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

[SerapisIV]

I think that for Firaxis' sake that civ-specific bonuses will not be included, not for any gameplay reasons, but to avoid any claims of racism, prejudice, etc that people will inappropriately read into something that is just a game after all.

I think though that one of the most successful things about SMAC was the modifying aspects of gov't/society. Combine this with culture and a refined gov't system (I'm sure it won't even be anything close to CivII's rigid system) and the civ modifiers will adapt to how you want to play as a civilization, not due to a pre-chosen bonuses

[Deathwalker]

I agree no unique civs, if england had been in the middle oiain they would not have been good sailours. Make civ the same and klet the players adjust them.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[MrFun]

I have a question - what about giving a bonus to democracy and republic governments to make it easier for them to force nations of other races to accept dictatorships and repressive regimes?

The United States has supported dictatorships and military regimes from the 1930s to the present day. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the president who implemented the "Good" Neighbor policy, forced military dictatorships on several Latin American countries.

Could this republic or democratic principle be represented in Civilization III somehow?

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by MrFun on 04-11-2001 01:48 PM I have a question - what about giving a bonus to democracy and republic governments to make it easier for them to force nations of other races to accept dictatorships and repressive regimes? The United States has supported dictatorships and military regimes from the 1930s to the present day. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the president who implemented the "Good" Neighbor policy, forced military dictatorships on several Latin American countries. Could this republic or democratic principle be represented in Civilization III somehow?

I'll ignore the obvious affront to my country here, and say in our support that the USA has also tried to oppose these opressive regimes, like those of Castro, Milosevic, and Hussein.

Anyway, this is not a good idea. Can you give me an example of another democracy that has done this? This policy is a result of the people in government at the time, and does not represent democracy as a principle. This again is a leader's decision and should not be stuck to the government in general.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited April 11, 2001).]

[MrFun]

Um -- I am a native born American in Iowa, if you have read below my member name. Plus, I'm white (German anscetry). I'm also a history major student as well -- it's just plain facts that the United States will support dictatorships in opposition to communist governments.

Not to mention that overseas American businesses also finance dictatorships for profit in other countries while enslaving native people today on starvation wages. But those are just facts -- not opinions.

[Cyclotron]

quote: Not to mention that overseas American businesses also finance dictatorships for profit in other countries while enslaving native people today on starvation wages. But those are just facts -- not opinions.

I would argue against this, but I think this is better for the OT or if you want to message me. For the record, I disagree with both your points.

You still haven't answered my question: Can you tell me of another democracy that has done this? I say again, the policies and events you are talking about are a result of one country and one government. They are not representative of democracies as a whole. Therefore, there is no reason that a Democracy in Civ3 should be representative of these traits... rather, you as the player would make such policies.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Sirotnikov]

quote: Originally posted by Admiral PJ on 04-10-2001 07:05 PM Oh I forgot- Like in SMAC , If your having different ending/winning rules, this goes well with civilisation specific bonuses.. as different civs can win with different winnings strategies, so a civ with an economic bonus can win best by getting the most money, enough to buy out all the other countries and win this route. A civ with a culture bonus can win by being the greatest culture ever, if this is a winning condition. This could make it fairer , as you don't just need to have a big millitary complex and army to win.. some other civ can win by researching the greatest technology known to man and win.. Speaking of which what will happen to the spaceship win condition? I guess thats in another thread.. bye for now, time to dream about civ3 in bed

But why should I choose both the civ and the path even before I start the game??

I want to grow my civ according to changes and developements made in other countries and made in my country. If I decide on a play style in advance and stick to it It'll be boring. I already know what I am going to do. I already have confined myself to a specific playing style. This is exactly the reason why such games, SMAC and many RTS games are nothing but fads. They have alot of hype around them. For a year if they're lucky. And then everyone dumps them and moves to the next. This is not replayability.

The stupidest thing I've heard is that it simulates history, It doesn't as in history leaders were always open to choise, had no goals set from the beginning to end and learned to sruvive by adapting and changing their goals once in a while.

The claim that it is more fun or easier to play means that who ever is talking just doesn't realise the meaning of civ, and should be better off playing some AoE or Red Alert and not civ. We are talking Civ here, not semi-historical SMAC.

I agree, this could be a major possibility in Scenarios, but please, OPEN YOUR EYES! The latest Civ game ToT, added a whole bunch of masks for the costumization of Civs. That means, I can, when creating a scenario, set the special charachteristics and limitations on each civ. What units it has, what it can explore, what pluses it has. This is good. THis should develop.

However in no case should this invade the true, main single player game.

I know many people voted to have that as an option. This is because they have faith it will be well implemented and interesting to play. This is because they want to compomise with peple who want it. This does not mean they will recieve it well if this is the only option.

I have been protesting against pre made and unchanging attitudes for more than a year now. I kept suggesting and supporting the implementaition of random leaders to each civ, perhaps even from a preset of X possible leaders for civ. I also suggested and supported that these attitudes will change randomly (but not always randomly) during the game.

The romans weren't always fearce conquerors. The germans are now far from what they have been 1500 years ago. The french and english turned from warriors to one of the most pacifistic nations on the planet. This is what made them continue while other didn't. This is why the Ottoman empire fell. Change, developement. Knowing to see where the world is headed and be there first. This is true civ. this is reality. Not some 7 pre molded civs!

And another point very similar to the previous ones. Please take your time and read the article by Lazarus and the Gimp titeled "Know your Enemy". Think about it. Desn't it sounds suspiciously like a game of SMAC? Doesn't it sound boring if you always played with THE SAME 7 types of players? And they always followed THE SAME exact developement path? Wouldn't you be tired of THE SAME people after only a few months? I know I was. This is why I played SMAC no more than 10 times.

[SerapisIV]

quote: Originally posted by MrFun on 04-11-2001 08:03 PM it's just plain facts that the United States will support dictatorships in opposition to communist governments.

I believe the point here is not democracy supporting dictatorships, but the natural opponenents that Democracy/Capitalism and Communism are. This could be reflected in an AI which while communist, is more aggressive towards democracies. I don't know how Firaxis could force human players to have this animosity though toward commie AI. This idea is dependent on the way gov't is handled in CivIII, none of the every 3 year revolutions between fundamentalism and democracy for wars and peace.

[MrFun]

At this point, I cannot recall any other republic or democracy nation that has its national policy in support of dictatorships.

Anyway, if there is enough interest from others, this discussion will continue in the Off-Topic section. When you go there, just look for this topic's post under my name.

Hope to have all you guys contribute to my intellectual capacity to articulate sosphisicated concepts intelligently and concisely.

[Gammaray fan]

the general gist of peoples responses seems to be that they support civ-specific bonuses, but not predetermined ones. I believe I have a system whereby this could be implemented.
A civ's bonuses should be linked to geography, cultural level, wonders, and foreign relations.
GEOGRAPHY: The computer should calculate the total amount of each type of terrain (sea, mountain, grassland etc.) that is contained within the civ's cities radius's, divided by the number of cities, and generate bonuses accordingly. These bonuses should take time to accumalate (several turns?) For example: England and Japan would both receive naval bonuses (if playing on Earth), Scandinavians would receive military bonuses (because surrounded by harsh terrain)
WONDERS: wonders could also confer certain benefits (capturing them would not mean these benefits change hands - only the buiilder gets them) They should also be grouped into about 7 categories (assuming that there are 7 civs) such as sea, river-based (ie. irrigation bonuses etc), desert based etc. Building wonders contrary to your type of civ (determined by geography) would reduce geography bonuses but still confer the bonus of those wonders. This would allow flexibility in the sort of bonuses your civ could have. (eg. slightly seafaring, but also slight bonus on land defence)
FOREIGN RELATIONS: actions such as declaring war, and signing trade pacts should also affect your bonuses. Even if you are geographically warlike, if you never meet other civs or you never declare war, this bonus should be reduced. A civ with a history of trading should naturally be better at trading than novices. Some might argue that this would unbalance the game, but it would not. Having military advantages mean that other advantages (such as irrigation bonuses, naval bonuses etc) are non-existent. Every civ would have its bonuses, unique to its geographical and political location - the difference between this system and SMAC's is simply that with this system, these values can be changed to suit your particular requirements, gradually, and throughout the game. It is similar to systems in role-playing games, where you pour a container of bonuses into whichever category you would like a bonus in. However, you can pour a bit into one bonus, a bit into another and so forth. The limit is the bonus points you possess. Because everyone has the same amount of bonus points, such a system does not unbalance the game!
CULTURAL LEVEL: finally, cultural level should affect the strength of each of the bonuses, and the time it takes for bonuses to take effect (if you want to change the ratio of bonuses to sea and defence for example).

I believe this system makes everyone happy, without unbalancing the game!
Comments?

[Cyclotron]

Fan (okay nickname?),

I think that Civ benefits from your history are a great idea, as opposed to pre-determined ones. I'm not sure exactly how they would be implemented, but some ideas have been brought up before very similar to yours. The idea of culture is one that could definitly be used, and could be very powerful. Think of the Albanian rebels fighting the Macedonians now... culture could even be a military factor if it was taken far enough.

[King Richard]

Since the wonders are going to effect culture, does this mean that the previous effects of wonders (free granaries etc.) will disappear?

[SerapisIV]

I don't think so, I think that culture is an just an added layer to the game, it isn't a replacement for the tried and true mechanics of Civ (the screenshots show that much, this game will be evolutionary for Civ, not revolutionary)

[King Richard]

I'm not sure what to feel about this, but if the effects of wonders is still there + the cultural bonus, then you'll have a double bonus if you build one (or all, like I prefer...). This sounds like too big a bonus to beleive! If not every civilization have specific wonders to build, that have the same effects as the equivalent with the other civs. But then there is no point, is there?

[SerapisIV]

Yes but remember almost all city improvements give a culture bonus to some degree, why should wonders be different? Culture appears to be something that will be intertwined with all facets of your civ, such that your gov't, your social settings (if like SMAC), your city sizes, your tech level, your city improvements, your military, your wonders, all of these things effect your culture level in some way. While this has yet to be confirmed, it makes sense that it will be a multifaceted component, not just another resource like luxuries.
[This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 12, 2001).]