OTOH, I like a realistic mainline to follow during my Civ games, only not so pre-defined to force me to very few choices.

By example, if slavery will be implemented in Civ III, I will like to have in the model same needs, pros and cons that drived past king / goverment into the choice (slavery yes / slavery no), but not to be forced on the same historically correct path.

May I develop my Civ without the need of eternal wars? May I develop the country without the need of a big-cities centric urban approach? May I drive the industrialization progress on a better sustainable model (more "green") and help other Civ to do the same? May I push my population on a more decisive effort on the space race or I'll drain too much global resources on the try? Must I rescue the Earth or should I bet all my coins on space and other planets colonies (the Moon, Mars, Alpha Centauri).

A good Civ simulator will let us push a bit the boundaries of a realistically set "world limit".

Magic? Not in the Earth scenario, please!
Genetic manipulation? Yes, if your population will accept it (counting social agenda, culture, religion, etc.).

But it should also be possible to choose between the two ways of playing.

And maybe there should be a way to work with magic. The best way to manage this is to work with infinite resource slots, so that you can put in new resources like mana etc.

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 05-23-2000 09:32 PM I'm with Beebee. "Give me history or give me..."eh...nevermind

Ok everyone take your guesses, what was Orange going to say,

Give me history or give me a grilled cheddar cheese sandwhich with butter grilled into the bread and some milk on a cold winter morning.

Of course he could have always said death, but we don't want to turn Firaxis into a bunch of executioners do we ?

We need guesses here people, anyone who looks at this thread reply and take your guess, this forum could use a few carnival esque games every once in a while.

"Give me history or give me fantasy as I realy dont care either way".

alternativly he could have been about to say

A prize for the first to guess it...
(Ok, how's that for Apolyton posting relief)

Firaxis = executioners? Nah, couldn't be

For example, a Civ3 in which you could recreate something like an accurate Roman Empire, World War II, or modern day United States would be great. But civ games are also all about exploring all sorts of "what if" scenarios that _could_ have happened.

What if Carthage had defeated Rome and built its own Empire? What if a fascist power dominated the globe in the 1900s? What if slavery was still widely practised today? What if somehow nations managed get along without major wars (improbable but conceivable)?

A good civ game gives you realistic possibilities. Necessarily, most of these possibilities come from history. We know they are realistic because they happened! Most discoveries/technologies, city impovements, and units were pretty much inevitable, so basing them on history makes good sense.

What I don't like is forcing things into civ games that were _not_ inevitable. For example, while a Temple improvement could be part of any sort of religion, a Cathedral is specific to Christianity, suggesting that Christianity is an inevitable part of any civilization. An example from CTP is the Emancipation Act which effectively ends slavery worldwide forever. This conforms every game to actual history where it needn't.

The Wonders of the World always troubled me because of this. In Civ1/2 and CTP they are very actual-history dependent. It's not too easy to get around that fact and still include them in the game. Yet they are such a cool part of the game that who would want to lose them? Some wonders have been sort of actual-history independent. In Civ1/2 The Great Wall of China was just The Great Wall. Similarly you could alter certain others (ie. change Magellan's Voyage to "Circumnavigate the Globe"). But it's hard to think of wonders like The Statue of Liberty or Michaelangelo's Chapel being made less our-history-dependent.

Things like "magic" and other fantastical elements are really _not_ within the realm of possibility, and so, in my opinion, have no part in a civ game.

Whether or not a civ game should continue past present time and into the future is hard to say. Who can say for sure what future techs, improvements, and units are realistic?

While I admittedly enjoy the part of Civ2 and CTP that goes into the future (the more realistic-seeming the vision of the future the more I like it), I see this as more the realm for mods or official add-ons. Visions of the future should not be part of the core game.

The primary function of a civ game is to recreate an accurate or plausible version of human history up to the present.

That said, I'm all for mods that expand the game into the future based on different people's ideas of things to come. @8-)

My thoughts,

quote: Originally posted by Napoleon I on 05-23-2000 02:01 AM There should definitely be a very strong and efficient historical engine to support civ3. Of course Firaxis should give us space to define new historical pathways but I think that having magic would be going a bit too far into the fantasy land. If there is a way that you can develop a technology called trickery or something, I'd accept it (after all Columbus did trick the Indians with the solar eclipse), but I don't think we should go into the spells area.

Right, its only magic til you know how it works, then its science. A person who had never been exposed to technology before, upon seeing a plane, or a TV, or a computer, would think its magic.

Now I had this concept on another thread, but what if a civ declines so far, that they no longer understand how the technology they use works. It would seem to them that there was magic all around them. This might be the result of setting research alocation too low.

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 06-01-2000 11:45 AM Could science --> magic be partailly used as a penalty for switching from Democracy (or Republic?) to Fundamentalism? This would cut down on the Civs who switch to Fundy to declare war and then switch back. Thoughts?

Nah, really this kind of thing doesn't happen overnight, or even over the course of years. Take at least a generation, maybe more. Better suited I think to leaving the research allocation too low for too long.

Or alternatly, it could be the result of an enemy's nation long term effort to undermine another's nations research. But, that doesn't sound really plausible.

Thoughts?

On another note, perhaps Superstition could result from setting the Pysch allocation too low? And Red Tape could result from setting the Economy allocation too low?

quote: Originally posted by OrangeSfwr on 06-03-2000 12:56 PM I didn't mean right away, but overtime like you said.

Okay, but if some goes Fundy, and then switches back to Demo/Repub, then how would the penalty come into affect. I am thinking, that your talking about switching governments in a relatively short period of time, right?