Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: May 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: 100% Civ II Compliance - still a development goal?
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: 100% Civ II Compliance - still a development goal?

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: 100% Civ II Compliance - still a development goal?
From: Mark Metson <markm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 04:41:59 -0300 (ADT)

On Wed, 15 May 2002, Tony Stuckey wrote:

>       In CivII, there was indeed no downside to Fundamentalism.  A
> moderately large city (30+ pop) could produce literally hundreds of gold
> per turn, due to the reductions in upkeep of all types above.  No need to
> ever fight -- just buy your opponents out.

That makes sense inasmuch as the so called "gold" is almost never actually 
"mined". So its maybe akin to 'the gold in them there hills of domain name 
auctions' and 'the currency our scientists are going to invent in just 
another few centuries' and 'the pie in the sky' and so on. The whole 
concept of "gold" in Civ is totally arbitrary. Most people in practice 
would probably have no use for jewelery until they have air and water 
and food and maybe even (portable as in clothing or nonportable) shelter. 
So which really comes first, cosmetics and decoration or actual smelted 
soft metal?

It sounds like "gold" might amount to "secondary reinforcers", as opposed 
to "luxuries" which might correspond to "primary reinforcers" (or at least 
primary reinforcers other than actual basic minimal fuel/"nourishment" 
(flour and water?).

No wonder moneyholics (those who fund the mentalists who produce PayCiv, 
for example) tend to be fundamentalists when it comes to compatability 
with the pay version. They have been so thoroughly brainwashed into 
preferring to have to pay that they wont accept a free substitute unless 
it does what the costly thing does, and then probably will go right out 
and buy the new pay version even though the next paid version does in fact 
not do precisely the same thing as the prior one that they tried to get 
the free one to copy! Insanity! If they dont want the next for-pay version 
to be an exact identical clone of the previous for-pay version why the 
heck should the free version be precisely the same as the old for-pay 
version? It would make more sense for the free version to be precisely the 
same as the not yet created next for-pay version, so that there will be no 
need for for-pay versions anymore.

What, if anything, is the difference between Hari Krishna devotees and 
money-junkies / moneyholics ?????

BB
MM

-- 
Got a website? Get 10,000+ hits a day FREE...
http://makemoney.knotwork.com/10000hits/




[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]