Tweet
And listen to Elvis tunes in the background. Speaking of Elvis and Civ... 
-
-
elvis in the basckground ??? you playing MP3 or Audio CD...GM of MAFIA #40 ,#41, #43, #45,#47,#49-#51,#53-#58,#61,#68,#70, #71Comment
-
Either or hounddog, either or..Originally posted by Rasputin
elvis in the basckground ??? you playing MP3 or Audio CD...Comment
-
Oh ok , i usualy lsiten to a cd full of MP3s.. i hate the civ 2 music !!!
But back on topic (befroe Ralf gets upset )
Has Firaxis posted anything re the rise and fall option or is this just wishful thinking...GM of MAFIA #40 ,#41, #43, #45,#47,#49-#51,#53-#58,#61,#68,#70, #71Comment
-
What human being, after knowing this could result in death, would have a sloppily managed empire anyway?Originally posted by Ralf
A better way would be if you manage your empire in a risky & sloppy manner....
The bottom line is: Managing an Civ-empire (especially a really big one) should be like rolling a ball along a narrow flat surface which blends over in a gradually more down-sloping surface, both left and right. If your ball rolls close to either slopes (as a result of risky/sloppy empire-managing) then things can easily (and self-feedingly) spiral out of your control. In short: the domino-effect.
Besides, what I'm seeing is a attempt to kill expansionism.
together with the war on ICS, BAB it just is the evil plans of mega city late game micromanager's plan to take over civilization.
Does game exploits like bomber - land stacks count?Did you ever succeed winning CivII on Deity level with seven Civilizations, Raging Hordes, not building Wonders, preserving a spotless reputation, on a small map, and not cheating in any possible way?
Anyway, I'd be toast with the evil cheating computer....
Comment
-
Well, thats the point. One shouldnt.Originally posted by MORON
What human being, after knowing this could result in death, would have a sloppily managed empire anyway?
Also: its not just risky behaviour (like founding early-game cities in the wilderness, without any connecting roads, and without accompanied guard-units, for immitiate city-protection) that should be more dangerous and potentially empire-devastating (the AI should dynamically increase barbarian attacks - although sometimes risk-taking can pay out successfully, of course).
Also, players who go for a compulsive one-sided "world conquest before 1 AD", or "producing combat-units only" playing-style. Compare with below encyclopedic ancient Assyrian note:
"Assurbanipal 626? B.C., king of ancient Assyria (669–633 B.C.), son and successor of Esar-Haddon. He was the last of the great kings of Assyria. Under him Assyria reached the height of sumptuous living, and art and learning flourished. A few years after his reign ended, Assyria succumbed to the Medes and the Persians. His great expenditures in wars to preserve the state contributed to its collapse".
Also, onesided peaceful (unrealistic ancient/medieval ultra-pacifist) playing-styles should become more risky and dangerous. Not only does warlike players get more battle-hardened units. In Civ-3, ONLY players who bother to engage their troops in battles, have a chance of spawning "great leaders". So a small empire pacifist defensive-only playing-style carry its own risks as well. As it should. Infact: I would even think it would be a good idea to add a small "battle-value degenerate" -factor here, as an counteracting "too peaceful" punishment.
No, not "kill" expansionism. To achieve some objectives, striving for a huge empire really should be the best strategy. While striving for some other objectives, the small perfectionist empire-style should be the best choice.Besides, what I'm seeing is a attempt to kill expansionism. together with the war on ICS, BAB it just is the evil plans of mega city late game micromanager's plan to take over civilization.
The "Rise-and-fall" idea is about punishing risky, sloppy and/or far too onesided playing-styles. Its also about gradually adding more domestic empire-control problems the bigger your empire gets. The latter can be counter-acted relatively succesfully, IF the player know how to play his cards. But, still - only too a certain point, and only so much.
Ultimately, "Rise-and-fall" is about adding a potential "the harder (and bigger) they come, the harder they (may) fall" factor to Civ-3. In Civ-2, by comparison; the harder & bigger they came, the more easy it was to avoid falls alltogether. Was that a good thing?Last edited by Ralf; July 1, 2001, 03:59.Comment
Comment