The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by Theseus
Going back to an earlier question...
Geronimo, does this make you feel better about the prospects for WAR??!!
ouch. actually I prefer the mostly peaceful games. When war breaks out in civ games it seems that most productive activity is severely slowed or even ground to a halt.
Originally posted by Geronimo
I wonder why the game makers decided that corruption had to be so much higher in c3 than in the earlier versions of civ? it certainly doesnt add any realism, it takes away realism in fact. And I can't imagine they think it's more fun this way!
As a matter of fact, one of the earliest things Firaxis has verified about Civ4 is that they won't be including 'unfun' elements like corruption. (They obviously feel somehow threatened by alexman and are trying to cut his powerbase out from under him ;-)
Another important change from Civ2 is the lack of technology awarded when a city is captured, along with the prerequisite requirements when trading them. I'd say that cultural borders and proprietary use of roads are what most makes 3 an indispensible step up from 2 though...
As a matter of fact, one of the earliest things Firaxis has verified about Civ4 is that they won't be including 'unfun' elements like corruption. (They obviously feel somehow threatened by alexman and are trying to cut his powerbase out from under him ;-)
Another important change from Civ2 is the lack of technology awarded when a city is captured, along with the prerequisite requirements when trading them. I'd say that cultural borders and proprietary use of roads are what most makes 3 an indispensible step up from 2 though...
well at least the corruption insanity can be toned down with editing. I wonder if corruption editing will tend to change the relative balance of the various government types or if it will leave such balancing exactly as it is with default settings. I'd imagine that some governments are more severely stunted by the default corruption levels than others even though I've only really played despotism, republic, and democracy in my only game to date.
well at least the corruption insanity can be toned down with editing. I wonder if corruption editing will tend to change the relative balance of the various government types or if it will leave such balancing exactly as it is with default settings. I'd imagine that some governments are more severely stunted by the default corruption levels than others even though I've only really played despotism, republic, and democracy in my only game to date.
The biggest impact on choices of government would be to seriously devalue Communism. By far the biggest advantage of Communism in C3C is that it dramatically reduces the overall level of corruption in really big civs. Reduce the level of corruption significantly and a lot of that advantage disappears.
Reducing corruption would also tend to eat into the advantage Democracy offers over Republic. Even with the stock rules, most players are reluctant to go through the anarchy involved in switching from Republic to Democracy (except maybe if they are playing religious civs), and reducing the level of corruption would make that situation worse.
Other than those, I think factors independent of corruption play a big enough role in the choice of governments that reducing the level of corruption in the game would not have a significant impact on which government makes the most sense in which situations. But the impact on Communism is a pretty serious issue all by itself.
This really is a bizarre way to address the 'problem' of larger civs being proportionately more powerful (logic suggests they would be after all).
They already are more powerful in civ3. It's just that each additional city you conquer adds successively less and less to your empire. The real problem with an unlimited supply of minimally corrupt cities is that each city lost really hurts the loser twice. Once because he no longer gets the benefit from that city's commerce and production and twice when that same commerce and production is added to his enemy. The game is merely trying to find a way to avoid ICS and steamroll type strategies that made Civ2 such a yawner to beat.
A far more believable solution to this 'problem' would have been use the distance-rank system to control empire growth through unhappiness
But once you control unhappiness via entertainers or the luxury slider, you have the same effect as high corruption: reduced commerce and shields.
Everyone curses the civ3 corruption models at first. Over time, though, you come to realize that it makes the game better. You still have the power to deny your rival of his cities with conquest, it's just that you can't take a half dozen cities and depend on the steamroll effect to overwhelm the AI like you could in Civ2.
Besides, C3C offers some relief. Corruption is capped at 90% in all cities. With a courthouse, it's 80%. Add a police station and you're down to 70%. Really hate corruption? Switch to Communism. You'll have less commerce but excellent production. Democracy and Republic offer the other side of the coin: Excellent commerce but only so-so production outside of the core. There are no more super-governments in Civ3. You have to pick and choose.
Insanely high non-historical levels of corruption to contain the huge civs:
Before modern times, remote colonial holdings were notorious for their corruption. The local governor was typically given dicatorial powers to deal with the populace - and you know the old saying about power and absolute power.
Nathan you are so right about communism and a large empie. I had not realy used it much, but in my current game I decide to check it out during a lull.
Man I more than doubled my net gold and was able to build structures I would never had made in far flung cities. Banks and Stock Ex, making even more money.
It has actually made it so I have more cash than I can use. The big draw back is no rushing with cash. This hurts on those new invasion towns. I now bring extra workers to beef up the pop.
But once you control unhappiness via entertainers or the luxury slider, you have the same effect as high corruption: reduced commerce and shields.
Everyone curses the civ3 corruption models at first. Over time, though, you come to realize that it makes the game better. You still have the power to deny your rival of his cities with conquest, it's just that you can't take a half dozen cities and depend on the steamroll effect to overwhelm the AI like you could in Civ2.
I guess the difference between my enjoyment of civ games and most other players is that I do not enjoy spoiler tactics. I derive no satisfaction from coverting productive enemy cities or potential city sites into non productive slums of corruption. My satisfaction in playing civ has always been like the enjoyment I would derive from playing sim city. Building up something from nothing. I also enjoyed conquering sickly hostile civs and transforming their worthless continents into thriving industrialised powerhouses of productivity.
Under the latest incarnation of civ's system it would seem I can make a tiny little heart of my home continent an efficient productive area but if I want to spread out from there it will be by converting productive enemy cities into worthless spoiler colonies that I only control to keep them worthless to others.
That doesn't appeal to me at all.
Hopefully a corruption adjustment will allow me to fix that.
I guess the difference between my enjoyment of civ games and most other players is that I do not enjoy spoiler tactics. I derive no satisfaction from coverting productive enemy cities or potential city sites into non productive slums of corruption. My satisfaction in playing civ has always been like the enjoyment I would derive from playing sim city. Building up something from nothing. I also enjoyed conquering sickly hostile civs and transforming their worthless continents into thriving industrialised powerhouses of productivity.
I know the feeling. If it weren't for Communism, I would probably practically never play Conquests games for domination because turning cities that are productive under their old owners into unproductive wastelands of corruption under my rule would not be fun for me. But with Communism, I can conquer to my heart's content and rebuild my conquered territories toward new and greater glory. I would strongly suggest that you try using Communism some before you give up on C3C's corruption model.
I know the feeling. If it weren't for Communism, I would probably practically never play Conquests games for domination because turning cities that are productive under their old owners into unproductive wastelands of corruption under my rule would not be fun for me. But with Communism, I can conquer to my heart's content and rebuild my conquered territories toward new and greater glory. I would strongly suggest that you try using Communism some before you give up on C3C's corruption model.
That might work but my philosophical distaste for communism is exceeded only by my distaste for fascism. I could no more enjoy playing a commie civ than I could enjoy playing grand theft auto. (not to imply that I think there's anything wrong with players who do enjoy playing repressive civs or GTA for that matter.)
hrmm, maybe I could just rename 'communism' as 'socialism'. I don't find socialism to be morally repugnant, just undesirable.
Play peaceful games then. You can rule the world with a relatively small empire, that doesn't need to go to war. Since it won't be big, you won't suffer too much corruption either, especially in Republic, or Democracy.
Another possibility for renaming Communism might be Federal Republic or something along those lines, reflecting a system of government in which most governmental decisions are made below the national level and so cities' position relative to the capital makes no meaningful difference.
Originally posted by Modo44
Play peaceful games then. You can rule the world with a relatively small empire, that doesn't need to go to war. Since it won't be big, you won't suffer too much corruption either, especially in Republic, or Democracy.
That only helps to a degree. Weak player civs in the past games used to be vey difficult to keep at peace with the AI neighbors.
Unfortunately if you build enough of your own cities and colonise enough resources the corruption problem becomes pretty much exactly as bad as if you counquered those territories,
Tweet
Comment