Fundamentalism!!!

[Comrade Pedro]

I think the Fundamentalistic government in civ 2 was wonderfull, and i really want to have it back in civ 4. What do you think?

 

[Animist]

I agree, it was a great government to have, especially after you completed the tech tree. Excellent revenue and happiness wasn't a factor.

Perhaps they could have an option of exactly what religion you were "fundamentally," as well.

 

[warpstorm]

I think it was too powerful. The positives way outweighed any negatives.

 

[Teabeard]

It wasn't represented properly in Civ 2 because there was no religion model in Civ 2. Hopefully with a religion model in place for Civ 4 Fundamentalism can be more accurately represented.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

but you really think that fundamentalsim was positive in a level above that was fair? i think not. If we go through the idea of religion, you end up concluding that in fundamentalistic religions people has all the asnwers they'll need, and believe so blindy that they will never be unhappy, and they'll even die for it....

 

[Longasc]

I think Fundamentalism would be a good government for Civ4, but it will probably fall prey to "PC" - political correctness. Perhaps it might be seen as related to the Osama-Terror-Muslim complex and dropped due to PC.

Anyways, this government should be seen without ideological prejudices or assumptions. It should just be a different and interesting concept.

For example, I love C3C Communism. Democracy is the government I would never choose in any Civ3 game, yet in real life most of us would want to live in a Democracy.

I would like to see fundamentalism implemented as a type of Government, as I wish many more viable and diverse governments featuring different strengths and balancing weaknesses for Civ4.

This is of course difficult to do, but I usually go Monarchy OR Republic and later Communism or stay in Republic.

I simply never have any use for Facism and Feudalism! Even more so for Democracy, I NEVER use it!!! Republic beats it hands down.

 

[Fundamentality]

If they are going to bring back fundamentalism,they should probably make it available to us during early or late in the industrial age since players will take advantage and become a warmonger if it comes too early.

 

[Globetrotter]

You could still make it come earlier on, but you could limit the shield production of the cities, or put some other significant drawbacks such as increase the waste of shields and of gold generated, slow the tech research, etc.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

So, Fundamentalism will be a government with almost no corruption (i really think that aren't corruption at all), but in other hand, the science should be a matter of low importance. The support of units should be high and draft citizens won't make unhapiness....

 

[warpstorm]

but you really think that fundamentalsim was positive in a level above that was fair? i think not.

Yes, it was way to powerful a goverment form in Civ2. Realistic or not, PC or not, it was unbalanced for gameplay purposes. In the hands of a skilled player it was a near guaranteed win.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

Then which changes do you think Fundamentalism nedd to have to enter civ 4?

 

[warpstorm]

No free support fanatics.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

why? fanatics represents people who going to sacrifice his live for the sake of the Fundamentalistic government....

 

[dh_epic]

Arguments about realism aside, the fanatics just made fundamentalism too powerful. Especially in a game where war is the most important thing to pour your resources into.

 

[warpstorm]

dh_epic hit the nail on the head. It has nothing to do with realism, but rather with game balance. Allowing the fanatics makes the selection of Fundy a no-brainer. No-brainers are very bad form in a strategy game as the heart of strategy games is to make tough decisions.

 

[dh_epic]

I'd love to see a Civ with more tough decisions. Not just choosing between two evils, but choosing between two goods.

I'd like someone to say "Man, conquest would be so great... but think about how much I'd gain by sticking with my small 8 city empire!" Hard to imagine in Civ 3, but in Civ 4, maybe they could make perfectionism / anti-expansionism profitable in a different but equal way.

(Not to change the subject.)

 

[Comrade Pedro]

how to do that?

 

[mitsho]

- different victory conditions. Some that do not rely on how big your empire is. (things count per capita)
- low govs (e.g. fundam ) have a high chance of breaking the civ in two sides. (civil war, etc. ...) better use the shields for infrastructure that lets me later slowly eexpand than expand fast and then lose it slowly....
-make the map filled up with people (barbs, pirates, civs and perhaps one-city-civs (that cannot build settlers, represent minor states) at the beginning,

just some ideas, but I don't want to get off topic.

mfG mitsho

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, mitsho nailed it. New non-expansionist victory conditions, more natural barriers to expansion...

The issue is that you need to provide the players with a real choice, instead of a singular great path that everyone will follow in order to win. If that's the case, then there's no point in creating some of the other paths in the game.

I could actually think of a lot of things you could remove from Civ 3 that wouldn't change the way most competitive games are played, even if it made the game just *feel* thinner. Meaning that those concepts are greatly outweighed by the "conventional" path.

 

[Davidizer13]

Mr. Meier, PPPPPPLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEE bring back fundamentalism! I loved it, and since then I have had to be a monarchist in the US of A! You know what that's like? Take out the Fanatic, I don't care! Just put in tithes and no angriness! Maybe add to the corruption, but JUST BRING BACK FUNDAMENTALISM!
______________________________________
I'm Davidizer13 and I approved this message.