I just recently captured a city that my Spy had caused Insurrection in. It had both a Caravel and a Transport . I used the Caravel to explore along the coast, and got a mad-face symbol, though I have Women's Lib. So I used the Transport instead, and got no mad-face. I can't find anything about this in the Cyclopedia. Is this a bug or a feature?
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,039
Transports have no attack value AND the Sea Transport role at the same time. That's PROBABLY the difference. I'm just making an educated guess here, and I could be wrong.
Major Advantage
Prince
That is correct, all units with attack value >0 cause unhappiness when outside a city/fortress/airfield (except for (stealth-)bombers, that ALWAYS cause unhappiness, and (stealth-)fighters that never do. That is why it is usually necessary to have magnetism and Leonardo before switching to demo, so your boats are converted to galleons, that do not cause unhappiness (attack value = 0).
I have to ask why units with attack value > 0 (eg, Riflemen) cause unhappiness in fortresses far away from their home cities.
Major Advantage
Prince
As far as I remember from having read the manual years ago, the logic behind this is: When a soldier is away, his relatives and friends are worried. As long as he is in a city, they are fine. A fortress in a city's radius is also ok. But a fortress deep inside enemy's territory? Too risky, they fear to never see him again, cannot sleep and therefore are unhappy. But it is ok to disband them in the wild, no more unhappiness, so there is a little flaw in this logic....
However, this is the main reason why NONE-units are so valueable, you get them from huts or bribing when the closest city to the spot of hut/bribing is not your own.
However, this is the main reason why NONE-units are so valueable, you get them from huts or bribing when the closest city to the spot of hut/bribing is not your own.
In my opinion, this is not a very correct logic (claims in this case to Sid Meier )) ).
1). In "democratic" countries, the armies are usually hired and professional. People voluntarily go to serve (unlike the "draft" army). Consequently, volunteers and their "relatives" are aware of the risk in advance. They agreed to this risk by joining the professional army. There is no reason for "uprisings." The death of such a professional soldier is "an accident at work", nothing more. Nobody raises uprisings when workers of other high-risk professions (astronauts, sailors, miners) go to do their work. In their work as well as with professional soldiers, there is a risk of dying ...
2). In "democratic" countries there is an occasion for uprisings, when on the contrary - troops enter the city. This is a sign of an upcoming dictatorship and a military coup. The entry of troops into their own city should provoke discontent among the population, and increase the risk of uprisings. )
Major Advantage
Prince
True! But never forget to ask yourself before if it is worth the price. Units close to a city are usually really expensive, so quite often there is a better way to spend that gold, so usually, I only do this bribery when playing OCC (and in that case NONE-engineers are most valueable, so I gift explosives to the AI, hoping to bribe an engineer later).
@Buck2005: You are probably right, there are some flaws in the logic of the game. But I still think the programmers did a great job of balancing the pros and cons of the governments.
Buck,
I think the issue with Democracy is not possessing a large standing army, it's deploying it. Think of the city as the barracks & depots where the troops are stationed in peacetime, rather than them being on the streets like Police. When the army is at home (IE not at war) then the people are happy. When they deploy abroad or are at war there is discontent. Look at the protests in the US over Vietnam, the UK over the 2nd Gulf War & the corrosive effect Afghanistan had on the Soviet Union. This is why more reliance is placed on advanced weaponry, such as stealth & cruise missiles that cut down on the need for 'boots on the ground'.
Also, without this handicap Democracy would be the ultimate government & there would be no reason to swap to Communism or Fundamentalism for those desiring a large conventional army, without the headaches of keeping the voters happy. Personally I think they got the balance right with Civ2.
I think the issue with Democracy is not possessing a large standing army, it's deploying it. Think of the city as the barracks & depots where the troops are stationed in peacetime, rather than them being on the streets like Police. When the army is at home (IE not at war) then the people are happy. When they deploy abroad or are at war there is discontent. Look at the protests in the US over Vietnam, the UK over the 2nd Gulf War & the corrosive effect Afghanistan had on the Soviet Union. This is why more reliance is placed on advanced weaponry, such as stealth & cruise missiles that cut down on the need for 'boots on the ground'.
Also, without this handicap Democracy would be the ultimate government & there would be no reason to swap to Communism or Fundamentalism for those desiring a large conventional army, without the headaches of keeping the voters happy. Personally I think they got the balance right with Civ2.
I think the argument about wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf is not entirely correct. It can easily be explained by the fact that the "protests" in the listed countries began only after considerable combat and non-combat losses, as well as by the strong duration of these wars. Counter-example: no one condemned Thatcher's government for winning the war for the Falkland Islands. During the beginning of US campaigns in the Persian Gulf (a fast victorious war) - no one was outraged by this. Although these countries developed significant armies in remote areas from the "barracks" and their "cities". In Russia there were protests during the first war in Chechnya. But during the second war, there were no protests any more, since the war was quickly won with a minimum of losses. In both wars, approximately the same number of troops were involved.
The main factors that influence protests are:
1. Significant losses of personnel
2. Long duration of the war, with vague prospects for victory.
For example, in the game "Europe Universalis" the factor of "military protests of the population" is magnificently realized with the help of a fine for the so-called "military fatigue". This game has largely outstripped the entire series of "Civilization" in accuracy and realism.
The main factors that influence protests are:
1. Significant losses of personnel
2. Long duration of the war, with vague prospects for victory.
For example, in the game "Europe Universalis" the factor of "military protests of the population" is magnificently realized with the help of a fine for the so-called "military fatigue". This game has largely outstripped the entire series of "Civilization" in accuracy and realism.
That's a fair point. It may be possible to replicate something similar with ToTPP/Lua, but in the ordinary game that's the system we're stuck with. I've not played Europe Universalis extensively, but I have had fun playing Hearts of Iron - Darkest Hour which is focussed on the 20th century. It has some outstanding levels of detail but also has its own flaws. For example, it does an excellent job of representing supply lines, but the combat model was lacking in some respects & it is extremely complex. Civ2 is simple to get the hang of & has a lot of depth, but it also lacks in certain areas. I had a fun few weeks playing Hearts of Iron, but I've had a fun twenty years playing Civ2!
I'm familiar with the game Hearts of Iron. I played in the first and second versions of this game. Then she finally shattered me, because of, as they say, excessive complexity.
Hearts of Iron - this is not an independent game. Just a clone of "Europe Universalis." In fact, it's like a script in "civilization", for fans of the WWII era.
The original game and prototype of this family game - "Europe Universalis" is very similar to the civilization in the gameplay. You can start playing for a small state from 1, 2, 3 provinces. "Take small steps" and gradually delve into the management of the game. As in civilization, you start playing with 1 settler, and gradually discover a new world and new technologies. In addition, the original game, despite the simplicity for the beginner, has the most complex and deep system of the gameplay of all games of this family. but my opinion, Europe IV is at the moment the most perfect game of the strategy genre. Versions of civilization 4, 5, 6 are much inferior to it.
The ideal strategy I would consider a game that would take the best parts from Europe and Civilization. )
Hearts of Iron - this is not an independent game. Just a clone of "Europe Universalis." In fact, it's like a script in "civilization", for fans of the WWII era.
The original game and prototype of this family game - "Europe Universalis" is very similar to the civilization in the gameplay. You can start playing for a small state from 1, 2, 3 provinces. "Take small steps" and gradually delve into the management of the game. As in civilization, you start playing with 1 settler, and gradually discover a new world and new technologies. In addition, the original game, despite the simplicity for the beginner, has the most complex and deep system of the gameplay of all games of this family. but my opinion, Europe IV is at the moment the most perfect game of the strategy genre. Versions of civilization 4, 5, 6 are much inferior to it.
The ideal strategy I would consider a game that would take the best parts from Europe and Civilization. )
@Major Advantage: Oh, I do, but you can find some real bargains, sometimes. 
I think Paradox games make Europa Universalis & Hearts of Iron. Interestingly, I was reading the notes (Read Me) for an old Civ2 scenario the other day called Cassus Belli by Vegard Bjorketun and one of the people mentioned was a designer called Henrik Lohmander who made a scenario called 'de Historibus Europae. It looks like he went on to work for Paradox games if it's the same Henrik! They're actually recruiting developers at the moment and I did toy with the idea of applying, but it would mean moving to Sweden & I'm not sure I'm ready for that, even if I qualified for the job. I might try and get in contact with him to ask how he ended up there. I'd definitely love to turn my hobby into a career, depending on the salary.
I think the success of Europe Universalis is rather an "exception to the rule."
In the world of the gaming industry, the developer's place is very insignificant. He does what the top-managers say to him. The creation of games is aimed at making profit. Therefore, everything is determined by marketing, and studying the needs of the target audience. The unsuccessful (in my opinion) development of the series of the game "Civilization" went exactly for this reason. The owners of the brand took into account what gamers want to play. To maximize the "squeeze" money out of them, they went in the direction of maximizing the design and graphics, adding a huge number of unnecessary functions and "essences." For them, people pay money, it determines everything. The fact that these functions and "entities" in no way correspond to realism and accurate modeling of history - no one cares. The consumer likes it, then it will be so. )
Therefore, I never wanted to deal with the modern gaming industry. When you make scenarios in Civilization II, you do them only as you want. "Free artists". I doubt that when you monetize your hobby, everything will be the same. )
Perhaps in the Paradox studio, it's all a bit different. Since their games Europe Universalis, Crusader Kings, and their clones - are really gorgeous.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,039
I think that depends on the company. For very big electronic game companies like Electronic Arts, LucasArts, SquareEnix, Capcom, etc., or even Ensemble Studio (a direct subsidiary of Microsoft) in it's day, that may very well be the case. But, for instance, Sid Meier was a very powerful, prominent force in MPS when he made Civ1, Civ2, and Colonization, and later made his own company entirely (Firaxis). I'm not sure how big Paradox is, but it doesn't sound as big or "bureaucratically corporate" as the ones I listed above.
The culture at Paradox seems to be based on making the games that they want to play. I guess the logic is that if the developers want to play them, then the consumer will enjoy them too. However, I completely agree that the focus of most developers seems to be on 3-D animated graphics and less on the historical accuracy and allowing players to mod (unless they're talented coders & graphic artists). The big attraction of Civ2 & ToT is that ordinary, casual gamers can learn to mod the game without anything more complex than MS Paint and Notepad. The level of detail & complexity is up to the individual. You can build a simple mod in a few days or spend a year (or longer) making the most detailed scenario. I do play more modern games & enjoy them, but I always come back to my first love Civ2.
Similar threads
