Thoughts on Fundamentalism!

[zozzo123]

Hi m8s ...

I read some posts complainig from the strength of fundamentalism , I read also that it will not be included in Civ 3 .

well, In my opinion , Communism should not be included or they can alter its effects ( Communistic governments already collapsed and this goverment should be more fragile than democracy as people will act as time bomb that may explode at any time looking for more freedom ) .

But fundamentalism - in my opinion - is one of the most important governments, and I will list my evidences :-

1- Role of islam in civilization is completely withdrawn from the game, and replaced by fundamentalism for generalization.

2-Islam -Particularly Egyptian armies- were the only armies that defeated the Mongols, we actually crushed the Mongols and protected North africa and the whole europe from Mongol invasion . and islam( described as part of fundamentalism) was the motive beyond the egyptian army to defeat the most bloodthirsty armies in the world .

3- King Richard crusade stopped by Saladdin and King Richard was forced to negotiate peace treaty and all crusaders went back , it was considered as a wonder in the game but what about the armies that stopped this crusade ??!!

4- Under the islamic government at this period, The islamic empire expanded to fill half of Africa, Reached the borders of china, Spain and Portugal , turkey , and many european counties were under rule of the islamic empire , which lasted hundreds of years till islamic leaders gradually forgot the islamic rules and started to divide , so they pushed back from spain after 700 years of ruling .

All this was due to the vast inspirational power of religion that made the islamic empire the strongest in the middle age.

so religious factors must be included in CIV 3 as this is reality , what I am saying is few examples already happened few hundred years ago .

5- science production should not be halfed , why? at this time many scientists in all science fields arose, and at this time europe used to copy these books to study them and develop these sciences , blatent examples are : ALCHEMY (chemistry in arabic as europe copied the basis of chemistry from islamic empire), AlGEBRA(an arabic science too), ALCOHOL (arabic word) , and many other sciences already discovered under islam ( described as fundamentalism under the game), so why half science only allowed??????

6- In my opinion Fundamentalism science rate should be 80 % ...why not 100%? cuz science under islam (or fundamentalism), have limits , it forbids cloning of humans, forbids nuclear weapon use and production , forbids massive destruction weapons, etc ... so science rate can be 80% but not 100% .

7- Happiness : Under fundamentalism ( happiness is not 100%) as some people may dislike the restictions due to religin and want more freedom , also some people may be without religion and surely will be unhappy under fundamentalism.

8- Shield production should not be harmed under fundamentalism , as i mentioned islamic empire already floureshed for thousands of years and already had vast wealth, so no corelation between fundamentalism and poor science, poor economy .

I think fundamentalism should remain , or other government should be includied which is Khelafa ( Islamic government ), it already lasted for at least 1000 yeard and may revive again so why it was not included??

Fanatics are drawback of prevention of applying fundamentalism ...how? Underfundamentalism ...every fundamentalist will be happy so no need for fanatism. btw...religious fanatics are not character of fundamentalistic government.

Religious fanatics appear at time where another government rule, these people get pissed cuz they want religion to rule and they already they have misunderstanding to the religious rules, they blow buildings, kill people, make assasinations in desperate trials to revive fundamentalism ( better call it religious government) . so they r not religious ...they r terrorist like even they MAY mean well .

Finally, those were my thoughts about fundamentalism...so for more realism ..better customise fundamentalism gigving it its realistic balance ... but it must be a part of governments in CIV 3

Regards

 

[starlifter]

An excellent post, zozzo123!

5- science production should not be halfed , why?

The reason the game cuts science by 50% is because Fundy is the most powerful government in the game, hands down, otherwise. Except for bribery and WLT_ growth, Fundy has no real drawbacks, except for 50% science. So it's a game balance issue in Civ II.

6 - In my opinion Fundamentalism science rate should be 80 % ..

Have you seen the "facist patch"? I've read about it, but not actually played with it. They tweaked it much like what you suggest.

BTW, you can set the Fundy science rate to anything you want in rules.txt. If you want 80%, it is easy to set

.


Gotta go now, but I'll return and maybe write more later.


PS, If I have the Pyramids (as we've talked about before in other threads... my favorite early wonder), I think I should be able to have your Fundy gov't

.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Some thoughts in return : -

1) Civ2 is a general game and fundamentalism as a govt in the game is meant to represent all religious govts - be it Christian, Islamic or whatever. As such, it cannot accurately represent every single type of religion-driven govt in history - it's only the game equivalent of a generalised form of fundamentalist govts in history.

2) The army that stopped the Mongols are Mamelukes - slave soldiers. I don't think they can be termed as Egyptian since their ranks are composed of all nationalities - Slavs, Turks, the peoples of the Balkans etc. They are bought as boys from the slave mkts and brought up as soldiers. Originally they owed allegience to the ruler (as property belonging to the ruler) but later they become the rulers themselves. Plus the Mongol army that reach Palestine is hardly Mongol. Most of the ranks are nomads in vassalage to the Mongol khan. The elite Mongol units have already turned home to elect a new khan (Genghis Khan or Ogodei just died I think). Also reason why Europe was saved. Batu (who conquered Kievan Russia) defeated an army of Europeans in Central Europe but turned back too to elect new khan. They never returned.

3) I too don't understand the rationale for the Crusade wonder. Also, I think Civ2 is leaned too heavily towards Christianity and the West, in the naming of wonders.

4) In the beginning, the Islamic empire is religious but later it turned more secular (i.e. the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates). Led to power struggles and then break-ups. Also must remember the Middle East is a very ancient region with lots and lots of ethnic groups. Not easy for any power to hold it in its entire totality for long. Islam shld be given credit for managing to unify this region religion-wise even up till today.

5) When Arab science flowered, the govts in power were more-or-less secular. So I think the 50% in science rate shld be kept.

Basically I think fundamentalism in Civ2 denotes more of a country like Iran or Afghanistan today rather than medieval Islam. Agree with you fundamentalism shld be retained. Perhaps with lesser characteristics.

 

[duke o' york]

It sounds to me like Zozzo (a kind of drunken Zorro? - except he's a muslim, oops. Better finish my sentence before I get into trouble here.) should just change the title of democracy to "Islamic goverment", because he seems to want fundy to be essentially that. Fundy without NON units defeats the whole purpose. These governments must all have different strengths and weaknesses or else there would be no point in choosing between them. I agree with SKM that fundy is not meant to represent any particular religion so should not have to take into account the achievements of just one example of this government form.

------------------
in vino veritas

 

[SaucyJack]

Well, I am going to have to make a few comments and let the hate mail poor in. I see nothing incorrect about the fundy govt. getting hit in the science dept. None at all, and not for reasons of "balance" either. I definately believe that the reason why societies do not continue to be as productive as others has to do, in part, with organized, strong, religious government. Yes, many of these governments were very powerful and built strong empires; but how are they doing now? Compared to many of the feudal countries of the day, fundamentalism has a certain advantage. Compared with modern Republics however, they fall short. Societies established and practicing vast amounts of tradition in general are going to fall behind. It's all about incentive. People must have an incentive to "discover" anything, and societies that are traditional are.....well, traditional, they do the same thing over and over until passed up. This isn't to say they are incorrect or foolish, just different. Christian fundalmentalism existed also. The catholic church is very powerful indeed. Funny, the only first-world Spanish speaking country in the world is the mothrland herself. This is a VERY simplified version of course, but I tire of writing. Sorry for being so vague, your post is very interesting

 

[zozzo123]

Hi again ...

Thankx Starlifter ... I think under this topic there will be many things to discuss....
For Starlifter :-

U underestood why I wanted science under fundamentalism to be 80%

I also said that happiness won't be 100%, no fanatics ... so the balance should not be harmed.

I didn't see that Facist patch , seems that it replaces FUNDY by Facism .

anyway, I am looking forward to hear ur thoughts regarding this topic again

.

For SKM:-

1) current fundamentalism is only represented as u said by afghanistan and Iran ( it is not related by any mean to medieval islam which represents the real islamic government)but why the game ignores ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT and replaces it by FUNDY?!! .

2) Who stopped the Mongols?? Memloks at this period in Egypt were rulers , after successive murders , all the Kings of Egypt were killed , and then the egyptian people chosen Kotoz (His original name is Mahmoud
)to be the new king of Egypt ( He was Memlok) but I will tell u his story :-

Mahmoud was from noble family and lived in the far east in the islamic kingdom , the mongols entered thisd region , Killed all people, took all money , Luckily he escaped this massacre and a wise guy took him - together with young girl from the noble family too - and made a noble mark on their shoulders by flame , then sold them in Egypt, where he learnt how to become a warrior, he was chosen by Ezz EL Din Aybak (who became king of Egypt later) to be his friend and secrets keeper, at this time the king of Egypt died and his wife Shagaret EL Dorr, became a temporary queen, she married later Ezz el Din Aybak and he became the new King, later on, He and his wife were killed and Egypt became with no ruler. Mongol spies knew this and sent a messanger from Holako Khan, demanding tribute and in return sparing Egypt from the Mongol army, The egyptian people elected Mahmoud to be the new king and he informed the messanger, that Egypt will fight the Mongols, Mongols were many at this time (as far as i know they were hundreds of thousands) and Egypt started to collect its army, so the army was Egyptian under memlouk leader (Mahmoud and he was already noble moslem leader) . at this time mosques in Egypt played a crucial rule in inspiring the Egyptian young men to train and the workers to make weapons .

At AIN GALOT the two armies fought and the egyptian army crushed the Mongol and they never come back, sparing north africa and europe from their never ending harassement .

So Mongols came under leadership of Holako Khan as Jenchis Khan died, They won't demand tribute from Egypt unless they have full power to fight.

3)we r talking about governments in civilization as the ideal model, Democracy in its ideal model = What u see in civilization.
Communism = Ideal model that never happened in real life.

Islamic form of government should be includied in the game (btw it has no flows and it will be as i described fundamentalism) . I am talking about the ideal form of islamic government which lasted for about 1000 years in medival islam, moslem leaders, ruined that ideal form and so the government collapsed so this should not be a flaw in the islamic govbernment, but mistakes from the leaders. so the government(ideal form) should mbe included in the game and take its chances as Democracy, Republic ...etc.

4)Game is developed in the west

if it was developed in Egypt we would be biased towards islam too

this is normal but I hope the game in CIV 3 become not biased for christianity and west only, east also have very important rule and other religions should have their chance in the game .

5) I don't agree with crusade wonder, simply this crusade was not for holy reason (although people in europe thought so) and the crusade already failed and on the other side Saladdin united all arabs (Moslems and christians) to face these crusades.

Friend

U r very good in history ...

For duke -

Democracy = Islamic government (Ideal form in early islam) + Islamic government have the advantage of people being happy .

phew .. I typed alot...Better take som rest

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Friend Zozzo123, thanks for the compliment! I'm a history freak so I sort of have all sorts of funny knowledge lurking in my head.
Anyway, to continue with the discussion : -

1) I concede your point but pls define Islamic govt more clearly. I have thought that after the Jihad when the Arab tribal warriors conquered much of the Middle East, they settled down to consolidate and rule. They maintained much of the previous administration for non-Muslims (Byzantine towards the west; Sassanid Persian towards the east). So in game terms, it would be like chged govt to fundamentalist, conquered and then chged to monarchy. Although you have the Caliphate on the top, but the basic administration is Persian/Greek. Am I wrong?

2) I don't think I have ever read that before in any history book I have come across but I am pretty sure you got a few points wrong. First, Hulagu didn't become the Great Khan after Genghis Khan died; Ogodei (his third son) did. And after that, was Kublai Khan (cos he conquered China - the Southern Song dynasty). Hulagu only became the khan of the Ilkhan Mongols who ruled over Persia and the parts of the Middle East under Mongol dominion. The main Mongol armies were in China to hold the country. Second, the Mongol troops never numbered that many. At most their original steppe homeland could only support 100000 to 200000 warriors. The reason why their armies were much bigger was cos they took in vassals - other nomadic tribes, Turkish troops of the defeated Turkish ruler of Central Asia, North Chinese conscripts etc. The core Mongol element was quite small. Anyway Hulagu didn't have that many of the Mongol armies with him. The Great Khan threw the Mongol main forces against Song China. Took them 2 generations to conquer the entire country. Three, I don't see how defeating the Ilkhan Mongols in Palestine had anything to do with Europe cos the European theatre of operations was under the command of the Golden Horde. These ruled over Russia and Ukraine and raided into Central Europe.

3) Islam rose in the 600s. After the 1st century or 2, it broke up into a few portions. Like I had said, Middle East is a vast region and there were just too many tensions between the different parts. Spain became the refuge of the Umayyads. The Fatimids and others rose up in North Africa. The Central Asia portion came under the rule of Turkish gazi (spiritual warriors) I think. The main zone remained under the Abbasid Caliphate. And so on.
The above is just some useless information. Sometimes I get carried away.

I hate to tell you this but I venture my opinion that the medieval Islamic states were a lot like monarchies in much the same way like the Christian kingdoms in Europe.

4) Guess we can do nothing about it.

5) The Crusades mean many things to many people. Sensitive topic. So I'll have nothing further to say on it since I am neither Christian nor Muslim.

 

[duke o' york]

But what's the point of an ideal goverment. Despite the fact that Egypt's government does not seem to be meeting all (or any) of the requirements that you have set out for Islamic Fundamentalism, in Civ you have to be prepared to make sacrifices in order to achieve certain goals. With Fundy, you can capture a gret deal of the world but if one of your opponents discovers mobile warfare then you'll be the one running. With Democracy, you can have a huge civ and technology way beyond the others, but to try and build a worthwhile army is difficult and even then there is no guarantee that you can use it to start a war.
Your ideal government would make the game a walkover. (Well, more of a walkover than it already is)

------------------
in vino veritas

 

[zozzo123]

Hi, Took me some time to read and analyse

For Duke O;York :-

U r right about perfect government will ruin the game, but u didn't got my point , I never said something about Egypt's government, all other arab and islamic countries didn't apply that true islamic government. it lasted hundreds of years in middle age and was superb at that time.

what i wanted to say , Communism in the game is a big failure in real life while the game ignores Islamic khelafa which lasted 1000 years, I want Facist government, Nazi government, Fundamentalism and Islamic khelafa to be included in CIV 3 for more realism. but we can discuss proper balance between them ...got my point now??

For SKM :-

U r really good in history and it is not a compliment

U know many things that I don't really know.

I don't know much about Khans , but I know very well about history of Memloks in Egypt. What I said is a real story about Mahmoud, As u know , Egypt is link between Asia and Africa, so if Mongols entered Egypt, they would expand to whole north Africa and get to europe as Arabs did when they entered Spain.

So my thoughts on the Islamic government should be:-

A)Leader is Khalifa

B)Tax rate ( when moslems conquer a land, they send messagnger giving 3 options :-

1- Join islam and have our rights and our duties .

2- If u don't want to join islam, then pay tribute (affordable tribute ) and in return there will be armies in that land to protect it against intruders .

3- no tribute, No joining to islam = war till the army surrender, Moslems build fortresses, mosques and leave religion free for everyone to choose. Moslems pay Zakah ( 2.5% of their annual savings for poor people), marginal tax go for beet el mal (bank) . and non moslems pay Gezyah (some money ).
so as u can se, in ideal islamic government , there will be enough cash = 80 % as maximum tax rate or as low as 60% .

C)Science= 80 % as i said b4

D)Special abilities :-

1-Chance 50% of mthe produiced units to be veterans without need for barracks ( due to inspirational powers of religion).

2-no more fanatics (i explained the concept of fanatism in my original post above) .
3-Ability to build mosques ( have similar effect as temples without maintainence costs)
4- anything u suggest

Yes, mongols collect their armies from their slaves after battles thats why they were not stoppable . (Tis also a very important thing to be includied in CIV 3 ) ......> to apply sepcial abilities for each civilization in the game that will not be accessible to other tribes .

Will reply later for the rest of points

 

[duke o' york]

zozzo said this about the mechanics of the khelafa:

---------------------------------------------
So my thoughts on the Islamic government should be:-

A)Leader is Khalifa

B)Tax rate ( when moslems conquer a land, they send messagnger giving 3 options :-

1- Join islam and have our rights and our duties .

2- If u don't want to join islam, then pay tribute (affordable tribute ) and in return there will be armies in that land to protect it against intruders .

3- no tribute, No joining to islam = war till the army surrender, Moslems build fortresses, mosques and leave religion free for everyone to choose. Moslems pay Zakah ( 2.5% of their annual savings for poor people), marginal tax go for beet el mal (bank) . and non moslems pay Gezyah (some money ).
so as u can se, in ideal islamic government , there will be enough cash = 80 % as maximum tax rate or as low as 60% .

C)Science= 80 % as i said b4

D)Special abilities :-

1-Chance 50% of mthe produiced units to be veterans without need for barracks ( due to inspirational powers of religion).

2-no more fanatics (i explained the concept of fanatism in my original post above) .
3-Ability to build mosques ( have similar effect as temples without maintainence costs)

All the stuff about options when you conquer a foreign land is entirely unapplicable to Civ II as it is. When you take a city, it's yours! I think that the cultural sphere idea in Civ III will allow you to take a city, make it more successful than it was under its old leadership and thereby inspire other cities to join your kingdom. There will be no need to muck around with collecting tribute in the form of taxation.
What happens to the Zakah in Civ? Does it just disappear? It would have to since there are no poor people per se, all the citizens are considered en masse. If the city does not produce enough trade, which is evenly distributed among the residents, then you start to get unhappy citizens. These are not necessarily poor, as they will still keep working the square they always were and the trade arrows on that square have no bearing on whether the individual worker becomes unhappy. It is all managed at a city level.
These arrows still need to be translated into beakers or coins though. You can't possibly have a tax minimum of 60% and a maximum of 80% as it would make your idea to have 80% max possible science ridiculous. The money and advances come from adjusting the two concerns, not just assuming you can have everything at once.
I do, however, think that your idea with mosques is a good one - free upkeep of temples for any fundy government would make a lot of sense, but the 50% chance of veteran units doesn't reflect the inspiring power of religion. Religious zeal will make the conscriptees far worse soldiers than others because they will not be controllable. The best soldiers are level-headed, with experience that comes from either prior campaigns or training in the barracks. This sort of skill cannot be attained merely through believing strongly enough in a cause that you will attack a tank with a sword.

------------------
in vino veritas

[This message has been edited by duke o' york (edited July 04, 2001).]Text

[This message has been edited by duke o' york (edited July 04, 2001).]

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Wouldn't these proposed changes make Islamic government the unquestionably most powerful in the game? I do not subscribe to your quick rationale for dropping communism.
Sure it may not have succeeded in real life, but so what? It was the government for a lot of the world in times more modern than the Middle Ages.
By letting in one particular social, cultural or historical government, we open a whole can of worms for those who want their own little piece of Civ.
Try and change it yourself if you care enough. Fundy is not meant to represent just Islam, but a wider fanatical theocracy. It is discovered well after medieval times in tech terms. It is far too powerful, and has no real place in the game. Fascism is nice, but it is an option.

Communism was in the original Civ, and won't be leaving, no matter what pretty arguments from history or otherwise are pulled out.

Bringing out "perfect" governments from some epoch in your countries history serves no purpose. I could argue for a Whitlamite, or Keatingist government, to no avail.
This discussion seems to have a lot of reference to what should be in Civ3, so maybe it should be in another forum, ie Suggestions.

The political opinions of one Civer or another on the merits of a government mean little. There are a lot of fanatical anti-communists, who probably at some stage adopt a communist or fundamentalist government.
There are many red flag waving communists who use democracies and republics.

The historical arguments matter not a bit. It is a matter of logic, and perspective. of course you would want the game to perfectly suit your vision. But does that mean your vision must become that of us all.

I never play fundy, I play communist, as it balances science with trade and military capacity. I don't lose sleep because my People's Republic of the Soviet Union is not historically accurate; I only want it to rule the world.

Civ3 will allow some customisation of Civs etc, I believe, so do what thou wilt then.

------------------
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.
- N.S.Khrushchev

 

[SlowwHand]

You'll get no argument from me about Fundamentalism.
You are absolutely correct.
Zealots and Fanatics are a part of the world's history, and will remains so.
They are hard to deal with, both in the world, and in a Civ game.

------------------
It's In The Way That You Use It
Tuatha De Danann Tribe
ICQ 51553293

 

[zozzo123]

First of all , My original post was all about correction of the balance of fundamentalism or to include more governments that already floureshed on earth since 4000 BC. It doesn't matter weither I like/Dislike these governments so don't get me wrong and think about me as fanatic

I said Facism, Nazi governments should have chance with proper balance of power.

Why u insist that this islamic goevernment should be the key to win???!!! I didn't say that , I said it should have a chance, as it was (in real life one of the most important governments in history) , so I am not customizing the game for my own pleasure,

now we r talking about CIV 3 so our talk should be in suggestions for CIV 3 forum

Communism = Game describes it as one of the best governments ( I personally play communism as it isd the best in the game , but what i said : it is A BIG FAILURE IN REAL life) , for how many years communism succeeded??? what happened to communistic countries like Russia??? everything collapsed to nothing. people stuggling for food, poverty ...etc.

Fundamentalism = Game gives it great strength but with some unrealistic features :-

1- Science halved (already discussed and u can read my opinion).

2- Fanatics ( already described) .

alteration for those 2 factors will correct the principle of fundamentalism and won't ruin the game , that was all i meant!!!

Keep it fundamentalism but alter it for the game good .

"Bringing out "perfect" governments from some epoch in your countries history serves no purpose".

How? The game is all about history, I loved the game cuz it is all about history, but for better new game , we need it to cover all governments that ruled , all wonders made , and all science techs discovered ...U got my point ???? So that government that i talk about excisted for more than 1000 years and was successiful , and should have a chance in the game ...right? and here im not talking about minor civilization but about a powerful one.

"The historical arguments matter not a bit. It is a matter of logic, and perspective. of course you would want the game to perfectly suit your vision. But does that mean your vision must become that of us all".

Really??

I am trying to help removing flaw in the game that made the game a bit biased towards western techs and wonders and my friend SKM agree to this point too

Simon , U r accusing me of being biased to what i like, I am trying to make everyone have a chance in the game, this game is not for americans and western countries alone, many people in the world like it too, but all modern wonders are western ...right? there is total ignorance for all arabic and islamic rule in civilization, despite the ancient wonders, no rule for far east , i like the game in its early stages and i must 90 % of modern wonders belong to west but in the middle age , there is complete ignorance to the rule or arabic and islamic empire despite its BLATENT improvments especially in science.

adding some wonders, and government type to this period will help this game being more realistic and not -as u say- as what i like.

Duke

...Man I was speacking about history ( not the game) ,I am sorry ciz i mad eitem B) as a suggestion in he game , it is actually not , but we can take ideas from it.


U r right about veteran units as inspiration won't make warriors veteran but real war and training will do so .

But we can apply new concept for military units which is very important (MORALE ), under fundamentalism , morale will be very high, happiest cities ( under other governments) will have highest morale to the units produced by this city .. or what do u suggest?

 

[Az]

Well done guys! This is a nice discussion! I enjoyed reading it all....

I'm also very fond of history.

I don't have time to write today but maybe later.....

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.virtuallandmedia.com/img1/flags-4/europe/fra.gif" border=0> Az <IMG SRC="http://www.virtuallandmedia.com/img1/flags-4/europe/gre.gif" border=0>

 

[SaucyJack]

I think my dense brain is catching on here. I am also starting to think that an Islamic government advancement between monarchy and democracy should be provided. This government would not have any science production altered, but may not produce as many "trade arrows" either. Take away the idea of people NEVER being unhappy and give the mosque idea a try. Resource output should be the same as monarchy, and so should the cost of maintaining troops. This would give players who skip from monarchy to democracy a chance to have a better government between that time. 80% max, rather than 70% that monarchy provides might be the ultimate incentive for this government.

[This message has been edited by SaucyJack (edited July 04, 2001).]

 

[zozzo123]

At least we got someone convinced about my idea YOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOO

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Zozzo, I think you are too Egypt-centric. The Mongols of yore did ravage Europe up till Germany. They also conquered Russia which is part of Europe. To them, it's easier to enter Europe thru the Urals than rerouting thru Egypt, cross the straits of Gilbratar and march northwards thru Spain.
Anyway I don't think we need another govt bet monarchy and republic/democracy. Civ2, as it is, is already quite easy to play and win. Although the heyday of my Civ2 gaming is long over, and I only play a deity-lvl game every now and then, I still find that I can win fairly easily if I get my early game right. The AI in Civ2 is really predictable. And I agree with Simon that this thread shld be in the Civ3 - suggestions for improvement forum rather than here.
Just one further suggestion. Shld incl the Arabs and the Ottoman Turks as playable civs in Civ3 since these represent the mightiest of the Islamic powers.

 

[starlifter]

This is a cool thread, with some great discussion! I'll have to return tomorrow when I get more time. But for now:

posted July 04, 2001 07:40 PM
I think my dense brain is catching on here. I am also starting to think that an Islamic government advancement between monarchy and democracy should be provided. This government would not have any science production altered, but may not produce as many "trade arrows" either. Take away the idea of people NEVER being unhappy and give the mosque idea a try. Resource output should be the same as monarchy, and so should the cost of maintaining troops. This would give players who skip from monarchy to democracy a chance to have a better government between that time. 80% max, rather than 70% that monarchy provides might be the ultimate incentive for this government.

What would the food consumption of settlers be be? One, two, or (hehe) none? Maybe settlers=1 and engineers=2...

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Ye can customize your own Civs to whatever extent ye want in Civ3, and even in Civ2.
I agree with SKM when he calls you too Egypt-centric. Sure Islam made a big contribution to world history, but the game is not a carbon copy of history, or it would be a very boring game indeed if you were to play the Sioux or the Vikings. The whole point of the game is to enable you to shape history and civilisation to your own image: My image for my game, your image for your game.

There is very little attention given to non European or Western Civs, but if you want to change it, you can do it for yourself. You may see it as a flaw, and want more realism. Other people do not really care, and do not wish their way of playing, or ideas or tastes implicitly downgraded.
I put it to you that you are trying to customize the game to your own pleasure and purposes: Removing Communism because of your opinions of its real life merits, and creating an Islamic super government that has no weaknesses. Fundy is already far too powerful, and compared to the other governments, is not even a real world force.
To unleash the like of it, in any way, earlier would simply evaporate any remaining challenge from the game.

So what if the medieval period does not suit your fancy? Just breeze through it to the Renaissance and the Industrial Age.

In the game, the Mongols are just unsophisticated barbarian warmongers. In reality, they were a bit more complicated than that. But we can only have so much.
Wanting everything from history in a game ie PERFECTION is just idle pie in the sky. There will be no major alterations to Civ3 at this late stage of development.

What is written here will have no impact, but all the same, I must disagree with bringing a particular form of religion or religious government into the game. Do it in a scen if you want, but don't try to make it an integral feature of the game. Basically, as I read it, you want to create the best possible government, and give it a religious leaning. Your proposed models has no flaws, so everyone would play it.
And that, sayidi, is unrealistic.

------------------
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.
- N.S.Khrushchev

 

[duke o' york]

SKM, congratulations on coining the word Egypt-centric. It should be put into the dictionary as soon as possible.
It is true though that zozzo is too Islamicentric (can I claim this one?). Fundy is not religiously specific and can apply to Islam as much as to Puritanism or even the Hare Krishnas (Playing GTA2 last night). If we are to have an Islamic fundamentalist state, then why not a Christian Democrat one like in Germany or a Zoroastrian government who get free solar plants in all their cities? It would be far easier to customise your version rather than insist on changes to the whole game. I'd be interested in a religious scenario with the Christians, Jews and Muhammedins fighting over Jerusalem perhaps.

------------------
in vino veritas