Tweet
Originally posted by Leonid
I think it is too bad that the governments are always imbalanced in these Sid Meir civ games. He favors the democratic govts over dictatorship SO BAD..he is very biased. Real bad game balance on govts. This has been my one biggest gripe since Sid'd very first Civ game.
Democracy is always the way to go. Communism always sucks. I like the idea of running a police state and ruling with an iron fist...kinda fun roleplaying. But you can't do that in Sid's Civ games..its always republic then democracy. That's too bad that it is so unblanced. The totalitarion governments really get the shaft and have absolutely no upside AT ALL. I mean the production should be great and war fighting should be awesome for the totalitarian govts, then so-so science and money. For Democratic govts they should get good science and money and crappy war waging and production. Instead the way it stands is in Democracy you get good war fighting, awesome money, awesome production, awesome science. VS communism: great war fighting, crappy money, crappy production, crappy science. Now wtf?
Where is the balance? Why is monarchy and communism even included? , since they stink so bad as govt options (they have in all sids games except SMAC).
What was cool about SMAC is that you could play that chinese dude..I forgot what his name was..Yin or something (the dude who had the communist police state bonuses) and that Police state, totalitarian combo RAWKED. One thing about SMAC is you could play a ruthless dictator and it paid.
Also, communism was doable in the CTP games.
These police states whould HANDS DOWN have better production than th edemocratic governments for gameplay balance. as a trade off for bad science and money.
I think it is too bad that the governments are always imbalanced in these Sid Meir civ games. He favors the democratic govts over dictatorship SO BAD..he is very biased. Real bad game balance on govts. This has been my one biggest gripe since Sid'd very first Civ game.
Democracy is always the way to go. Communism always sucks. I like the idea of running a police state and ruling with an iron fist...kinda fun roleplaying. But you can't do that in Sid's Civ games..its always republic then democracy. That's too bad that it is so unblanced. The totalitarion governments really get the shaft and have absolutely no upside AT ALL. I mean the production should be great and war fighting should be awesome for the totalitarian govts, then so-so science and money. For Democratic govts they should get good science and money and crappy war waging and production. Instead the way it stands is in Democracy you get good war fighting, awesome money, awesome production, awesome science. VS communism: great war fighting, crappy money, crappy production, crappy science. Now wtf?
Where is the balance? Why is monarchy and communism even included? , since they stink so bad as govt options (they have in all sids games except SMAC).
What was cool about SMAC is that you could play that chinese dude..I forgot what his name was..Yin or something (the dude who had the communist police state bonuses) and that Police state, totalitarian combo RAWKED. One thing about SMAC is you could play a ruthless dictator and it paid.
Also, communism was doable in the CTP games.These police states whould HANDS DOWN have better production than th edemocratic governments for gameplay balance. as a trade off for bad science and money.
But probably not.
Civ2 certainly relfected that - commie and fundie were competitive against early demo, with its happiness and war problems, but failed against advanced demo (with all happy wonders and improvements, Womens, UN, etc) - thus reflecting a hegelian philosophy of advanced capitalist demo as "the end of history" (see Fukuyama) How does this play in Civ3?
LOTM
Comment