c#211 CIV3: THE LAST GLASS OF WINE

[vondrack]

Originally posted by SpencerH
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.

While your long post was somewhat difficult to digest, as it mostly plays with words, as if we needed to define what censorship is, the above-quoted part is actually a perfect proof of that Markos does not censor what appears on this website. Why? He does not make anything otherwise available unavailable to other people. He simply decided not to give certain opinions a priviliged exposure. Anyone and everyone is free to post his/her article in the forums. He is not preventing other people from spreading their word. He just no longer helps them to, as he does not consider it appropriate.

So, even if "editorial control" as done by newspaper editors is a certain form of censorship (I truly believe it is not), what Markos does here can not be called a censorship even from this "expansive" definition.

[SpencerH]

vondrack

I think our disagreement over the meaning of "censorship" stems from the negative connotations of totalitarian goverments that the word conjures up. IMO there are legitimate and illegitimate uses of censorship from both governmental and private perspectives. My comments to Markos were aimed at one interpretation of his comments i.e. that he would not publish articles that were negative of CIV3. Apolyton is an important/popular CIV site that has (and has had) influence in this gaming genre. Therefore, refusing to publish negative comment is an illegitimate use of censorship IMO (although it is his right to do so). Another interpretation is that he wont publish any badly written "rants". IMO that is a perfectly legitimate use of censorship.

[MarkG]

Spencer, i suppose that the fact that these articles have been 70% of the content of the column the last 8 months doesnt affect at all your characterizations...

[Jaybe]

70%??! Seems more like 95%!
(Sorry. No I didn't tally them; just my impression as I STARTED to read each one, often not finishing it).

[SpencerH]

Markos, I'm not sure what characterizations you're referring to. If 70% of the column content has been negative of CIV3, then I agree that it doesnt reflect the majority of the members views. Therefore I understand (and support) your decision to give the positive-perspective of CIV3 more "airtime" but a blanket-refusal to publish the negative views is not appropriate. The public can read lots of glowing fluff about CIV3 on many other commercial gaming websites. Its only at sites like Apolyton that they can read alternative views.

[Proserpine]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Markos, I'm not sure what characterizations you're referring to. If 70% of the column content has been negative of CIV3, then I agree that it doesnt reflect the majority of the members views. Therefore I understand (and support) your decision to give the positive-perspective of CIV3 more "airtime" but a blanket-refusal to publish the negative views is not appropriate. The public can read lots of glowing fluff about CIV3 on many other commercial gaming websites. Its only at sites like Apolyton that they can read alternative views.

Tee hee "glowing fluff"! I love it. It's a beautiful image.

[Harovan]

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.

Is this the guy who can't even spell CTP correctly and is constantly writing CPT?

[JNL]

From the article : "there should be
more iron and coal spread around or don't tie it into unit production. However, it does give a "race for the oil" approach"

That gives the impression that, historically, only the race for the oil was accurate. But actually, the main goal for Germany at the beginning of WWI was to occupy the Western part of Lorraine, in which coal and iron had been discovered after they annexed the Eastern part in 1870/71.

It should also be noted that France, both after WWI and WWII, occupied and thought of annexing Saarland, a Lander full of iron and coal..

[DirkZelwis]

Hello!
To rorymacleod: Thanks for considering.
1) I know about grass and despotism. And you probably know about plains and despotism.
2) Desert: Not 20, I could only see 9 squares. Plains no, flood plains yes.
3) Hills: Not good. I need 3 population for a settler, because I loose 2.
4) Tundra: This not only means no good city growth, but one starts way off of other civ's. No other civ's=no trade. And one can easily be cornered/ arrested. In Civ2 I once did that to the Russians behind a bottleneck; in 1900AD they still had one city.
5) No mixed terrain: Yes, no start is perfect. The question for the whole terrain issue is: Why is the location more often worse than in Civ2? (which is my impression)
6) City building: Yes, nearly the same as in Civ2. So, no need to buy Civ3.
7) Egyptian war chariot: Sorry, it was not a lone archer. It was a good, strong defensive position with 2 spearmen and 2 archers. 1 archer did the counter-attack after the chariot had attacked and retreated.
8) Sneak attacks after 1750: No, my complaint is the Civ3-civs (no AI in Civ3) are as predictable *as in Civ2*. Again, a reason not to buy Civ3 (if you have Civ2).
9) Manual and We Love The ...: Not much in the Civilopedia, just "less corruption" and "less likely to revolt". If that's all, why is there no note in "What's changed"?
10) Software developer + bugs: Sorry, no. With some, well, lots of good will one *can* find the one missing semicolon in 65536 million lines of code. And patches: Do you wear trousers with patches? I sometimes do. :-)
Please don't get me wrong, I could have written "10 reasons to buy.." almost as easily. But that was not my intention. Part of my intention maybe was to give some hints to Civ4.
Bye, Dirk
"Dirks and Daggers"

[Grumbold]

Limiting columns to well written, well argued and original posts would be very welcome.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by DirkZelwis
2) Desert: Not 20, I could only see 9 squares. Plains no, flood plains yes.

Geeze! And what ELSE would you like? Floodplains are GREAT for an early city - you can pump out settlers quicker than in grasslands. Also, next time, consider moving the worker (and the settler, too) around a bit to see more of your surroundings... I can't believe you would not be able to get an acceptable location within 5 turns.

Originally posted by DirkZelwis
3) Hills: Not good. I need 3 population for a settler, because I loose 2.
4) Tundra: This not only means no good city growth, but one starts way off of other civ's. No other civ's=no trade. And one can easily be cornered/ arrested. In Civ2 I once did that to the Russians behind a bottleneck; in 1900AD they still had one city.
5) No mixed terrain: Yes, no start is perfect. The question for the whole terrain issue is: Why is the location more often worse than in Civ2? (which is my impression)

Entirely your impression ONLY. The landscape generator is very good and it is rather rare that I get a really bad starting position. And I have started way more than 20 games, believe me... It just seems to me that one can hardly imagine a place that would make you happy. You are apparently not ok with: desert, floodplains, plains, tundra, hills, and may I suppose, mountains... Geeze, do you really want to get just shielded grasslands with cows and wheat? I know I am exagerrating, but what really matters for your first city is two or three good tiles to make it produce few scouting units and some settlers ASAP. The rest is up to you - there are hundreds of tiles around!

Originally posted by DirkZelwis
10) Software developer + bugs: Sorry, no. With some, well, lots of good will one *can* find the one missing semicolon in 65536 million lines of code. And patches: Do you wear trousers with patches? I sometimes do. :-)

Apparently, you know absolutely nothing about real programming, otherwise you would know that bugs are hardly ever produced by missing semicolons. IRL, bugs appear as a result of that the programmer was not able to - beforehand - cover every single combination of this and that... there is no simple way to find out, as it is not a matter of just going through the code, looking for missing semicolons (sorry, that just turned me on). You have to do your best thinking of every single possible combination of tens or hundreds of factors. No surprise that programmers always fail and bugs are found only during beta tests and later (now, complaining about rush beta tests would be something different... they were apparently not done very thoroughly for the original Civ3, but it's been discussed over and over, why).

I do not get your idea with the patched trousers. If you really want to draw a parallel, then getting a patch for a software program is much like getting one's flawed trousers replaced with brand new ones that do not have the flaw any more (and sometimes have an extra handy pocket not included in the original release).

[DirkZelwis]

Hello!

Originally posted by vondrack
Floodplains are GREAT for an early city

I don't think floodplains are that great. I don't want diseases in my Capital. And I'm not looking for an early city, I'm looking for a place for a Capital for the next 4000 years.

Entirely your impression ONLY.

Probably not. Do you know *all* players of Civ3? If not, IMM you're lying. And even if, where is the argument?

what really matters for your first city is two or three good tiles

As I said before, I'm planning for a city for the next 4000 years, which probably will have 16 or more workers.

Apparently, you know absolutely nothing about real programming,

Yep. Apparently. :-)

You have to do your best thinking of every single possible combination of tens or hundreds of factors.

Is your argument "It is more difficult to look for 1000 combinations than to look for 10 combinations" ? Yes, 1000 is more than 10.

I do not get your idea with the patched trousers. If you really want to draw a parallel, then getting a patch for a software program is much like getting one's flawed trousers replaced with brand new ones that do not have the flaw any more (and sometimes have an extra handy pocket not included in the original release).

And how would a second or third patch fit into your picture? I think, the additional patches for Civ3 destroyed your picture. If you want to argue with still more pockets, I may say, no thanks.

In general, I think patches for software are neither a necessity nor a good thing. Think of the honest buyer without Internet access. Is he treated honestly by the software company? Where could he possibly get the patches? Have you/ has anybody ever tried to get a patch from a software store?

Bye, Dirk
"Dirks and Daggers"

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by DirkZelwis

In general, I think patches for software are neither a necessity nor a good thing. Think of the honest buyer without Internet access. Is he treated honestly by the software company? Where could he possibly get the patches? Have you/ has anybody ever tried to get a patch from a software store?

I think this is an interesting viewpoint. Certainly, I have not thought of before and I havent seen it elsewhere in the threads.

[Coracle]

Interesting indeed.

It occurs to me that the vast majority of people who bought or received Civ 3 never got around to checking the sites for downloads and patches. I'll bet that majority is still playing it pre-first patch, and are none too pleased about it.

[Maquiladora]

This is what fuels the games magazines. Not those rank demos they post on the front. When i had no internet access i would buy those simply for the patches and extra stuff.