2 different kinds of gamers?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jamski
*giggles* I think its Tory.
The progress of the human race to its ultimate victory and domination of the "lesser" nations... Civ3 will raise a nation of conservatives.

-Jam

The ultimate victory is for a particular social-political system - which is INDEPENDENT of racial or national origin, since all nations/Civs start out identically. Now Civ3, where they DONT start out identically may be something else again. Which is why I thought that UUs and CSA's were most uncivish, in a most important way. Reversing the fundamental lesson of Civ2.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



The ultimate victory is for a particular social-political system - which is INDEPENDENT of racial or national origin, since all nations/Civs start out identically.

And where does the 'social-political system' come in? I could maybe see you saying that for SMAC, where there is civil engineering, but civ? Nationalities and race are more prominent than some sort of unique social-political system in Civ2. Atleast the civs each get their own colour and ethnic identy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld


And where does the 'social-political system' come in? I could maybe see you saying that for SMAC, where there is civil engineering, but civ? Nationalities and race are more prominent than some sort of unique social-political system in Civ2. Atleast the civs each get their own colour and ethnic identy.

yeah the players are nations/civs - but they have to move to late democracy to win. Thats my interpretation of the game design. I realize others have different interpretations.

[Jamski]

I see Civ3 as a purely racist game. The "game-world" (as in the world depicted by the game mechanics) depicts different cultural or ethinic groups ranged against each other to the death. You "convert" other civs to your culture, eliminating the native culture. You convert the people in conquered cities even...

It ain't pretty.

-Jam

[General Ludd]

I see Civ3 as being a crappy game, personally. But to me, civ in general is all about megalomania, jingoism, and rabid aggrandizing.

And what's this nonsense about having to become a democracy to win?

[lord of the mark]

1. I havent played civ3. my comments all refer to civ2

2. Have you actually read the column i linked to above?

3. This is not the place for a discussion of the optimal civ 2 strat, (which may not be the one the designers intended, in any case) I hope you can at least see HOW if Demo is favored this COULD relate to certain political ideas. I suppose I'll have to write another column, but im not sure a column on Civ2 would be well received at this point.

[General Ludd]

I wasn't talking about strategies, I was talking about your assumption that democracy is some how favored - all the governments have pros and cons. Democracy lets you develop techs quicker, but it's more corrupt and you can't maintain an army very easily. Fanatacism slows research, but you can have a massive amount of military. And communism is a sort of efficient middle ground.

[lord of the mark]

"Democracy lets you develop techs quicker, but it's more corrupt "


Are we talking about Civ2???

[lord of the mark]

"you can't maintain an army very easily."

er, thats why its LATE Demo thats powerful, once youve gotten lots of factories, manufacturing plants, and power plants (and ideally Hoovers - like historic US) Gettting TO late demo there are different paths - via early demo or republic, or via Fundie if youre in a position where your geography forces you to fight (historic Germany) or Commie, if you have a spread out, relatively undeveloped state with need to fight (historic Russia) Fundie you switch to demo when you can no longer expand by war (1945) and commie you switch when youve achieved a high enough level of industry (1991 - well actually by this view they should have switched sometime in the late '60s - obviously Brezhnev was waiting for an Oedo year )

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"Democracy lets you develop techs quicker, but it's more corrupt "


Are we talking about Civ2???

Yes. It's been a while since I played, but I'm pretty certain corruption under democracy is worse compared to the other modern governments. Or maybe it's just that communism had less corruption. I don't remember which.

"you can't maintain an army very easily."

er, thats why its LATE Demo thats powerful, once youve gotten lots of factories, manufacturing plants, and power plants (and ideally Hoovers - like historic US) Gettting TO late demo there are different paths - via early demo or republic, or via Fundie if youre in a position where your geography forces you to fight (historic Germany) or Commie, if you have a spread out, relatively undeveloped state with need to fight (historic Russia) Fundie you switch to demo when you can no longer expand by war (1945) and commie you switch when youve achieved a high enough level of industry (1991 - well actually by this view they should have switched sometime in the late '60s - obviously Brezhnev was waiting for an Oedo year )

What, so you switch democracy after you've already gotten most of the techs and built factories ect..? Pretty silly. In "late" terms, the game favors Fanatacism. Research the techs with democracy, and then switch to fanatacism and have the best of both worlds.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Osweld


Yes. It's been a while since I played, but I'm pretty certain corruption under democracy is worse compared to the other modern governments. Or maybe it's just that communism had less corruption. I don't remember which.



What, so you switch democracy after you've already gotten most of the techs and built factories ect..? Pretty silly. In "late" terms, the game favors Fanatacism. Research the techs with democracy, and then switch to fanatacism and have the best of both worlds.

1. ISTR no corruption under Demo in civ2. Thats what gives demo the money/tech boost versus Republic.
2. Its called Fundamentalism in civ2, not fanaticism
3. IIUC its widely noted that fundie was overpowered in civ2, beyond what the designers intended. And of course you can have hoovers and factories and even manufacturing plants, and still have techs to research. But like i said, i dont want a civ2 strat discussion. I think fundie was clearly intended as an alternate path for countries that cant support demo in war.

[Dis]

fundy and democracry ruled in Civ2. 10 free units!!. And no corruption/waste!!. the only thing hurting is your science rate, but you could get that by conquering.

democracy had no corruption/waste either. The only con was army management (happiness and cost)

[Qilue]

But you would need a new clasification system due to the different kinds of gratuitous sex and nudity people would want.

But back on topic. Classifying gamers by what games they play is hardly accurate. I have played and had fun playing Medieval Total War, Freelancer, Morrowind, Diablo 2, X2 the Threat, Starfleet Command, Civ 3 just to name a few. Each I liked for completely different reasons.

On a side note, those of you wanting to do something similiar to Custer's Last Stand, get a hold of MTW along with the x-pac Viking Invasion and play Russians (any era). The Golden Horde will give you a new benchmark for 'outnumbered'.