Minor Suggestions Thread

[gash]

"they"(10 characters)

They refers to more than one person. Rhye is not a they. Maybe if he had a few clones, then maybe he could become they, but he cannot become a they until that point.

 

[kbk]

They refers to more than one person. Rhye is not a they. Maybe if he had a few clones, then maybe he could become they, but he cannot become a they until that point.

While technically, the only gender neutral pronoun in English is it, using it to refer to a person is considered insulting. Most people also find it insulting to refer to someone as the wrong gender. This has lead to the technically incorrect use of they to refer to a person of unknown gender.

Some grammarians find this quite obnoxious because they does refer to multiple people, I prefer the interpretation that language is interactive. If most people use the language in one way (even if that way is wrong), then who are a few linguists to say they're wrong?

That said, in an official document I would never say they, I'd however use one. But then, I publish stuff in scientific journals, and they can be picky.

 

[blizzrd]

That said, in an official document I would never say they, I'd however use one.

One does tend to agree with this point of view.

 

[gash]

Interesting insight. I guess I could have used "one." Typically, I use that for mainly schoolwork, though. So I guess that I never thought about using it in an informal setting like that. One sounds too formal or philosophical when one uses one, and one also seems to stick out in that setting when one uses one. (People who use this thread must hate me by now for bringing up this grammar discussion.)

 

[Walka]

No I don't.

1) you ignored Mercantilism
2) Free Market has practically nothing to share with paying overtime.
3) People can work not just for money, you know. In a (real) communism you work for a greater goal, and most likely if you're asked to work more, you'll do it. The reward will be the accomplished goal and prestige.
4) Decentralization the government has no control ? Same with Free Market, which surely doesn't give a government the tools to hurry the construction of a highway or other infrastructure. The overtime is payed by the employer and I don't see why this shouldn't happen under a decentralized economy (which btw is something totally senseless to mention) or mercantilism.
5) the reason you can hurry via gold with Universal Suffrage but not with other civics is purely strategical, it does not and doesn't have to make any sense from the realistic point of view.

I suppose I did. I knew there was one I was forgetting while I was writing (I hadn't played Civ4 in a while). But while I agree that mercantilism is the most 'controlling' of the economic civics, because it also means no foreign trade, it wouldn't make sense to have the ability to rush with gold on it.

I suppose the main reason I thought it needed a change was that governments were paying their citizens money to complete products, constructions, etc. long before democracy/universal suffrage was prominent. I know it doesn't have to be realistic, but should we not endeavor to make it? I know I prefer games that are realistic, and that I'm not alone in that view.

While I agree that, in a truly 'free' market that government has no control, many world markets said to be 'free' are, to a degree, controlled by the government. Here in New Zealand, for example, our government sets minimum wage, tariffs and so forth.

I remember back it Civ3 you could rush with gold at anytime (at least, I think I remember it that way... I know it's the case with the new CivRev, at least, and I think it makes sense).

So, instead of shifting it to Free Market, another civic, perhaps?

Also, in response to the 'lack of a third person pronoun', it's quite acceptable to say "(s)he" when the gender is uncertain

 

[blizzrd]

Also, in response to the 'lack of a third person pronoun', it's quite acceptable to say "(s)he" when the gender is uncertain

Did the last person, gender uncertain when you addressed them but who turned out to be a woman, that you happened to refer to as "he", actually express that this was acceptable?

 

[Walka]

Did the last person, gender uncertain when you addressed them but who turned out to be a woman, that you happened to refer to as "he", actually express that this was acceptable?

Well, it's not calling them 'he' - the brackets indicate that you don't know, and it could be either. I certainly wouldn't say it out loud, only in writing. I don't know if I've ever actually met/talked to someone I've referred to in that way. Anyway, isn't this a bit off topic?

 

[onedreamer]

I suppose the main reason I thought it needed a change was that governments were paying their citizens money to complete products, constructions, etc. long before democracy/universal suffrage was prominent.

are you sure ? Examples ?

I know it doesn't have to be realistic, but should we not endeavor to make it? I know I prefer games that are realistic, and that I'm not alone in that view.

We sure should, but at the same time we should strive for strategic gameplay, which wasn't taken much in consideration in your idea. For example, Free Market is already by far the best economic civic in RFC, and doesn't need any more "boost" IMHO.

While I agree that, in a truly 'free' market that government has no control, many world markets said to be 'free' are, to a degree, controlled by the government. Here in New Zealand, for example, our government sets minimum wage, tariffs and so forth.

Yeah but what I meant is that whatever control the gov. has on the trading economy, it doesn't deal with constructions. Minimum wages, max work time etc are civil rights, not economic strategies. So they belong more to a governement type than economic type, which curiously leads us to the conclusion that Universal Suffrage makes more sense than Free Market.

So, instead of shifting it to Free Market, another civic, perhaps?

I wouldn't shift it at all. Employees belong to the industrial age, so rush with gold with Democracy and Universal Suffrage makes more sense than anything else from the realistic point of view, and from the strategic point of view it balances gov. civics that would otherwise be a complete no brainer compared to Universal Suffrage.

 

[Panopticon]

Re Coloniae (On the subject of Colonies):

Ever since Guilds was added as a prerequisite for Optics, I've noticed a lot of Arabian conquests of the New World civs. Guilds is a starting tech for Arabia, but not for the large European countries. So it's natural that Arabia will head for Optics (and therefore build Caravels) more quickly than the Europeans. Can anyone think of a solution that doesn't give Arabia that advantage?

 

[onedreamer]

Make Netherlands start with one less tech ? And/or Vikings with one more.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Well, you can require paper for optics too (making those lenses did require a little more mapmaking than just being in a guild of Lenscrafters).

 

[gash]

Here is a (possibly) new suggestion. Perhaps we should add the effects of demographic transition in the game after a city has reached a certain size so that the agriculture penalties are not applied to a modern era civilization that obviously can provide enough food for itself. Make it so that agricultural penalties only apply if there is a large food gap for cities above a certain population and/or civilizations that have discovered certain techs like biology or refrigeration.

 

[Virdrago]

Re Coloniae (On the subject of Colonies):

Ever since Guilds was added as a prerequisite for Optics, I've noticed a lot of Arabian conquests of the New World civs. Guilds is a starting tech for Arabia, but not for the large European countries. So it's natural that Arabia will head for Optics (and therefore build Caravels) more quickly than the Europeans. Can anyone think of a solution that doesn't give Arabia that advantage?

The fact that Arabia usually doesn't have a good trading partner because of its religion generally takes away this advantage. The Europeans trade; the East Asians trade (when Buddhist). Arabia just hates everyone, and usually is at war with either Babylonia (3000BC start), Persia, Egypt, India, Turkey...

 

[Panopticon]

@Virdrago: I would have thought so too, but there's often one European civ without a state religion (England or Vikings are good candidates). And the empirical evidence I've gathered comparing pre-change to post-change suggests a lot more Arabian expansion since the change - I would say 50% of my spawns have involved an Islamic New World.

 

[onedreamer]

I've never witnessed Arabia colonizing the New World... ever. But I only play 3000 BC. What about you Panopticon ?

And btw I think that Mongolia should start with a coupla islamic missionaries.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I've never witnessed Arabia colonizing the New World... ever. But I only play 3000 BC.

600AD Arabia is a bit more active.

Mongolia should start with a coupla islamic missionaries.

Why? Althrough the Golden Horde adopted Islam, Mongolia itself is Buddhist.

 

[Panopticon]

I've never witnessed Arabia colonizing the New World... ever. But I only play 3000 BC. What about you Panopticon ?

And btw I think that Mongolia should start with a coupla islamic missionaries.

Yeah, I should have mentioned that this is based on 600 AD starts. I'm impatient!

 

[onedreamer]

Why? Althrough the Golden Horde adopted Islam, Mongolia itself is Buddhist.

not just Golden Horde but 3 of the 4 Khanates that formed after the death of Genghis Khan adopted Islam. The original Mongols were shamanistic (in RFC this means no religion), and they converted to Buddhism only much later (when the Empire was long gone). So of all the religions present in RFC the one that makes more sense is Islam, which would also help it spread in the area east of the Caspian Sea were it almost never gets and the ahistorical hinduism and buddhism dominate the scene.

 

[kbk]

Yet there wasn't much spread of Islam in the Mongol original areas, which is what having them start with missionaries would do. Instead, they conquer areas that are Islamic from the expansion of Arabia.

 

[Walka]

Well, ok, it seems that my argument has been beaten, and I concede