And just what does that mean? The only reason this section is in the civ4 forum is that there is more activity there. I t does not mean that it is all about civ4, any player can participate (Civ1, 2, or 3). And what if things do work better in Civ3? Many things do, so if you said that they don't you would be lying.
Should resources be more valuable?
- Thread starter Onionsoilder
- Start date
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,993
I'm just saying that making an argument based solely on the fact that a feature worked well in a previous game does not mean that it will translate well. I'm not telling anyone to avoid posting here, just to use reasonable means to support their argument.
Trust the automation to do something that isn't relevant to civ IV? Sure.
In other words...what contested tiles? Either your culture wins and you can work your bfc or it doesn't. What tile improvement you work has nothing to do with that, other than your ability to get something built in the city. But that's what emphasizing hammers is for.
Still, this isn't earlier civ games, so if you're going to counter an argument, at least use something that is actually POSSIBLE.
Tell me why on earth you are assuming that because something happens in Civ IV it is the way things have to be designed to work with in Civ V ?
That's what I have been trying to say, just not so plainly. I truthfully think that Civ5 should be a mixture of the major gameplay of Civ3, and some of the additions (not including promotions) of civ4 (the ones that actually work).
Which additions do you have in mind as actually working in Civ 4, then ?
I like the notions of religion and corporations, but I really think religion would be much cooler if it worked citizen-by-citizen rather than city-by-city to the extent it does; and I think being able to work and develop sea tiles is a good innovation, but not a thing that should use up the unit that does it.
There are some diplomatic options that are pretty good... Multiple choices for rulers is also nice.
Civics would only work if fixed governments are reintroduced. Each specific government has only a few options for civics. Therefore, you cannot have something like a communist government with a free market.
I agree with you, religion does need some work.
I only have civ4 vanilla, so I don't know how corporations work. My (unbiased, since I've never played it) idea is that there is a market that can be influenced by you, but not controlled. Each government, and civic, will have certain abilities tied to it that allows you to do different things with the market. The market will determine how much each gold is worth and this will make the "roarin' twenties' and the Great Depression possible.
Civics would only work if fixed governments are reintroduced. Each specific government has only a few options for civics. Therefore, you cannot have something like a communist government with a free market.
I agree with you, religion does need some work.
It is a good ides, but it needs work. The unit should be used up, but there should not be very many things that it can do. It should only be able to make something like an offshore platform to access a resource, not whatever it wants.
I only have civ4 vanilla, so I don't know how corporations work. My (unbiased, since I've never played it) idea is that there is a market that can be influenced by you, but not controlled. Each government, and civic, will have certain abilities tied to it that allows you to do different things with the market. The market will determine how much each gold is worth and this will make the "roarin' twenties' and the Great Depression possible.
Ack. No, I think that's horrible - it goes even further in the direction I hate about Civ 3 of making different cultures different in ways that skew their suitability for particular strategic paths.
I definitely want fixed governments back.
I favour the notion that if you put a worker on a boat in a sea square, it should be able to build improvements on that square. Start with basic fishing nets, and you will get increased access to coast/sea/ocean squares as your naval units increase anyway; add offshore platforms when you have that tech (which is pretty late game) and maybe laying minefields, I think that's about it.
The thing about that is, it assumes that the function of the free market is a paradigm underlying each choice of government, and I think that's Inappropriately parochial for Civ. (*suspicious look* You're not one of those capitalists, are you ?)
It is accurate, and strengthens the challenge of the game.
Definitely minefields.
Good idea!The market has nothing to do with the type of government that you have. The different types of governments determine how you interact with the market. Each country has its own market, but each one of those ties into the world market. Governments (especially communist ones) can control their own markets as much as the typre allows, but the only way to effect the world market is to manipulate your own.
This style can also open up many more opportunities in the fields of: espionage, diplomacy, happiness, and warfare.
I think of it as taking elements out of your control; particularly if your country or leader's traits suit one way of winning and your start position suits another, that's frustrating.
If you're going to say things like that, I'm going to conclude you are one of those capitalists after all. The market's a resource distribution paradigm, is all, it exists in human heads, not in the physical world; not the only one there ever has been.
I don't think so; regardless of what your feelings about the market actually are, how is being limited to working within that paradigm opening more possibilities than having other paradigms available depending on your government ?
But you can't now, anyway. You cannot run State Property and Free Market at the same time. And I'm more for the idea of increasing the amount of civic options, in order to able to have the possibility for more combinations. And, as I said in some other thread a while back, whilst some civic combinations may seem impossible, in actual fact they are just improbable, and perhaps unworkable in reality. So, you should just have penalties for combining what would seem to be conflicting civics, without actually losing the possibility of implementing them, if you so desire.
But State Property is the Communist civic, as such, hence the confusion. Authoritarian communist is another kettle of fish. And whether something is workable or not is really a matter of opinion, so it seems a bit odd to take a particular opinion and impart it on a game, when you could just allow all sorts of combinations, but have penalties for what would generally be considered unworkable.
Hail
Satan's minion
agree 100% and yes resources should be more valuable!
I don't want to get bogged down in an OT argument, but communism is quite definitely an economic theory (public control of all means of production), that is normally supplemented by authoritarian government. But you could have authoritarian government with free market, for instance. Nothing would stop a nation from owning all businesses/sectors of an economy, and running them as government corporations, in an unbridled free market way. Of course, this would probably undermine their authoritarianism, but this could be reflected with a penalty for combining the two civics.
Hail
Satan's minion
![[offtopic]](/images/smilies/offtopic.gif "Offtopic [offtopic]")
communism is the final stage in the evolution of socialism. socialism is a school of thought about how society should be run. everything (factories, oil, etc.) belong to the people, so all production is nationalized.
[/offtopic]
a have some ideas that i think deserve a new thread as this thread has drowned.
I suppose it just depends on how you use the word. For me, communism just refers to the economic theory, but for others (including you apparently), communism refers to communist style governance, which, surprisingly enough, uses the communist economic system I'm referring to. So, meh. Semantics.
