Disenchanted

[Willem]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Jumping back in

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Huh? When did they come back?

To quote myself: As to Empires falling and reviving again, this has happened very scarcely, and even in those few cases, I am not entirely sure they should be treated as the same Civ. In the Roman case, I go much farther: Ancient Romans and modern Italians are certainly not the same Civ.

Yes, you have a point there. Actually the only instance that might apply I can think of is the rise and fall of the dynasties in China.

[Comrade Tribune]

Re: hmm

Originally posted by pg
if you are going to include nonlinearity what happens if your civ goes into long standing anarchy? you lose?

Unfortunately, yes, you do lose; otherwise the game wouldn´t be much of a simulation. The models will be designed to resemble grim reality, so, if your civ falls into permanent anarchy, there is so much wrong with it that it is beyond repair, anyway. There is simply no point in carrying on. I like the comparison with Chess: If a position is hopeless, it´s hopeless.

On the plus side, loss doesn´t equal loss. You never lose Victory Points, you only accumulate them, so you can still meaningfully compare fallen Civilizations. A fallen Civilization may have greatly contributed to human progress, and that *will* be reflected in your Victory Points. A Civilization may fall in 500AD, and still conceivably have more Victory Points than a mediocre Civ that somehow manages to survive to the very end, but has never accomplished anything worth a mention.

[OneInTen]

The models will be designed to resemble grim reality, so, if your civ falls into permanent anarchy, there is so much wrong with it that it is beyond repair, anyway.

There are certainly people who would contend that if your civ falls into permanent anarchy there is a lot right with it and it should be a winning condition!

Anarchy should be a proper "government" type if you're going to do a simulation style game ... government from a grass roots level by the people for the people, and with no private ownership. - as anarchist theory describes.

[moomin]

Originally posted by OneInTen


There are certainly people who would contend that if your civ falls into permanent anarchy there is a lot right with it and it should be a winning condition!

Anarchy should be a proper "government" type if you're going to do a simulation style game ... government from a grass roots level by the people for the people, and with no private ownership. - as anarchist theory describes.

SimSomalia?

[pg]

Re: Re: hmm

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

Unfortunately, yes, you do lose; otherwise the game wouldn´t be much of a simulation. The models will be designed to resemble grim reality, so, if your civ falls into permanent anarchy, there is so much wrong with it that it is beyond repair, anyway. There is simply no point in carrying on. I like the comparison with Chess: If a position is hopeless, it's hopeless.

HEH. honestly that doesn't make any sense to me. in a simulation you really don't have win or lose situations. especially if you are simulating history there is no such thing as permanent anarchy or a hopeless position. there are periods of time where certain conditions persist but it eventually changes for better or worse.

if you are going for chess ideals mixed with simulation you will fail imo. chess is pure strategy, while a simulation is something that is fun to play with because of all the possibilities and interesting results. you can't really win a simulation, but the whole purpose of chess is to win.

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

On the plus side, loss doesn´t equal loss. You never lose Victory Points, you only accumulate them, so you can still meaningfully compare fallen Civilizations. A fallen Civilization may have greatly contributed to human progress, and that *will* be reflected in your Victory Points. A Civilization may fall in 500AD, and still conceivably have more Victory Points than a mediocre Civ that somehow manages to survive to the very end, but has never accomplished anything worth a mention.

victory points to me sound about as fun as culture points in civ3. wow, if i get 20,000 culture in one city i win! talk about artificial, and breaking the feeling of playing in a real working alternate history simulation.

[Zachriel]

Re: Re: Re: hmm

Originally posted by pg
in a simulation you really don't have win or lose situations. especially if you are simulating history there is no such thing as permanent anarchy or a hopeless position. there are periods of time where certain conditions persist but it eventually changes for better or worse.

Absolutely. It depends on your goal in the game. I play a lot of games just to have a little bit of conquering in the ancient age, or to build J.S. Bach. I've played games where I was beaten back to one city, fighting all the way, just glad to have survived. Just because you are "losing" doesn't mean the game can't be fun.

BTW, did I ever tell you about my Luxembourg strategy?

"Hey Joan, Baby, give me some saltpeter."

"Catherine, my dear, you look lovely today."

"Herr Bismark, would you please tell your Elite Panzers to stay off the lawn? Donkashane.

[Willem]

Re: Re: Re: Re: hmm

Originally posted by Zachriel



Absolutely. It depends on your goal in the game. I play a lot of games just to have a little bit of conquering in the ancient age, or to build J.S. Bach. I've played games where I was beaten back to one city, fighting all the way, just glad to have survived. Just because you are "losing" doesn't mean the game can't be fun.

BTW, did I ever tell you about my Luxembourg strategy?

"Hey Joan, Baby, give me some saltpeter."

"Catherine, my dear, you look lovely today."

"Herr Bismark, would you please tell your Elite Panzers to stay off the lawn? Donkashane.

I've used that approach myself. The odd "donation" just out of the blue can go a long way to keeping the neighbours off my back for awhile. Until I'm good and ready. It's especially effective when they have next to nothing in their treasury. Even 25 gold can jump them from Annoyed to Polite.

[Gromit]

I haven't read all eight pages but I did read the original post. I agree with most of the criticisms on the game and all of your ideas for new/improved features.

I dunno if this has already been covered, but relative to the standard in other empire/conquest games I own or have played, the AI in civ III is stunning. However, I am increasingly more irritated by the diplomacy, which I must admit, compared to other games is pretty good. It would just be nice to be able to do more. Such as exchange units other than workers, donate scientists, donate shields to help build a friend's wonder, to ACTUALLY be able to cancel agreements after 20 turns without being called untrustworthy (as we are told by the diplomacy screen itself).

I guess what I mean, is that while there are a few more options (trading without caravans being the best by far) the actual way communication with the AI is conducted is STILL on it's terms - regardless of who contacts whom (is that grammatically correct? I never could grasp it). My main gripe on this point is that whilst you can start a 'total war' through diplomacy - you can't campaign for world peace, or a least peace around your own borders.

Another idea would be random (and by random, I don't mean one every five turns or so) natural disasters, along with improvements/wonders to protect against thier effects. And then aid packages (amongst other things) organised through a U.N. council (that actually does something). To expand on the U.N., the mandatory retirement year would have to be extended to 2100 or 2150, and if Eras as a concept stick, a new one added (maybe two if turn/years increment was made 1 turn every six months).

A small thing I would like to see back is the thing from civ 2 where you could change your titles for all govt. types. That was good - I liked that.
A Non-Agression feature would be nice whereby land combat units and transports loaded with combat units cannot enter a rivals territory without a formal declaration of war permission (done with a popup box for both human and AI?). Air units should probably have exemption so you could still surprise attack and then roll in the tanks.

Culture. Currently, it is just a thing that expands your borders and assimilates cities. It has no uniqueness and is summarised to a ridiculous extent. People tend to move from one place to another because of fairer laws (which I will come to) and better job opportunities, amongst other things. NOT because there are pretty or big buildings there. If that were the case I would be living in America, Egypt or China - as England apparently has no 'Wonders' of it's own. Stonehenge? Those limestone picture thingies on hillsides in that green place outside London? The giants causeway? Need I go on? OK, it's an American game but hey, come on.

What about laws and ordnances? Unless I am very much mistaken, if this is the case I will find the nearest whole in the ground that will swallow me, laws are considered on of the hallmarks of 'civilization' and seem to have been COMPLETELY overlooked. This strikes me as odd - given the name attached to the game. It wouldn't have to be an entire book of 'the law', just some sort of ten or twenty 'commandments' affair in order to capture the essence of 'law'. Possibly different options for each government type?
Ordnances - where our tax goes. In the UK, for the moment at least, monies raised through tax are 'supposed' to determine the efficiency of structures such as hospitals. This could also bring (although I grant it may be a bit tooooo hard to do) the effect that 'big business' has on government, privatised services and so forth.

Lastly, but I think importantly, why is it that you can build a city next to a border and claim territory from another civ without the slightest reaction? Surely every nation/empire ever to exist would go to war or a the very least complain about such an offront. Am I wrong?

In conclusion, I would wait as long as it took to make a game so complicated, and would buy the nescesary hardware needed to play it (sad? Yep)

Phew. I think that's my longest post ever.
Apologies if I repeated anyone.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Ghengis-Sean
Contrary to popular belief the pyramids were not built by slave labor, instead the populace was required to provide a certain amount of their time for public projects.

Slaves were not used to build the pyramids, but local farmers and people who were paid to do this heavy labor. It probably took thousands of men using many ropes, levers and logs on which the blocks were rolled up the ramps, in order to construct this enormous structure!

Archaeology.org:

http://dig.archaeology.org/drdig/egypt/2.html

The workers worked projects when the land was flooded.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Gromit
Lastly, but I think importantly, why is it that you can build a city next to a border and claim territory from another civ without the slightest reaction? Surely every nation/empire ever to exist would go to war or a the very least complain about such an offront. Am I wrong?

The fact that people build settlements near one another is historical. For instance, the establishment of European colonies along the coast of India, or any of the European colonies in the America's.

And yes, it often leads to conflict.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Gromit

Lastly, but I think importantly, why is it that you can build a city next to a border and claim territory from another civ without the slightest reaction? Surely every nation/empire ever to exist would go to war or a the very least complain about such an offront. Am I wrong?

Are you sure that by doing so, you're not affecting your diplomatic standing with that civ? You might find if you look that he/she is suddenly annoyed with you. I've never thought to check myself but it wouldn't surprise me.

[Gromit]

Good point. I never noticed anything, but since the AI is always 'displeased' with me, it sorta stopped checking. Incidentally, anyone ever play without ever talking to the AI?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Gromit
Good point. I never noticed anything, but since the AI is always 'displeased' with me, it sorta stopped checking. Incidentally, anyone ever play without ever talking to the AI?

Try giving them 25 gold once in awhile just out of the blue. This doesn't work quite as well with Bismarck though, the guy's nothing but a sourpuss. Joan however will be jumping through your hoops in no time, especially if she's broke. Cleo's pretty good that way as well.

[Comrade Tribune]

***Notice***

I have started a thread about my project in the Alternative Civs section. Please post any Questions/Ideas/Critique/Comments here: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=40675

I will answer questions etc that have already been posted in this thread here, but post any future answers answering my answers etc in the new thread, please. Thanks!

[Comrade Tribune]

Re: hmm

Pg: i can't quite get a firm mental grasp on how your game would play comrade. maybe you can do a better job elaborating on more of your game ideas and the core of your gameplay? you have given some good examples of how it would differ from civ but i can't quite figure out how it'd play.

Soon to come in the Alternative Civs Forum.