The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
But they don't care so much if they get hungry. They're fighting for God, after all.
-Jam
1) The crappy metaspam is an affront to the true manner of the artform. - Dauphin That's like trying to overninja a ninja when you aren't a mammal. CAN'T BE DONE. - Kassi on doublecrossing Ljube-ljcvetko
Check out the ALL NEW Galactic Overlord Website for v2.0 and the Napoleonic Overlord Website or even the Galactic Captians Website Thanks Geocities!
Taht 'ventisular link be woo to clyck.
Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
The game was released closely after 9/11. Perhaps they didn't want to intimidate some sentimental American patriots.
They announced that Fundamentalism was gone in early August 2001. Don't know about the planting nukes and poisoning the water supplies though.
"You're the biggest user of hindsight that I've ever known. Your favorite team, in any sport, is the one that just won. If you were a woman, you'd likely be a slut." - Slowwhand, to Imran
It seems to me that some kind of modern, authoritarian government form is required, by both actual historical experience and the needs of game play. Call it dictatorship, authoritarianism, fascism, fanaticism, a junta, whatever. But some manner of modern and militarily capable government form is need. Switching to monarchy or communism when you get surprised attacked in late game is just too ridiculous. (In this area, Civ 3 is a real step back from SMAC. I miss all those government permutations....)
I still am in two minds about whether Fundamentalism is a form of Government or not?
Doesn't fundamentalism describe the culture rather than the form of rulership?
A Nation governed by leaders ordained by God, giving them the divine right to rule sounds like a monachy to me.
I suppose Iran could be described as a despotic government, which supposes that it could become more democratic. Therefore its government 'type' is independent of it's fundamentalist Religious establishment..
(I apologise if I have slandered any Iranians, it was not my intention,...I am just showing my ignorance by using your nation as an example)
tis better to be thought stupid, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Originally posted by Th0mas
I still am in two minds about whether Fundamentalism is a form of Government or not?
Doesn't fundamentalism describe the culture rather than the form of rulership?
A Nation governed by leaders ordained by God, giving them the divine right to rule sounds like a monachy to me.
I suppose Iran could be described as a despotic government, which supposes that it could become more democratic. Therefore its government 'type' is independent of it's fundamentalist Religious establishment..
(I apologise if I have slandered any Iranians, it was not my intention,...I am just showing my ignorance by using your nation as an example)
hi ,
, fundamentalism could become a unique gov for civ with a religious trait , .......
, fundamentalism could become a unique gov for civ with a religious trait , .......
have a nice day
Yes, but that supposes there is something special about fundamentalism as a government type that isn't already in Monachy?
Does Civ 3 need another government type that prevents unhappyness and reduces the cost of maintaining military might for the price of a reduced science production? That still says Monachy to me.
I also believe the CIV 3 monachy government best describes real-world 'fundamentalist' states when compared with the CIV 2 fundamentalist government type. edit for grammer & spelling
Yes, but that supposes there is something special about fundamentalism as a government type that isn't already in Monachy?
Does Civ 3 need another government type that prevents unhappyness and reduces the cost of maintaining military might for the price of a reduced science production? That still says Monachy to me.
I also believe the CIV 3 monachy government best describes real-world 'fundamentalist' states when compared with the CIV 2 fundamentalist government type. edit for grammer & spelling
hi ,
monarchy is not the answer , most of those tend to have high corruption in the real world , ....
no , it should be something new , something extra like a gov only possible for lets say religous traits , and an other one available to all that fills the other gaps , like a dictarship or so , ..... no tanks can be supported ( or very few ) , troops in cities are needed or a major uprising happens , bandints roam the country and destroy improvements , ...... etc , ....
I gotta go with the fella a few posts back that said Civ3 was a real step back in governments from SMAC. I think (with the possible exception of "Green" economy governments) you can find every permutation of the Police State/Democractic/Fundamentalist government with FreeMarket/Planned economics and goals of Power/Wealth/Knowledge. (Hmm...maybe not knowledge either..... dunno?)
I was kinda hoping for more of the same, but alas.
So here's the real question: which countries would choose Future: Cybernetic/Eudaimonia/Though Control?
That was me. Thanks for the compliment. Expanded government posibilities should be a major part of any other x-pack to civ 3. Is there some way that request can be put into a list of issues for Firaxis (if it isn't already in there) ?
Comment