I have always have a way with words ......
Thoughts on Fundamentalism!
- Thread starter zozzo123
- Start date
duke o' york
It don't mean a thing....
But not with tenses apparently..
Just joking.
------------------
in vino veritas
Just joking.
------------------
in vino veritas
zozzo123
Chieftain
Hmmmmm ...
Looks like SKM and zozzo123 cancels peace treaty
, SKM, Duke O'york and Simon signed the WESTERN pact to involve Egyptian aggression.
For SKM :
Mongols raveged europe till Germany? They couldn't enter Egypt , what is that mean?
Who defeated Mongols b4 Egypt?
For Simon :
I am talking about CIV 3, if it will be a carbon copy from CIV 2 , then why bother buying it? we need to dig for more governments, more science improvments, more city improvments along with improving the excistent ones . so i already try to shed some light on the civilizations, wonders, and governments that the game ignored in its current version so it may have a chance in the next version, what is boring in this? I am taking these governments from history , not from my own fiction, Chariots for example ( u can visit the Egyptian museum and u will find chariots ), also why not we include TOWERS (used by crusaders) to beat city walls ? and its counter measure (discovered by arab scientisitis , which was a chemical substance that burn these towers), so when defender discovers this advancement, he can upgrade the city walls , and then both towers and liquid get obsolete after time??
I have many ideas to share , I am not Egypt-centric as u call me, I am History-Centric if u call it.
U r accusing me cuz as u said i want to eliminate communism from the game, If u read my original post carefully , u will notice that i said it may be removed or customised to unleach its original power , i said communism is more fragile as government than democracy, and this is true. and when it collapses, it has no come back . so in the game, the player who applies communism can enjoy its benefits for a while, then (like what happens in nuclear melt down) , the communistic government may collapse and leaving the country in anarchy for many turns, this will reflect real communism.
The game made democracy weaker than communism. the game is enjoyable to the extreme , but if we want CIV 3 , so we have to made it more real and more fun at the same time.
USA made srikes over Iraq, Serbia, Sudan, Libya ...etc under democracy , the unhappiness factor in the game was unrealistic in real life, USA used NUKES against Japan , did that made the government collapses? I think democracy is the most strong government in this world.
how to make it playable without altering game difficulty? this will be our discussion.
but wasting time saying NO ,we want the game just like b4, ur ideas will ruin the game, make it for urself .... all this not a discussion, believe me we can make the game realistic and balanced and more fun at the same time, game developers are not GODS , they r humans like me and all of u , and every idea should have a chance to be discussed for the game good,.
Who said I want super government ?? I said there will be unhappy citizens under islamic government ( present fundamentalism no one get unhappy ), I said no fanatics(they never need support ) , so i weakend fundamentalism by 2 major things, also we will increase science to 80 % max, no harm for shields, special abilities will be :
1- Ability of this civilization to build mosques which never need support . and will have similar effects as tempels or cathedral.
2- I suggest adding military unit morale to the game , as morale will be very high under religios/Democratic/unites produced from Happy cities) and low under despotism/communism.
or what u suggest ... I am not stubborn , I am only suggesting ideas .
so ...read carefully, I am not suggesting a perfect government .
For Duke :-
Why not ? I agree that the game add as much governments as in real history ( if we have 15 government in the game, this will make endeless possibilities in the game, making it more fun, and the special abilities for each government will be the key for really different game in CIV but with much more fun) .
If these ideas won't be applicable to the game, they can be applicable in scenarions and so on.
Final digest :- Instead of attacking me for every suggestion, try to think like what SaucyJack did, this way we will ally together , not against each other.
About me as Egypt or Islamic-centric as u say :-
Well, Americans are USA centric, Russians are russia centric, civilization game players are civ2-centric. christians are christianity-centric, moslems are islam-centric
The game as u said was west-centric and christianity-centric, so why u made the same fault in the new version ....seems unfair ...or what?
but, Egypt in particular is very special , in fact CIVILIZATION WAS AN EGYPTIAN INVENTION
, 7000bc live first excisted in Egypt, not just life but civilised life, not to mention pyramids, great library, light house, temples, huge statues, all prophets came through egypt or lived in it for a while , Egypt is the link between Africa, Asia, and europe, a very strategic situation that binds the whole ancient world.
This made Egyptian troops VETERAN troops , they always were in war with intruders. they stopped the strongest forces in the world at that time . what i am saying is History and not just Blah Blah
The Egyptian troops among history were always in defense situations, not like other civilizations like the Mongol ...etc.
I hope that all this effort in writing and tired eyes , doesnot end without notice from the game makers.
Finally ...Peace for all
Looks like SKM and zozzo123 cancels peace treaty
For SKM :
Mongols raveged europe till Germany? They couldn't enter Egypt , what is that mean?
Who defeated Mongols b4 Egypt?
For Simon :
I am talking about CIV 3, if it will be a carbon copy from CIV 2 , then why bother buying it? we need to dig for more governments, more science improvments, more city improvments along with improving the excistent ones . so i already try to shed some light on the civilizations, wonders, and governments that the game ignored in its current version so it may have a chance in the next version, what is boring in this? I am taking these governments from history , not from my own fiction, Chariots for example ( u can visit the Egyptian museum and u will find chariots ), also why not we include TOWERS (used by crusaders) to beat city walls ? and its counter measure (discovered by arab scientisitis , which was a chemical substance that burn these towers), so when defender discovers this advancement, he can upgrade the city walls , and then both towers and liquid get obsolete after time??
I have many ideas to share , I am not Egypt-centric as u call me, I am History-Centric if u call it.
U r accusing me cuz as u said i want to eliminate communism from the game, If u read my original post carefully , u will notice that i said it may be removed or customised to unleach its original power , i said communism is more fragile as government than democracy, and this is true. and when it collapses, it has no come back . so in the game, the player who applies communism can enjoy its benefits for a while, then (like what happens in nuclear melt down) , the communistic government may collapse and leaving the country in anarchy for many turns, this will reflect real communism.
The game made democracy weaker than communism. the game is enjoyable to the extreme , but if we want CIV 3 , so we have to made it more real and more fun at the same time.
USA made srikes over Iraq, Serbia, Sudan, Libya ...etc under democracy , the unhappiness factor in the game was unrealistic in real life, USA used NUKES against Japan , did that made the government collapses? I think democracy is the most strong government in this world.
how to make it playable without altering game difficulty? this will be our discussion.
Who said I want super government ?? I said there will be unhappy citizens under islamic government ( present fundamentalism no one get unhappy ), I said no fanatics(they never need support ) , so i weakend fundamentalism by 2 major things, also we will increase science to 80 % max, no harm for shields, special abilities will be :
1- Ability of this civilization to build mosques which never need support . and will have similar effects as tempels or cathedral.
2- I suggest adding military unit morale to the game , as morale will be very high under religios/Democratic/unites produced from Happy cities) and low under despotism/communism.
or what u suggest ... I am not stubborn , I am only suggesting ideas .
so ...read carefully, I am not suggesting a perfect government .
For Duke :-
Why not ? I agree that the game add as much governments as in real history ( if we have 15 government in the game, this will make endeless possibilities in the game, making it more fun, and the special abilities for each government will be the key for really different game in CIV but with much more fun) .
If these ideas won't be applicable to the game, they can be applicable in scenarions and so on.
Final digest :- Instead of attacking me for every suggestion, try to think like what SaucyJack did, this way we will ally together , not against each other.
About me as Egypt or Islamic-centric as u say :-
Well, Americans are USA centric, Russians are russia centric, civilization game players are civ2-centric. christians are christianity-centric, moslems are islam-centric
The game as u said was west-centric and christianity-centric, so why u made the same fault in the new version ....seems unfair ...or what?
but, Egypt in particular is very special , in fact CIVILIZATION WAS AN EGYPTIAN INVENTION
This made Egyptian troops VETERAN troops , they always were in war with intruders. they stopped the strongest forces in the world at that time . what i am saying is History and not just Blah Blah
I hope that all this effort in writing and tired eyes , doesnot end without notice from the game makers.
Finally ...Peace for all
duke o' york
It don't mean a thing....
Yeah, but zozzo, didn't SaucyJack just agree with you? Dialectical reason is the way ahead. Honest. Please don't think my arguments are anything personal - you sound like a cool guy and are better at English than I am at Arabic.
By the way, the English indirectly invented Civilization, by settling the Americas. Civilization is the American spelling and didn't exist before the War of Independence. That was an atrocious joke and I apologise for it. I will agree with you that civilisation as we recognise it today did originate in the near east.
Obviously we are all defined by what we are not, but the fact that all Civ2 fanatics are Civ-centric does not allow you to argue that there should be a separate Islamic state. A form of government based on religious rulers exists in the game already and although not perfect, works quite well. To lobby for variations in this system to reflect all the world religions would make a future civ game far too complex. And whereabouts on the tech tree are you planning to put these forms of government? Once you have discovered Islam, are you then denied the chance to research Christianity or Hinduism?
Given that even if God exists in the game world, the fact that none of his prophets, whichever religion has gathered around the teachings of them, are believed to have appeared on earth in 4000BC. Why can you not have changed the world so much in your game that it is not possible or alternatively necessary for these messengers to haev been sent to earth? The fact that monotheism develops from polytheism in civ suggests that the developers are not particularly religious, while recognising the fact that religion has played a huge part in the history of the world. Whether you share the beliefs of their creators or not, Michelangelo's Chapel and JS Bach's Cathedral are wondrous creations and deserving of their place in the game. In Civ, religion has its place but not necessarily reflecting the forms that are spread across earth. I think that it is best to stay this way, acknowledging the power of belief on people, but without importing the values of the "real" world to one your computer just created in a couple of minutes.
I really don't want to offend you zozzo, and respect the strength of your beliefs although I do not share them, and I hope that this does not come out sounding like I'm having a go at anyone who believes. Civ's just a computer game, not an attempt to recreate history.
------------------
in vino veritas
By the way, the English indirectly invented Civilization, by settling the Americas. Civilization is the American spelling and didn't exist before the War of Independence. That was an atrocious joke and I apologise for it. I will agree with you that civilisation as we recognise it today did originate in the near east.
Obviously we are all defined by what we are not, but the fact that all Civ2 fanatics are Civ-centric does not allow you to argue that there should be a separate Islamic state. A form of government based on religious rulers exists in the game already and although not perfect, works quite well. To lobby for variations in this system to reflect all the world religions would make a future civ game far too complex. And whereabouts on the tech tree are you planning to put these forms of government? Once you have discovered Islam, are you then denied the chance to research Christianity or Hinduism?
Given that even if God exists in the game world, the fact that none of his prophets, whichever religion has gathered around the teachings of them, are believed to have appeared on earth in 4000BC. Why can you not have changed the world so much in your game that it is not possible or alternatively necessary for these messengers to haev been sent to earth? The fact that monotheism develops from polytheism in civ suggests that the developers are not particularly religious, while recognising the fact that religion has played a huge part in the history of the world. Whether you share the beliefs of their creators or not, Michelangelo's Chapel and JS Bach's Cathedral are wondrous creations and deserving of their place in the game. In Civ, religion has its place but not necessarily reflecting the forms that are spread across earth. I think that it is best to stay this way, acknowledging the power of belief on people, but without importing the values of the "real" world to one your computer just created in a couple of minutes.
I really don't want to offend you zozzo, and respect the strength of your beliefs although I do not share them, and I hope that this does not come out sounding like I'm having a go at anyone who believes. Civ's just a computer game, not an attempt to recreate history.
------------------
in vino veritas
Zozzo, when I said you are being too Egypt-centric, I mean it in a friendly manner so no hard feelings OK?
Whatever makes you think Egyptian troops were ever defensive??? During the reign of Pharaoh Ramesses 2 (I think, not sure), he invaded all the way up the Levantine coast until Lebanon and down the Nile till Kush.
And civilisation didn't just arise in Egypt. It arose too in Mesopotamia and later in India and China. The first civilisation was the Sumerians (somewhere in southern Iraq).
And regarding the Mongols, I am not belittling the Mamelukes or what. But you will have to take into account, the steppes of Russia are an extension of the Mongolian steppes. The Mongols could easily ride all the way across the Eurasian continent, invaded Russia and never left the steppes. To get to Egypt, the Mongols would have to cross the Central Asian deserts and highlands and the Iranian plateau and go thru the Iraqi plains, and then cross Palestine to get to Egypt.
And remember a lot of other countries have to live under the Mongol yoke for centuries. Like China. Pre-Mongol China used to be fairly open. After the Mongols had been kicked out, the whole country turned more inward-looking, isolationist and more distrustful of foreigners. Scars which are still present today. And why? Because China is just lying next door to Mongolia and share a border that thousands of miles long. There's hell no way the Chinese could have guarded the entire border.
At the end of the day, Civ is just a game. It's only a very rough simulation of the progress of civilisations. As such, certain historical imperatives have to be simplified and presented in a simple format so that we can play the game and understand the concepts. And to have fun.
Duke, for someone who speaks Mandarin Chinese at home and studied in Malay in primary thru secondary school, I think I am doing pretty well with my English.
Whatever makes you think Egyptian troops were ever defensive??? During the reign of Pharaoh Ramesses 2 (I think, not sure), he invaded all the way up the Levantine coast until Lebanon and down the Nile till Kush.
And civilisation didn't just arise in Egypt. It arose too in Mesopotamia and later in India and China. The first civilisation was the Sumerians (somewhere in southern Iraq).
And regarding the Mongols, I am not belittling the Mamelukes or what. But you will have to take into account, the steppes of Russia are an extension of the Mongolian steppes. The Mongols could easily ride all the way across the Eurasian continent, invaded Russia and never left the steppes. To get to Egypt, the Mongols would have to cross the Central Asian deserts and highlands and the Iranian plateau and go thru the Iraqi plains, and then cross Palestine to get to Egypt.
And remember a lot of other countries have to live under the Mongol yoke for centuries. Like China. Pre-Mongol China used to be fairly open. After the Mongols had been kicked out, the whole country turned more inward-looking, isolationist and more distrustful of foreigners. Scars which are still present today. And why? Because China is just lying next door to Mongolia and share a border that thousands of miles long. There's hell no way the Chinese could have guarded the entire border.
At the end of the day, Civ is just a game. It's only a very rough simulation of the progress of civilisations. As such, certain historical imperatives have to be simplified and presented in a simple format so that we can play the game and understand the concepts. And to have fun.
Duke, for someone who speaks Mandarin Chinese at home and studied in Malay in primary thru secondary school, I think I am doing pretty well with my English.
zozzo123
Chieftain
Hi again
No problem guys
I was kidding about the secret alliance
For Duke O'York :
Thankx for the nice words, I actually speack arabic, english and some german
No matter if they won't call it islamic government, but erasing fundamentalism from the game is unfair, so better make it as Saucy said between Monarchy and Democracy . (this reflect the time where Khelafa was present).
Science 80 %
Tax 80%
No Fanatics
free maintainence for temples
also no one reacted to my suggestion about MORALE of the troops.
Just one more thing : For generalisation , the game was biased to christianity ...right? it ignored other religions
the examples stted in the game , King Richard Crusade, Michael Anglo's chapel , and J S Bachs Cathedral , Cathedral as city improvment . Why then u don't like the introduction of fundamentalism as Khelafa which already was part of governments among history.
If u will say that these were only examples , why then they didn't taken from different religions???
BTW there is Al Azhar mosque in cairo which is 1000 years old and played a major rule in islam for ages. I didn't say it will be a wonder.
KHELAFA as I said was nothing less than monarchy, communism ...etc . It is not Biase to islam but :
Islam , is not just a religion, it is a way to live, to rule, to think so it is entire system for life and part of this was the Government .
so, my idea of islamic government was to correct fundamentalism ,(it came too late in the game, its balane have some flaws).
I agree though with u that we r just playing a game , but once the game is going to develop , it should correct its flaws for more realism, without altering the fun of play.
I believe CIV 3 must be on the same principle of CIV 1,2 but to be more complicated ...why? Most buyers of the game will be either hardcore strategy gamers or gamers that already playerd CIV 1or 2 or both .
so-in my opinion- we need more units, more governments to cover all periods, more city developments...and more wonders .
The game already implimented elments from the real life in religion , so nothing harmful to impliment other wonders, improvments , government forms from other important religions.
For SKM :-
I am joking with u
U r right about Ramesis II , it is thought that he was the most tyrannic leader of Egypt, his reign lasted for about 65 years, I read that he was the Pharaoh during prophet moses, the one who killed the sons of Jews, and killed in the flood of the red sea after Moses crossed the sea.
I saw his Mummy in Egypt when i was young in the Egyptian museum, he has left arm raised in unusual way.
anyway ... Egyptian armies fight defensively
Away from civilization and historical arguments...civilization is GREAT game
No problem guys
For Duke O'York :
Thankx for the nice words, I actually speack arabic, english and some german
No matter if they won't call it islamic government, but erasing fundamentalism from the game is unfair, so better make it as Saucy said between Monarchy and Democracy . (this reflect the time where Khelafa was present).
Science 80 %
Tax 80%
No Fanatics
free maintainence for temples
also no one reacted to my suggestion about MORALE of the troops.
Just one more thing : For generalisation , the game was biased to christianity ...right? it ignored other religions
If u will say that these were only examples , why then they didn't taken from different religions???
BTW there is Al Azhar mosque in cairo which is 1000 years old and played a major rule in islam for ages. I didn't say it will be a wonder.
KHELAFA as I said was nothing less than monarchy, communism ...etc . It is not Biase to islam but :
Islam , is not just a religion, it is a way to live, to rule, to think so it is entire system for life and part of this was the Government .
so, my idea of islamic government was to correct fundamentalism ,(it came too late in the game, its balane have some flaws).
I agree though with u that we r just playing a game , but once the game is going to develop , it should correct its flaws for more realism, without altering the fun of play.
I believe CIV 3 must be on the same principle of CIV 1,2 but to be more complicated ...why? Most buyers of the game will be either hardcore strategy gamers or gamers that already playerd CIV 1or 2 or both .
so-in my opinion- we need more units, more governments to cover all periods, more city developments...and more wonders .
The game already implimented elments from the real life in religion , so nothing harmful to impliment other wonders, improvments , government forms from other important religions.
For SKM :-
I am joking with u
U r right about Ramesis II , it is thought that he was the most tyrannic leader of Egypt, his reign lasted for about 65 years, I read that he was the Pharaoh during prophet moses, the one who killed the sons of Jews, and killed in the flood of the red sea after Moses crossed the sea.
I saw his Mummy in Egypt when i was young in the Egyptian museum, he has left arm raised in unusual way.
anyway ... Egyptian armies fight defensively
Away from civilization and historical arguments...civilization is GREAT game
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
The main gist of what I am saying is that if you want to personalize the game, there are mechanisms for you to do so. If you want it to be more historical, then you can do that.
There are ways.
But, I reiterate that it is in all probability too late to add any new governments or dramatic new features to Civ3. It is due out in October, forgive me if I'm wrong, and that is about 3 months away. They have already decided on governments et al, so, with respect, it does seem you are wasting your time if you expect them to heed your call. Maybe if the date was July 1999, there might be a hope, but not now. They have removed Fundy, and put in Nationalism. That is all.
But, it is customisable, so you can fix up your Islamic government for the Middle Ages, rename some wonders and whatever you want to do. Meanwhile, I'll ignore Civ3, and try and play Civ2
------------------
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.
- N.S.Khrushchev
There are ways.
But, I reiterate that it is in all probability too late to add any new governments or dramatic new features to Civ3. It is due out in October, forgive me if I'm wrong, and that is about 3 months away. They have already decided on governments et al, so, with respect, it does seem you are wasting your time if you expect them to heed your call. Maybe if the date was July 1999, there might be a hope, but not now. They have removed Fundy, and put in Nationalism. That is all.
But, it is customisable, so you can fix up your Islamic government for the Middle Ages, rename some wonders and whatever you want to do. Meanwhile, I'll ignore Civ3, and try and play Civ2
------------------
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.
- N.S.Khrushchev
duke o' york
It don't mean a thing....
I'm going to show my ignorance here, but if you want another wonder from Islam, then what about that big rock in Mecca? I thought that was pretty central to religious observance of the pilgrimage (is this called haj? I've forgotten most of what I once knew about Islam). You could customise Michelangelo or JS Bach to become this wonder, perhaps slightly tinkering with its effects but not to make it too strong. Zozzo, can you make scenarios with your version? I'd be interested to play with your Islamic government to see if it was too powerful, as I think at the moment. Some Islamic troops to replace crusaders for your civ, with all other having ordinary crusaders, and new wonders. Is anyone else interested enough to implement zozzo's ideas (and some of their own) so that we can play-test them?
------------------
in vino veritas
------------------
in vino veritas
willemvanoranje
Curitibano
I rarely use Fundamentalism, because of the fact that science is too slow. I always stay a Democracy, because I hate it when my enemies bribe my cities and units. That just makes me
------------------
I know it seem hard sometimes, but uh...
remember one thing:
through every dark night,
there's a bright day after that,
so no matter how hard it get, stick ya chest out
keep ya head up and handle it.
------------------
I know it seem hard sometimes, but uh...
remember one thing:
through every dark night,
there's a bright day after that,
so no matter how hard it get, stick ya chest out
keep ya head up and handle it.
zozzo123
Chieftain
Hi again ,
Looks like CIV 3 is already designed so our suggestions may not be applicable now.
anyway, I diidn't make scenarios, but it will be nice to see a scenario with such government type
in Macca , Al Kaaba , Built by Ibraham and all moslems direct to it while they pray.
if anyone interested to make a scenario , let me know
Looks like CIV 3 is already designed so our suggestions may not be applicable now.
anyway, I diidn't make scenarios, but it will be nice to see a scenario with such government type
in Macca , Al Kaaba , Built by Ibraham and all moslems direct to it while they pray.
if anyone interested to make a scenario , let me know
HIEROPHANT
Videogame God
Fundy govt is more effective in getting a higher score than any other govt.
