Venger, I feel your pain

[Venger]

Originally posted by Cian McGuire
Your sentence should be "as soon as you attack one of his units on his territory..."- the MPP activates only then.

I haven't seen what johnny says in action yet, but I do know the above is true. It allows to you repel an aggressor.

That's a namby pamby policy. If I get attacked, any actions I take until peace is declared should be considered a defensive action. If you get shot at, the solution isn't a bulletproof vest, it's to get the guy who's shooting you. Sometimes that means taking the battle to him...

This really needs to be changed...

Venger

[Cian McGuire]

The only alternative is to go for a more aggresive government then- I see nothing wrong with this as it keeps people from just being able to roll over their opponents.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Cian McGuire
The only alternative is to go for a more aggresive government then- I see nothing wrong with this as it keeps people from just being able to roll over their opponents.

??? Why should I have to stop being a democracy to successfulyl defend myself? All I ask is that if I get attacked first, that I be able to wage war against my attacker without it being seen as a war of aggression.

Venger

[TCO]

All you have to lose is your chains!!

This thread needs a subtitle: Whiners of the world, unite!

[Venger]

How did your gender reassignement surgery go?

Originally posted by GP
This thread needs a subtitle: Whiners of the world, unite!

And here he goes AGAIN! Can you PLEASE try and actually either:

1) Comment about something related to the discussion

or

2) Skip these threads altogether

All we have to fear is not fear itself but rather GP showing up to toilet paper yet another thread while he runs off in his little skirt giggling to himself. Oh moderator, can we please ask that people who like to do this just OCCASSIONALLY have to be topical? I don't mind the occassional drift, but this bombthrowing into topics has to stop...

Venger
P.S. Feel free to choose option 3) Get hit by a bus

[Ralf]

Oh GIVE ME A STINKING BREAK. Yes, I've been at war with the Aztecs for a long time. And kicking their ass. You telling me a democracy doesn't like a successful war? Oh my lord...

I think that Firaxis have implemented democracy war-weariness correctly in Civ-3, and they shouldnt change it.

Many peace-demonstrating anti-war minded people dislike ALL kind of prolonged wars, regardless if the war is sucessfull or not. Why should a military stronger democracy automatically exploit its advantage, by launching huge-scale landgrabbing world wars, with Alexander-, Napoleon-, Stalin/Hitler-style war-objectives? Is it realistic to expect that people (at least the peace-loving ones) in todays democracys, openly applaud such goals?

I say; stop whining! If you guys want to "conquer the world", you just have to choose the appropriate government-type. In Civ-3 in the industrial/modern era, this means communism. You cant have a Civ-3 government with ONLY advantages. That would unbalance the game.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Ralf
I think that Firaxis have implemented democracy war-weariness correctly in Civ-3, and they shouldnt change it.

Many peace-demonstrating anti-war minded people dislike ALL kind of prolonged wars, regardless if the war is sucessfull or not.

What consitutes "many"? Every war in American history has enjoyed overwhelming popular support. Yes, even Vietnam - check the history on popular support of the war. This never led to the fall of the government, nor would it.

Why should a military stronger democracy automatically exploit its advantage, by launching huge-scale landgrabbing world wars, with Alexander-, Napoleon-, Stalin/Hitler-style war-objectives?

Because I want mine too? Why should every communist government automatically attempt to control the world? Maybe I want my workers paradise without conflict? That should be an option for me.

Is it realistic to expect that people (at least the peace-loving ones) in todays democracys, openly applaud such goals?

The vast majority of people in ANY society approve of successful wars. Name the last successful war that stopped because people were too happy with it...

I say; stop whining! If you guys want to "conquer the world", you just have to choose the appropriate government-type. In Civ-3 in the industrial/modern era, this means communism. You cant have a Civ-3 government with ONLY advantages.

What do you think communism is? What disadvantage does communism have? None. But it get's two draft/turn, shared corruption, better espionage, free support, martial law, and population hurrying (better than gold rushing IMO).

What does democracy have advantage wise? Lower corruption supposedly, but I think everyone here will admit it doesn't seem to work. Immune to propoganda (big whoop). 50% bonus for workers. One extra arrow. Disadvantages? War weariness that doesn't just make you deal with unhappiness, but it destroys your government. That's self defeating. The lack of any martial law makes conquered or new cities extremely hard to deal with.

As I said, war weariness is clearly worse under democracy, and having to deal with it is the cost - but that cost shouldn't include the collapse of a government into anarchy.

Venger

[TCO]

Re: How did your gender reassignement surgery go?

Originally posted by Venger


And here he goes AGAIN! Can you PLEASE try and actually either:

1) Comment about something related to the discussion

or

2) Skip these threads altogether

All we have to fear is not fear itself but rather GP showing up to toilet paper yet another thread while he runs off in his little skirt giggling to himself. Oh moderator, can we please ask that people who like to do this just OCCASSIONALLY have to be topical? I don't mind the occassional drift, but this bombthrowing into topics has to stop...

Venger
P.S. Feel free to choose option 3) Get hit by a bus

I've been on 2 mostly now. That was just a little "kiss" to keep you aroused.

[Venger]

Heh, okay it worked...

Venger

[TCO]

Feel the love...

Time for a group hug. Mark, take a picture!

[Chronus]

If I get attacked, any actions I take until peace is declared should be considered a defensive action.

You call exterminating the entire Aztec empire by destroying their 16 cities within 6 turns a defensive action??!

If you get shot at, the solution isn't a bulletproof vest, it's to get the guy who's shooting you. Sometimes that means taking the battle to him...

I fully understand. However, there are plenty of people who would disagree. Your civilization will always have to deal with them. If the U.S. was to start taking over Afghan cities, I'm pretty sure there would be a huge outcry from the world, our allies, even from our own citizens. No, it doesn't change our government, but it does change our policies (and even leadership). Civ games were not designed to handle changes in policy, so it's lumped up in a change of government.

By the way, regarding your offensive against the Aztecs: a Democratic government that allows you to do all that and still give you all the other bonuses is, in my opinion, WAY off balance. I guess this is boiling down to preferred game play. The thought of eliminating a 16 city opponent in 6 turns makes out for a boring game in my humble opinion. You, however, seem to enjoy this. That's cool . . . to each their own. Nevertheless, I seem to recall that Firaxis implemented these features (along with culture, resources, etc.) to TONE DOWN the ability to wipe opponents out so quickly. For me, this is good. For you, a nightmare!

Clearly you weren't at war very long.

I'm guessing 10 turns. Any war longer than 10 turns is, in my book, a long war. You're probably laughing your head off with that last comment. Nevertheless, I set my small objective (taking over anywhere from 2 - 5 cities), move in and get the job done (or fail), and then get a peace settlement, even if costs some money (though this isn't required when I'm victorious). More than 10 turns, IMOHO, should create a lot of unrest and make it more difficult to wage war (and for reasons I already mentioned above).

Last of all, I asked you how many "sub-games" you've played. Sorry, bad wording. You mention earlier that your current game is your first "whole" game. By "whole" game, I'm assuming you mean a game you play from start to finish. By "sub-games" I'm referring to games you played part way and then decided to quit and start a new game. So then, if I understood you correctly, how many "half-games" have you played?

Your sentence should be "as soon as you attack one of his units on his territory..."- the MPP activates only then.

Actually, I like this. Why should my MPP w/ England pull me into a war against Germany when it was England who invaded Germany? So then, should it be activated if the tide turns and Germany takes the fight to England's soil? I think so. It's kind of like family. Your younger brother may do something stupid and get beat up by some kids. Fine, he deserved it. However, if those other kids continued to gang up on him . . . you would come to your brother's rescue (I would hope ). I see it the same way with countries. You may not like what an ally does, but you, nevertheless, don't want them seriously hurt or destroyed. That's how I see a MPP (for whatever it's worth ). The one thing I do hope they add, however, is the option to break your MPP (w/ serious reputation penalties). I guess I could declare war on my MPP ally and then make peace w/ him, but this breaks all my other agreements w/ him and I still have to make peace with the original perpetrator. Hmmm, maybe it should be that way . . .

[Cian McGuire]

Why should I have to stop being a democracy to successfulyl defend myself? All I ask is that if I get attacked first, that I be able to wage war against my attacker without it being seen as a war of aggression.

So defend yourself- just don't carry the war to his territory.

if you kick a country's ass enough it'll sue for peace.

What do you think communism is? What disadvantage does communism have? None. But it get's two draft/turn, shared corruption, better espionage, free support, martial law, and population hurrying (better than gold rushing IMO).

What does democracy have advantage wise? Lower corruption supposedly, but I think everyone here will admit it doesn't seem to work. Immune to propoganda (big whoop). 50% bonus for workers. One extra arrow. Disadvantages? War weariness that doesn't just make you deal with unhappiness, but it destroys your government. That's self defeating. The lack of any martial law makes conquered or new cities extremely hard to deal with.

As I said, war weariness is clearly worse under democracy, and having to deal with it is the cost - but that cost shouldn't include the collapse of a government into anarchy.

But communism cannot acquire that massive amount of money and techs that democracy has- if it was so good why not just switch?

[Venger]

Originally posted by Cian McGuire


So defend yourself- just don't carry the war to his territory.

Sorry, that's a totally unacceptable answer. Just lie back and take it. That's inane.

if you kick a country's ass enough it'll sue for peace.

Meanwhile I wait to get attacked rather than preemptively take the battle to him. Come on...

But communism cannot acquire that massive amount of money and techs that democracy has- if it was so good why not just switch?

I will never play a communist form of government, just as I wouldn't play a Nazi form of government...

Venger

[GePap]

No time to be moral

Hey Venger:

While i can sympathize with not wanting to do certain things in games for real-life moral reasons (i could never bring myself to exterminate capture pops in MOO2) sometimes a game gives you no choice or it allows us to take equally as attrocious actions that we don't think of, like razing cities (back to MOO2, I never felt that bad about bombing a colony out of existence).

As for dems and taking the war to them, the problem in your game is not that you took the war back to them, but that after a certain time it was no longer about you paying back, but you gaining space. We did fight Japan after Pearl and take the fight to them, but it did not take 50 years (according to you, this war was simmering for many turns, so remember, those that were alive when the war begun were dead long before) and we did not take mayor Japanese territory as 'compensation' (I don't see Okinawa bases, or those isalnds in the pacific as much of a gain). If a civ attacks you, hit back, destroy their army and maybe some infrastructure, and demand they give up and say uncle. Once you decide to destroy them though (states are not single people so your guy with gun argument is invalid) its no longer payback, but outwards aggression.Please tell me of one state the US ever destoryed utterly (I mean wipped of the map and took the land for itself) while in self defense? Japan, Germany, they are still there.

[D4everman]

I understand the people syaing "just live with it" but Venger has a point. I like to play mostly peaceful games and democracy is my preferred gov. But it impossible to survive as one with things the way they are...okay, almost impossinle. I did mange to win as a dem gov in a space race but I had to reload saved games a buncha times to avoid a war I didn't start and wanted no part of.

What are you going to tell me? stay outta MPP's. I wish. While Civ3 doesn't have the ol' "YOU REJECT OUR GENEROUS OFFER!? PREPARE FOR WAR!" thing, if you don't forge some alliances and you start to take a lead the AI will still tag team you.

I think the War Weariness for democracies should be reduced and / or erased if the attacking civ attacked first and then refused to make peace. What good is a democracy if someone can attack you and you don't fight back except for defense and still your nation goes nuts and produces nothing? Its unfair and it gives war mongers an advantage thats intolerable.

And how much do you have to kick someones ass to get them to sue for peace? In my last game I was attacked by THREE different civs. The first (iroquis) signed a treaty after i whooped them a little, the second and the third wouldn't stop fighting me no matter what. I *might* have been able to hurt the aztecs enough to make them leave me alone, and then direct attention to the japanese but War weariness made it impossible to build new troops so I lost. Thats fair? I had a good advantage that in no means gauranteed victory (modern armor0 but I lost because abunch of whiny punks think defending yourself is a bad thing.
Wimps.


And don't tell me that I can change governments. Thats like saying the US should change to a theocracy so we can better defeat terrorism.