quote:![]() Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 01-22-2001 02:02 AM What you are not taking into account is multiplayer. Human players start wars with democracies precisely to achieve that outcome - a change of government. I think it is unfair. ![]() |
I dont say that Civ-democracys must switch government just to defend their own homelands. Such limits would be very unfair. If any AI-military units (or multiplayer enemy-units) barge in over your borders and starts to pillage improved tiles, or attack units & cities in your democracy - then you always automatically get full permission to retaliate - of course.
What im against is that civ-democracys so easily can continue their wars abroad, in Civ-2. Its simply too easy to conquer-and-keep one AI-civ after the other, Napoleon-style, under the sanctimonious pretext of "peacekeeping". Too easy to ignore enemy-diplomats asking for cease-fire, and too easy to reload games to overcome the 50/50% senate-veto. This has to change in Civ-3 - both seen from a real-life viewpoint and in terms of civ-3 game-balancing.
Just being a civ-democracy carry in itself so many manufactural, economical, scientifical and military defence advantages, compared to other government forms. Isnt that enough?
Why should it, on top of that, be possible (under democracy) to carry out Napoleon/Alexander-style land-grabbing conquering-wars as well?
The way I look at it, playing Civ-3 must be more of a balancing-act challenge; meaning every government-form has its nice benefits and hard-to-swallow trade-offs. Now, democracy-civs have powerful advantages in no less the three very important areas (economy, science, production), but only the inadequate unit-unhappiness and the senat 50/50% veto-disadvantage. Its not enough. Its too unbalanced.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 22, 2001).]
Comment