Does Civ 3 "really" attempt to simulate history?

[vee4473]

I have been wondering this for a while now.

Aside from scenarios that specifically lay out a historical event, the Civilization series only tries to give players a starting point to build a civilization.

The "history" is something that is unique to each game played.
I don't think it was ever meant to simulate how Earth history unfolded.

The only link to any type of history is the units and governments involved. I think that is where it ends.

I just feel weird when I hear people referring to it as "a historical simulation".

Am I rambling about nothing?

Damn..not again...

[Encomium]

Unfortunately for your alleged logic the units in Civ III alone make a joke about History. Now, if you want a Fantasy game, fine. I enjoyed a lot of Civ II fantasy scenarios - too bad we can't even make scenarios in Civ III.

But when such as the following occur the game shows a careless contempt and a disdain for reality that is unaceptable to me.

Unless you made a lot of changes in the Editor (as I did) all of the following non-historical idiocy can be found in Civ III:

1. Bombers cannot sink warships!! Sid never heard of Pearl Harbor, I guess.

2. Tanks, cavalry, and even elephants (!) have airlift capabilities Never happened; never could happen.

3. Leaders, artillery, and workers do NOT have airlift capabilities. Why not??

4. Longbowmen should be English-specific, and they should be good defensiely against knights.

5. Elephants should be poor defensively.

6. Privateers and submarines should attack trade routes and commerce - not warships.

7. Nuclear subs should be very different from older diesel subs (faster and harder to see).

8. Naval unit values are too low, movement and combat.

9. Navies did NOT spend their time bombarding "improvements", and only Battleships had the firepower todestroy them. The whole purpose of navies (to protect trade routes primarily) is lost to Sid.

And so on. . .

Here's a non-unit terrain lack of realism: why is there only one type of hill tile?? There should be separate hill terrain for deserts and jungles producing a lot less than the kind of hill you'd find in France, for instance.

Resources? It is not realistic to have so few strategic resources. Iron was NEVER that rare.

How about Diplomacy? Why do AI advisors during war refse to make peace until they are almost destroyed? That kind of dumb stubborness is not realistic or historical.

It is not realistic for the Trade Advisor to turn down some great deals for reasons that defy understanding.

Borders and cities NEVER NEVER flipped around as they do in Civ III, and garrisons in a flipped city never disappeared into thin air. With a big garrison a city would never even atempt to defect.

Combat results?? No, a full strength veteran spearmean is not going to destroy a tank, but I have seen a longbowman destroy a single cavalry (with no retreat route) even though the cavalry would have had rifles against bows and arrows. There are too many examples of one unit of a different Age destroying another. Units fighting those of an earlier Age should receive a combat bonus.

I could go on. . . but the fact is Civ III is a step DOWN in the simulation of history compared to Civ II.

[Argos65987]

I think I have to agree with you Vee. EU2 would be closer to an historical simulation. Many historical events are scripted, but the player makes decisions regarding the outcome (ie who to support in the War of the Roses). Civ is much more open ended

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Encomium
6. Privateers and submarines should attack trade routes and commerce - not warships.

That's a good point. I don't know if it has been mentioned elsewhere, but the game could be set up so that if you have say 10 subs and you're at war with another civ then their trade goes done unless they have destroyers.

[zergling]

Originally posted by Tingkai


That's a good point. I don't know if it has been mentioned elsewhere, but the game could be set up so that if you have say 10 subs and you're at war with another civ then their trade goes done unless they have destroyers.

Or make it like CTP which has visible trade route that can be destroyed by sending sub or any other naval units to "pillage" the trade route..

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by vee4473
The "history" is something that is unique to each game played.
I don't think it was ever meant to simulate how Earth history unfolded.

It's just a game, but the simulation is the life history of an artificial civilization and how it reacts to its environment. The real key is not the combat or the wonders, which are arbitrary; it is the interaction of the civilizations. Do you enslave to gain an advantage over your rivals? Do you try to make peace? Or do you attack your neighbor and take what is his?

[Capt Dizle]

Civ3 is simply an empire building game. It is an empire building game designed to frustrate the human player.

It is strategic abstraction. A lot of the complaints come from people who want more of a realistic tactic combat approach.

There is no attempt to simulate history at all. History was shaped by many factors that are not included in the design. Religion, politics, real cultural conflict, ethnicity. Drought, hunger, greed, pride (getting into the seven deadly sins here); a great many things have played into the unfolding of human history. Not much is represented in this game.

It is pretty much open ended empire building with lots of elements included to prevent the human from winning easily (but it ends up just frustrating the player).

I would also like to point out that while we call it Civ, its really more a game of nations, as all civs suffer from fragmentation due to factors like nationalism and civil war.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Civ3 is simply an empire building game. It is an empire building game designed to frustrate the human player.

It is strategic abstraction.

"Frustration" is a part of any complex puzzle. If it was easy, there would be no satisfaction in finding the solution.

But not everyone plays "empire building." My current game I have never had a war up until 1000ad, though I'm surrounded by warring nations.

[OneInTen]

I think the point being got at (in a round about way) is that complaints about, for example, some modern unit not being realistic are bunk because the game is about starting from a point and then the events diverge from history. So the bombers being built that can't sink warships might not be the same bombers we are familiar with today, since they come from some kind of parallel universe where things worked out differently.

I think.

[PapaLenin]

OneInTen you are absolutely right. I gotta another excample: railroads. We cant go to a train and be everywhere we want in one second so the only explanation is that in civ3 humankind developed trains that move with speed of light!!!

[Harovan]

Originally posted by PapaLenin
OneInTen you are absolutely right. I gotta another excample: railroads. We cant go to a train and be everywhere we want in one second so the only explanation is that in civ3 humankind developed trains that move with speed of light!!!

You did notice, that a turn in Civ3 lasts at least a year, did you? How far can you go by railroad in 1 year? The answer is: practically everywhere, where a railroad exists. That's what the game does.

Not the railroads are unrealistic, but rather the early roads (or even the land without roads), that make me need 1000 years or more to get from one coast of my continent to the other.

[Ironikinit]

The railroad thing, that was in Civ 1 and 2, and I don't really see why everybody has to jump on the *****wagon about stuff that's been in the game since it was invented.

The air power thing actually represents the real world, or at least an important truth from real human history: You can't win a war with air power alone. Nations have tried and failed.

[ACooper]

None of the Civ games were ever meant to simualte history. The games was meant to be an abstracted simulation of an alternative history that you influence. "Realism" has never, ever been a part of any of the Civ games, they have always been an abstraction of pieces of reality.

I think a lot of the confusion come in because Civ 2 allow customization to a degree that history could be more closely copied into the game.

[steelehc]

I agree with many of the things being posted here, Civ3 has problems, Civ3 is innacurate, etc...

However, I do have five problems with what has been said.

Elephants should be poor defensively.

I do not actually knw for sure whether or not this is true, but I will say this: it would take a pair of big brass ones to charge up against an elephant. They're huge.

Tanks, cavalry, and even elephants (!) have airlift capabilities Never happened; never could happen.

Cavalry have seldom, if ever been airlifted, ditto for elephants. The problem here is tanks. Tanks, have been airlifted, and it continues to happen. They are big, but it happens.

Iron was NEVER that rare.

Iron may not have been rare, but it could be a real b1tch to dig iron ore out of the ground, and then seperate the iron from the rock with nothing but stone and wooden tools. The iron deposits represent an area where iron is on the surface, before it had to be mined out.

Borders and cities NEVER NEVER flipped around as they do in Civ III, and garrisons in a flipped city never disappeared into thin air. With a big garrison a city would never even atempt to defect.

This is a real bastard to deal with, and I hate it, but it is not impossible. In WW2, Poles and Jews in the cities of Lodz, Warsaw, and Krakow revolted against the German occupiers. They failed to drive them out, however, it forced the Germans to garrison more troops in the cities. The game needs to reflect the possibilty of revolt, but needs to tone it down.

The air power thing actually represents the real world, or at least an important truth from real human history: You can't win a war with air power alone. Nations have tried and failed.

I guess the US destroyed the Japanese economy in WW2 by invading the Home Islands, then? And NATO invaded Serbia in the 1990s to, right? And the atomic weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were delivered by troops on the ground?
The point is, air power can win a war if used right, and regardless, planes should be able to sink ships.



Steele

[Chronus]

6. Privateers and submarines should attack trade routes and commerce - not warships.

Or make it like CTP which has visible trade route that can be destroyed by sending sub or any other naval units to "pillage" the trade route..

I'm not 100% sure how to interpret #6. Are you saying that subs should only be allowed to attack trade routes and not attack warships? Or that warships should not be allowed to "attack" trade routes? Or were you commenting on AI strategy?

Both subs and destroyers (and privateers) SHOULD BE ALLOWED to attack each other as well as trade routes. (Well, a privateer would have a hard time finding a sub so I'll skip the privateer) Otherwise, this reflects reality and it is all allowed in Civ 3.

The trade routes are somewhat similar to CTP except that they are not visible. If you want to block a trade route, cover all the sea squares, with subs or warships, at some botteneck. What I didn't like about the CTP model was that my caravans/traders, once a trade route was broken, couldn't even find a safe path around the enemy ships in spite of a huge ocean before them.

[Ironikinit]

Originally posted by steelehc

I guess the US destroyed the Japanese economy in WW2 by invading the Home Islands, then? And NATO invaded Serbia in the 1990s to, right? And the atomic weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were delivered by troops on the ground?
The point is, air power can win a war if used right, and regardless, planes should be able to sink ships.

Steele

Destroying an economy is different than destroying military units. Further, a player can damage the AI's ability to fight with air power very much under the current model. Resources can be cut off, population centers reduced, units surpressed.

You are surely aware that ground troops opposed the Serbs and that atomic weapons have another place in the model.

Strategic bombing rarely, if ever, sank a ship. Tactical bombing, yes, and it would be excellent if people figured out a way to reflect tactical bombers (divers and torpedoes, etc.) in the game.

For further evidence of the inability of air power alone to win wars I refer you to the US and UK campaign against Germany.

[Trifna]

Only party would be my opinion, which is sad since what is based on reality (or a coherent system, which reality is) has more strenght.

[GePap]

Civ wa never meant to be a 'true' historical simulator like EU. In EU you always use that same map, and that map is a real world map. The same players are always present, with the same starting locations and same strenghts.
This is not true for any civ game which: can vary starting locations on varied maps and the character and number of challengers always changes. The concpt of time is also different. In a simulator, time remains constant, not in civ.

So civ was never meant as a true simulator in the sense that you play the same historical era, or event, over and over to see al the different possible outcomes.
Yet this fact does not mean that the game of civ should include patently unrealistic things in it. Let me clarify that highly abstrated notions are no the same as highly unrealistic. The notion of airpower not detroyingg land units is an abstraction, but one that is generally true to history. Airpower not destroying naval vessels is an abstraction that is unrealistic.

What civ tries to do is far more ambitiuos. Civ tries to allow us to resimulate all of HUMAN history since the invention of farming and large settlements. The ambiguity sets in because real cultural names and technological names, and unit names are used. This make some people believe that it should be a true historical simulator ala EU. SMAC was the same as civ, creating a new world inhabited by humans (as opposed to alies of some type) and having a hand at its development through a huge span of time. The difference is that being set in the future, on another world, freed it from the ambiguities.

[PapaLenin]

You did notice, that a turn in Civ3 lasts at least a year, did you? How far can you go by railroad in 1 year? The answer is: practically everywhere, where a railroad exists. That's what the game does.

Take a train and in one year travel from the most western part of Russia to the most eastern part 10000 times. If u can do that in one ear ill pay the trips. And tell me also aren't planes faster than trains- so why can't u say make 55 bombing flights on enemy territory in one turn cause it's one year- or attack 25 times with tank, or sai with battleship one time around the world!!! So think about that!!!

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Destroying an economy is different than destroying military units. Further, a player can damage the AI's ability to fight with air power very much under the current model. Resources can be cut off, population centers reduced, units surpressed.

You are surely aware that ground troops opposed the Serbs and that atomic weapons have another place in the model.

Strategic bombing rarely, if ever, sank a ship. Tactical bombing, yes, and it would be excellent if people figured out a way to reflect tactical bombers (divers and torpedoes, etc.) in the game.

For further evidence of the inability of air power alone to win wars I refer you to the US and UK campaign against Germany.

Unit destruction can be defined as the loss of unit cohesion.

Nukes are a special case. The first and only nuclear war to date was Japan 1945. Those nukes were used as terror weapons, not against military units. As terror weapons aimed at civilians, they were very effective, and probably would be very effective against any "normal" military unit.

Conventional bombing, on the other hand, does not normally result in the destruction of unit cohesion -- and has been shown to be the same result even with smart bombs. The modern strategy discovered in Kosovo is to use partisans to draw the enemy out into the open, then hit them with smart bombs. Before the use of partisans in that conflict, the Serbs refused to withdraw, and simply stayed out of sight. This technical knowledge was applied from the beginning in Afghanistan.

[vee4473]

yeah! what he said!