Does Civ3 even attempt to be realistic?

[:) Smiley]

I looked through my Civ1 manual yesterday, and noticed a very different Civ than what we're now used to. To begin, Civ1 wasn't technically even a game, instead titled as a "computer simulation". Realistic drawings of historical scenes began each section, one of which was a seven-page narrative on human history and technolgical advances. The last section even listed about ten books "for further reading". As a whole, it seemed less a game and more an academic exercise.

Now, Civ3... There are talking leaderheads, cities that look like themeparks, unit animations and unique units, lots of style, and maybe some substance also. But as a whole it feels more like playing with toy soldiers than real empire building.

[Kropotkin]

I'm a long time player of the old games but just got civ3 the other week. To a certain degree I can agree with you. Surely they are patronizing their consumers, as most companies seems to do. I guess they are affraid to scare away people with looking to serious. Often it's the other way around. Anyhow, compared to CTP (I don't know about CTP II as I've never played it), Civ3 is much better. No tv-evangelist and other 'funny' units. Of cource, I think they are overdoing it all with Conquests. I haven't looked into it much, but seems to be going down the road most travelled. And that's a bad thing.

[Plotinus]

Well, to be fair, the sometimes "jokey" look of CivIII doesn't mean the game isn't serious, and has no bearing on the realism or otherwise of the gameplay (or simulation, if you prefer). Personally, the more realistic it is, the more I like it, and I do miss some of the features from the original (especially an Alexander who looked like the real one!)

I'd disagree that the Conquests make it less realistic - on the contrary, in fact. The fact that these are "snapshots" of particular moments in history means there's lots more era-specific detail in there, not to mention vast amounts of information in the Civilopaedia. Computer games have become vastly more educational than they were in my day - it'd be impossible not to learn *something* of history after playing through a few of the Conquests, I'd have thought. I have to admit, I relied on the information in the Middle Ages scenario to understand how Charlemagne's empire was split up among his grandsons in 843, a subject with some bearing on a book I'm actually writing at the moment. You could probably get a degree if you absorbed all the information in the entire Civilopaedia. It's pretty impressive!

[Kropotkin]

I have to admit, I relied on the information in the Middle Ages scenario to understand how Charlemagne's empire was split up among his grandsons in 843, a subject with some bearing on a book I'm actually writing at the moment.

So you got a fotnote that states *) Civilization III Conquests (software), Middle Ages Scenario.

[steven8r]

I think that Civ3 is about as 'realistic' as it can be within the confines of a 'playable/enjoyable' game. Sure, Aztecs w/ Ironclads is certainly not historical by any means, but certainly a possibility if things had turned-out diffrently.

Historically accurate, NO. Historically based, mostly so.

Steven

[Alex]

realism vs. fun = fun wins. otherwise, we'd have a boring game. (and it has always been a game, not a simulation - SimCity is a simulation, because it has no "goal" and you can't win or lose).

[:) Smiley]

Hmm, what would happen if I were to uncheck all of the victory conditions in the game setup screen?

The first Civ was marketed as a simulation though. About the realism vs. fun argument, the main case here isn't about realism vs. fun, it's about the type of fun. Civ3 lacks the epic fun and instead has Saturday morning cartoon fun. Biggest case in point being that horrendous POS you get when you build Magellan's Expedition. No documentary movie, just a picture of a water park.

[Kropotkin]

I'd like to watch your 'saturday morning cartoon fun', my germans just sacked Vladivostok, razed it and sent the population in exile to clear up a jungle south of München. Doesn't anyone has any imagination of their own anymore?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Smiley
Hmm, what would happen if I were to uncheck all of the victory conditions in the game setup screen?

Someone would get a score victory in 2050

Anyways, there isn't really a point to unchecking Conquest victory; if you kill everyone else, there's no way you WON'T win.

[Plotinus]

Originally posted by Kropotkin

So you got a fotnote that states *) Civilization III Conquests (software), Middle Ages Scenario.

Shhh! I won't tell anyone if you don't!

[Kropotkin]

Your secret is safe with me.

As for the original question; Smiley claims that "Civ1 wasn't technically even a game". Surely this was the case. It was a game all right. Just because they called it a "computer simulation" didn't make it less so. Pirates! was more of a simulation of a sea-captains life in comparison for example.

[Filippo]

I think if you want realism you should look into reality and not into a game. A game is fiction. If you want to live the history as it really was, read history books. That way you will know how the Charlemagne Empire was split in better details than just a few crappy and general lines. If you want to SHAPE history at your own will, you'll have to play a game, namely you'll play Civ3. In case you didn't notice, this is what it is advertised about this game.

[Stefu]

Now, Civ3... There are talking leaderheads

That's certainly very much unlike the talking leaderheads of Civ1.

[Plotinus]

[Filippo] Yes, but there's a difference between realism and fidelity to actual history. Those who want Civ to be more realistic don't want every game to follow how history really happened - that would be ridiculous. But they would like each game to be how history *could* have happened - or, to put it another way, it would be good if, in theory, a game *could* play out just as history really did.

[Cookie Monster]

Realistic - no because how can a spearman defeat modern armor?
Fun - a big yes
Historically based - yes


Overall the new CivIII shouldn't be taken too seriously from a realism point of view, but from a gamer's point of view CivIII can be one serious game. Meaning there are lots of subtle tactics you must discover to win at the harder levels.

[Alex]

I understand the point about "Sunday morning cartoon fun", but I think that Civ3 would be a boring game if it only gave us numerical data packed into a spreadsheet format. Just because the subject is a serious one (contrary to some supertough military wacko exploding alien's heads in dark corridors some 200 years in the future ), it shouldn't necessarily be treated with gravity and soberness. Ok, the talking leaderheads are goofy, but at the same time they're fun to look at.

[furrykef]

I don't think even the original Civ was meant to be realistic. I think it had the serious narrative elements because back then it wasn't as well-understood that a game can be a story on its own. Moreover, Civ's genre didn't really exist. It had two cousins: SimCity, and wargames, both of which having heavy educational/intellectual elenments. Civ was the first game I know of to really put the two together. And since you have this new genre, you're kind of in the dark, and so I think what Sid did was simply follow their example. So I think Civ3 is different because the genre has conventions now, not to mention game design as a whole has different conventions, such as "interrupt or distract the player only as much as necessary".

Not to knock on the original Civ or Sid Meier, of course.

- Kef

P.S. As for realism, whatever did building Pyramids have to do with granaries, anyway?

[EnduringBlue]

Civ is supposed to appeal to the history buff, the megalomaniac, the detail oriented person, in all of us. It also asks the question WHAT IF? I don't want to play a rigid game with one ending for simple historical realism. The Aztecs would lose, every time. The Zulu would lose, every time.

With my games, I get to change the possibilities every time. I also get to play on maps which are not earth, to simulate the idea of seeing the planet for the first time. Of course, there is so much ignorance in today's youth concening geography that Marla Singer could probably wow some teenage first time players with the existence of the new world all over again

I think the connection between the pyramids and granaries is the Biblical story of Joseph and the famine in Egypt, in which his dreams caused Egypt to have seven years of plenty that lasted them through seven years of famine, and the surrounding civilizations were forced to come to Egypt for food.

Now trading food to other civs, that's an interesting idea...there are always more elements in reality than here anyway, and debating realism is always fun, and sometimes the point.

[MotownDennis]

Originally posted by skywalker

Anyways, there isn't really a point to unchecking Conquest victory; if you kill everyone else, there's no way you WON'T win.

That's a good point. Why did they put that option in there anyway?


Mo D

[:) Smiley]

There was a time back before modern archeology determined the true purpose of the Pyramids, that people believed they were giant grain silos.

[furrykef]

The story of Joseph and the "giant grain silo" theory are nice to know, but that still doesn't make giving each city a free granary a realistic consequence of building Pyramids. In other words, it's there to be fun/fanciful, not realistic, like much of the stuff in the game is.

- Kef

[hexagonian]

When you consider the the manpower, as well as the resources needed to build the Pyramids (...and just how are you going to feed all the workers), there is a certain logic to having granaries as the benefit.

[Cyberon]

it's more fun i guess, aldo i very much dislike the way they have developed the "difficulty" system. At higher difficulty you are always backwards in tech, trying to keep the gap acceptable and fight you're way to the top. Sure, you can go for a diplomatic victory but else it's always the same....

What i really miss are my "live" advisors, build more barracks, noble leader.... NONONO, we need marketplaces, Sir.. you twirt, well it made me laugh and really would like to see them back.

[furrykef]

Originally posted by hexagonian
When you consider the the manpower, as well as the resources needed to build the Pyramids (...and just how are you going to feed all the workers), there is a certain logic to having granaries as the benefit.

I see. And why do none of the other massive-scale projects provide this benefit? Besides, the Pyramids are built in ONE CITY, using the resources of ONE CITY. Why would the other cities get granaries?

- Kef

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MotownDennis
That's a good point. Why did they put that option in there anyway?

It probably wasn't all that much more work and there was no reason not to.

[ShadowPresident]

No game can ever be 100% realistic. First of all, you're staring at a COMPUTER SCREEN. Second, if my PC starts to shoot back, it's not fun anymore :-)
But seriously, if a game is too realistic, most players will throw aside their keyboards/steering wheel/joystick/gamepad/etc. in disgust. I wouldn't still be playing Need For Speed if the game was over after I flip my $125,000 Porsche, because in real life, the game WOULD be over. In NFS, I just limp it back to the garage, bang out the dents and move on.
Back on track... It took me over a century to wipe out the Persian Empire, and I had tanks and Mech. Infantry going up against Spearmen and musketeers. The reason? 10 year turns. Granted if each turn was one year, then the game would take too long to play (6000 turns @ two minutes a turn = 200 hours @ 2 - 4 hours a day = 50 - 100 days!).
In fact, Civ3 just barely crosses the line between realism and playability because to really excel at the game, you have to micro-manage EVERYTHING and with 30 some-odd cities like I have, that's a chore, but it's still fun to see the end results (like tanks in the 16th century and heading for AC the next).

P.S. Any plans for Civ4?

[Cyberon]

i can see your point, but it's still silly to see the years fly by while you can only fight a war once in a 10/20/50 year period. Shouldn't start the game so early then i would suggest. Futhermore i have a huge disgust about the difficulty system. The way it is done is so stupid, i can't understand why not more people are against it. It's like a racing game, where all oppponents gets a 200 yards ahead -"because the Ai isn't good enough in racing". Sure, i hear all the arguments. Still i don't accept them as a valid argument. It's really ridicilous to fight a Ai which is flavored in many ways. Just because the Ai is too stupid to fight a human, because that's the case. Tried a huge map last time, took the American's for the exploration bonus. Played on emperor lvl. Things went well, in notime i had the tech lead. compared to some other Civ's i had 6+ in my techlist to trade. But despite the early libs, high tech bar (8science, 2lux, 0tax) i became one of the worst a few years later. Conclusion: it's nearly if not all impossible to get a tech lead or even to keep up with the Ai on higher lvl's. And it sucks. Despite bribing, trading or everything you try you still end up backwards. Allways trying to keep to gap acceptable or else you're done. Thanks to the stupidity of the Ai we get a very unbalanced game with always the same path; fight your way to the top, don't even try to get a tech lead in the beginning and wait till the happy days arrive.

there are better ways to make the Ai "smarter" and giving them bonusses isn't one of them. It's only the easiest way to cover up the stupidity of the Ai....

[Kropotkin]

That a war can take a millenium if it's fought early on in the game it does seem a bit weird. However, in a case like that there's nothing wrong with a little imagination of your own. See it as a prolonged conflict/struggle between two civilizations that in fact is a number of wars and conflicts. Take the hundred years war in real history for example. It lasted for over 100 years but it wasn't really one war, but a number of conflicts over - more or less- the same issue between -more or less- the same sides.

[furrykef]

I don't think the AI is stupid. It has been shown repeatedly that the AI is quite competent against new players on Regent level and, for less experienced players, even below. It's just the AI isn't a great player, it's an average player. There are better ways of fixing it than adding bonuses, sure, but the problem is we don't really know them yet or they'd be in the game.

(BTW, if you want to see the AI cheat horrendously and still suck, play Civ2...)

Edit: BTW, handicapping is a common and traditional means of handling a skill imbalance. For instance, an expert at chess might play without the kingside rook against a beginning player. I also disagree that this handicapping always leads to the same kind of game, though I'll admit that your options are more likely to be limited; it depends on a number of factors, such as your civ, your neighbors, the terrain, etc...

- Kef

[Sarxis]

I don't see how Civ3 isn't an improvement in everyway compared to Civ1.

Just because the maps and units look toyish isn't really a problem- Civ1 didn't even have toyish looking stuff, just squares that moved around on a square map with square cities.