Historical or fantasy CIV3

[Tiberius]

Reading some posts around here, I started thinking about the following question:
What do you, Apolytoners, want more:
1. a historically true CIV3 (where events follow the timeline of history exactly as it was in reality)
or
2. a CIV3 in which there's much more place for imagination, fantasies and new ideas (even if they didn't happen this way in the history of mankind) (just a few ideas: new goverment forms, amazing discoveries, other religions, different military units, aliens, nations specializing themselves in magic, and so on).
So, could our history look diferrent ?

[Atahualpa]

From the points you provide I take: HISTORICAL!
Magic really has nothing to do in a Civ game! But I am not objected to fantasy when it sticks to being realistic, meaning it could have happened on our good ol' earth. And magic definetly is not realistic!
But anyway, I would prefer historical.

ATa

[MidKnight Lament]

Yeah, until you got to the magic bit, I may have gone with the second option. We certainly don't want to stick with history point by point, but magic is going a bit far. Other things can be added, but only as long as they stay true to how history could have turned out, and I don't believe magic is a part of that. Other governments or religions... sure.

- MKL

[Adm.Naismith]

To be honest, I hope Firaxis will be able to build a very good "Civ Engine" core, that can be wrapped with different discovery tree, units, maps good enough to fit a quite wide freedom on game background. It can't be a Jack-of-all (because it will stretch too much the original concept) but surely can left enough room for MOD and Scenery.

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.).

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Steve Clark]

For me, definitely historical, I hate anything to do with scifi and fanstasy. HOWEVER, it has been my assumption that Civ3 will mirror Civ2 in that it will provide a historical timeline for regular gameplay, with the ability to customize files, events and graphics to create any type of scenarios one desires. I truly wish a regular game of Civ3 would end in very early 2000 so I wouldn't be subjected to scifi nonsense. And if someone wants to create a MOM or MOO type scenario, all the power to that person, just don't include any of that stuff in my regular game. Did I make my point? Just one person's viewpoint, that's all.

[Tiberius]

Well, maybe the magic thing was a little bit exagerated; think it like a specialization in some kind of strange religion, or something like that.
Anyway, the question remains the same: reality or imagination?

I'd prefer the historical correct variant.

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.

What do you think about that?

[Par4]

I've always seen Civ as a recreation of history using human events as a guide. It would be a semi simulation as you retrace the steps of humanity technologically while creating your empire that changes history. Civ is clearly a combo of the both as you simulate your tribe turning into a civilization and massive empire but you can't get industrial revolution techs in BC,(thing I saw on history channel) a roman in alexandria had all the parts of a steam train drawn up, just not in a train, there is a chance someone else could have created a train from the parts and then romans, amazed by the train, started a roman industrial revolution, get guns, defeat the barbarians, never fall. This can't happen in Civ so on that sense it is historical but you can make your civ as successful as you want so it is a remake of history in that sense instead of a retrace.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

[Urban Ranger]

I would say history would just serve as a broad backdrop for Civ, as we are not recreating history, but making history.

I agree that Firaxis needs to build an exceptional engine, so mods and such can be written for it. Take a look at Quake to see what a good game engine can do for gamers and the company.

[Napoleon I]

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.

------------------
Napoleon I

Hey, what about my propose?

Surely, there should be an engine but why not let the player decide whether he wants a hstorical game or a "classic" game where history is made by himself?

[BeeBee]

Replaying history of mankind is what civ-games are about. So realism is very important for me. There are already enough of those fantasy games.

------------------
C'est dur etre bébé

I'm with Beebee. "Give me history or give me..."eh...nevermind

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Par4]

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.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

[Grier]

I am sure that he was about to say

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

alternativly he could have been about to say

"Give me history or give a copy of CTP2".

Step right up step right up, try to guess what my quote meant...

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

Firaxis = executioners? Nah, couldn't be

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[The diplomat]

"Give me history or give me Dinos"

Just a guess...

[Urban Ranger]

"Give me history or give me a few rats on a stick, a few crates of that jellyfish jelly, a large box of used matches, and several wore out tires."

[RevBPS]

I would like Civ3 (or any civ game) to be accurate enough so that something very close to actual history can be recreated, but doesn't HAVE to be in every game.

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,

-Rev. Brendan P. Smith

[beyowulf]

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.

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?

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[Theben]

I'd say stick to the historical but include some things, such as a somewhat "random" tech tree. FE, what were the pre-requesites that China had to have in order to create an early industrial revolution? Obviously different than that of the Europeans, and the results may have been different. I think Firaxis would need 2 or more historians on-call as well as a great engine to pull this off (whatever happened to Diodorus Sicilius?).

[Thall al Drae]

I'd go with historical, but I wouldn't mind things like magic etc being included as an alternative.

[beyowulf]

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?

I didn't mean right away, but overtime like you said.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

Yah...how about during the extended period of anarchy between a switch from Fundy to Democracy the most recently discovered tech has a 50% chance of being "forgotten". But the production for Fundy government (Shields and food) will have to be reduced otherwise people will just stay under Fundy.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[beyowulf]

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?