|
Author
|
|
Topic: Eternal China Syndrome |  |
|
East Street Trader
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted January 11, 2001 11:23
   | 
 |
 |  |
I had a look at the Civ 3 suggestions forum and came across a reference to the Eternal China Syndrome.Can anyone give me a brief description? |
Albert B
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted January 11, 2001 13:43
|
|
| |
The China Syndrome is a reference to some type of nuclear plant meltdown. There was even an American movie by that name back in the late 70's/early 80's about it. I don't recall the details but I believe it is a play on the idea of "digging to china" which I'm sure is an American concept(/euphonism) that isn't worth explaining...Anyway, my best guess of an eternal china syndrome would be some kind of idea that a reactor meltdown would become an ongoing problem, rather than a one-time effect within the game? If not, I'm sure someone else will be along shortly with a better explanation. I hoped that helps a little. |
DaveV
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted January 11, 2001 14:09
|
|
| |
Logical conclusion, Albert B, but not what they mean on Civ 3, I think. As I understand it, the complaint is that if a civ jumps out to an early lead in population and tech (like China in the Real World), that lead continues to widen and that civ will end up winning. |
East Street Trader
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted January 12, 2001 08:45
|
|
| |
That makes sense in context, DaveV, so thanks.You'll be sad (?) to hear it was linked with ICS as a weakness in the game. In my own view, imperfect (and a little crude) though all the "balancing" factors are, the designers deserve a great deal of credit for keeping the level of challenge up right through to the end (in an AC game anyway). |
CYBERAmazon
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted January 14, 2001 02:38
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by DaveV on 01-11-2001 02:09 PM
Logical conclusion, Albert B, but not what they mean on Civ 3, I think. As I understand it, the complaint is that if a civ jumps out to an early lead in population and tech (like China in the Real World), that lead continues to widen and that civ will end up winning.
|
DaveV, et al.: Why would somebody be complaining about that? Hey, if the AI civilization(s) get a jump on me and kick my butt in the end because of a good start, then so be it. Lesson learned. Play better the next time. That's how it works IRL ... except that a nation, once beaten down, usually cannot "quit" out of the "game" and/or replay certain moves. CYBERAmazon |
Theben
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted January 15, 2001 03:48
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by CYBERAmazon on 01-14-2001 02:38 AM
DaveV, et al.:Why would somebody be complaining about that? Hey, if the AI civilization(s) get a jump on me and kick my butt in the end because of a good start, then so be it. Lesson learned. Play better the next time. That's how it works IRL ... except that a nation, once beaten down, usually cannot "quit" out of the "game" and/or replay certain moves. CYBERAmazon
|
I think the complaint was made because it benefitted the player too much...and made victory too easy. |
CYBERAmazon
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted January 15, 2001 14:49
|
|
| |
Theben:Okay, count me as slightly confused. I cannot see how having a superpower AI — especially early on — can benefit the human player in the long run. Then again, I'm not the type to filch techs ... so that's sort of a self-imposed "leveler" from the get-go. Unless one considers the "nice" treatment one gets for being less than all-powerful a good thing. Which I think it is, as the AI tends to ignore you for hundreds, if not thousands, of game-time years. CYBERAmazon |
paiktis22
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted January 15, 2001 17:21
|
|
| |
quote:
the designers deserve a great deal of credit for keeping the level of challenge up right through to the end (in an AC game anyway).
|
And that's what they had in mind according to civ 3 website. Civ 1 (and civ 2 but not so as civ 1)was not about... war! Of course that was before the factor of impredictability i.e. resourceful players came to the play and found new ways! | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums-archives
