Column #113; By Father Beast

[DanQ]

In the 113th installment of The Column entitled "Civilization III: Wargame or Development", Father Beast comandeers be not a warmonger, but rather let peace lead you down a more enlightened path.

Comments/questions, as always, are welcomed.

----------------
Dan; Apolyton CS

[The diplomat]

Couldn't agree with you more!
Obviously, if you look at history, there has been a lot of wars. But I don't think that civ3 should just be about war. I am very encouraged that Sid said that civ3 will emphasize more on trade. I believe that civ3 is about developping your civilization over time toward greatness. So, Civ3 should put most of the focus on trade, culture, domestic politics, religion and diplomacy (there is so much unexplored potential in those areas. With an emphasis on the civ's cultures, religions and domestic politics, civ3 could really improve the atmosphere of the game and give the player a much deeper feel for his/her civ) . Like in History, whenever different civilizations clash and dissagree, there is a risk of war. So, there would still be plenty of opportunities for armed conflict. But civ3 is not a wargame. War should be a means not an end.

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited April 29, 2000).]

[raingoon]

Agreed -- whole heartedly.

[Atahualpa]

I agree, but I dont share your fears. Sid mentioned that they will greatly improve Diplomacy and the fact, that minor nations are in, gives you also more peaceful/warful options.
I dont mind, if the game gets a bit more action, but I dont think this goes to far. I have confidence in Sid Meier, he is the man, who knows what to do!

ATa

[Jon Miller]

agree on both counts, and I am afraid that firaxis will make it as foolish as ctp

Jon Miller

[Grier]

I agree. Most of my military action is defence of my borders until the final push at the end of the game. Although I disagree that the military side of the game is not important. Although civ is not a war game, a poor simulation of war will IMO make it a poor game. My moto would be "if you're going to include somthing, then do it well or dont do it at all". Personally I would perfer a comabt system such as the one in Imperialism, but thats just my preference.

So really I do agree that civ3 should not just be civ2 but with better comabat, instead it should also concentrate on other areas of the game.

[Temudschin]

Civilization III must have a improved diplomatic and religious system, but combat is very important, just look at the real history.

------------------
The ruler of the known world
Temudschin Dschingis Khan

[general_charles]

This is a quote from one of my other messages:

"I do agree that the point of civ is not to make a realistic war game, there are other great games for this, but is it realistic to have military units the way they were, is it realistic that when you had 10 riflemen in one square and you get attacked by 1 musketeer that gets lucky and kills you, how can you say that it actually killed the nine others by doing nothing???
I think that an idea that was brought up and which consists on giving a goal to your army is quite good, for example, you are germany and you attack the russians, just say: "take Stalingrad", what else could Hitler do to make sure his troops did succeed???
However, to compensate this lack of control of your troops, you should be able to control how your troops get reinforcement, fuel, munitions, etc..."



------------------
-- Capitalism slaughterer --