Eternal China Syndrome

East Street Trader · January 11, 2001, 12:23

I had a look at the Civ 3 suggestions forum and came across a reference to the Eternal China Syndrome.

Can anyone give me a brief description?

Albert B · January 11, 2001, 14:43

The China Syndrome is a reference to some type of nuclear plant meltdown. There was even an American movie by that name back in the late 70's/early 80's about it. I don't recall the details but I believe it is a play on the idea of "digging to china" which I'm sure is an American concept(/euphonism) that isn't worth explaining...

Anyway, my best guess of an eternal china syndrome would be some kind of idea that a reactor meltdown would become an ongoing problem, rather than a one-time effect within the game? If not, I'm sure someone else will be along shortly with a better explanation. I hoped that helps a little.

DaveV · January 11, 2001, 15:09

Logical conclusion, Albert B, but not what they mean on Civ 3, I think. As I understand it, the complaint is that if a civ jumps out to an early lead in population and tech (like China in the Real World), that lead continues to widen and that civ will end up winning.

East Street Trader · January 12, 2001, 09:45

That makes sense in context, DaveV, so thanks.

You'll be sad (?) to hear it was linked with ICS as a weakness in the game.

In my own view, imperfect (and a little crude) though all the "balancing" factors are, the designers deserve a great deal of credit for keeping the level of challenge up right through to the end (in an AC game anyway).

Gatekeeper · January 14, 2001, 03:38

quote:

Originally posted by DaveV on 01-11-2001 02:09 PM
Logical conclusion, Albert B, but not what they mean on Civ 3, I think. As I understand it, the complaint is that if a civ jumps out to an early lead in population and tech (like China in the Real World), that lead continues to widen and that civ will end up winning.

DaveV, et al.:

Why would somebody be complaining about that? Hey, if the AI civilization(s) get a jump on me and kick my butt in the end because of a good start, then so be it. Lesson learned. Play better the next time. That's how it works IRL ... except that a nation, once beaten down, usually cannot "quit" out of the "game" and/or replay certain moves.

CYBERAmazon

Theben · January 15, 2001, 04:48

quote:

Originally posted by CYBERAmazon on 01-14-2001 02:38 AM
DaveV, et al.:

Why would somebody be complaining about that? Hey, if the AI civilization(s) get a jump on me and kick my butt in the end because of a good start, then so be it. Lesson learned. Play better the next time. That's how it works IRL ... except that a nation, once beaten down, usually cannot "quit" out of the "game" and/or replay certain moves.

CYBERAmazon

I think the complaint was made because it benefitted the player too much...and made victory too easy.

Gatekeeper · January 15, 2001, 15:49

Theben:

Okay, count me as slightly confused. I cannot see how having a superpower AI — especially early on — can benefit the human player in the long run. Then again, I'm not the type to filch techs ... so that's sort of a self-imposed "leveler" from the get-go.

Unless one considers the "nice" treatment one gets for being less than all-powerful a good thing. Which I think it is, as the AI tends to ignore you for hundreds, if not thousands, of game-time years.

CYBERAmazon

Bereta_Eder · January 15, 2001, 18:21

quote:

the designers deserve a great deal of credit for keeping the level of challenge up right through to the end (in an AC game anyway).

And that's what they had in mind according to civ 3 website. Civ 1 (and civ 2 but not so as civ 1)was not about... war!

Of course that was before the factor of impredictability i.e. resourceful players came to the play and found new ways!