c#205 CIV3`S NOT SO GREAT LEAP FORWARD - Page 2

MarkG · May 30, 2002, 19:37

thank you for the terrific and so usefull addition to this thread Coracle!

Mas, you need to hire him in order to always explain your posts to even the most dumbest of us

SirSebastian · May 30, 2002, 19:44

MaS .. have you ever tried right clicking?

One thing I love about Civ III is the interface. You can't beat changing city production from the main map! I rarely go into the city screen once I build a city, and I never would if the governor's behaved just a little bit more rationally. Potentially cuts hours of time off of games.

Units in Cities: Visible by right-clicking
Zooming to City: Why? This is needed much less in Civ III, and is double-clicking that painful?
Wonder Movies: Eh? Fluff anyway.
Air Bombardment: WAYYY too powerful in SMAC, IIRC...
Terrain Manipulation: Please tell me you realize that one game is a sci-fi game and the other isn't?
Production Queue: Unneeded in Civ III (it's there but is cumbersome). Set governor's up correctly, then modify without ever entering the city screen.
What's the worker doing? : This is shown via an animation.. it's very clear.

Blackadar1 · May 30, 2002, 20:20

I call it as I see it, Mark - and I've been seeing it since November.

MarkG · May 30, 2002, 20:32

i'd love it if you could give some actual examples

here are some examples from your personal posting history: you've posted 66 times in 34 threads. 3 of them were closed. 1 was a typical Dissident troll. the other was a thread discussing the state of the forum instead of the actual topic of the forum(civ3) that ended up a spam paradise. and the third was a thread attacking whiners

if you want to continue insulting me and defaming our objectivity based on the above mentioned experience, well..... feel free to do it!

Blackadar1 · May 30, 2002, 22:27

Well, if I counted correctly there are no less than nine threads that have been "locked" in just the past week. That's pretty typical around here. I know some people have been trolls, but that's a very high number to lock. And most offer negative opinions about Civ III. Hell, when the game first came out (with its bugs and uninspiring gameplay), threads couldn't be locked fast enough. Now, I can understand this on a forum like OOTP, where the owner of the site has a vested interest in keeping a positive spin on his product. But as an "independent" site, you generally toady to Firaxis' corporate line and squelch a lot of negative opinions.

This, of course, is in my humble opinion and as Dennis Miller says, "I could be wrong".

lorddread · May 30, 2002, 23:27

Is it me or does anyone else here sence some bad blood between Coracle and Mark or Blackadar1 and Mark???

As Rodney King asked once, "Can't we all just, just get along?"

May 31, 2002, 03:58

I, too, am disapointed with the game in general.

I'm not so sure that it wasn't my high expectations that caused this. Were my expectations high because of the way that Civ has evolved from the original Civ to Civ 2 MPGE? Or were they high because of other games that I consider to be excellent works that people put a lot of work and forethought into and I expected the same or better for Civ 3?

Either way I'm disapointed, as the game stands. I understand that it is still evolving, and I'm glad to read that they are (for the most part) paying heed to the calls of the fans. I'm NOT going to go into the specifics of what I like and what I don't like; for each topic or sub-topic there's always a debate and I'm not willing to debate that I just don't like the game as it stand right now. That might change in the future; I REALLY hope it does. I love this genre of games. When Civ 3 came out I felt like my girlfriend of many years that I loved deeply, cheated on me, but still wanted me to take her back. Well not until she/Firaxis changes theri tune and gives me(the fans) what we were asking for and expecting in the first place.

BTW, in reading some of the posts made in this thread there is talk about some of the wonders that are built during the game. I have one small problem in that say I'm build the "Pyramids" and another civ builds it a couple of turns before I do; what happens to my almost complete pyramid? I mean the stones were already in place, nearly finnished, and then because someone else builds and completes one before me, I, in disgust, tear mine down to the ground!?

I feel the whole 'build' thing in this game needs to be changed. Why should you be able to switch what you are building mid-build? If I change my mind while building a bank I should lose all productivity that was spent on building that bank. Why can't we build multiple items in each city, splitting the amount of shields available for production to each specific item I want to build according to how I see fit.
Back to the wonder thing, maybe let the civ's build all the wonders, but have it only have maybe half of the total effect that the wonder has for the civ that builds it first with the effects for the wonder being diminished as each civ builds it in turn. 100% for the 1st, 50% second, 45% third, and so on.

I know I said I don't want to list everything because it will just lead to a debate in which I don't want to have(especially since I HATE typing so damn much!)but I had to make these small points/suggestions.

Thanks for your reading time my fellow Apolytoner's; here's to the expansion pack being "all that and a bag of chips"! Cheers.

edited for spelling

MarkG · May 31, 2002, 04:04

i hate making generic characterizations. lets go with the actual numbers and facts

Quote:

nine threads that have been "locked" in just the past week

are you starting from 23/5 or 24/5?
ok lets see. starting from 23/5:
we have a total of 118 threads. the following were closed:
1 thread about the shape of the space ship

1 thread about the last 5-6 replies being made by coracle
3 double threads about the editor coming in june
1 thread about ottomans and arabs in ptw that belonged in the other forum
1 thread by jimmytrick trolling about the dino art
1 thread by Radical_Manuvr comparing ptw with aoe(terrible troll effort)
1 thread by jimmytrick that started like a decent-looking thread with actual arguments only to turn to another troll attempt
1 thread of jimmytrick trolling in an effort to get himself banned(which failed)
1 more trollthread by DaShi about the acceptability of "badmouthing" civ3
1 thread about compressed saved games that ended up with lots of spam

ok so that's 12 in 118. 5 were trolls, 4 were double/in wrong forum and 3 were spam.
if you consider these closings unjustified....

MaS · May 31, 2002, 04:53

MarkG: about hiring the Coracle: i have the same in my mind - but i had to explain it (on examples) so the others will understand why i am thinking so...

SirSebastian: If you do not go into City, how are you doing Micromanagement? (Workers and their allocation, specialists, construction progress, happines,...).
CivIII should be a game (i suppose it at least ;-) and i would like to do what makes fun to me and it should be possible at least so easy as in some other game from the same Vendor. If i dont want to make micromanagement, i will set my governors and watch what are they doing gut/wrong... (BTW., as i read somewhere in this thread, setting governors & Workers to 'Automatic' is the way how to loose the game...).

Yeah, Doubleclick is very painfull (the more if you know SMACX like i - playing since 01.2000) and together with important Controlls (mainly buttons) scattered around the screen makes me very unhappy.

Sci-fi / Non-Sci-fi games: every game is a sci-fi.

If you want it real, found your own real Company and try it (i did ;-). You can not write a game, which simulates reality ;-), so let's add sci-fi elements (like enhancing terain) and leave on players if they will use it or not (Fireaxis?, Sid?).

Working with production queue is very helpful: not only to see what will be done, but to see the possibilities for particular Base, to navigate to unit-editor (only in SMACX - i think there is other thread about the possibility to construct your own units during the game - see SMACX again... :-) and so on... And: try to remove some item from the middle of Prod.Queue in CivIII - i did not find any other possibility than to remove them all and definie again - hmmmm...

Current work/Command for unit: it is not only about the command, in SMACX you see command, health and rank on 1 place. in CivIII: Command is animated (sometimes), health is clearly shown only for current unit and Rank as longer/shorter column besides the unit (this one perhaps delivers the same info in the same time as in SMACX - so, no complain against it).

What i did not write yesterday are the Water Bases (again like in SMACX - there is no other game which allows you to found a water Base) - it lies in the Sci-fi/ Non-Sci-fi area but, again, make it possible and leave it on the palyers if they will use it or not.
I suggested it to Fireaxis a year ago - i got no answer (even the 'not in plan' one, so i thougt it is obvious and it will be there... :-)

Fireaxis/Sid: could you plase answer some questions from my posts?
Mainly about the next version of SMACX (you know... ;-)

yours,
MaS.

MaS · May 31, 2002, 05:03

When i read the reply from MarkG about the threads:

Maybe the question about a new version of SMACX is not on the proper place (CivIII Thread). The only reason is that i was looking forward to have SMACX in mantel (historic, time, ...) of CivIII....

MaS.

MarkG · May 31, 2002, 05:09

no problems with your posts MaS

firaxis is working on other projects beyond civ3, but they're not telling anything

Blackadar1 · May 31, 2002, 07:07

Mark, what you call "trolls", I call differing opinions that seem to be stepped on when they don't match the positive spin on Civ III that people seem be pushed towards here. I think that some people are inclined to post shock-value threads on Apolyton that contain negative Civ III information because they know that even moderately negative threads are frowned upon. So why be "reasonable" if the thread will still be shut down? Again, that's why I was so surprised when you actually published that article...it wasn't a Civ III fanboy article.

Just one suggestion: If you do have a problem with a true troll hijacking a legitimate thread, why don't you just edit the offending post(s) and let the thread continue?

MarkG · May 31, 2002, 07:46

Quote:

what you call "trolls", I call differing opinions...

opinions with "shock value" without any arguments to justify them are trolls even if happen to agree with them
and trolls have no place here. there have been tons of negative to civ3 threads with reasonable arguments that have been left unharmed

Quote:

Again, that's why I was so surprised when you actually published that article

well it seems that you havent been following the site since this isnt the first article of this kind

Quote:

If you do have a problem with a true troll hijacking a legitimate thread

as you might have noticed with the examples above, usually trolls start their own trollthreads and not threadjack others

King of Rasslin · May 31, 2002, 08:15

Trolls are either masochists that love to get attacked because of their flame-baits, or very bored people. Saying "Civ 3 sux Aoe ownz" is really asking for it here. Threads like that have no purpose, and should be deleted. A thread should be more than mud slinging. It should have valid points made on both sides.

DeepO · May 31, 2002, 09:10

MaS, without going in a debate, I think you are partially right.

The buttons in CivIII may look nice, but aren't really easy to hit. This indeed is one of the things that is worse from previous games. Luckily, the Enter and ESC keys work on most of them, but I would have choosen bigger targets if I had to design the interface.

However, the worker AI does work relatively fine, if only you use it right. What I do (and I don't pretend to have the best solution, but it works for me): in the beginning of the game I do all the worker actions myself, after a while I'll move workers from worker farms to a city that needs improvement. After it gets there, I'll set it to auto-improve virgin terrain. First, it will improve the used-but-not-improved squares of that city, and after that it will start on the tedious jobs, like making sure each square has a railroad, or cleaning pollution. Your core cities should be completely improved by then, or have a bunch of man controlled workers on them.
In any case, I keep some workers on manual, to correct the worker AI where needed, and to prioritze jobs I feel are more important than the AI does (e.g. laying railroad from my core cities to a warzone)

Further, about the micromanagement of cities: worker allocation can be done by the governor in general, except in certain special cases (when building wonders, totally corrupt cities with only taxcollectors, problem cites on penisulas...).

The production queue is a pain in the ass, I loved the (patched) production queues of SMAC and can't figure out why they would go back to such a hard, oversimplified mechanism. However, the AI that controls the build suggestions is vastly improved, and apart from certain awkward things (like insisting building ICBMs in every city, even if you don't want any) it makes queues obsolete. One thing, though: I can't remember having a problem deleting an item from the middle of a queue, just selecting it and hitting delete works, no?

Last point: terraforming terrain. At first I also thought it should have been in CivIII, but later I realized that in SMAC I spent over one third of my time making sure the terrain was perfect. Now, no more time is spent on this, and it adds a strategic element to the game. If you found a city in mountains to control that iron source nearby, it stays mountain to the end. You can make it produce more shields, but it will stay a village, without the possibility to grow into a metropolis. It might upset you, but I think that this is good thing for the game, it ensures diversity... otherwise each city is almost identical in the end, without any character whatsoever.

DeepO

lorddread · May 31, 2002, 09:53

Good Morning Your Honor, if it please the members of the court!

Quote:

Originally posted by DeepO

The buttons in CivIII may look nice, but aren't really easy to hit. This indeed is one of the things that is worse from previous games. Luckily, the and keys work on most of them, but I would have choosen bigger targets if I had to design the interface.

I agree here the O X buttons are bogus. Also, there should a radio button or something to be clicked on in the diplomatic screens. I have fat fingered (using my mouse) numerous times, and blown deals that could have been huge.

Quote:

in the beginning of the game I do all the worker actions myself, after a while I'll move workers from worker farms to a city that needs improvement. After it gets there, I'll set it to auto-improve virgin terrain. First, it will improve the used-but-not-improved squares of that city, and after that it will start on the tedious jobs, like making sure each square has a railroad, or cleaning pollution.

The problem here is that an automated worker doesn't always improve a city. Have you ever seen a city in famine (with little to no irrigation) while a half a dozen workers (automated) are building redundant roads or railroads? Another problem is the mining of plains when the city is backed by mountains or hills. Why do these get mined last? A menu for the workers would vastly improve Civ 3

Quote:

Further, about the micromanagement of cities: worker allocation can be done by the governor in general, except in certain special cases (when building wonders, totally corrupt cities with only taxcollectors, problem cites on penisulas...).

I agree with some cavots. How many people here get tired of the city governor trying to build a privateer in 1900's when everyone is using destroyers or at the very least ironclads, especially when you have never built one on the first place? Or wanting to build pikemen or immortals? There should be a way to remove obsolete equipment from the build que. At the very least it is a pain to have to scroll past all this "crap"!

The only way to get around this is to use Civ 3's build que. That in itself can be tedious, but at least it is playable.

DeepO · May 31, 2002, 10:37

Quote:

Originally posted by lorddread
Have you ever seen a city in famine (with little to no irrigation) while a half a dozen workers (automated) are building redundant roads or railroads?

No, not really. But I can imagine this, after all, no AI is perfect. That's why you need a certain amount of manual workers running around, you don't use these to lay roads

Quote:

Another problem is the mining of plains when the city is backed by mountains or hills. Why do these get mined last? A menu for the workers would vastly improve Civ 3

This is personal choice: if there is enough food, I mine plains as well. And do it before mining hills. The reason is simple: a mined, railed plain will give you 3 food, 2 shields, and is a lot faster done than a railed, mined hill of 1 food, 4 shields.
But, I agree completely that a priority menu for the workers would be a nice addition, it's not since I like the current priority of workers that it shouldn't be free for everyone to choose.

Quote:

How many people here get tired of the city governor trying to build a privateer in 1900's when everyone is using destroyers or at the very least ironclads, especially when you have never built one on the first place?

Indeed, I already forgot about that one. I got so fed up with this, that my governor isn't allowed to build ships anymore. It may not be the best solution, but after all, the AI is not terribly good at deciding in which sea ships are needed, and in which it's just foolish to spend resources on.

About making units obsolete (cfr SMAC): yes and no. I too never build privateers, I never build nuclear weapons, and I don't want to build cavalry once I have tanks. Removing these from the queues would be nice, removing spearmen however might become difficult: you only get these when you have a not-connected city which is not able to produce pikemen. Otherwise, it will always show the best available defensive unit. It could be good to set a city to spearman, as you know it will be connected in a few turns, at which time it gets auto-upgraded to pikeman.

Besides, in certain cases I wished I was still able to build spearmen after I got infantry: if I garrison a city which is succeptable to culture flipping, I do that with lots of obsolete units, not my most modern units. If you loose these, it's not that bad. Loosing 10 of your best units can seriously ruin your mood...

DeepO

LaoTze · May 31, 2002, 12:28

I agree with many others that Civ 3 is a good game. It has kept many of its trademarks that have made it a successful game in the past. However, there are two things that bother me about the game. Both of which tie into the new culture addition to the series.

First problem is with the governments. In this game Democracy is given incredible advatanges over its competitors. Beyond the science and trade benefits, the ability to be immune to bribery, and corruption benefits, a Democracy can support a military equivalent to a equal sized communist neighbor. If it wasn't for war weariness Democracy would be the one and only viable government. Furthermore, one has to realize that the model Democracies of the world, such as the US or most of Western Europe (just bear with me, and dont begin making flames in your head just yet) were not always the shining beckons they are today. A historical reference for everyone. Saigon would have been a French city in its imperialist stage. Does it make sense that it is still unbribable becuase it falls under a French democratic umbrella? Hardly, as the imperial powers traded these cities back and forth, despite a democratic government at home what benefits did their imperial subjects recieve. It would be a matter of opinion to say that open bribery could exist but I find it an extreme game advatange that is not warranted if civ 3 is trying to add in culture to the series. All to often the civ series has taken it for granted that democracies are an improved government in this field. In a country such as the US with over 200 years of democratic government behind it, it could be expected. But in its beginnings the US had all sorts of problems of abuse of powers and corruption. My point here is that there should be a long transition period before a democracies can get all of its many benefits in this game.

My second problem is with military support. Before the unit support was based on shield production. In both civ 2 and CTP the production hit was sufficient to limit a democractic military. CTP was a personal favorite of mine because it valued the importance and size of the unit. A carrier was not supported by one gold just like a hoplite?! I honestly feel that the ctp system better reflected the costs of a unit. Bombers would not need to be toned down if a civ could not cover the skies in them. Switching to gold IMHO only gives democracies yet another advantage over communist rivals. The US would not function as it did during the cold war if it supported a military anywhere near the size of the Soviets during the cold war. Reality is the use of Nuclear weapons as a deterent was discovered early by the Eisenhower administration. The advantage given to communist nations does not compare to the trade advantage given to democracies making a communist government only feasible in times of extended war and then one can switch back to democracy at the end with no real penalties.

Btw I'm not a communist in real life. However, I see a trend in this game that is playing up the greatness of democracy more and more as the series progresses. While civ 2 spies were probably overpowering, the old improved spy benefit given to communist governments is a near waste since spying actions cost so much that its a much more rare advantage being used in civ 3. Fundamentalism was taken out and prolly for the better. That makes communism the war time economy. In civ 2 a communist government could at least compete with a democracy. In civ 3 it would be a waste to try to compete in that fashion. You could not steal technologies to keep pace or support an immense military because support has been switched from shields (communists have alot of) to gold (communist has little of or at least alot less than a democracy).

lorddread · May 31, 2002, 13:15

Quote:

Originally posted by LaoTze
First problem is with the governments. In this game Democracy is given incredible advatanges over its competitors. Beyond the science and trade benefits, the ability to be immune to bribery, and corruption benefits, a Democracy can support a military equivalent to a equal sized communist neighbor. If it wasn't for war weariness Democracy would be the one and only viable government. Furthermore, one has to realize that the model Democracies of the world, such as the US or most of Western Europe (just bear with me, and dont begin making flames in your head just yet) were not always the shining beckons they are today. A historical reference for everyone. Saigon would have been a French city in its imperialist stage. Does it make sense that it is still unbribable becuase it falls under a French democratic umbrella?

The United States is not a Democracy. It never has been and never will be. We are a Constitutional Republic with (and here's where it gets confussing) a democratically elected government. But we are not a Democracy.

France is not a Democracy either. France (by US terms) is a democraticly elected Socialist Government. Nothing wrong with that.

Back to LaoTze's point though. I disagree with him about the democracy gov. I never play it because the Republic, while it has slightly higher corruption is a better government.

I would like to see the Corp Republic brought in from Call to Power.

Quote:

My second problem is with military support. Before the unit support was based on shield production. In both civ 2 and CTP the production hit was sufficient to limit a democractic military. CTP was a personal favorite of mine because it valued the importance and size of the unit. A carrier was not supported by one gold just like a hoplite?! I honestly feel that the ctp system better reflected the costs of a unit. Bombers would not need to be toned down if a civ could not cover the skies in them. Switching to gold IMHO only gives democracies yet another advantage over communist rivals. The US would not function as it did during the cold war if it supported a military anywhere near the size of the Soviets during the cold war. Reality is the use of Nuclear weapons as a deterent was discovered early by the Eisenhower administration. The advantage given to communist nations does not compare to the trade advantage given to democracies making a communist government only feasible in times of extended war and then one can switch back to democracy at the end with no real penalties.

Btw I'm not a communist in real life. However, I see a trend in this game that is playing up the greatness of democracy more and more as the series progresses. While civ 2 spies were probably overpowering, the old improved spy benefit given to communist governments is a near waste since spying actions cost so much that its a much more rare advantage being used in civ 3. Fundamentalism was taken out and prolly for the better. That makes communism the war time economy. In civ 2 a communist government could at least compete with a democracy. In civ 3 it would be a waste to try to compete in that fashion. You could not steal technologies to keep pace or support an immense military because support has been switched from shields (communists have alot of) to gold (communist has little of or at least alot less than a democracy).

Amen

Allemand · May 31, 2002, 15:43

The maintenance costs for units is oversimplified. Would be better if the maintenance cost was related to the build cost for the unit. Modern units would cost more to maintain, and the player would have to look at tradeoffs. This would also help the AI which doesn't upgrade as often as the human player.

LaoTze · May 31, 2002, 17:50

Quote:

Originally posted by lorddread

The United States is not a Democracy. It never has been and never will be. We are a Constitutional Republic with (and here's where it gets confussing) a democratically elected government. But we are not a Democracy.

France is not a Democracy either. France (by US terms) is a democraticly elected Socialist Government. Nothing wrong with that.

And a janitor is a sanitation engineer. A housewife is a domestic engineer. The modern US government is covered in this game by democracy not republicanism. IMHO I don't care what the French call themselves but their government falls under the same category as much of western Europe and the US. Afterall Democracy comes after the printing press and banking not bronze working and literacy. Anyways the name doesnt matter. A city's willingness to rebelf for money should not fall under government style but rather under nationalism. Is that to much to ask? My point was Democracy in this game is given rather biased advantages that IMHO aren't warranted.

lorddread · May 31, 2002, 18:18

I would like to see more governments. In CTP as you got to new ages, new governments appeared. The last is communism if I am not mistaken. Why not have something like the Corp Republic or Virtual Democracy or even something new?

Coracle · May 31, 2002, 19:24

Just for the record. . .

The "republic" in the game is more typical of that of Rome over two thousand years ago in which a group of oilgarchs sent representatives to form a government.

It is quite different from a "democratic republic" as here in the U.S., which, technically, is not the true "democracy" in the ancient Grecian model in which people ruled directly - thus giving too much power to demagogues.

So "democracy" applies to the U.S. today.

This all should have been taught to you in tenth grade Global Studies.

And there are about a hundred more serious concerns with this fatally flawed Civ 3 than arguing about what is a "republic".

Coracle · May 31, 2002, 19:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Allemand
The maintenance costs for units is oversimplified. Would be better if the maintenance cost was related to the build cost for the unit. Modern units would cost more to maintain, and the player would have to look at tradeoffs. This would also help the AI which doesn't upgrade as often as the human player.

I once checked a Modern AI civ's military: 18 mechanized infantry, 12 spearmen, 5 battleships, 6 galleys, etc.

I ended up sinking that civ's galleys with my battleships as they tried to land tanks on my territory. (That civ was the same size as me). Tanks in galleys!

Thus we see how braindead the AI really is, and how sloppy and rushed was Soren's programming.

:

rhenric557 · May 31, 2002, 22:22

First of all Socialism isn't a form of government it is an economic system along with communism. Socialism is where industry, mostly some industry, is government ran. IE airlines, postal service, railways, health services, etc. Such as in France, and Canada.
Second, good point that the US isn't a true Democracy, a true democracy hasn't existed since Early Rome, before the time of the Emperors, where all the Senators were directly elected by the citizens.
Third, Communism sucks, A good concept, but impossible to make it work in the long run. The soviet Union fell becuase of its military. It could not keep up in the cold war becuase the money was not there to support it. They couldn't feed their people becuase you can not get a man to work harder if all he gets from it is tired. Their farmers were only growing and raising enough to support them selves.
Besides all the arguements to be made about governments, etc. Can you name a government system that is less corrupt than that of a democratically elected one.
I do agree that unit support should be based on unit type, but not that it should be based on shields. The point is that the materials and man power is there, but can you pay for it after it is built.
Most of the compaints I've seen so far on this Thread is SMAC, this, SMAC that. I too enjoyed SMAC, but damb people this is CIV 3 not SMAC 2. I remember making the switch from CIV 2 to SMAC it took a while to learn and get used to, but I didn't complain becuase there was a few things I liked about the other more than this. This game Works as it was intended, No major programing errors that I've found yet, it doesn't crash everytime I turn around, the units now all work as they should, or should I say as the were programed to. There are alot of changes I would make if given the chance, but over all it isn't a waist of time and money like many games I've purchased in the past. And to those of you who just sit there and complain about the thread or the forum "Coracle", think of it as your girlfriend if you can't stand her leave the *****.

rhenric557 · May 31, 2002, 22:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle

I once checked a Modern AI civ's military: 18 mechanized infantry, 12 spearmen, 5 battleships, 6 galleys, etc.

I ended up sinking that civ's galleys with my battleships as they tried to land tanks on my territory. (That civ was the same size as me). Tanks in galleys!

Thus we see how braindead the AI really is, and how sloppy and rushed was Soren's programming.

:

Braindead? Rushed? The AI lost a galley rather than the Transport you payed to upgrade it too.

lorddread · May 31, 2002, 23:32

Quote:

Originally posted by rhenric557
Braindead? Rushed? The AI lost a galley rather than the Transport you payed to upgrade it too.

hahahahaha

LaoTze · June 1, 2002, 02:42

Quote:

Originally posted by rhenric557
Third, Communism sucks, A good concept, but impossible to make it work in the long run. The soviet Union fell becuase of its military. It could not keep up in the cold war becuase the money was not there to support it. They couldn't feed their people becuase you can not get a man to work harder if all he gets from it is tired. Their farmers were only growing and raising enough to support them selves.
Besides all the arguements to be made about governments, etc. Can you name a government system that is less corrupt than that of a democratically elected one.

While I tend to agree that communism has alot of flaws in the transision from paper to practice, I think Lenin's vision is not the only one available for us to critique. Even Maoism can be seen as a failure. However, what goes on in China today is a communist government with a more Western economy. It appears to be doing them well considering they have the fastest growing economy today. The CCP is still meshed with the state government with no toleration of other parties.

What you have to realize is that most of the mistakes and vast horrors of communism are committed by the leadership in a power struggle or poorly made decision. (cultural revolution, purges of 1930s, great leap forward, pol pot, etc.) I find it hard to believe that things could not have gone differently for marxists if events had taken a different route. Because of that I give Communism more credibility than you. However, bear in mind that the US had a much larger economy that the Soviet Union before the Cold War even began. And thats after Communist influenced industrialization during the stalinist 30s.

Furthermore, Democracy has failed in many cases. The Chinese tried a Republic in 1911 with Sun Yat Sen and Yuan Shi Kai. The French Revolution (first one:-P) gave way to a dictator in due time. The German Weimar Republic collapsed as well. There were significant forces affecting many of these events. Just as the Cold War brought down the Soviets or an American embargo of Cuba has only strengthened Castro's hold on the country. You do realized that for the fifty years after World War 2 the largest economy in the World was making it a point to destroy communism? Many of those Communist countries survived the American intrusion. It perhaps is just me, but I for one care to think that a reroll of the dice of history could bring us very different results. The what if's are beyond count and thats what this game is about I thought. Perhaps Mao was unable to remove the Liuists from power? Maybe Trotsky and not Stalin succeeded Lenin? What if Frederick II was right and the fledgling American government did not succeed over a large distance in a pre-industrialized society? Maybe Hamilton was unable to jumpstart New England factories? What then? My point was that Democracy feels over rated in its advantages. It would seem that many features such as immune to bribery should be preserved for a more nationalistic flavor than government style. Not to mention that the US supported a mere fraction of the Soviets forces. Had the two armies been equal in size would the costs would have been cheaper for a communist or democractic society? Shield production better reflected this. When one thinks that in the US we use contracts to build our toys, in a communist society its just built at a government factory. Some production having to go towards spare parts or ammunition to maintain an already built tank or aircraft makes sense. Only wages need to be paid in that instance. Which in a communist society are fairly low to begin with. By making it based on Gold they allow a Democracy to maintain a larger army than communism for a smaller portion of its total earnings.

BTW I've never played SMAC:-) And I guess we should still be teaching Americanism vs. Communism in our classrooms so that more of us Americans understood the evils of communism.

rhenric557 · June 1, 2002, 10:47

It isn't Democracy vs. Communism, the problem is that the programers need to sit down and seperate Government models and economic models, where you would or could choose a Democratic or Republican Government, and then choose whether you want a Free Market Economy, Socialist, etc. That is where the problem is. And then you could choose depending on which Economic system you choose whether support is paid by way of Gold or Shields. Then the government type would have effects on which ever economic model you've chosen, IE, a democratic or Republican Government would fair better with a free market than a "Communist" Gov, with a completely Socialist Economy. It would change the personality of the different Civs greatly based on bifferent configurations possible this way. You could give a Socialist Economy a boost in Production while a Freemarket gets a boost in income.
I put Communism in " " becuase it isn't an actual form of Government in a true Communist Society, There would be no need for a Government. Every man would Be the complete equal to the next as Karl Marx put it "A workers paradise". If you want to see the closest possible example of a working Communist Social System watch Star Trek.

lorddread · June 1, 2002, 10:49

Quote:

Originally posted by LaoTze
Furthermore, Democracy has failed in many cases. The Chinese tried a Republic in 1911 with Sun Yat Sen and Yuan Shi Kai. The French Revolution (first one:-P) gave way to a dictator in due time. The German Weimar Republic collapsed as well.

Actually everyone who came to power during the French Revolution was a dictator. Most of the leaders of the revolution were executed either by their fellow leaders or by the people.

Point taken though.

Alright, fix communism in the game. Make it worth changing to and give us the new stats.