Re: [Human-beings-discuss] civ3, cultural influence, and balance human development and war

[dams]

Guillaume Cottenceau <address@hidden> writes:

> Today I talked with a friend about Civilization 3.
> 
> It seems that they now have the notion of "cultural influence",
> where some cities of a given civilization can be lost if another
> civilization's cultural influence extend (geographically) over
> them;
> 
> I find it a good idea, especially in the light of balancing human
> development over pure war in strategies of players -- e.g. pure
> war would lead to a large number of cities but poor cultural
> influence and poor consistency across civilization, thus instable
> civilization, loosing cities.

agreed! this is a great idea, that extends the commercial and diplomaty concept

> 
> 
> I think the balance between human/civilization development and
> war is one of the critical issues of the project. We need to have
> interesting war handling (e.g. far better than civ), but force
> players to combine it with development, which is not
> straightforward (IMO). Please comment on it if you want.

If you imply on the development dependances that a advanced civilization is
needed to have a great war power, it will solves the common issues. Now, to
avoid that having a good civilization is only to have war power, you should
either :
- put strong limitation to war power if you don't have civilization (example in
caesar3, the religion is only there to avoid cataclysm). I think it's bad,
because this bring the player to think that civilization is bad, it blocks your
war development.
- put strong advantage having a good civilization. One example of this is what
you said (gain cities). IMHO, we are not obliged to have civilisation styles
that follows the human civilization (imho this is a very bad idea), because the
human civilization brings (not enough, sadly, but mainly at least) peace to the
humanity, and we want a civilization that can bring power, through peace OR
war, in an equally manner.

my 2 cents