There should be NO replies to this post if I'm right.

[Ghengis Brom]

I'm actually happy with the number of governments. I always thought Fundamentalism was over-powered. What I would have liked to have seen was more civs. I really miss the Mongols

[Thrawn05]

I am totaly cool with the number of governments in the game. No probs with them here.

[The Andy-Man]

not to sure about the unit builder as a civ thing, but then again, the way you put it makes it seems great for a civ2:SMAC edition

[Egyptian]

Civ III Democracy is weak

I think the amount of gov'ts is OK, but I think that modern democracy is weak in Civ III. Corruption is my issue.

Take the United States of America for example. If we were playing CivIII, states like Hawaii, Alaska, California and other west coast states would be loaded with corruption, and would only produce one good shield. In reality, California is currently the fifth largest economy in the entire world. That means that if it were its own country, its GNP would be ranked fifth. It produces enormous quantities of products and 25% of the nations produce. These are facts. The idea that corruption increases due to distance from the capital under democracy is ridiculous. The FACT is that in the USA, the most corrupted city IS the capital, Washington DC. There are tons of shady deals that our politicians conduct day after day: PAC money, pork barrel politics, corrporate gifts for congressional votes, etc., etc. Mot to mention the millions of dollars that are wasted on paying for specila benefits for the gov't. Under democracy, the parameters for corruption should change. Maybe a 10% or 15% corruption rate across the board. Another possible solution is to have the opption to build two or three mini-palaces, state capitals, or province headquarters when democracy is discovered. These mini-palaces would reduce corruption like the forbidden palace, maybe to a lesser extent. In any case, the distance = corruption thing under democracy is stupid.

[Zachriel]

Re: Civ III Democracy is weak

Originally posted by Egyptian
I think the amount of gov'ts is OK, but I think that modern democracy is weak in Civ III. Corruption is my issue.

The word "corruption" is throwing you off the trail. What is really depicted is the amount of income and production which is being made available to the bureaucrats in the capital. In the U.S., like most places, people make a great effort to avoid giving any more to the central government than they have to. This avoidance is abstracted as distance from the capital.

Not to mention that the U.S. only crosses 12% of the globe's longitude, and about 8% of the globe's latitude. That does not really compare to some player empires which easily rival the short-lived Mongolian Empire in size.

[Mars]

I think distance from the captial caused corruption should reduce Greatly as new technologies are discovered. I mean the effects generated in civ's current corruption system is an excellent model of corruption say in Assyria, but for the modern age where every single country is connected, transactions can be almost instant, and as the statement goes we basically have achived "the annilation of time and space". I mean we can send a message half way around the world almost instantly and a man can fly all the way around the world in an hour (that is in space). The system suggest, as in one of my games, even after the invention of radio that on the huge world map it's severally deductable to have the capital in brazil and another city in argentina. The corruption should go down as age increases.

To take the US example: If you had the capital in DC on the huge world map, and a city reasonable spaced throughout all of the US territory the outer most regions like the west coast, hawaii, and alaska would be producing one sheild. That is to suggest that during a war such as WW2 it would take you about the time from the war's start until about the end of the game to build one tank. Also, for another comparison even farther back in history. They also suggest that to raise even the a light unit in WW1 in British India would take just as long as well. If that's not unrealistic i don't know what is. Inventions like telegraph cables, radios, TVs, Inernet, automobiles, steam engines, or anything that promotes fast movement, and therefore faster communication should give a bonus to distance. Also the limit on cities is unrealistic. In a huge map (it should be know that's what i prmarily play) you can only have 32 cities before every subsequent city is effectively useless expect for culture. That makes it nearly impossible to conquer the world as you have to painstakenly transport units long distances from your industrial base to the front. Then when you take over you basically have to burn the city because its effectively useless making conquering almost worthless. I hate the high corruption in civ3 governments.

BTW Zachriel, so you're saying that companies in the west get to pay lower taxes and contribute less to the government than companies on the east coast, cuz that is effectively what you are saying.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Mars
BTW Zachriel, so you're saying that companies in the west get to pay lower taxes and contribute less to the government than companies on the east coast, cuz that is effectively what you are saying.

Actually, I said, "This avoidance is abstracted as distance from the capital." Please note the word abstracted. In addition, I suggested that the word "corruption" was arbitrary. The concept may represent different things during different eras.

India was never a major production center for the British Empire, but did contribute vast resources to the Crown. Alaska is not a major production center for the U.S., but does contribute a strategic resource. Hawaii has only limited heavy industry, but is a strategic location. Pearl Harbor and the ships stationed there were built with money from the central government.

PS. I am certainly not against changes in the game, through the editor or by the gamemakers. Many of the suggestion on this thread may work just fine. However, I find Civ3 quite playable in its current incarnation. What most players are complaining about is that they want a democracy, but they want to conquer the world. It's sort of a contradiction.

[Zachriel]

36 replies

This thread is up to 36 replies.

[Velociryx]

Me! Me! Democracy in the game is soooooo realistic! Exquisitely modelled for maximum realism (everybody knows democracies can't fight wars without worrying about descent into anarchy) and fun in mind (and it's SUCH fun to go back and tweak civil disorder/happiness levels EVERY FREAKIN TURN in every city you control! THAT makes the game for me!)

Likewise, Communism is simply a MASTERMIND of game balance and realism.

As to how to fix it:

Give us a working, completed editor (I know....first time ANYBODY has ever asked for that), and open up more of the game IN the editor (ditto....something that's never been asked for till this very moment), and let the modders perfect the game.

-=Vel=-
(still holding on to a few shreds of "I really love this game," but not many.... )

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Velociryx
(and it's SUCH fun to go back and tweak civil disorder/happiness levels EVERY FREAKIN TURN in every city you control! THAT makes the game for me!)

Use the mayor for allocating labor. I use it for nearly the entire game (except before hospitals and pop12). It works fine and makes the game easy to play.

[Velociryx]

Oh, I know you can....trouble is....see, everybody pretty well agrees that Civ3 is a more simplified version of the game.

Which means that the meat of your choices will reside in the micromanagement.

But the game's STRUCTURE is such that you go NUTS micromanaging, and so you're prompted to automate as much as possible.

At that point, isn't it kinna like just letting 8-16 computer civs play and just watching the screen tho?

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Oh, I know you can....trouble is....see, everybody pretty well agrees that Civ3 is a more simplified version of the game.

Which means that the meat of your choices will reside in the micromanagement.

But the game's STRUCTURE is such that you go NUTS micromanaging, and so you're prompted to automate as much as possible.

At that point, isn't it kinna like just letting 8-16 computer civs play and just watching the screen tho?

-=Vel=-

Oh my, Vel.

Well, I would like to contest one thing you said: "Which means that the meat of your choices will reside in the micromanagement." Hmm. I don't know about that. There are the resources (which I think are an awesome addition to the Civ series), the choice between warrior and builder style of play or a balance between the two, which wonders to shoot for, which techs to beeline for... what civ to play...

Yes, I know that the tech beelines are limited - that has been discussed at length, and I grant you the point. I will also acknowledge that the game design is more spartan than Civ II (B.Reynolds = more is better, full speed ahead and damn the AI that can't handle it), and that was not, in the final analysis, necessarily the correct decision, despite the fact that it makes the AI more competitive.

I just think you overstated things a bit, perhaps out of frustration. There is strategic choice in Civ III, just not as much as you would like.

-Arrian

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Velociryx


Me! Me! Democracy in the game is soooooo realistic! Exquisitely modelled for maximum realism (everybody knows democracies can't fight wars without worrying about descent into anarchy) and fun in mind (and it's SUCH fun to go back and tweak civil disorder/happiness levels EVERY FREAKIN TURN in every city you control! THAT makes the game for me!)

Likewise, Communism is simply a MASTERMIND of game balance and realism. [QUOTE]

I've read many of the 'Ancient' threads, but off course not all.
Coincidentally I yesterday kept wondering on the use of communism. I NEVER, NEVER use it.

Why is it a mastermind?

Is it too (rep., democr.) a winning government for civ3?

Kind regards,
AJ

[Velociryx]

You're right, Arrian...and thank ya for keepin me in line.... Yeah...the case is certainly over-simplified. ::sigh:: I guess my main beef is that the whole game got oversimplified. There is some amount of strategy to be had, but the vast bulk of in-game choices, in my mind, are far more tactical in their nature than strategic (I would even take the position that resources--which I totally agree are a good concept, and make for an improved game--are more tactical in their nature than strategic). Specifically with regards to resources, I say this because of the aforementioned "tech tree with too few branches" and the overall speed with which resources become obsolete. There's just not enough game time for the resources to be truly strategic, in my mind.

But you're right....it was mostly frustration talking....::sheepish grin::

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

AJ - I regret to say that I was teasin'....Dem and Comm are broken and overly simplified extremes as government types.

Perhaps one day, with the right tools, we'll be able to truly do something about that....

-=Vel=-