Ok, Last Time....Why We DONT need Specific Civ-Bonuses

[King Richard]

I'm not sure that this will be the case! What if the cultural significance of your civilization is the thing that desides your research, economy, happiness and maybe even production? A certain improvement would then give you the power to build a unit, trade over longer distances etc. A bit revolusionary perhaps? But if the culture-points of building a wonder is great enough, there will not be a need for further bonuses.

[SerapisIV]

In the CGW article there was talk about linking some unit production to resources. I don't think that they'd add a culture requirement too for some additions. I think though that some improvements will open the door for possible Great Artist/Scientist units that were being debated about being put into the game.

About overpowered Wonder culture, I think that they won't be that strong culturaly. It sounds like culture is a long term thing, not a one-shot increase, but slow and steady rating
[This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 12, 2001).]

[King Richard]

If they are a long term thing, that means that the wonders that expand will continue its cultural influence, even though the effect stops. It will also mean that the first wonders you build have more significance than the more recent. Doesn't make much sense?!

[SerapisIV]

As Sid claimed in CGW, he wants to make the player question his guns v. butter decisions in the early game due to their long term effects. It the long term view that wins out in Civ. Thats the reasoning behind the long-term influence of wonders and culture

[King Richard]

This means that I will have to build even more buildings in the beginning of the game! I try to build every wonder anyway. In civ2 I never have any time to build units and other buildings because of the damn wonders! Call me a perfectionist, but I would be happy if I could build every wonder when it pleased me to do so. In history, not only the egyptians built the pyramids! I would get a disadvantage culturally anyway if I wait too long.

[Admiral PJ]

Wonders- I think they should give you a big bonus to culture EACH turn you have them, this would make a good gaming element and have some realism .. maybe as their novelty wears off you get less and less cultural points, but it would mean if captured another Civ would get culture points and make it worth their while. This is probably pretty obvious but it seems better than just a one off big dump of culture points.

Gammaray Fan/ Geographic bonuses - This sounds like a novel and good system. Perhaps this could simulate a psychological affect, so island nations find it difficult fighting on large continental plains for example.
I was thinking of relating geography bonuses to science research, in my own God game (called Mantra), which i can't go into in detail yet, which is a way i'm giving geog. bonuses.
How quickly your bonuses change would be interesting, maybe free democratic governments would do better than dogmatic religious governments..

[Maccabee2]

More options, all customizable. Civ beneficial traits, but only if *optional.* Too tired to expound. I suspect that all the best arguments have already been made. Just weighing in and voting, so to speak.

[Gammaray fan]

If everything in the game is totally customisable (from in-game) it wouldn't be a game. Certain things should be customisable (such as barbarian level), but CONCEPTS such as my model of a evolutionary civ-specific bonus system which is affected by multiple game factors (bottom of page 1 of this thread), are central to the game (just like diplomacy or trade or culture), and should not be able to be turned off. (Customisation from editing source text files is of course a completely different matter)Firaxis is no doubt well aware of the danger that over customisation brings, and thus the fact that no civ games have been able to turn of critical factors such as trade or diplomacy!

[Maccabee2]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-12-2001 08:56 PM I think though that some improvements will open the door for possible Great Artist/Scientist units that were being debated about being put into the game. [This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 12, 2001).]

I hope they implement this idea for including leaders in art and science. Artists and especially scientists have always had a much longer lasting impact on civilizations than generals. Who was greater, the metallurgist who discovered how to smelt iron and then forged swords with it, or the general who won the first battle with iron swords? Names of scientists and philosophers march through my mind: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Strabo, Pythagoras, Sun Tzu, Confucius, Pliny, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Copernicus, Galileo, Leonardo DaVinci, Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Rousseau, Voltaire, John Locke, Thomas Edison, Manconi, Neils Bohr, Albert Einstein, Immanuel Velikovsky. And I've just touched on the scientists/philosophers. I haven't even mentioned the artists who have changed the way we see our world.
Anyways, good night all.