Hello.
I am, as all of you, looking forward to the new Civilization game, though there appears to be some features, which could have a very negative impact on the gaming experience. I just finished reading the Civilization IV Pre-release Information and stumbled upon this:

"Other Civilizations have different favored Government and Religious settings, and they will try to pressure players into changing to their favored religion or government to suit their desires in return for better relations with your Civilization. They can even ask you to stop using a Civics option you have set."

Now, to me, it is very important that the AI acts in a manner that is both rational and human - so that I would be able to identify and relate to the moves that the AI makes (thereby I do not feel as distanced from the AI and thereby it does not appear like I am playing alone against calculators or monkeys).
The problem with the fact that the AI favours certain civic or religious settings is that I would not. If I have a treaty with an AI and it is a good partner of trade or that we have a solid military bound then that is what is important in the relationship. In all honesty I do not really see the rational motive for the AI to declare war or become upset with me based on a certain government setting (if it does not have any negative influence or impact on the AI itself).
Religion makes more sense since it can have a negative influence on your society if your neighbour has a different religion than you since it makes your citizens unhappy or gives the risk of your cities converting.

I remember that the same feature was implanted in Alpha Centauri, where I sometimes ended in war based on "nothing".

I know that this is a historical/society-based realism that has been implanted in the game, though I think there needs to be a motive for the AI (or yourself) to declare war based on a government setting other than "I just don't like it". Maybe your citizens could have a desire for a war against a civilization with an offensive government setting?

I hope I didn’t step on any feet with this post.

Don't take anything I'm about to say as an attack on any ones way of life...

Ideally you'd like to think that Civilizations COULD get along so long as the things that they disagreed on were kept WITHIN their own borders and didn't directly effect any of it's neighbors.

The United States of America however is a PRIME example of how that's not the case. Presidents throughout the history of that nation have gone to war for many reasons and used "COMMIES", "Opression", "WOMD" as their propaganda to the people.

It's quite funny to watch the reaction of political analysts in the US when silly little things like a public healthcare in Canada (Civic choice) effects the income of their monster drug companies.

It's true to the point in life and a good reflection in the game. IMO

I think there will be certain things in the Civics options that will be more likely to cause a war. Slavery is one option... If an AI has emancipation, and you do not, it seems likely they might declare war if you do not change. But if you have a hereditary gov't and they don't, I think the AI will be less likely to declare on you for not changing that policy.

Hopefully Firaxis is smart and implements a weighted system like this (although with each AI leader having a different civics option that truly offends them). It would make the game more interesting, IMO.

I disagree. Very often, people will declare war due to ideological constratints, superstition, etc. A prime example, of course, are the islamic fascists, who appear to have declared war on civilization, per se, due to their own fears and paranoias about progress.

A non-military example would be the Canadians' persistence in adhering to their own primitive health-care system based on defiance of basic laws of economics and exploitation of those willing to enter the medical profession, despite the fact that their own doctors flock to American hospitals in for upwards of six months out of the year to earn a real salary based on their experience, knowledge, and work, or the fact that people die simply because they are stuck on a waiting list, regardless of their ability to pay for those services.

Funny thing about people. They'll sometimes cut off their noses to spite their faces. :goodjob:

Thank you guys for contributing with examples. Though that is not the core nor subject of this post. I completely agree that a nation's government has had and still has an impact on war and relations. Though the problem is how the game accomplishes the fact that governments do have an influence towards the game. As I said:

"Now, to me, it is very important that the AI acts in a manner that is both rational and human - so that I would be able to identify and relate to the moves that the AI makes (thereby I do not feel as distanced from the AI and thereby it does not appear like I am playing alone against calculators or monkeys).
The problem with the fact that the AI favours certain civic or religious settings is that I would not. If I have a treaty with an AI and it is a good partner of trade or that we have a solid military bound then that is what is important in the relationship. In all honesty I do not really see the rational motive for the AI to declare war or become upset with me based on a certain government setting (if it does not have any negative influence or impact on the AI itself). "

What I am talking about here is that the AI acts in a strange manner in order to make governments matter. You as a player is never forced to declare war or change relations due to the AI's offensive government though he is going to do it to you.

Sorry if I was not clear in my original post. I hope this clarifies things so there are no further misunderstandings.

A non-military example would be the Canadians' persistence in adhering to their own primitive health-care system based on defiance of basic laws of economics and exploitation of those willing to enter the medical profession, despite the fact that their own doctors flock to American hospitals in for upwards of six months out of the year to earn a real salary based on their experience, knowledge, and work, or the fact that people die simply because they are stuck on a waiting list, regardless of their ability to pay for those services.


You forgot to mention the people that die (and generally suffer from poorer health) in the US due to the lack of affordable health insurance. Healthcare in the US is obviously broken and getting worse; healthcare costs are high and are still exploding, faster than inflation and incomes - and it's been statistically proven that (contrary to Bush) lawyers are NOT the reason for hign health costs.

To address the first post, I don't mind some wars over different ideologies. Even if the leaders of two states (w/ diff ideologies) can get along perfectly well, their populations may not like each other and may call for action. Human rights abuses (slavery) might be one trigger. Or if a strange ideology (say Communism to the Americans) looks like it is growing and one day your country may be the only country not included, that could cause leaders to preempt the "problem" and go to war.

"their populations may not like each other and may call for action"
Yes but as I have said it is about how this is implanted in the game. Will populations riot/become upset due to having a neighbour with a bias government? No. Let me take out a passage from my earlier post:

"What I am talking about here is that the AI acts in a strange manner in order to make governments matter. You as a player is never forced to declare war or change relations due to the AI's offensive government though he is going to do it to you."

I want the AI to act in the game like I would act. That is the core.

I disagree. Very often, people will declare war due to ideological constratints, superstition, etc. A prime example, of course, are the islamic fascists, who appear to have declared war on civilization, per se, due to their own fears and paranoias about progress.

A non-military example would be the Canadians' persistence in adhering to their own primitive health-care system based on defiance of basic laws of economics and exploitation of those willing to enter the medical profession, despite the fact that their own doctors flock to American hospitals in for upwards of six months out of the year to earn a real salary based on their experience, knowledge, and work, or the fact that people die simply because they are stuck on a waiting list, regardless of their ability to pay for those services.

Funny thing about people. They'll sometimes cut off their noses to spite their faces. :goodjob:
funny..im a dual citizan (can/amer) .and i live in a country were the average life expectancy is higher then that of our southern conterparts..with there "higher paid" doctors...its no utopia ...but its not as bad as the us polititians make it sound..it wouldnt work in the us..that im sure of..but its funny the statistics that they through at people..you can take my word for it..having lived in both countries..its not the decripid fledgiling system the us gov. would have you think

enough politics..i think that as long as the AI doesnt get soo hung up on such things it will be alright..i do like...very much that it is a factor. government types usually stick together...if china didnt have a billion people with money, would the western world be so anxious to normalize realations?

"enough politics..i think that as long as the AI doesnt get soo hung up on such things it will be alright..i do like...very much that it is a factor. government types usually stick together...if china didnt have a billion people with money, would the western world be so anxious to normalize realations?"

I also like that it is a factor, though I think that possible disputes between nations whom have indifferent government settings should come from the people/population and not the AI leaders themselves. If the AI feels forced to declare war on you based on your government settings, then you should also.

I think that this concept adds further depth to the game; a game which presents no challenges isn't much of a game at all. However, I think the critical question is: will it work both ways? Will the AI be willing to 'sacrifice' some of it's preferances/beliefs in the interest of a better relationship with me. If they can ask me to make the change, I should be able to ask them to make the change too...

The United States of America however is a PRIME example of how that's not the case. Presidents throughout the history of that nation have gone to war for many reasons and used "COMMIES", "Opression", "WOMD" as their propaganda to the people.

Lep- these are all good examples, although unfortunately our government is just as likely to meddle with other nations that are trying to be democratic, or to support nations that seem to be against everything we say we stand for ideologically.

To bring this back to Civ, I think this could be a really interesting wrinkle in diplomacy for CivIV, although depending on how well it is implemented, i hope it is a preference that can be easily deactivated. It could be really relevant to things like crusades and Cold Wars. Unfortunately, I doubt CivIV will be able to capture globalization realistically, and that seems to be driving almost everything these days. Multinational corporations would be understandably hard to implement in a civ-o-centric game. Maybe if you could retire as President and then become CEO of Haliburton or Exxon...

I actually got my start on civ type games from Call to Power, which although seriously flawed, had a few neat features. I think they had some kind of corporation run government, and also had non-combat units that could approach enemy cities and conduct an espionage mission that was called "advertize" or something, and would siphon off most of a citie's gold production to your coffers. These units could only be seen and destroyed by a Lawyer unit. There was also a happiness improvement called Television, and if you build the wonder Hollywood, you'd get some gold from enemy civs if they had TV in their cities.

Mr. Wilson, you assume that people and governments are rational. You are sadly mistaken. They will act on whims, out of pique, often using ideology as a justification. In SMAC, I noticed that the people most likely to declare war on me for "ideological" reasons were ones which were on my borders, or which I had annoyed for some reason (usually refusing to trade technology). In short, if this is the case, then the AI will add ideology as an additional justification for a resource, revenge, or territorial war against you; sometimes it may be sufficient to put them over the top. But (if my guess is correct) at worst, a nation which has no designs on your territory or resources, and with which you have had amicable relations in the past, will never declare war on you for ideology, only keep bugging you, and have the equivalent of being annoyed at you the whole time. Note that this means that given the opportunity to declare war on you (a territory violation, or an offer for military alliance against you, or an affront) they may declare war.

But nations are not rational operators. They are run by human beings, and consequently, a realistic AI would be influenced significantly by ideology. And a realistic AI is preferable over a rational one; a realistic AI, influenced by strange factors, can be far more unpredictable. Give me an irrational AI any day; it keeps the game interesting.

I also like that it is a factor, though I think that possible disputes between nations whom have indifferent government settings should come from the people/population and not the AI leaders themselves. If the AI feels forced to declare war on you based on your government settings, then you should also.
I agree with you on this. Such government preferences should be dictated by game dynamics, not artificial constraints. If you had something like a "trade penalty" for governments that have conflicting ideologies I'm pretty sure human players would have ideological wars as well. I'm not sure how this would work because we don't know enough about how Civ4 trade will work, but it would be a pretty nice addition.

I suppose I used an example that more people would be familliar with not intending to stir hostility... I could go on and on about other governments as well, (Including the Canadian) I myself have lived in the States for a good portion and therefor have an objective view of things as well.

As to the game mechanic in question, I wouldn't want my neighbor threatening War against me because of something trivial... But quite often that is the case between civilizations throughout history. I guess what I'm saying is that I'm ok with either way this swings.

Perhaps the degree to which the Civs react to these issues could be influenced by the dificulty level chosen.

To bring this back to Civ, I think this could be a really interesting wrinkle in diplomacy for CivIV, although depending on how well it is implemented, i hope it is a preference that can be easily deactivated. It could be really relevant to things like crusades and Cold Wars. Unfortunately, I doubt CivIV will be able to capture globalization realistically, and that seems to be driving almost everything these days. Multinational corporations would be understandably hard to implement in a civ-o-centric game. Maybe if you could retire as President and then become CEO of Haliburton or Exxon...
I think the political / healthcare debate is very interesting, and the 1 or 2 posts regarding whether this is a good addition as well, but

it seems like everyone is ignoring or not understanding William's repeated attempts to clarify his basic point, which I think is a good one.

When you're playing against a computer opponent, I think you want to feel like, more or less, and as much as possible that it is playing and making decisions in the same way a human opponent would - IE, a means to an end, the objective of wining the game, etc.

Even though real life civ's may go to war based on ideologies, etc, it would seem an odd choice for the AI to do so, unless it is for some underlying reasons that might also cause YOU to want or pressure another player to change government types.

Reasonable type factors would be unhappy population due to neighboring certain government types, or some other negative effect that I cant think of.

It appears that this might not be the case, since they say that certain governments/leaders will not like certain civic options.

I agree with William, that unless you as a human player would also feel some pressure to dislike certain types depending on which government you choose, and therby be unhappy with other goverments or threaten them to change, that it is an option that i would probably rather do without

Now, to me, it is very important that the AI acts in a manner that is both rational and human

Yeah, but individual people are quite capable of acting irrationally, and by induction, so can entire nations (their foreign policy anyway). Besides there are numerous precedents for political entities that "get along" (on the surface), even though they have "issues" with the way certain things are handled.

A decent contemporary example is the relationship between China and the USA.

-V

It might be cool to have separate difficulties for production, diplomacy, research, health, etc. Maybe they could add up to some kind of difficulty score, so that moderate difficulty across the board would be similar to a game with easy diplomacy but sluggish production.

Sounds like you will be able to do all this with modding, but for us fickle folk who aren't super adept at that kind of thing, having this available at the start of a game or though preferences would be awesome.

Now, to me, it is very important that the AI acts in a manner that is both rational and human
Yeah, but individual people are quite capable of acting irrationally, and by induction, so can entire nations (their foreign policy anyway). Besides there are numerous precedents for political entities that "get along" (on the surface), even though they have "issues" with the way certain things are handled.

A human Civilization IV Player@!!

First of all, I've lived in Canada my whole life and have never known of anybody dying on a waiting list. Where I come from, the idea that proper health services are a right for all people and should be free is not a liberal belief but a rational one. The only problem with our health care is that the best Canadian doctors go to private American hospitals which offer them more money. If Americans weren't around to muck everything up, our system would work perfectly. Sorry, I had to...

Maybe in Civ IV there will be reasons to want other civs to have your government. In real life, citizens of a democracy will put up with a war against a facist country for longer than they would a war against another democracy, and they would be a bit confused if their government allied itself to a dictator (democracies never do that...). I'm not sure whether or not this means you actually want the AI to have your gov't, but I'm sure there will be some benefits to it.

I agree that you should be able to derive some benefit (or lack thereof) from other civ's social engineering choices. Maybe your people are happier if your civ is the most enlightened; if other civs were more benevolent, they would clamor for you to change, so you would want to keep other civs behind if you're not ready to change. Perhaps some SE choices make another civ a better trading partner. I can see wanting another civ to be religiously tolerant because then your religion could convert them and you could gain benefits from that. Alternately, I could see wanting them to be religiously intolerant if they already are the same religion as you so that position is protected. I can see wanting them to be more democratic because that means they're less likely to declare war on you (war weariness). Since I don't know all the SE choices or how they work, I can't see a benefit for all of them, but there are certain ones that seem likely.

it seems like everyone is ignoring or not understanding William's repeated attempts to clarify his basic point, which I think is a good one.

When you're playing against a computer opponent, I think you want to feel like, more or less, and as much as possible that it is playing and making decisions in the same way a human opponent would - IE, a means to an end, the objective of wining the game, etc.

Even though real life civ's may go to war based on ideologies, etc, it would seem an odd choice for the AI to do so, unless it is for some underlying reasons that might also cause YOU to want or pressure another player to change government types.

Reasonable type factors would be unhappy population due to neighboring certain government types, or some other negative effect that I cant think of.

It appears that this might not be the case, since they say that certain governments/leaders will not like certain civic options.

I agree with William, that unless you as a human player would also feel some pressure to dislike certain types depending on which government you choose, and therby be unhappy with other goverments or threaten them to change, that it is an option that i would probably rather do without

Well in this I disagree!

This is akin to saying that the ghosts in Pac man should ALL act the same as a human would.

I would like to see DISTINCTLY different behaviours from all of the seperate civilizations for a nice variety rather than 10 AIs all doing the same thing.

YES! I do want them to all act with a purpose. Nothing worse that watching the Egyptians conquer the Greeks because the Greeks were too lazy to fight back. Then leaving you to face the Egyptians alone on the continent OR whatever your situation may be. The AI should use its preferences toward a goal of victory of one sort or another.

I also don't want to see Ghandi going on a War rampage for reasons that diplomacy could have solved.

Each civilization is SUPPOSED to have it's own flavour and challenge you in different ways, just like a human player will play diferently from one match to another and from one person to another. And if that flavour involves dealing with an irational demand on your civilization then so be it. There's the challenge and flavour that the AI is set to entertain you with.

Now... If you don't like the irrational demands that the Romans put on you? Don't select them as one of your AI opponents.

Right?

Right. This was one of the things that I repeatedly asked Firaxis to change. I want computer opponents with personalities.

I agree. Having computers with a basic simular thinking but diffrent "views" and "ideals" would make the game remarkable and uniqe.

Well in this I disagree!

This is akin to saying that the ghosts in Pac man should ALL act the same as a human would.

I would like to see DISTINCTLY different behaviours from all of the seperate civilizations for a nice variety rather than 10 AIs all doing the same thing.

YES! I do want them to all act with a purpose. Nothing worse that watching the Egyptians conquer the Greeks because the Greeks were too lazy to fight back. Then leaving you to face the Egyptians alone on the continent OR whatever your situation may be. The AI should use its preferences toward a goal of victory of one sort or another.

I also don't want to see Ghandi going on a War rampage for reasons that diplomacy could have solved.

Each civilization is SUPPOSED to have it's own flavour and challenge you in different ways, just like a human player will play diferently from one match to another and from one person to another. And if that flavour involves dealing with an irational demand on your civilization then so be it. There's the challenge and flavour that the AI is set to entertain you with.

Now... If you don't like the irrational demands that the Romans put on you? Don't select them as one of your AI opponents.

Right?
That's true, but that's not the point.

Imagine if in Civ III, the romans would go to war with you if you had too many workers, and the Germans would go to war with you if the letters in your city names started with an A, and the Russians would go to war with you if you were in Despotism.

Personality is good, but it needs to make sense. If they are going to risk their resources and civilization by threatening you if you don't change something, then that thing has to be BENEFICIAL to them when you change. Or it has to be harmful the way it is.

Otherwise, let's say they fight you for 1000 years, waste both of your time and resources, and finally you give up and switch to Monarchy to please them. If they are not benefiting from this in some way other than that they are programed to "not like it", then it is very silly.

Canada has a very good medical system, imo. If they are willing to wait on their waiting list (which is often months for surgeries, etc.), they wait for free healthcare. If they really want medical care in a hurry and they have money, they cross the border to the U.S. and pay out of pocket. :D

That's why I am hoping that there will be plenty of benefits in the AI having the same government that you do. If it will be important to a human player to ask the AI to switch gov'ts, then it will not seem irrational or un-human at all for the AI to do the same to you.


Maybe a "modern-enlightened-social democratic" civ might feel the need to ask a "backwards-militaristic-class structured" civ to switch their health care system?

To get back on the subject, I'm much more interested in an immersive game, where I feel like I'm facing "humanlike" opponent rather than "player-like" AI, and as such, I welcome things like civics preferences for a civilization.

William, i agree that their should be rationality involved in the decision making, and that there should be more than one factor in an ai starting a war, but at the same time i think there should be room for irrationality and oppertunisim as well from the ai, since humans have those qualities to. It would be good for example if your a demo. like government and you wanted to attack an opponent you could use an excuse like they have slavery to reduce the amount of war wariness amongst your citizens.

Yeah, but individual people are quite capable of acting irrationally, and by induction, so can entire nations (their foreign policy anyway).

Debatable. :mischief:
Usually - a larger group of people result in an increased "social inertial behavior".

Bat anyway - it's there any possibility to be "affected" by a ( influent ) neiborghood ?
Something like the existence of comunist Eastern Europe give a much more opportunities to social-democrats in Western Europe to implement some welfare state policies ? :rolleyes:

Regards

Leprechaune if you want to compare the Civilization AI to the AI of Pacman you are more than welcome to.

Nowhere has it been said that the AI should not have a personality. An AI could be defensive or aggressive, or emphasize on culture, science, military, expansion and so forth, and still be a logical and intelligent computer opponent.
The AI having a personality makes it more human and thereby easier to relate to - which is what this post is about (I would like an AI that is human-like – and I am obviously not alone). I have descried the problem where the AI (so has joethreeblah. Thank you) will ask you to change your government settings without it having any benefit for itself. There should be a benefit to drive the motive to ask, so that you would also be likely to ask the AI to change government settings.

like government and you wanted to attack an opponent you could use an excuse like they have slavery to reduce the amount of war wariness amongst your citizens.
Yes, but the problem is why would the AI then ask you to switch government settings, so you would not have slavery? (I know historically it has been done, and it should be in the game, it should just be implanted properly)

I made a few suggestions to solving the problem:

Suggestion 1:
If there was some kind of approval rating from the public, where as the people could become upset if you are in peace with a nation with a very indifferent government setting and they would become happy if you had a similar government setting.
The problem with this suggestion is that it might complicate things a bit too much.

Suggestion 2:
The more similar a nations government setting is to yours the easier trade routes would be. If they are very different some trade routes might be impossible to make or they could have some sort of “Loss”.
Not sure how realistic this is.

Suggestion 3:
Some sorts of reward for making civilizations change its government setting. Maybe just score?

The only suggestion that I could favour would be the first. The other two are just shots in the dark.

I've known people to die on waiting lists. Not everyone can afford to pay out of pocket in another country - and many of those who can are the same ones who can skip the waiting lists here, and who find nothing wrong with the system. The American system has the risk of uninsured people going into bankruptcy trying to pay... which sounds like the better of the two options to me.

As far as preferences for civics... I liked it in Alpha Centauri. I think that past relations and considerations of realpolitik should matter as well, but civics should be important to relations - particularly if you differal in most areas, not just one.

I found the game to be more fun if I tried playing in part based on the personality of the leader of my faction.

..."Now, to me, it is very important that the AI acts in a manner that is both rational and human - so that I would be able to identify and relate to the moves that the AI makes (thereby I do not feel as distanced from the AI and thereby it does not appear like I am playing alone against calculators or monkeys)...

I second the motion; It’s high time AI passed the Civ “Turing Test.”

q

Can we discuss how this effects the game without using politics? Good natured disagreements rapidly become hostile arguments when people insist on getting their little political jabs in to the mix.

I for one think it is a good feature, as nations often go to war over ideological differences regarding both religion and government styles. Yes there are examples of such wars going on in the world today but there is no point in fighting those wars here on a game forum!

I agree. Having computers with a basic simular thinking but diffrent "views" and "ideals" would make the game remarkable and uniqe.

That is why I recommend a 'weighted' system.. Each civics option has a different "value" to each civ (maybe leader? or some combo of the 2?). The heavier the 'weight' the more likely they would be to declare war for this 'ideal.' .. but it wouldn't ALWAYS happen, because hopefully the AI would recognize when they have no hope of beating you (if you're, say, the sole superpower in the game).

It would make diplomacy so much better, because you could please some people some of the time, but you couldn't please everyone all of the time... you'd have to pick your 'civics battles'

In all the previous civs, the AI has the "you're getting big, let me attack you" ideal. I hope this isn't the case in Civ4.

Also, constantly offering retarded, lopsided trades then getting angry at your much powerful civ then attacking just boggles the mind.

That is why I recommend a 'weighted' system.. Each civics option has a different "value" to each civ (maybe leader? or some combo of the 2?). The heavier the 'weight' the more likely they would be to declare war for this 'ideal.' .. but it wouldn't ALWAYS happen, because hopefully the AI would recognize when they have no hope of beating you (if you're, say, the sole superpower in the game).

It would make diplomacy so much better, because you could please some people some of the time, but you couldn't please everyone all of the time... you'd have to pick your 'civics battles'

I agree with the goal, but I disagree with the mechanism. The goal of an AI programmer should be for the AI to play like a human would play. To whatever extent I have interest in your civics options, it is only to retard your progress. I have zero interest in making your civ better, and I have zero interest in abstract ideals (in the game). Making the AIs care about such things is no better than a random die roll for "Do I hate Russia today?" It would make the AI a worse opponent because they would pick fights when they wouldn't otherwise, fights where they will end up with a net loss or worse. The AI should maximize its self-interest; that's what would make it a good opponent. Entering (or threatening) a war because of ideology isn't in its self-interest, however, and will make it a less effective opponent.

That said, I do agree with the overall goal. The AIs should care about what civics options you have. Make them irrationally obsessed with an ideology, though, is the wrong way to do it. The right way to do it is to design the game mechanics such that a civ accrues benefits from some civics choices of another civ and harm from other ones. I have an interest in keeping other civs weak because they're the competition, but it's unbalanced: I have no interest in making another civ stronger (except to counter-balance a third civ). Civ4 seems to be doing at least a little bit of this with slavery; if you have slaves but other civs don't, your people will be unhappy. That one still seems a little artificial to me, though. There's also a clear benefit on the religious side, as I derive benefit from my coreligionists in your cities, so I want to enhance that. Those are a good start, but it's not nearly enough.

Taking examples from the real world... I should want you to be a democracy if I am a democracy, as that reduces the likelihood of war between us. On the other hand, I should want you to be a despot if I am a despot, because, if you're a democracy, I may be fearful of revolutionary fervor spreading to my own nation. If I don't have freedom of speech, I should want to keep you from having freedom of speech, as your nation may become a base of operations for seditionists. If I am communist, I should want you to not have a free market, as your economy may grow to exceed mine. If I am capitalist, I want you to be capitalist as that increases the trade (real world, not civ world) between our two nations. If I am at war with your neighbor, I should want you to be pacifist/neutral, as I don't want you against me, but I also don't want to share the spoils. There are many other examples, so I'll stop there.

The people who produced civilization have a few things to learn about the way businesses should treat customers. Civ 3, 4 and revolution have all been defective upon release and this was deliberate. The intent was to get the product out asap and not waste energy making sure it worked. They were relying upon the misplaced loyalty of their fan base which has steadily built up over the years of civ 1 and 2. The fans would be patient and wait for patches to fix the problems and the civ developers could bank the savings they conned from these people instead of spending the dough necessary to make a working, finished product. I was one of those suckered fans and shined on such treatment because I wanted to play the game more than I wanted to think.

The main reason I took off those rose colored glasses was because of this forum. Or rather, the shoddy way the civ’s makers allow this forum to be run. It’s just an extension of their advertising. Of the different forums here I looked at or posted on, only the civ 3 customization and development forum was well run. The moderation of the other forums is some of the worst I’ve seen and openly plays favorites among the posters. They are also frequently uninformed and are essentially only here to promote the games. Posters who are rude and childish, commonly called fan boys, rack up 1000s of posts writing the same material defending the company line, over and over, year in, year out, while most of those with actually something interesting to say are either driven away by these posters, and moderators, or leave out of sheer boredom and disgust with the dogpiling which the moderators encourage.

It was the poor manner in which this forum is run which tipped the scales of my opinion of the business practices of the people who make the civilization games. I had been willing to put up with partially functional games, but one could say the moderator’s behavior opened up my eyes to the behavior of the company towards its customers as a whole. The moderator’s attitude towards civ’s customers matches that of the makers of the game. Very poor, very unprofessional. And it got me to reevaluate why I continued using their products. I’ve come to the conclusion that by posting on this forum, I was providing free advertising for a product I would never now recommend. Similarly, leaving those posts as is would have the same effect.

It’s really too bad. Civ is a promising concept in the right hands, but what we got is a game still mostly using the primitive code it was developed with more than 15 years ago with “improvements” in play patched in over the years. Rather than spend the energy, time and money on truly improving this game, they spent a fraction of it instead on eye candy and advertising. Even many of the simple to correct flaws in civ 1 are still repeated in civ 4. When civ 4 came out, and now especially with that “revolutions” joke, it was obvious the developers were not interested in advancing this series, just in milking it for as much money for as little effort as they could. Being able to edit the game helps, and is its best feature, but that cant counter the flaws of the programming. Rather than make a real effort at improving the ai, which is so poor, it kills single player interest fairly quickly, the makers chose the cheapskate way out by using programming cheats. Like I wrote, too bad. A game that could have actually amounted to something became just another toy for the kids who have everything already.

But that leaves the floor clear for someone else to take this concept and develop it into something worth playing again.

yes the post on canada's health system was innaccurate. A recent study showed that of all the major western powers Americans spend more on health care than any other nation- and are getting less for it-
We do not live longer or recieve "better" care. In so far as the waiting list theory- (kinda like they "we only use 10 percent of our brains- lol -tell that
to someone who has a steel rod driven thru their head-never heard a doctor say - "its a good thing it was in the ninty percent not used..." - )
-it is a myth- an oft times repeated one.
If anything it is a bit appalling to read about an actor or someone of wealth that has received a third kidney while a poor kid gets to wait ......
Seems that a doctor that would go into the profession because it was their calling - as oppossed to a finacial drive- would be preferable
On topic- i am a freudian i think- i suggest conflicts are sexual in nature (to many males- older males sending youth off to their death- ie. m16's that did not work? You mean the best minds in the U.S did not test our basic weapon? Makes no sense- unless of course there was an unconscious drive
to kill off young men- then it makes perfect sense....)
Looking at the shots coming from Iraq i see alot of outta work young men- the streets are full of them- at times i trust my eyes much more than anything else.
Viking raids? Jason's Quest? (and recently those poly marriage sects in Utah) - get rid of male youth by sending them out on an adventure....
Pascal "Men hate other Men"