Simple way to make CIV more "real" - Page 3

Harovan · January 6, 2003, 00:25

Quote:

Originally posted by raguil_79
I just wish it were George W. Bush's face who appeared, taunting and threatening, in the Civ3 diplomacy screen, and I would enjoy crushing the US even more. Somehow I admire Abe Lincoln too much to feel the same.

You can have Dubya as American leader. Go to the "Civ3 Files" forum. There are plenty of alternative leader heads, including Hitler, Stalin and George W. Bush.

Master Zen · January 6, 2003, 01:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle

the U.S. - which has foolishly been far too generous for the past half century. You can all go to hell.

Now go tell the rest of the Mexicans who illegally FLOOD our borders with illegal aliens and illegal drugs TO STAY OUT if they hate America so much.

Hmmm... far too generous. Ok, right. We deserve to be conquered and "assimilated", better yet, why not just raze the cities instead. Or give them to an ally to avoid the dirty work of managing them. BTW, we wouldn't be selling the drugs if you wouldn't be snorting them. Ever hear of supply-demand? Same goes to immigration. If you really wanted to you would have erected a huge Maginot line. But cheap labor is a priceless commodity.

But as it is, you are getting many Workers (Mexican) crossing illegaly through the border, (does NAFTA count as a Right of Passage?) and swelling the population of your border cities. Perhaps a revolt is soon to come... hahaha. The others toil around doing irrigation (if it were Civ2 they'd be doing farmland), and they work half as fast because they get paid half as much (in real life they probably work just as hard). Perhaps Civ3 is more real than at first glace...

Just because I am a sport, there are many other leaders I would like to see crushed in Civ3. Tony Blair, Airel Sharon, Arafat, Hugo Chavez, what gives, if Vicente Fox were the Aztec leader I sure as hell would play as the Iroquois instead!!

I would of course be an eternal ally of the British if it were only Mr. Bean...

Back on the subject,

Another REAL suggestion:

While not as good as Civ, CTP2 was quite a fun game, if anything it suffered from getting out of hand. I have always found it not too realistic in Civ to have your entire continent full of railroads. Instead I propose the following:

Building workers could form into a "pool", and from this pool one could make a number of improvements each turn (like in CTP). Roads and railroads would only be used to connect cities and any connected cities would recieve benefits from commerce and industry. The more cities are connected, the bigger the benefits. Harbors would serve a similar purpose.

Thus, the total amount of production and food could be collected from ALL squares from within your borders. In real life, big cities do not have a radius per se, but get their resources from the entire country. The radius would still be important in the early ages but once comunication is more advanced, the advantages of a nation-state would be evident, your empire should feel like a cohesive whole rather than a collection of individual cities (if anything else, Civ3 did a good job at making empires more cohesive than its predecesors, but more could be done).

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 6, 2003, 11:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle

The contempt, no, the hatred, I feel for the likes of you, and the rest of the jealous, pathetic, failures in the Third World is I am happy to say growing throughout the U.S. - which has foolishly been far too generous for the past half century. You can all go to hell.

Now go tell the rest of the Mexicans who illegally FLOOD our borders with illegal aliens and illegal drugs TO STAY OUT if they hate America so much.

See you in Baghdad. And if you don't like, too effin' bad.

What the hell is wrong with you?

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 6, 2003, 11:30

Quote:

Originally posted by raguil_79
- Diplomacy: the option to urge AI civs to make peace with another and the tendency to ally between 2 or 3 camps at the most. I hate it when an ally is fighting an enemy but is at war with another ally who is fighting another enemy who happens to be my ally, etc. etc. Whatever happened to Axis vs. Allies?

- The ability to conquer an enemy civ and make it your colony or protectorate or something like that.

And THIS could be a revolutionary one:

A HEX BASED 3-D SPHERICAL MAP. Basically it would mean a "rounded" hex-based map, kinda like a soccer ball.

Alliances are not always axis vs. allies... WWII has great pathos, but it's the exception to the norm throughout history, I'd argue. Look at the cold war and post-cold war worlds... Many states owe their existence to drawing on the sources of two sides.

Which leads to your final point... I would love to see protectorates in this game, and EVEN MORE, client states... so YOUR government could be democratic but you'd still rule over a despotic, or monarchial, state... just like in real life. Even colonial Britain was nominally a Republic, and America is the prime example... I suppose being so overbearing over a Civ that is constantly forced to pay you tribute of gold or resources does an ok job of representing this hidden disparity, but I'd like to see it go further.

dannubis · January 6, 2003, 12:57

yay, Coracle, leader of the free (?) world ...

Master Zen · January 6, 2003, 14:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth

Alliances are not always axis vs. allies... WWII has great pathos, but it's the exception to the norm throughout history, I'd argue. Look at the cold war and post-cold war worlds... Many states owe their existence to drawing on the sources of two sides.

You are right, history usually isn't so black and white. However, whenever there are MAJOR conflicts, even "divided" nations take part towards one side or stay neutral. Like in the U.N. vote, civs vote on their "favorite", usually there are only 2 candidates, civs should camp around more strongly toward their "favorite" power leading to two major power blocks forming during the modern age when world wars usually erupt. I think you will agree with me that had the Cold War turned into a real war, most nations would have had to choose a side to openly support.

Coracle leader of the free world...thank the almighty that some people play Civ3 instead of making foreign policy.

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 6, 2003, 15:01

I generally find that on my games (huge world, regent level, all civs) that in the industrial/modern eras, there tend to always be a colonial period followed by a huge WWI-style conflict, with lots of bizarre interlocking allegiances, and then about 20 turns later or so, a WWII era conflict, where whole Civs go down and there generally are about 2 power blocs.

I've always wondered if this is intentionally, or just a really great conincidence.

Does anyone know if there is a "WWI trigger" inheirent in Civ?

Harovan · January 6, 2003, 17:33

Quote:

Originally posted by raguil_79
Coracle leader of the free world...thank the almighty that some people play Civ3 instead of making foreign policy.

Coracle does neither of it and I can't say that's a bad thing.

Kingof the Apes · January 6, 2003, 20:02

Quote:

Originally posted by raguil_79

As for the US being the "greatest nation ever to bless the Earth", I beg to differ, and 99% of the rest of the world - which many of you sometimes forget exists - will probably agree.

Could you name some better countries?

bobbo008 · January 6, 2003, 21:21

"Could you name some better countries?"

I think Willem will agree when I start out this list with Canada

Please rack up the 5 Nordic countries, as well. How's Australia doing? Don't forget the Swiss! Luxembourg...oooh... Leichtenstein is kind of Switzerland... New Zealand is nice I hear, too...

dannubis · January 7, 2003, 06:37

just to make myself clear, i was being sarcastic... I too live in a country that is on the wrong side of the border (outside the USA), from this 'american' point of view that is.

bobbo008 · January 7, 2003, 12:27

dannubis, where you from anyways?

Tattila the Hun · January 8, 2003, 07:40

"Oi maamme Suomi, synnyinmaa, soi sana kultainen. Ei laaksoa, ei kukkulaa, ei vettä, rantaa rakkaampaa, kuin kotimaa tää pohjoinen, maa kallis isien!"

(That's me singing, running out of oxygen.)

I've nothing against Sweden, exept for their language... Svenska språkigt är bättre människor, as I've heard.

Finland rules OK.

Panag · January 8, 2003, 12:17

hi ,

can we stay on topic guys , ......

what would also make the game more real is unit selling or trading , it would be nice to supply a weak civ with state of the art equipment , sold with or without the technology and that your spy would tell you about it , ....

have a nice day

Panag · January 8, 2003, 12:21

Quote:

Originally posted by bobbo008
dannubis, where you from anyways?

hi ,

"ghent" in his sig , a search revealed a town called "gent" in belgium europe , ....

have a nice day

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 8, 2003, 12:26

Quote:

Originally posted by panag
what would also make the game more real is unit selling or trading , it would be nice to supply a weak civ with state of the art equipment , sold with or without the technology and that your spy would tell you about it , ....

Yes, that would be a great feature! That would make the "third world" more feasible... and maybe there could be a % chance that the unit-recieving civ could "extract" the technology needed to build the unit from the unit itself... this is also life like, and would make arms deals, currently hardly represented in the game, even more dangerous and intriguing...

Ming · January 8, 2003, 12:33

HEY... if you want to talk political crap... do it in the OTF where it belongs... stay on topic, or get restricted.

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 8, 2003, 12:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
HEY... if you want to talk political crap... do it in the OTF where it belongs... stay on topic, or get restricted.

Who are you speaking to?

LionQ · January 8, 2003, 14:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth

Yes, that would be a great feature! That would make the "third world" more feasible... and maybe there could be a % chance that the unit-recieving civ could "extract" the technology needed to build the unit from the unit itself... this is also life like, and would make arms deals, currently hardly represented in the game, even more dangerous and intriguing...

Yes, in Sid Meier's Civilization II was this always a handy option. With Alliance you could give the AI much Tanks, and so. Too bad, it isn't anymore in CivIII.

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 8, 2003, 14:55

Quote:

Originally posted by CivilopediaCity

Yes, in Sid Meier's Civilization II was this always a handy option. With Alliance you could give the AI much Tanks, and so. Too bad, it isn't anymore in CivIII.

True, but without right of passage, why would you WANT to give your allies units?

Ah, but this is a "theological" debate...

LionQ · January 8, 2003, 15:04

Good question! It's just nice. I don't know. If he's technologycally backwards, you can give him better Units.

MarkG · January 8, 2003, 15:54

Lets try to stay on topic please....

Master Zen · January 8, 2003, 17:41

know what else would be cool? How bout granting Base Rights or Leases, that could mean you could ally with a neighbor of a hostile power, set up your airbases (in PTW of course) and get ready for war. The AI civ would of course charge you a certain amount for it.

I dont have PTW so I'm not sure if a Right of Passage would make this possible. If airbases are treated like forts then this would not be a problem. But airbases should have a nationality, like colonies, until captured in war.

Another thing DOCKS. I think i said this in a previous post or in another thread. But I hate it when 1-square islands end up with a resource and I don't like making a city on it.

Panag · January 9, 2003, 17:10

Quote:

Originally posted by raguil_79
know what else would be cool? How bout granting Base Rights or Leases, that could mean you could ally with a neighbor of a hostile power, set up your airbases (in PTW of course) and get ready for war. The AI civ would of course charge you a certain amount for it.

I dont have PTW so I'm not sure if a Right of Passage would make this possible. If airbases are treated like forts then this would not be a problem. But airbases should have a nationality, like colonies, until captured in war.

Another thing DOCKS. I think i said this in a previous post or in another thread. But I hate it when 1-square islands end up with a resource and I don't like making a city on it.

hi ,

,

, why not have something like a type of forced posting of your troops in an other country as part of a peacedeal or so , ..... "peace deal and stationing of our troops for twenty turns" , ....

have a nice day

bobbo008 · January 9, 2003, 20:45

oh, occupation, great idea...

... nobody ever thought of that before?

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 10, 2003, 11:07

Right of Passage is pretty good, especially if airfields can be used... I disagree that airfields should have a nationality. I suppose they could, but that would make stationing American and British plans on an airfield in the Ottoman empire a little difficult.

Panag · January 10, 2003, 16:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Right of Passage is pretty good, especially if airfields can be used... I disagree that airfields should have a nationality. I suppose they could, but that would make stationing American and British plans on an airfield in the Ottoman empire a little difficult.

hi ,

, it would intresting to have all airfields be "neutral" , .....

have a nice day

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 10, 2003, 16:25

It would be GREAT if more than one Civ could - with the appropriate diplomatic agreement - occupy the same tile at the same time. This happens in real life; once again I point to the massing of American and British planes at Incirlik in Turkey as a good example.

mrboo123 · January 10, 2003, 17:56

Quote:

Originally posted by swagled
(...)I'd say what culture flipping is really trying to emulate is immigration. People don't usually revolt in their own city to join another country. They usually just leave. It would probably be less obtrusive and "realistic" to have a game option for cities to simply "leak population" rather than flip.

Good point... and tourist to visit your monotments, which would be done in the dipomactil screen, which will alow Great/Minor WoWs like Dinsey World (/Land) & Six-flags!

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 10, 2003, 18:34

Quote:

Originally posted by 123john321
and tourist to visit your monotments, which would be done in the dipomactil screen, which will alow Great/Minor WoWs like Dinsey World (/Land) & Six-flags!

Ha ha ha, that's hilarious...

DisneyWorld should DEFINITELY be a great wonder. I mean, the thing is - literally and legally - a city! A modern Shakespeare's Theatre maybe?

But as for culture flipped, let's not forget how Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania "flipped" from the Russian orbit to the Western... I think culture flipping is well-founded in reality.