Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

God and Slaves

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
  • #1

    God and Slaves

    Have we heard anything regarding Civ3 and two of the most important factors in shaping human history: slavery and religion. I suppose religion is part of "culture points," but I'd like to hear that the game supports the growth and conflict between different ideologies.

    Also, while CTP (bleck) covered slavery, I have not heard a word about it in Civ3. I'm not even talking about the American Civil War -- slavery was hugely important in Egypt, Greece and Rome as none of those civilizations could have sustained their agriculture without it.

    Please tell me civ will address these issues.
    Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. And perhaps everyone else, too.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    i believe slavery ISNT in civ3.

    i think we had a huge debate about it.

    civfanatics said that workers could be taken (bribed?) from other civs, but might efect back to the other side, or not defend as well against their home nation.

    and i believe religion isn't in cv3 at all, just a piece of culture (temples / cathedrals do the same as universities / libraries )
    "I've lived too long with pain. I won't know who I am without it. We have to leave this place, I am almost happy here."
    - Ender, from Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card

    Comment

    • #3
      Originally posted by UberKruX
      i believe slavery ISNT in civ3.
      I agree. Slavery has never been part of Civilization 1 & 2. The CTP series has slavery.

      i think we had a huge debate about it.
      Yes we did.

      civfanatics said that workers could be taken (bribed?) from other civs, but might efect back to the other side, or not defend as well against their home nation.
      I like the bribery part of the game. However now that your military will be supported by gold, that maybe will change the game somewhat.

      and i believe religion isn't in cv3 at all, just a piece of culture (temples / cathedrals do the same as universities / libraries )
      That is the way I read it also. In Civ 1 & 2 Temples and Cathedrals added happiness. Now they will add culture. Keep in mind that this game will be sold World Wide, so they have to be careful with religion.

      Comment

      • #4
        That is the way I read it also. In Civ 1 & 2 Temples and Cathedrals added happiness. Now they will add culture. Keep in mind that this game will be sold World Wide, so they have to be careful with religion
        If Temples & Cathredrals don't add happiness how are you going to keep your people happy. I don't think one colisseum is going to cut it. Maybe temples & cathedrals still have their basic purpose that they had in Civ1&2 but also add some cultural points. Maybe I'm wrong but that's the way I see things. Possibly I may have even interpreted your statement wrong.
        However, it is difficult to believe that 2 times 2 does not equal 4; does that make it true? On the other hand, is it really so difficult simply to accept everything that one has been brought up on and that has gradually struck deep roots – what is considered truth in the circle of moreover, really comforts and elevates man? Is that more difficult than to strike new paths, fighting the habitual, experiencing the insecurity of independence and the frequent wavering of one’s feelings and even one’s conscience, proceeding often without any consolation, but ever with the eternal goal of the true, the beautiful, and the good? - F.N.

        Comment

        • #5
          Originally posted by TechWins


          If Temples & Cathredrals don't add happiness how are you going to keep your people happy. I don't think one colisseum is going to cut it. Maybe temples & cathedrals still have their basic purpose that they had in Civ1&2 but also add some cultural points. Maybe I'm wrong but that's the way I see things. Possibly I may have even interpreted your statement wrong.
          Maybe they will do both. We now know that they will increase cultural because Firaxis said they would, however no word on happiness. In fact we only know a small amont of information (Trade & colony) about the game so far. It would be nice to know other information also. We at this point don't even know how fast a city will grow. How many foods per/tile, how many production shields per/tile? We do know that a Wheat Icon will be two additional food.

          Comment

          • #6
            It's not just cathedrals, etc. that add culture. Libraries, universities, possibly all buildings add culture. Culture seems to be something that you don't build up specifically; it comes with being an advanced nation. I'm almost certain that there won't be any culture-specific buildings.
            12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
            Stadtluft Macht Frei
            Killing it is the new killing it
            Ultima Ratio Regum

            Comment

            • #7
              How many foods per/tile, how many production shields per/tile?
              I've heard that much of that stuff is going to stay the same as Civ2.

              It's not just cathedrals, etc. that add culture. Libraries, universities, possibly all buildings add culture. Culture seems to be something that you don't build up specifically; it comes with being an advanced nation. I'm almost certain that there won't be any culture-specific buildings.
              Yeah, think this is right. Perhaps certain buildings should add more culture than others. Such as a temple should add maybe 2 culture points per turn and a granary should only add 1 culture point per turn. I think it should be that way because some buildings just add more culture than others.
              However, it is difficult to believe that 2 times 2 does not equal 4; does that make it true? On the other hand, is it really so difficult simply to accept everything that one has been brought up on and that has gradually struck deep roots – what is considered truth in the circle of moreover, really comforts and elevates man? Is that more difficult than to strike new paths, fighting the habitual, experiencing the insecurity of independence and the frequent wavering of one’s feelings and even one’s conscience, proceeding often without any consolation, but ever with the eternal goal of the true, the beautiful, and the good? - F.N.

              Comment

              • #8
                Joseph1944 you mentioned that units would now be supported by gold. What does everyone else think about this?

                Personally I'm not sure I like this idea, due to the fact that I think it makes more sense for production to be affected (this would represent maintenance of weapons, equipment, etc.) Granted in the same light special units... diplomats, and spies could be supported by gold.

                Well I guess it's neither here nor there as this won't amount to anything anyways. But I'm still interested in opinions.
                What if your words could be judged like a crime? "Creed, What If?"

                Comment

                • #9
                  I like the idea, Ancient. It will prevent lowly civs from having a huge armies. I hate it in civ when a terrible nation doesn't have any economy at all and can have such a huge army.
                  However, it is difficult to believe that 2 times 2 does not equal 4; does that make it true? On the other hand, is it really so difficult simply to accept everything that one has been brought up on and that has gradually struck deep roots – what is considered truth in the circle of moreover, really comforts and elevates man? Is that more difficult than to strike new paths, fighting the habitual, experiencing the insecurity of independence and the frequent wavering of one’s feelings and even one’s conscience, proceeding often without any consolation, but ever with the eternal goal of the true, the beautiful, and the good? - F.N.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by November Adam
                    Joseph1944 you mentioned that units would now be supported by gold. What does everyone else think about this?

                    Personally I'm not sure I like this idea, due to the fact that I think it makes more sense for production to be affected (this would represent maintenance of weapons, equipment, etc.) Granted in the same light special units... diplomats, and spies could be supported by gold.

                    Well I guess it's neither here nor there as this won't amount to anything anyway. But I'm still interested in opinions.
                    As you know in Civ 1 & 2 the military was supported by the Cities production shields. Small cities could only support 1 or 2 soldiers, where as a big city could support several soldiers.
                    CTP 1 and 2 started the gold thing, and now it looks like Firaxis is using the same setup. It could help in someway and maybe hurt is other ways. A small city now can have the same amount of soldiers as a large city. Lets use 5 cities for example. You could have maybe 4 soldiers in each city for defense, instead of maybe 1 or 2 in a small city and 4 to 5 in the larger cities. Now it can hurt if you do not have a enough gold to support 20 soldiers (defense for 5 cities) plus another 5 to 10 soldiers (stacks) for conquest. Also is our scouts going to be part of the gold support? If they are than that mean one less soldier for every scout. You know this game is going to be a very difference game than Civ 1 & 2. We are going to have to change the way we used to play. All of these guy are crying about how terrible this game is and they have not even play one turn yet.

                    To your question. In CTP 1 and 2 the gold thing is OK for the most part. You could have 12 stacks in each city and still have between 4 to 7 stacks for conquest (12 each). After WesW Mods maybe a 12 stack in each city, however only 2 or 3, 12 stack outside for conquest. He made gold a lot harder to get.

                    We will have to wait until Firaxis tell us about gold production.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      You still have to produce the units with shields it's just that they now will be supported by gold, just to let people know who aren't informed about the situation.

                      Joseph, you brought up a point "Now it can hurt if you do not have a enough gold to support" that I had mentioned in one of my threads, Money. I think it's going to more difficult to support a huge army. Which is something I'm all for if it's not impossible to support a large army.
                      However, it is difficult to believe that 2 times 2 does not equal 4; does that make it true? On the other hand, is it really so difficult simply to accept everything that one has been brought up on and that has gradually struck deep roots – what is considered truth in the circle of moreover, really comforts and elevates man? Is that more difficult than to strike new paths, fighting the habitual, experiencing the insecurity of independence and the frequent wavering of one’s feelings and even one’s conscience, proceeding often without any consolation, but ever with the eternal goal of the true, the beautiful, and the good? - F.N.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        hey tech, that wasn't ancient, ancient hasn't touched this thread .

                        the icon musta got ya

                        anyway, i like the idea of the central coffer supporting the military, its another anti ICS measure.

                        a sleezer with 5 size 2 cities can have 15 unsupported units in a monarchy, and 5 (not unhappy) citizens in a republic, whereas a guy with one size 10 city can only have 3 and 1, respectively.

                        now, the sleezer cities have little or no trade, and cannot support a large army, whereas the larger city can

                        always thinkin
                        "I've lived too long with pain. I won't know who I am without it. We have to leave this place, I am almost happy here."
                        - Ender, from Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by joseph1944


                          As you know in Civ 1 & 2 the military was supported by the Cities production shields. Small cities could only support 1 or 2 soldiers, where as a big city could support several soldiers.
                          CTP 1 and 2 started the gold thing, and now it looks like Firaxis is using the same setup. It could help in someway and maybe hurt is other ways.
                          I can't say for CTP2, but in CTP (which I got recently) the military support is still with production. The BIG difference (which I'm wondering if it will make it into civ3) is that it was done on a global basis, more like the original MOO. all the cities were lumped together and added up, then the gears subtracted.
                          In civ and civ2, it ALWAYS calculated gold and shield support city by city, and I'm wondering if that will still happen. the global version added a lot to making it feel like one empire.
                          Any man can be a Father, but it takes someone special to be a BEAST

                          I was just about to point out that Horsie is simply making excuses in advance for why he will suck at Civ III...
                          ...but Father Beast beat me to it! - Randomturn

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            I think that the biggest thing to allowing gold to be used to pay for soldiers, is whether it is going to be a thing where we get the entire empire paying for it or only the city with control of the unit.

                            If it is the first, the armies certainly begin to belong to the entire nation. Large cities are going to be necessary to pay for the protection of the empire. Trade throughout the empire and world is going to become essential to waging effective war.

                            If instead it is the second, the same things are going to be necessary. It is just going to be a lot harder to protect your smaller cities and the colonies you are building. Defense and attack is going to only happen between your largest couple of cities.

                            In any rate, for all extensive purposes ICSing becomes much much harder and trade is going to become even more important that it has been or how it has been said to be. That said and done, I like the idea.
                            About 24,000 people die every day from hunger or hunger-related causes. With a simple click daily at the Hunger Site you can provide food for those who need it.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              the icon musta got ya
                              Dang, you're right. I usually only look at the avatars of people to know who it is. I hate when people have a double of somebodies icon. It's the same thing when War4ever posts, I always think Krazyhorse went back to his old avatar but of course he didn't.

                              Father Beast and tniem, I don't understand your concerns. This is how it's going to be you still have to produce the untis with shields it's just that they now will be supported by gold. You will be producing the units from a single city and the support (gold) will be taken away from the national income. Possibly, units might still have to be supported by shields (city built in) and by gold (national income). I really think that is how it's going to be. If it is this way it should take away all your fears of how units will be produced and supported.
                              However, it is difficult to believe that 2 times 2 does not equal 4; does that make it true? On the other hand, is it really so difficult simply to accept everything that one has been brought up on and that has gradually struck deep roots – what is considered truth in the circle of moreover, really comforts and elevates man? Is that more difficult than to strike new paths, fighting the habitual, experiencing the insecurity of independence and the frequent wavering of one’s feelings and even one’s conscience, proceeding often without any consolation, but ever with the eternal goal of the true, the beautiful, and the good? - F.N.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
                              Working...
                              X