c#211 CIV3: THE LAST GLASS OF WINE

[rorymacleod]

Ten Reasons To Disagree With Dirk Zelwis

I got 19 times no access to fresh water

1) While you're in Despotism irrigation doesn't make any difference to grassland tiles so you don't need fresh water. Explore your surroundings and have workers irrigate a line from water to your city.

I started in the middle of a desert

2) When you say "in the middle of the desert" do you mean your settler was surrounded by 20 squares of desert - no plains, no flood plains? Even if that were true, surely it can't take more than a 5 or 6 turns to get to the edge of it.

hills and mountains all over

3) Hills are good. 2 sheilds for each mined square will have you another settler in no time.

I started in the Tundra

4) Tundra you say? Tundra with forests by any chance? Forests and game? At least you can be sure you won't get attacked from that direction.

The starting locations with no mixed terrain were mixed in between

5) No starting position is perfect, but for all you know, that big black area to the north is full of incense and ivory. Build your city, build some settlers and get on with it.

6 to 8 cities against 3 or 4

6) Retire from your game, and watch the replay. You'll see that the AI builds its first few cities at the same rate as you, but stays focused on expansion and grows exponentially.

my attacking veteran archer with 4 hitpoints, 2attack had been killed by the standard egyptian
war chariot with 1 hitpoint left and defense1

7) Sometimes you'll attack a unit and not lose any hitpoints, sometimes you'll attack a unit and they'll not lose any hitpoints - roll with the punches. And don't rely on a solo archer to kill anything.

when everybody sneak-attacked me after 1750/ 1800 AD

8) So your complaint is that your opponents aren't predictable. Defend your borders. Trade with your neighbours to keep them sweet.

And I did find nothing

9) OK, I don't have Civ3 in front of me right now so I can't be sure, but I expect you'll find We Love The King in the Civilopedia. Manuals are printed long before software ships so they can only contain stuff that the developers are sure isn't going to change at the last minute.

crashed

10) I'm a software developer and I can tell you that with the best will in the world, it's just not possible to find all the bugs in a product before it's released. That's what patches are for.

For the record, I'm running Civ3 1.21f. I've been playing on and off at Emperor level since the game was released in the UK.

[Ludwig]

There is a difference between the forums and the articles

No one has proposed editing or limiting the contents of the forums. You will still be able to post to your heart's content about the limitations of Civ3.

Markos is only saying that if you send in a column for publication in the columns area [which he promotes over his broadcast e-mail] he will be unlikely to select your offering if you send in yet another column complaining about aspects of the game that have been covered in previous columns in detail.

That isn't censorship. Saying it is, is like saying that the NY Times is censoring me because they won't hire me as a columnist, publish my stuff on the front page, and put a picture of me on the sides of NYC buses to get people to read my opinions.

[SpencerH]

Re: There is a difference between the forums and the articles

Originally posted by Ludwig
No one has proposed editing or limiting the contents of the forums. You will still be able to post to your heart's content about the limitations of Civ3.

Markos is only saying that if you send in a column for publication in the columns area [which he promotes over his broadcast e-mail] he will be unlikely to select your offering if you send in yet another column complaining about aspects of the game that have been covered in previous columns in detail.

That isn't censorship. Saying it is, is like saying that the NY Times is censoring me because they won't hire me as a columnist, publish my stuff on the front page, and put a picture of me on the sides of NYC buses to get people to read my opinions.

Of course its censorship, read a definition of the word.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
specially the "10 reasons not to buy civ3" pi$$ed me off a LOT.
- reasons 1-5 were ALL based on starting locations... well, that's ONE point to me, not 5.
- reason 6 (AI cheatin)... well, it looks like good old dirk was reloading 100 times to realize, that the random generator is based on things like unit number, turn number and so on and isn't completely random. looks like he cheated, so don't blame the AI to do the same
- the best was reason 9: now i'm not a very good player either, but to admit hardly being able to survive level 3/6 and blaming that on the AI is a joke. that a POSITIVE aspect of the game, not a negative one.

You said it right, brother!

I also believe that most people whining about this or that in Civ3 simply lack experience in playing (or lack the will to improve themselves). I am definitely not in the Aeson's League (TM? ), but I will win pretty much any Regent Level game I start now (unless I am given a really ugly starting location... in which case I simply restart, not bothering - it has been demonstrated dozens of times that AI civs get starting positions as ugly as the human... just that they have no chance to restart... ). However, that - moderate! - level of experience has come only after hundreds of hours of playing and reading through the forums here, after learning how to utilize various units, improvements, technologies and so on...

And for the record: both articles are really awful... the authors are missing the point by miles. The first one by considering Civ3 a successor to CtP2, the other one by "rating" Civ3 after - just imagine that! - 17 days of playing! I mean you are entitled to your opinion after 17 days, but you should make it clear that it is an opinion of an inexperienced player, a beginner's one. Dirk Zelwis poses himself much like a pro, which is unfair. Nobody is a Civ3-pro after owning the game for 17 days...

Also, I find Markos' intro very well written. It's true that most people satisfied with Civ3 simply play it instead of praising it here, while the minority of Coraclites just keep ranting around... a simple vote I posted some time ago showed that out of 100+ voters more than two thirds were at least "satisfied, enjoying Civ3" (see http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=54470).

[vondrack]

Originally posted by SpencerH
The answer is to publish a positive article with the negative ones, or to provide a direct rebuttal. I would say there are lots of people who could/would do it if asked.

Count me in!

Edit: Count me in for rebuttals to articles like the "10 reasons...", of course...

[Ludwig]

Re: Re: There is a difference between the forums and the articles

Originally posted by SpencerH


Of course its censorship, read a definition of the word.

No, it isn't.

You are the one who should read a definition of the word - since apparently you have absolutely no idea what it means.

In the first place, it is absolutely conceptually impossible for a private individual to engage in "censorship". But understanding that probably requires more ideological sophistication than you're capable of, so we'll let that go for a minute.

Markos is under no obligation to promote any one individual's writings by making them the "Weekly Column". He is perfectly entitled to choose from among the available submissions, by whatever criteria he wishes to employ. Book publishers reject some manuscripts, and accept others, every day. Recording labels accept some artists, and reject others, every day. Not every play written to be performed on Broadway gets performed. By your interpretation, all of the choices of this kind made by editors the world over constitute censorship. Such a notion would be, of course, absurd, since the essence of the absence of censorship is precisely the ability of editors to use their own, personal discretion to make these kinds of judgments.

Markos does two things here.

First, he provides, at his own expense, a forum where people can talk about Civ. He apparently intends to go right on providing that forum for you, at his expense, and you will be free to write whatever you want on it. Posters here aren't allowed to swear or become abusive, and if you wanted to you might call THOSE limitations "censorship" - but those are the same posting restrictions that have always existed.

Second, he produces a website about Civ that has content above and beyond what is on the forums. He designs pages for each of the various games, and makes editorial decisions about what is newsworthy, what gets placed prominently, etc. He also sells advertising space on those pages. For some items, like the "Weekly Column" item, he also sends out an e-mail newsletter to participating members. Since every last item written in the English language every day can't fit on these pages or in his newletter, he engages in a process of selection - HE chooses what HE thinks is newsworthy, interesting, or relevant. This is what a publisher or editor DOES. And it isn't censorship - it's the publisher or editor exercising HIS freedom to choose and to speak, which is at least as important as yours. Actually, under American law, Markos would probably be able to claim journalist status, which gives him certain free-speech rights that are GREATER than yours. If you think you can do a better job at publishing items of information of interest to the Civ community, you are perfectly free to start your own site.

[Dinner]

I do agree with the fellow who compared CTP to Civ3 in more then a few ways the CTP series out shines Civ3. It really is a shame that Firaxis couldn't have spent more time thinking about the game's lay out and less time rushing to market.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Having read the two articles, I find that the first one makes the best points! First of all, I have to say that I am a pragmatist when it comes to Civ3! Compared to Civ2, Civ3 is absolutely brilliant!! I mean, just having borders and strategic resources, along with the greater emphasis on trade, makes this game so much more enjoyable than Civ2! Even compared to CTP1 and 2 Civ3 kicks **s! That is not to say, however, that the Civ3 designers couldn't learn a couple of tricks from games like CtP, or even from some of their own, earlier games, such as colonization, SMAC et al! For instance, I agree that the visible trade routes from CtP were an excellent touch, and gave much more emphasis to the role of naval power in trade, without increasing micromanagement. I also liked the greater range of diplomatic options available in CtP! The diplomatic options available in SMAC would also be welcome, should they ever make a comeback to Civ3!
My only other big issue is the way in which the disappearance of resources is calculated! I always felt that the base rate of disappearance should be based on the rarity of the resource (which is sought of is, now), but with the actual ratio being determined by the number of cities in your empire!
Anyway, that's my feelings on the matter. I will say Kudos, however, to the Firaxis team for creating a good, solid game, and hope that each new iteration (read patch) of Civ3 will bring ongoing improvements!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I do agree with the fellow who compared CTP to Civ3 in more then a few ways the CTP series out shines Civ3. It really is a shame that Firaxis couldn't have spent more time thinking about the game's lay out and less time rushing to market.

i agree - partially.

do you know what it means to miss christmas sales? if they'd come out some time in feb or march 2002, they would have missed out the Xmas-season --> death

i just hope they don't have such a rush for PtW this year...

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by vondrack
[...]
Also, I find Markos' intro very well written. It's true that most people satisfied with Civ3 simply play it instead of praising it here, while the minority of Coraclites just keep ranting around... a simple vote I posted some time ago showed that out of 100+ voters more than two thirds were at least "satisfied, enjoying Civ3" (see ).

i believe that coracle actually LIKES civ3. after all, he plays it a lot, discoveres bugs and things he calls bugs (settler diarrhea, culture flipping). i don't play game i don't like... i don't even play games i QUITE like, because time is way too valuable and i prefer to do some extra night-shift-turns of civ3 instead

coracle, jt and others like the game but like it even more to whine/rant/grumble/flame/troll about it (i picked up a lot of english words here )

[SpencerH]

Re: Re: Re: There is a difference between the forums and the articles

Originally posted by Ludwig


No, it isn't.

You are the one who should read a definition of the word - since apparently you have absolutely no idea what it means.

In the first place, it is absolutely conceptually impossible for a private individual to engage in "censorship". But understanding that probably requires more ideological sophistication than you're capable of, so we'll let that go for a minute.

Markos is under no obligation to promote any one individual's writings by making them the "Weekly Column". He is perfectly entitled to choose from among the available submissions, by whatever criteria he wishes to employ. Book publishers reject some manuscripts, and accept others, every day. Recording labels accept some artists, and reject others, every day. Not every play written to be performed on Broadway gets performed. By your interpretation, all of the choices of this kind made by editors the world over constitute censorship. Such a notion would be, of course, absurd, since the essence of the absence of censorship is precisely the ability of editors to use their own, personal discretion to make these kinds of judgments.

Markos does two things here.

First, he provides, at his own expense, a forum where people can talk about Civ. He apparently intends to go right on providing that forum for you, at his expense, and you will be free to write whatever you want on it. Posters here aren't allowed to swear or become abusive, and if you wanted to you might call THOSE limitations "censorship" - but those are the same posting restrictions that have always existed.

Second, he produces a website about Civ that has content above and beyond what is on the forums. He designs pages for each of the various games, and makes editorial decisions about what is newsworthy, what gets placed prominently, etc. He also sells advertising space on those pages. For some items, like the "Weekly Column" item, he also sends out an e-mail newsletter to participating members. Since every last item written in the English language every day can't fit on these pages or in his newletter, he engages in a process of selection - HE chooses what HE thinks is newsworthy, interesting, or relevant. This is what a publisher or editor DOES. And it isn't censorship - it's the publisher or editor exercising HIS freedom to choose and to speak, which is at least as important as yours. Actually, under American law, Markos would probably be able to claim journalist status, which gives him certain free-speech rights that are GREATER than yours. If you think you can do a better job at publishing items of information of interest to the Civ community, you are perfectly free to start your own site.

Websters definition from a previous post "an officer who examines written and printed matter with power to delete or suppress the contents"


Wonderful rant. I wish I was 15 again.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
... For instance, I agree that the visible trade routes from CtP were an excellent touch, and gave much more emphasis to the role of naval power in trade, without increasing micromanagement. ... My only other big issue is the way in which the disappearance of resources is calculated! I always felt that the base rate of disappearance should be based on the rarity of the resource (which is sought of is, now), but with the actual ratio being determined by the number of cities in your empire! ...

No! Blasphemy!!!
These two are quite good points, actually. Trade routes/piracy were fun (especially when I was doing the piracy). It isn't Civ3, though.

The only problem with the resource depletion is: "what would be the base number of cities?" Would the Optimal Cities number work well? Your # of cities grows as you get new strategic resources -- coal, aluminum, uranium.

[vondrack]

Re: Re: Re: Re: There is a difference between the forums and the articles

Originally posted by SpencerH
Websters definition from a previous post "an officer who examines written and printed matter with power to delete or suppress the contents"

Even this defition does not help your cause much: it is an officer, i.e. a bureaucrat given certain powers based on the decision of a parliament or government. A power not based on ownership of the media in question (media being examined).

Markos is the owner of this website and as such, is perfectly free to choose articles for his weekly column (you have absolutely no right to have your article posted as the column - OTOH, you do have the right to display it publicly in a forum thread, if it does not break the rules you promised to obey when registering your Apolyton account). Choosing column articles involves editorial decisions, not censorial.

Just BTW, here is another definition (coming from the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English):

censor an official who examines printed matter, films, or (sometimes in war) private letters with the power to remove anything offensive or (in war) helpful to enemy.

Again, you can see that it must be an official. Markos is not an official, he is the owner of this site.

[Ludwig]

Actually, even MORE important in that definition is the concept of the ability to "delete or suppress".

Refraining from personally publishing somebody else's garbage, at your own expense, is not deletion or suppression. Seizing all copies of the article and burning them, or making it illegal for ANYONE ELSE to publish them - including the author himself - is deletion or suppression. As long as the author has the opportunity to make his own damn website or publishing company or whatever, and I don't have the power to stop him, no decision of mine constitutes deletion or suppression.

By the way, I'm not 15. And I will take the lack of an actual response on your part, other than a half-ass referral to a definition you STILL don't understand, as an admission that you really don't have anything to say. Then again, you admitted as much, without realizing it, when both of your posts demonstrated that you are unable to distinguish between private and public action, a basic requirement before any discussion of censorship.

[SpencerH]

By the way, I'm not 15. And I will take the lack of an actual response on your part, other than a half-ass referral to a definition you STILL don't understand, as an admission that you really don't have anything to say. Then again, you admitted as much, without realizing it, when both of your posts demonstrated that you are unable to distinguish between private and public action, a basic requirement before any discussion of censorship..

I didn’t respond to your previous vitriolic rant because I didn’t feel like doing so, but since you seem to require confrontation and I have a few minutes….

Actually, even MORE important in that definition is the concept of the ability to "delete or suppress".

I absolutely agree.

At the center of censorship Refraining from personally publishing somebody else's garbage, at your own expense, is not deletion or suppression. Seizing all copies of the article and burning them, or making it illegal for ANYONE ELSE to publish them - including the author himself - is deletion or suppression. As long as the author has the opportunity to make his own damn website or publishing company or whatever, and I don't have the power to stop him, no decision of mine constitutes deletion or suppression.

I infer from this and your previous posts that you broadly agree with the Webster’s and Funk and Wagnels definitions that censorship is only a governmental action. AFAIK those definitions were developed over 100 years ago and IMO are outdated (I appeared to agree with the Webster’s definition only by virtue of my personal interpretation of the “officer” or “official”). So the question becomes can non-governmental organizations or individuals act as censors? What are some more modern definitions of censorship? Are there modern examples where censorship is used in a more broad sense than that which you appear to espouse? Here are some examples from the web.

“I'll begin by pointing out that the phrases government censorship and governmental censorship can be found via Web search. If only governments can censor, then these phrases would be redundant, wouldn't they? Actually, they are examples of retronyms, phrases that come into being when a word acquires a new meaning and a qualifier is needed to distinguish between the old and the new. The Free On-Line Dictionary Of Computing defines a retronym as...
A term invented to distinguish a subclass of things from new members of the superclass, where the distinction was previously not necessary, since the old subclass had been all there was of the superclass.
A classic example is the manual transmission. In the early days of automobiles, all transmissions were manual. A transmission was a transmission; nobody ever said manual transmission. Then automatics came along, and eventually, in the USA, became the default for cars and light trucks. Now if you want manual, you must say so!
In a similar fashion, the phrase parental censorship is found to be quite common on the Web. If only governments can censor, then what is parental censorship? “

http://www.kafejo.com/iq/mensa/censorwu.htm

I consider my regulation of what my children are exposed to on TV and the internet “parental-censorship”. What else is it?

“Censor: verb transitive; to make deletions or changes in, especially with the view toward suppressing and preventing certain ideas or concepts from the public awareness”

http://users.htcomp.net/apt/Contents/Lexicon/Censor.htm

This definition does not require governmental action or the extreme measures you mention.

"Self-censorship takes place when an individual who has an alternative political viewpoint, instead of articulating it, chooses to evaluate the consequences. Based on a supposedly rational calculation of the situation, individuals opt to modify their political opinion or refrain from expressing it altogether, especially, when its against the ruling regime." http://www.sfdonline.org/Link%20Page...s/220201b.html

Personally, I think this is too narrow a definition of self-censorship since I don’t agree that self-censorship should be limited to political views.

This website is a discussion of censorship in the context of libraries in Canada http://www.ucalgary.ca/~ispage/Lorne.html and it addresses the concepts of structural-censorship, state-censorship, private-censorship, among other forms of censorship that effect what information may be .

Clearly there are many forms of censorship that are accepted uses of the term beyond your myopic viewpoint.

When done by a private enterprise, such as the editor of a magazine or website, the removal or suppression of objectionable material is viewed as editorial control. I use a more expansive definition of censorship, “any action by one person that makes otherwise available information unavailable to another person”. By this definition “editorial control” is censorship. By and of itself, I don’t view this type of censorship as “evil” and I accept that editors have the right to decide what they publish. The intent of such editorial decisions must be taken into account, however, when we judge the appropriateness of those actions. For example, if Markos was being paid a fee by Firaxis and they had taken objection to the negative comments in the column and that was the reason for the suppression of dissenting views would you be so quick to deny that such “editorial control” was private-censorship?

I clearly said that Markos had the right to censor what is on this website, but it is censorship.