jupiterkris
Warlord
***** KABOOM *****
message detonated by starter of thread
in lieu of less than favourable responses
message detonated by starter of thread
in lieu of less than favourable responses
Fundamentalism
- Thread starter jupiterkris
- Start date
jupiterkris
Warlord
Fundamentalism provides a "viable" option for some players in a screwed up situation, at any age after Industrial .
Go out in a last ditch, blaze of glory with SoH and Unabombers . 
Go out in a last ditch, blaze of glory with SoH and Unabombers .
jupiterkris
Warlord
If Fascism included in C3C; why not Fundamentalism ?
I edit and try to make idea less suck .
elementgoo
Lazy Monarch
I would probably never spend the time to build a indocrination camp and i usually exceed 4 cities very quickly
Seth the Dark
The Lost Soul
Wow. I love people and their religiphobia. C'mon, indoctrination?
jupiterkris
Warlord
Fundamentalism is not "winning" strategy;
more a desperate gambit, like when down to 4 cities in Deity or Sid .
more a desperate gambit, like when down to 4 cities in Deity or Sid .
Note : Indoctrination Camp - culture per turn = 0
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
The idea that blowing yourself up is a quality uniquely associated with Fundamentalism is pretty dumb.
It's about as dumb as saying that genocide is uniquely associated with Fascism.
Or that slavery is uniquely associated with Democracy.
And by the way: the Unibomber was American. In fact, I think he was an atheist.
It's about as dumb as saying that genocide is uniquely associated with Fascism.
Or that slavery is uniquely associated with Democracy.
And by the way: the Unibomber was American. In fact, I think he was an atheist.
jupiterkris
Warlord
Fundamentalism : one definition
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
I'm thinking of Fundamentalism as opposed to Modernism - so even atheists can be Fundamentalists .
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
I'm thinking of Fundamentalism as opposed to Modernism - so even atheists can be Fundamentalists .
jupiterkris
Warlord
On further consideration, I'm blowing up the idea .
(generally not a good idea for some to play with explosive materials)
So if someone else has an idea of how Fundamentalism can be done better, please go ahead in a thread elsewhere, and good luck .
MeteorPunch
#WINNING
I don't hink this should be an option for major civs. maybe minor ones or barbarians.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Seth the Dark said:
Do people get asked nicely by their parents to adopt religion then?
Fundamentalism worked to a point in CIV2, with some tweaking it could work in CIV4 too.
........
well i liked the idea behind fundamentalism but in civ2 for me it was allllllways the government i would adopt no matter the circumstances. goverments need to be more integral to the gameplay of civ4 in that whatever one you pick will have a MAJOR impact on ur economy and how others view you. suicide units would be stupid tho IMO. call to power i think had the right sort of movement towards this but civ3 took a step back. for those who didnt play ctp, your production, science, wealth etc depended slightly on your government.
jupiterkris
Warlord
I didn't know Fundamentalism was in Civ2 .
My idea of Fundamentalism is that it can be elemental to all govts, and often arises in times of dire need .
OK, so certain references in the first idea stank .
Please bear with me; this is a complete rethink .
I hope I don't have to explode this one as well !
***** KABLAM *****
message detonated again by starter of thread
please see below for final "rethink"
My idea of Fundamentalism is that it can be elemental to all govts, and often arises in times of dire need .
OK, so certain references in the first idea stank .
Please bear with me; this is a complete rethink .
I hope I don't have to explode this one as well !
***** KABLAM *****
message detonated again by starter of thread
please see below for final "rethink"
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
I wouldn't enforce a city limit of 4, instead I would just out in extreme penalties for any expansion (ie conquered cities are VERY likely to try to rebel/generate massive waves of fleeing refugees, essentially auto razing down to the next lower size)
I wouldn't give a bonus to production, instead I would give a Penalty to production and a Bonus to Military units (making it sort of like Mobilization) so that the buildings that are lost in the conquest aren't easy to rebuild.
I wouldn't give a bonus to production, instead I would give a Penalty to production and a Bonus to Military units (making it sort of like Mobilization) so that the buildings that are lost in the conquest aren't easy to rebuild.
jupiterkris
Warlord
The idea is that Fundamentalism is not a govt or religion per se .
But an ideology of rigid adherence to basic principles,
And so can be a splinter of all govts or religions
Which may not be a bad thing in itself
But is usually sustainable only in relatively smaller numbers,
Becuz of the strict monitoring necessary .
4 city start becuz that is often when the inner ring is breached .
And perhaps sustainable beyond 4,
Only if a total culture generated per turn (non linear,total city progression) is exceeded ?
This way, Fundamentalism is not feasible for ultimate victory
But can serve as a gambit to stave off annihilation
With a possibility of culture limited expansion .
But an ideology of rigid adherence to basic principles,
And so can be a splinter of all govts or religions
Which may not be a bad thing in itself
But is usually sustainable only in relatively smaller numbers,
Becuz of the strict monitoring necessary .
4 city start becuz that is often when the inner ring is breached .
And perhaps sustainable beyond 4,
Only if a total culture generated per turn (non linear,total city progression) is exceeded ?
This way, Fundamentalism is not feasible for ultimate victory
But can serve as a gambit to stave off annihilation
With a possibility of culture limited expansion .
Kosez
Sitting Wool
I don`t know about size.
Countries with which we usually link fundamentalism aren`t that small. They are just backwards in economic and scientific sense. And fundamentalism allways goes from the top to the ground, from authority/government to common people.
Fundamentalism means stagnation: economical, scientific, democratic, political,...
It gets you nowhere.
Fundamentalistic countries can not survive without foreign help.
Countries with which we usually link fundamentalism aren`t that small. They are just backwards in economic and scientific sense. And fundamentalism allways goes from the top to the ground, from authority/government to common people.
Fundamentalism means stagnation: economical, scientific, democratic, political,...
It gets you nowhere.
Fundamentalistic countries can not survive without foreign help.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Not necessarily. Part of how fundamentalism gets its success is in cricism of both communism and capitalism, and western democracy.
They look at Communism and, obviously, they see godlessness, and a belief that there is only man. They see massive amounts of corruption, probably related to this godlessness.
They look at Capitalism and Western democracy, and they see divorce rates getting out of control, crime on the streets, children shooting each other in schools, and the very foundations of family and community being destroyed. They also see Western Democracy's unwillingness to control consumption, with obesity at an epidemic level, and they're literally choking on Near East oil, with more job losses to come as the automobile industry feels the impact of high gasoline prices. They're also terrified of homosexuality, which they see as an epidemic that is spreading, with the potential to stamp out human reproduction. In other words, they fail to see the benefits of "liberalism".
Is there any doubt that Fundamentalism would emerge as an option? Heck, it seems to be emerging as a popular choice right here at home.
These are the benefits of Fundamentalism. Not "people willing to blow themselves up", but an incredibly stable, and (what they believe to be) moral society.
But these benefits won't carry over to a game where resources are infinite, where your people don't experience a kind of "future shock" from all the rapid technological change of the modern age, and the belief that freedom will ultimately bring happiness. Not to mention that Civilization takes a route where there is no morality, let alone God. It's all about winning.
Not that I'm a Fundamentalist. I'm just explaining why some people believe it's a better way. And as a rationalist with a healthy amount of skepticism, I have to say, there's the faintest possibility that they're right about a few things.
They look at Communism and, obviously, they see godlessness, and a belief that there is only man. They see massive amounts of corruption, probably related to this godlessness.
They look at Capitalism and Western democracy, and they see divorce rates getting out of control, crime on the streets, children shooting each other in schools, and the very foundations of family and community being destroyed. They also see Western Democracy's unwillingness to control consumption, with obesity at an epidemic level, and they're literally choking on Near East oil, with more job losses to come as the automobile industry feels the impact of high gasoline prices. They're also terrified of homosexuality, which they see as an epidemic that is spreading, with the potential to stamp out human reproduction. In other words, they fail to see the benefits of "liberalism".
Is there any doubt that Fundamentalism would emerge as an option? Heck, it seems to be emerging as a popular choice right here at home.
These are the benefits of Fundamentalism. Not "people willing to blow themselves up", but an incredibly stable, and (what they believe to be) moral society.
But these benefits won't carry over to a game where resources are infinite, where your people don't experience a kind of "future shock" from all the rapid technological change of the modern age, and the belief that freedom will ultimately bring happiness. Not to mention that Civilization takes a route where there is no morality, let alone God. It's all about winning.
Not that I'm a Fundamentalist. I'm just explaining why some people believe it's a better way. And as a rationalist with a healthy amount of skepticism, I have to say, there's the faintest possibility that they're right about a few things.
jupiterkris
Warlord
What bananas I've gathered from posts so far ...
Fundamentalism is reactionary rather than proactive
And occurs in the face of what is perceived as threatening change,
Threatening in the sense not only of physical annihilation,
But of cultural regression and dissolution from vice and excesses .
Fundamentalism's hallmark is a drive for stability and security
By returning to more conservative tradition,
Which might impact unfavorably on Science and Commerce
As well as alienating some segments of the pop and other civs.
And what bananas I might add ...
Its short-term viability relies on underlying happiness and culture
And long-term success on domination by culture.
So, maybe ...
Fundamentalism, as a civ option, can arise in the face of war with excessive war weariness
Successful transition depends on happiness and culture
Features :
1. Some relief of War Weariness
2. Use of MPs for happy points
3. Slight drop in Science/Commerce/Production
4. Sharper Military
5. Heroes arising from the pop
6. Extra culture from Doctrine and Heroic exploits
7. Immunity to cultural flip; Enhanced flipping of other cultures
8. Increased difficulty in quelling and being quelled
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"After Reading THIS, you'll NEVER look at a banana in the same way again!" ... banana facts
Fundamentalism is reactionary rather than proactive
And occurs in the face of what is perceived as threatening change,
Threatening in the sense not only of physical annihilation,
But of cultural regression and dissolution from vice and excesses .
Fundamentalism's hallmark is a drive for stability and security
By returning to more conservative tradition,
Which might impact unfavorably on Science and Commerce
As well as alienating some segments of the pop and other civs.
And what bananas I might add ...
Its short-term viability relies on underlying happiness and culture
And long-term success on domination by culture.
So, maybe ...
Fundamentalism, as a civ option, can arise in the face of war with excessive war weariness
Successful transition depends on happiness and culture
Features :
1. Some relief of War Weariness
2. Use of MPs for happy points
3. Slight drop in Science/Commerce/Production
4. Sharper Military
5. Heroes arising from the pop
6. Extra culture from Doctrine and Heroic exploits
7. Immunity to cultural flip; Enhanced flipping of other cultures
8. Increased difficulty in quelling and being quelled
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"After Reading THIS, you'll NEVER look at a banana in the same way again!" ... banana facts Similar threads
