what happened to fundamentalism?

[Baron Scot]

i have just been wondering who fundamentalism was taken out after civ 2. i dont think i have seen an explination anywhere.

i just grew attached to it during many games and miss it now.

 

[BCLG100]

yeh i used fundamentelism a lot becuase no-one could get unhappy
i think it was something ot do with morale issues but if you want i think you can alter one of the existing governements to make it

 

[Sanaz]

You can "search titles only" for "fundamentalism" under Cicilization III" and receive 10 hits. Maybe this could be submitted as an FAQ?

 

[BCLG100]

yeh but you could search pretty much anything and get 10 hits so now everything can go into FAQ

 

[Baron Scot]

what morale issuse did this goverment violate?

it kept me happy, dammit im the king or the equivelent in fundamentalism

high priest or something

 

[hr_oskar]

I think the main issue with Fundamentalism was that in game terms, it was BROKEN.

Also, historically speaking, it was a very unconvincing idea. In my opinion, at least. What real 'fundamentalist' governments have there been? I mean, that we couldn't define right away as 'monarchy' or 'communism'?

 

[Frog Propaganda]

I kind of see it both ways.

On one hand, you have the far and ahead best government for any situation in Civ 2. Why? Because it was disturbingly unbalanced. Almost unlimited unit support, extra money with happiness structures, the only government with its own very cheap, support free, cannon fodder unit...and NO UNHAPPINESS. If you couldn't win by steamrolling Monarchies and Communist governments with your brainwashed citizens, you were doing something really wrong. It was that good. The science downgrade meant nothing since you would just steal techs outright from the infidels.

All that being said, I was pretty sad when Firaxis just dropped the idea completely instead of trying to fix it, while keeping some of it's special flair. Hell, they should have done a better job of making the governments they left in being more special, with their own units/buildings. As it is, all the governments feel really cookie-cutter to me. Besides, I really miss that little torch waving fanatic. Governments should be more customizable.

 

[Free Enterprise]

The only reason it was removed was Fundamentalism was the supreme government. It made loads of $$$$cash and there was no unhappiness. They apprently decided it was "easier" to just remove it rather than change it... I would not recommend adding it back into the game since as hr_oskar pointed out there is no government known as fundamentalism.

5 Governments are not enough!!! Revolt!!!

 

[Tweedledum]

Originally posted by Frog Propaganda
I kind of see it both ways.

On one hand, you have the far and ahead best government for any situation in Civ 2. Why? Because it was disturbingly unbalanced. Almost unlimited unit support, extra money with happiness structures, the only government with its own very cheap, support free, cannon fodder unit...and NO UNHAPPINESS. If you couldn't win by steamrolling Monarchies and Communist governments with your brainwashed citizens, you were doing something really wrong. It was that good. The science downgrade meant nothing since you would just steal techs outright from the infidels.

With science, not only could you steal the techs (which you can't do any more...), but the no unhappiness and extra money from tithes and free unit support meant you could stick the science rate through the roof and actually make discoveries quicker than under any other government type!

I'd still like it back, but in a modified form - perhaps with scientific advancement completely negated through research and all trading rates at least doubled (after all, would YOU sell tanks to the Ayatollah if he didn't already have them...?)

Would that be so hard to program? I doubt it - gimme the code and I'll do it

 

[Frog Propaganda]

Originally posted by hr_oskar
Also, historically speaking, it was a very unconvincing idea. In my opinion, at least. What real 'fundamentalist' governments have there been? I mean, that we couldn't define right away as 'monarchy' or 'communism'?

Iran comes to mind as the best example. The Taliban were a pretty perverse example as well. Basically any government that claims spiritual authority as well as political, or where Church and State become interchangable within the government.

 

[Baron Scot]

would those be a dictatorship? who leads iran Iatola (sp)? right?

 

[The Last Conformist]

"Ayatollah" is a title. Iran's current leader is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, but he doesn't have the kind of total control that ol' Khomeini wielded - today's Iran is an oligarchy rather than a dictatorship. The more-or-less democratically elected President also has considerable power.

But what's really lacking in the civ games is something representing a modern, non-communist dictatorship - I mean, don't tell me Nazi Germany or Saddam Hussein's Iraq should be represented by Republic ...