe that’s ok, that CIV III was aimed at a wider audience but not at me.

In the real world, “Democracy” and “Communism” are labels invoked to pacify the subjects.

Here in the US you can bet that no matter what the government does, they will find some pretext to invoke the hypnotic word “freedom”. Similarly, the word “revolution” has been so misused by various dictatorships that it no longer has any meaning.

It is a widely held belief that western democracy “beat” communism at the cold war. But if we really won, then where is all our loot and captured territory? The Russians simply changed governments, a familiar concept to us civ-ers.

It could be argued that the Russians won the cold war just as legitimately as we did -- because western governments shifted closer to communism during the cold war. More and more of the US “private sector” is so heavily regulated that I roll my eyes when people call it “capitalism”. Government and big business are so intertwined that they look like a single monster. Who has not heard of Microsoft’s partial success at destroying the free enterprise system?

Many think that Russian Communism failed because it removed natural incentives for worker productivity. I’m sure that’s a factor, but the bigger problem was and is -- drum roll please -- massive corruption.

Russia’s political mentality comes from trying to maintain a vast empire with sparse population, impossible weather, and bad roads. Russian history is riddled with “law and order” problems that stem directly from her challenged geography.

The scale of Russia naturally encourages rebellion in isolated regions. In the old days this meant civil war. Rulers maintained order with an iron fist, relying on vast networks of spies to identify trouble spots. The advent of the railroad eventually allowed Russian rulers to prevent full-scale rebellion, but was unable to prevent corruption from saturating every level of government.

With its history of revolution, partisan activities, and tight-lipped citizens with divergent ethnic backgrounds, Russia is therefore a country in which organized crime naturally flourishes. Regardless of their political experiments….

Adm.Naismith · June 4, 2002, 12:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
Austin, I hope you remember after World War ONE in the 1920's, Britain and France reneged on their war-time debt to the U.S.

France save their asses twice from the German, once from the Reds after WW II, and let them get away with welching on their debts in the Twenties. So now they hate the U.S.
Bastards.

Are you sure you want start a flame war USA vs Europe (or USA vs Rest of the World)? I hope not!

Let me suggest there are many historical and economics arguments that should be mentioned about this matter, many more than this thread should host in OT, anyway.

Things surely aren't so simple as you mentioned, and while I'm not French (and may be I have some hate & love points against and for them

) I think that calling them "bastard" isn't fair, nor true.

Coracle · June 4, 2002, 19:23

Okay, I'll call them ingrates instead.

Simpleton · June 4, 2002, 22:49

It's a different game thus different strategies are needed. Stuff you could do in Civ2 you can't do in Civ3. Face it or play Civ2. Firaxis sure ain't going to retool Civ3 so that all your old strategies work with Civ3. On the bright side, there are a ton more things added you can do in Civ3 compared to what they removed from Civ2.

Adm.Naismith · June 5, 2002, 08:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
Okay, I'll call them ingrates instead.

That sounds better, for sure!

On a short note, BTW: I haven't good sources (books/web links) available right now, but I remember some old studies about a lot of trade pacts that USA signed with its WWII alley (mostly France and England), where USA accepted to help with military effort in exchange of access to former reserved market, as Great Britain's colonies or French colonies.

USA gained a great commercial advantage and gained a good share on technical studies and projects where Americans weren't as strong as English, at that moments. Early RADAR, Rolls Royce Merlin fighter engine and strategic info on cryptographics techniques bring to my mind just as some example.

They got their (very large) piece of cake when alley capture German scientist (you know that the whole USA - as URSS and many others - rocket/missile program had a main part provided by former german scientists) and their projects.

Don't mentioning the use of lots of military bases in others territories, very useful to have some "iron fists" ready just in case diplomacy didn't worked

To keep it in short this OT, USA soldiers suffered many war casualties and surely helped to keep at bay some nasty government, but that wasn't without some economic returns.

Don't wonder if some people seems "ingrate". May be they already payed - with interests - only with different coins.

Please forgive me if I reduced this complex topic to just some lines: I only want to suggest to you Coracle that some things are deeper than they appear.

Jawn Henry · June 21, 2002, 21:51

...is inspire much indifference, as evidenced by this thread.

I was dissapointed, myself. I didn't like the thing about "locked" battle results. I'm sure some people used the previous method to cheat: tough on them. But When i attack a warrior with a catapult on open terrain and lose, that's bad luck. But when the same warrior attacks my musketeers in a town on the following turn, and wins? That isn't any in the realm of reality, and to me the combined results are absoulutely unacceptable. Verdict: RELOAD. That's not my only "gripe" with it, but it is the sorest point for me - no wait: lack of a scenario genreator/creator. Anyhow, these, and other little things conspired together to bring me to not appreciate the game as much as Civ2.

Don't get me wrong: It's a good game: i very much recomend it to anyone for their first experience with Civilization games. But to a friend who has and likes Civ2, all i can say is:"I didn't like it much. Other love it. "

I did like the notion of borders, though, and the trade model, though the AI should be more equitable with its deals. All i did was buy their goodwill with disadvantageous deal - not really what trade is about.

I hope Civ 4 will be a mix of 2 and 3

JH

Centaur · June 21, 2002, 22:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Jawn Henry
I hope Civ 4 will be a mix of 2 and 3

JH

I'm still hoping for an Alpha Centauri II ....under the theory that the CIV product line is for general audiences while Alpha Centauri is for us connoisseurs.