does anyone agree with me on this?

[Demloth of Dol Amroth]

alright-for a little background, i'm a newbie here, but have played Civ since 7th grade, and i am now leaving the 10th grade. i played civ I dos ed first, then acquired a copy for windows. when i got a newer computer, i then was given civ II as a present, and that was a few years ago. now here's the question. i changed communism to support 8 units free, whereas fundamentalism gets only 3 or 4, or was it 0? does this make sense to anyone? i was just thinking that the fundamentalist state have loyal FANATIC followers, but they, like everyone else, still had to pay for gas for the tanks and stuff, while the communists in russia had a MONSTROUs amount of military power. so once again, anybody think it's a reasonable change? i also thought that if you were fundy, then you could build a bazillion fanatics and throw them against the walls of whatever city gives you trouble til all the enemies are gone, and then add the fact that they had 8 free units, made military conquest way to easy for the fundies.

 

[Smash]

well no actually you have it backwards.3 "free" units under Commie and 8 under Fundy.It was supposed to be 10 according to anything you read in manual or in game but it is hardcoded at 8.

Fanatics are supposed to never require sheild support under Fundy but that isn't completely true.Only the first 8 units in a city are free.The 9th could be a fanatic but will require support unless the previous 8 units were fanatics.

 

[Pongui]

It's true that the USSR had an enormous military, but then so does the USA. When a civ takes on some form of government in this game, it's not meant to embody a particular historical country, it's just a fuzzy 'what if' mainly to do with the economy, and that has to work from ancient times to the near future. If you examine Canada's economy, you'll see that it's effectively socialist. Yet in civ terms, we have about 3 units on the map.

Fundamentalist nations were given lots of free units because any way of thinking taken to the extreme leads to fanaticism. If you examine America's politics, you'll see that...

 

[Demloth of Dol Amroth]

what? why does nobody respond! i've gotten two replies only(thank you to those 2 who actually said anything) did people see the little background info and dismiss the thread, ignore it because i'm new to the site, or has this type of discussion come up so much that everybody moves on to "relevant" threads?

 

[starlifter]

people see the little background info and dismiss the thread, ignore it because i'm new to the site,

I doubt it was because of your background or a newbie. People probably just did not have much to add to your topic. So what would you like to discuss about it? You can change the rules.txt to more closely reflect you preferance of how the game should work.

My guess is that most people just figure the Fundy/Commie balance is about right. But there are a lot of people who like the Fascist patch (I'm personally not one of them), which replaces the Fundy govt with Facism.

Why don't you try a new topic or idea or maybe something about how you play the game? If one thread fizzles (happens to everyone at some time), try and think of another one that you find interesting and might have a wider appeal (if you want more discussions/posts).

IMHO (that means "In My Humble Opinion" if you're new to posting), everyone know about the Fundy/Fanatic issue, and aren't inclined to want to change it, and just didn't want to make a dry post in reply... there's just not a whole lot to say about making such drastic rules changes, except if you like it better, the go for it!

It might also be helpful to start the thread with basic info that is more correct, e.g., before just blurting out an easy to check number like "whereas fundamentalism gets only 3 or 4, or was it 0?" it makes it appear that even you don't really take what you are posting too seriously. You don't have to be 100% right about everything, but the impression is that you don't even want to start your game of Civ 2 and find out the number that you are talking about (and your post is about that very number ).

PS, Remember that you can't force people to reply to a thread, but I must admit it was pretty funny to read "what? why does nobody respond! i've gotten two replies only"...

Welcome to Civ Fanatics and to the Fourms! You might like taking a look at the Civ 2 GOTM (Game Of The Month) & even play this month's game! If nothing else, there's always a lot to talk about with it .

Oh, BTW (BTW=By The Way) my post is now long enough that you can count it as about 8 replies, bringing you up to 10 or so, LOL (LOL = Laughing Out Loud).

 

[ArmOrAttAk]

I voted no a long time ago. The russian communist governments military spending bankrupt them, and collasped the government. Hardly free support.

 

[Demloth of Dol Amroth]

first of all, thanks to Starlifter for his tips on threads-i'll try to remember them in the future. getting back on topic, l would like to repeat that with a fundy gov+default rules, then you could build huge numbers of fanatics and armors, without even straining your resources, and then go on this campaign to take over the world, and because of the jillions of fanatics(not to mention the substantial amount of cash to build city walls) you could very easily use armor to take over a city, then by rail, move in the fanatics. now the fundies can still build hordes of fanatics, and not put a dint in their wallet, it's just that now their main military units may now cost money. also, in response to armor, yes, the soviets did spend themselves to death, but this was on research to evade the effects of the Star Wars project of the reagan adminastration-in civ II terms, they had too much trade in science, too little in taxes, and corruption everywhere(note-i edited the communist gov to have corruption as well), and even though this doesn't activate a revolution in civ, the fire sale of all the improvements would make someone consider democracy or republic.

 

[starlifter]

OK, I'll try to follow along with you:

l would like to repeat that with a fundy gov+default rules, then you could build huge numbers of fanatics and armors, without even straining your resources, and then go on this campaign to take over the world, and because of the jillions of fanatics

No disagreement here. That's what Fundy does best.... build jillions of units, and go on cutthroat military campaigns to conquer the world. Check.

(not to mention the substantial amount of cash to build city walls

You lost me on that one. If your military juggernaught is sweeping the world, my personal technique is to skip walls. I rarely build them under any circumstances... maybe one or two places where I arrogantly overstep the ability of my trailing units to catch up, or if I take a city in the middle of the AI empire... but I normally don't even build the Great Wall. But that's OK... just a minor (expensive) difference.

Next:

you could very easily use armor to take over a city,

Gotta stop here. In modern combat (e.g., the AI has Alpines/MechInf/Walls), my armor gets butchered in city assaults. I use armor in the open, on partisans, etc. You must loose a lot of armor!!! Howies, Air, and Spies are my primary attack units . Just my preference though.

now the fundies can still build hordes of fanatics, and not put a dint in their wallet, it's just that now their main military units may now cost money.

True enough...

the soviets did spend themselves to death, but this was on research to evade the effects of the Star Wars project of the reagan adminastration-in civ II terms, they had too much trade in science, too little in taxes, and corruption everywhere(note-i edited the communist gov to have corruption as well), and even though this doesn't activate a revolution in civ, the fire sale of all the improvements would make someone consider democracy or republic

I'm gunna have to take a guess what exactly you are getting at here... you might want to break your thoughts into simpler sentences for slow thinkers like me (with respect to "the" Slow Thinker!!).

I think you are comparing the real world of the US-USSR arms race to the end game. And you're saying that real life commies didn't really have good science output, and they had lots of corruption.

If so, I'll say they had good science output, but America's was better (e.g., Democracy=better than Commie). I agree that the commies have more corruption than Civ 2 has in Communism. What rate of corruption do you feel is best for Communism?

even though this doesn't activate a revolution in civ, the fire sale of all the improvements would make someone consider democracy or republic

I don't know what you are talking about... revolutions and fire sales will not occur even with Star Wars and slightly higher corruption in Communism.... Fire Sales occur when you don't have enough gold to pay the bills between turns.... if you don't have enough gold, make and deliver some freight, raise taxes, demand tribute, take cities, make taxmen.... there's lots of ways to get gold to prevent Fire Sales. Gotta plan ahead a couple turns is all....

I don't comprehend what the talk of revolution is about ... the context is unclear...

make someone consider democracy or republic

Bingo!!

You hit the nail on the head. Democracy will bury Communism or Fundamentalism, all things being equal in a properly run empire....

which brings us to the point you originally made.... why aren't people very interested in messing with Commie/Fundy. For players that are relatively new, Commie/Fundy works out pretty well... Sid Meier made sure of that. For real party animals (party... political party, pun intended!) the party to have is Democracy and "celebrate" for the rest of the game!!

So what you've just done is talk yourself out of Fundy/Commie and discovered that you need to run a Power Democracy!

Velkommen t' da Paar-tay:

Power Democracy!!

 

[funxus]

And you're saying that real life commies didn't really have good science output

I think he meant that Soviet spent too much on science, and therefore didn't have enough money left to run the country.

I also believe that civ2 communism isn't the same communism as in Soviet and China, but Marxism. I think that there's no corruption included in Marx's book "the capital", which is the basic communism.

 

[Old n Slow]

Let’s have some fun here. I think that Starlifter & others can explain the game mechanics better than I and have done so. As far as the analogy between the game & recent history, there are a few comparisons, but we should be somewhat cautious.

First the USSR, as “communist”, is better described as a socialistic oligarchy with a (mis) managed economy IMHO (in my ‘humble’ opinion). Measured Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a standard statistic for comparing economies placed the Soviet Union economy at less than a quarter of the US GDP. IIRC (if I recall correctly) they were spending about 20% of their GDP per year to maintain a military that was less than the US in many measures of capability, yet the US was spending at a rate of about 6% of its GDP. Further, because of good neighbor relations, I seem to remember that about a million Soviet soldiers were stationed at the Chinese border.



Finally, their GDP (adjusted for inflation) at the time was in decline.

Gorby deserves a lot of credit from recognizing AND acting on the fact that it is VERY expensive to put copious resources into the military and not use those resources. It is also VERY expensive to “use” that military in a foolish fashion (such as opposing the US).

 

[starlifter]

PS, Demloth of Dol Amroth, Demloth of Dol Amroth ... calling Demloth of Dol Amroth .... ya gotta come back to your thread, dude!!! You wanted more discussion, and now look at it! We in the peanut gallery await your return! We might even want to discuss something like "Anarchy as a modern form of Government: Where did all my science go?!"

We'll let you off the hook if you're in school or playing GOTM 017 though, but always check back on threads that you start

 

[Demloth of Dol Amroth]

sorry-i've finished setting up my new computer, but it's not near an accessible phone line, so i have to keep running back and forth like some deranged weasel to get stuff between the one in the dining room and my new computer in sync. BUT BALDUR"S GATE STILL DOESN'T WORK! WHY WHY WHY!!?? i installed it three times, and RA2 twice, but BG still doesn't work!! GRAH! sorry bout that. anyway about that section that starlifter didn't quite get

the soviets did spend themselves to death, but this was on research to evade the effects of the Star Wars project of the reagan adminastration-in civ II terms, they had too much trade in science, too little in taxes, and corruption everywhere(note-i edited the communist gov to have corruption as well), and even though this doesn't activate a revolution in civ, the fire sale of all the improvements would make someone consider democracy or republic

just a bit of history-i have this uncanny ability to take notes and then do osmosis the rest of the chapter, and ace the test. it's weird.
yes, well, i do admit, a lot of you guys had good points. doesn't mean i'll change the rules back! this isn't a democracy... at least my computer isn't-or something like that. resistance is futile! alright, now i'll go on to my next point-does anyone think that using alpha centauri rules for wonders(no obsoletion) in civ II is cheap, or not? maybe not if you're talking about leo's workshop, but if that ai get's hold of the great library-you could be in for a challenge. and if anyone could help me out on my bg problems, i'd be very thankful.

 

[unknown_spirit]

I wish I could do the osmosis thing. Another bit of history though: The Soviets were never really a forward country. The reason they bankrupted themselves was due to their attempts to industrialise, and keep a humungous army going in an attempt to keep the capitalist pigs in the US at bay. Also, their economy didn't increase because: a) they severed trade with the West, b)all money was divided equally amongst the State, except to all the people, as they worked, as Westerners usually do, for peanuts. All the money went to the Supreme Soviet who blew it on nukes. Their science was basically what the rest of the world were doing, just for 'the people' sure, they were the first to get into space, and the first to get a living creature into space, but that was probably all espionage during the Cold War anyway. Also, that wasn't for scientific advancement, it was to keep tabs on the USA. Also, most space rocket work was done by Werner Von Braun in WWII for Nazi Germany (V-1 and V-2). Also, the science budget (emphasis on budget) was basically the leftovers from the nuclear armament and industrialisation. All the Russkies ever did was to stay on par with the West in terms of out and out military power. No attention was paid to improving other aspects such as living conditions or making the normal public (most of whom worked on collective farms and in the factories making, yes, tanks and AK-47s :ak47:. This, they recieved no wages for. They only recieved enough money to live on, so the Union could buy more tanks and nukes.
This does have some similarities with Civ. For instance, the cost of a big army. Also, the vet spies, since the Soviets did have the KGB and SMERSH doing all that stuff getting intelligence (and killing anyone they thought looked at their agents funny). The science is pretty average. Nothing to rave about, certainly. It is better than the USSR's in any case, so be thankful.
In Fundy, it strikes me as odd that the economy and production are so good on civ. Look at Afghanistan. Their military was tiny and weak anyway, even before the US and UK supported the Northern Alliance's advances on Kabul. Considering that when the Taliban took over through a coup d'etat, they were on horseback, and the NA were decimated. That wasn't all that long ago. A couple of decades, max. They haven't advanced much in terms of military or economy. They have not killed a single soldier of either ours or the US' (at least, not to my knowledge). The only major casualties I've heard about was the 'friendly fire' bombing by the Americans on a Canadian base. I can agree with the lack of science, simply because the advances would take an eternity to be accepted by the Church (look at what happened to Galileo when he said that the Earth revolved around the Sun). It would go against the holy book, so that is why it takes so long. The economy, I can't understand. Tithes? Sure, o.k, but still, your treasury just seems to grow and grow! Does maintenance disappear with Fundy or something? I rush-build everything with 20% Tax, 80% Luxuries (I know that no unhappy people are allowed, since they're all Jehova's Witnesses or some such, but I like celebrations and I like to have every city have every citizen happy), and can still end up with a constant 7,000G treasury. This is, as I said, completely false (look at Libya, Afghanistan, etc.)

 

[starlifter]

and if anyone could help me out on my bg problems, i'd be very thankful.

Try posting in the new Tech Support forum:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=73


by Old N Slow:

I think that Starlifter & others can explain the game mechanics better than I and have done so.

Maybe, maybe not. Hop in anytime and give your thoughts! More opinion is always better, and I personally learn a lot from both experienced guys like Smash and Sodak, as well and single digit posters. I'm sure others do too!! Never be hesitant to speak up; we civ 2 players love all kinds of posts!!!!


And now our good Demloth of Dol Amroth has more replies than he's been able to keep up with, LOL!!!

 

[Pongui]

I think fundy was meant as a deliberately vague (or broad) government type, only available to modern or post-modern nations (democracy: conscription: fundamentalism). Note that fundy comes after democracy.

Civilopedia text:
"Fundamentalism is a form of government organized around a central set of beliefs. These beliefs, usually religious in nature, form a rigid guideline for the actions and reactions of both the ruler and the people. In a Fundamentalist society, the people and the rulers are entirely devoted to their beliefs, and are usually willing to die to preserve them."

It could represent facism like in nazi Germany. Or it could represent a sort of orwellian christian extremist state like America in Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale". I think it helps to remember that ALL government types in Civ2 were designed with large empires/superpowers in mind, not tiny countries like Afghanistan (which in Civ2 terms, is a barbarian uprising).

 

[unknown_spirit]

I would say that Despotism would better represent Nazi Germany, since despotism is a dictatorship, with what is usually called an emperor. Fuhrer means emperor and Reich means empire. Plus, his rule was absolute, and he did rule by fear. Why do you think no-one under his rule attempted to stop his persecution of the Jews? Also, I would say that Iraq falls under this category, mostly because Saddam Insane takes his ideas from the bad-moustached-guy-who-liked-waving-to-Eva-Braun himself, Hitler
Fundy is a government based around fanatical religious beliefs (if you switch to it, your civ becomes a Holy Empire), as you said. Not too many people under Hitler's rule were fanatical about his ideas, nor were they all that willing to die for them. If they didn't go along with them in public or do as he asked, they'd have been killed any which way you look at it.
Afghanistan, sure is a worthless country, but the Taliban do show a strong fundamentalist setup. I used afghanistan as an example (mostly because i couldn't think of another fundy-controlled country other than Libya, and I don't know a great deal about them) Also, look at the fanatic unit. Do you not think it looks a bit like one of Binny's troops, or some other fundy sect in a country like that?

 

[Pongui]

Reflecting all the real-world varieties of government would require at least a dozen types in the tech-tree. I pay little attention to the government type name or graphics since these by their nature must be specific. You can always edit those, anyway.

I agree about nazi Germany being close to despotism.

What do you suppose was meant in the description of fundy by "These beliefs, usually religious in nature..."? The author must have had something non-religious in mind. What could it be?

I think fundy can loosely represent any modern country in the grips of an extremist regime. I see fanatics units as representing masses of young men deluded by extremism, religious or otherwise.

What if there were 12 government types? And 100 civs on the map simultaniously? The game would probably offend everybody with inaccuracies.

 

[starlifter]

Demloth of Dol Amroth has started an interesting discussion! Some very good points that you guys raise about the gov't and how Civ 2 models them....

by Demloth of Dol Amroth:

what? why does nobody respond! i've gotten two replies only

Demloth of Dol Amroth, come look at your thread, bud! Lots of stuff to talk with these guys about now!!

 

[unknown_spirit]

Originally posted by Sean Lindstrom
What if there were 12 government types? And 100 civs on the map simultaniously? The game would probably offend everybody with inaccuracies.

Intriguing... what would the additional govt's be? I can't really think of any extras that have cropped up throughout history. Also, 100 civs? That would lag no-end. But it'd make a cool WDT (World Domination Tour), like I go on when my ship reaches Alpha C. (see my post: Warfare the Unorthodox Way)

 

[Old n Slow]

Nazi Germany to me is better descirbed as a modern day monarchy (one ruler). The arrows & shield lost might be due to other "activities" practiced during those years.

Afganistan sure looks to be about a two or three city (size two or three as well) fundy civ bucking up against a modern civ of 80+ full size cities & another 100+ other sized cities. Fanatics & partisans vs. Armor & Stealth. They'll get a few bites in on the ankles, just like red ants -- and just like red ants, you really have to take out the whole nest if you want to walk around barefoot again.