The Realists' List

[Pedrun]

quote: Originally posted by Captain on 05-16-2001 01:11 AM About TIMESCALE, I think it should be shorter and linear. (1turn=1yr?) I don't like the idea of a shortening scale that's only used for tech advances to rep the increasing rate of tech advance. Why not just make the earlier techs take an equal amount beakers instead of having beaker cost rise? Since you make more beakers as time goes on, scientific progress speeds up - then we wouldn't need this contracting timescale. I know some people will say that this makes the early game boring as you have to wait more turns for needed techs, but it makes the early warfare period much more viable. In the present situation, I never really fight unless my offensive units are way stronger than my rivals (ie. from crusaders until they get musketeers, from cavalry until riflemen, then howitzers). this way, there might actually be ancient battles instead of a race to howitzers. eg. who's going to build a caravel to explore the world when before it completes its trip, you've got destroyers lapping it? what do you think? would this make the game way too long to be playable?

I really think this is a good feature. I do wait better units to start the battles and this also solve some time unrealities. But I dont think
i'd like to play a 1,000 turns (Almost 3 times the whole civ2 game) from 3,000 BC to 4,000 BC. So take easy on it. There has to be some time contracting. We could decrease it but not extinguish it!

[Pedrun]

quote: Originally posted by Captain on 05-16-2001 01:50 AM 1) Changing AI, yes! I think every 30-50 yrs is a good idea to replicate the changing of leadership, but not complete unpredictability - it's a skill to be able to 'read' your opponents like in a poker game ... 4) Finite resources, yes for non-renewables like oil and gas. Also for rare metals or radioactives. No for renewables like wood, food, etc. That's reality. I like the way Firaxis has the resources not showing up on the map til you research them (no "future" planting of cities) 5) Simultaneous research. It should also be BLIND research, until a breakthrough, then you get a preview and you can then concentrate funding until you get it. I think MOO had something like this. ... 8) Simultaneous Production. A city doesn't just work on one thing at a time, they can do many. Also, when raising an army, you should be able to convert unlimited civilian units into militia/infantry at a time. More complex units like ships and tanks and planes might take more time, but militia shouldn't. You should be able to raise a huge army (poorly equipped) in one turn. 9) Along those military lines, use the bushel method or subtract a head from city pop when making a military unit, see polmyths thread ... 11) Separate economy and government. don't know enough about econ to suggest good options. I think the main difference should be level of control, whether free market capitalist or centrally planned communistic. 12) Corporations should control businesses in a free market economy. Govt just gets taxes and impose tarriffs. In a centrally planned communistic one, you control it directly with "crown" or state owned businesses. 13) There was an idea somewhere (I forget where) about building your own government forms. I thought that was cool. It just needs to be simplified. 14) ENERGY. There was already a huge discussion on this before, but I'm putting it up here since Firaxis didn't listen to it. ENERGY must be in any realistic game. 15) Simultaneous Turns (incl battles). Mentioned before elsewhere and I love the idea. In reality, nations don't take 'turns' at battle or movement. this would also prevent the rolling howie attacks with no chance of countering, or the one sided nuking. ... 19) don't remember who mentioned it first, but I like the idea of just plain making the game HARDER. No one's ever conquered the whole world so far, and even holding together a civ for more than a few thousand years is rare! Make me work for victory, or even to survive!

Terrific ideas. But i cant say the same about the others.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by Captain on 05-14-2001 08:03 PM I'm not sure how well this would work in a game, but since you asked about realism... I've been 'guest' reading this BBS for several months now - something that I haven't found any substantial discussion on is this: GENERATIONS A 5 yr old isn't the same as a 25 yr old isn't the same as a 50 yr old. They have different abilities and also different attitudes. One of the primary modes of societal revolution or core change is that of a new generation coming to power/maturity. If you want realism, there should be an indication of how many are children, how many are of working age, and how many 'retired' (a very recent concept). Consider schooling, labour, and dependency. Children are the future but in the present, they contribute little and drain a lot (look at a parent's finances vs childless people). Recall that until the institution of the public education system in the 19th century, the primary mode of societal reproduction has been the family unit - that is, values and conduct are passed on and modified generationally. There are many other ways this would affect gameplay, but I just want to raise the concept. Comments?

Caesar 3 and other city builders have this. children and elderly are mouths to feed, but only working age adults are available to the labor force. The game models birth, death, immigration and aging to estimate numbers in each age cohort.

Caesar3 does assume that all children will require schools, which is unrealistic for the time period.

It would be interesting to put this in a civ wide game, though it would certainly add to the complexity.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

The key question to ask first is what time period to cover. The choice of narrow or wide will determine the nature and emphasis of the game.

Europa Universalis, from what i have read, has show that a short time period game can be incredibly realistic, not just meeting grognard standards of combat realism but realistic models of society, religion, and diplomacy. And because it is a SHORT period model, it can have very specific realistic features, such as national traits (IE unique civs) and historical events (EG the reformation)

I think a 6000 year game can illustrate broad historical principles well, but not specific events (or UNITS!!!!!)

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by Mathphysto on 05-17-2001 12:08 PM I think that the most important free parameters (singular people/events) ought to be fixed, provided that the conditions are right. For example, only if Germany has a large enough population and high enough science, and has discovered enough techs, would an Einstein appear. And only if Germany is poor enough and has high discrimination would Hitler rise to power.

But of course Germany was not poor by global standards in the 1920's - it was a rich industrial country - one of a handful
Germany WAS in a depression - but not in the early 20's when Hitler got involved in politics - it was the depression in 1929 that allowed his rise to power - yet in other countries where democracy was not associated with loss of a war no such result obtained, despite a depression.

So you would have to have a rule
if 1. a country has lost a massive war
and 2 that country becomes a democracy in the wake of that war
and 3. that country has a history of racial or religious hatred
and 4. that country suffers first from hyperinflation
and 5 . that country then suffers a depression
THEN - that country gets a hitler

and even the above is a simplification.

You can model detailed domestic politcs in a short run game - i dont think you can do it in a 6000 yr game.

LOTM

[Captain]

LOTM is right, it isn't really possible to model these things that we all want in terms of the game right now.

If we really want to have these ideas incorporated into a game, I think we have to take another look at changin the timescale.
Of course, that means an ever longer game, but I'm not sure how to we can avoid that.

The one thing I might suggest is that if we can reduce/eliminate much of the micromanagement and concentrate on the important things, the late game turns won't take that long. As it stands, I usually get thru the first 5000 yrs of civ within an hour and a half. But in the late game, each turn with 50+cities and countless units takes up to a half hour each!
If we can reduce micromanagement and shrink game turns to max 5 min each, that would be a big bonus. But this would depend ALOT on a good AI because we'd have to leave much of the daily affairs of running an empire to our advisors/ministers (just like real-life) and we would just take care of what we were interested in (either econ, or diplo, or war).

[The Rusty Gamer]

Democratic government - no more corruption? How real is that?

[Mathphysto]

LOTM - Your point is well taken. The number of incidental/accidental incidents that have changed the course of history is quite large. Even assuming that we really understood society, religion, diplomacy, etc, there are still singular historical people/events that cannot be modeled because they were so unique. In other words, we could never develop a program that, given the exact initial conditions at, say 2000BC, would give Napolean or Hitler. There are simply too many free parameters, too many improbable events. Can we incorporate the aspect of CHANCE or LUCK into the game?

The question is, then, how many of these parameters ought we to specify, and how many should be left to chance? If we fix all the free parameters, then we will get a boring program that is really nothing more than a documentary of history. If we don't fix any, then you completely lose the impact of singular people/events on history.

I think that the most important free parameters (singular people/events) ought to be fixed, provided that the conditions are right. For example, only if Germany has a large enough population and high enough science, and has discovered enough techs, would an Einstein appear. And only if Germany is poor enough and has high discrimination would Hitler rise to power.

Also, there could be lists of possible, but not factual, singular events/people which would have some probability of occurring, so long as some conditions are satisfied (which weren't satisfied in real life). For example, if the US is being invaded by the USSR, there may be some probability for someone to rally the people, increasing production and happiness as well as the US's conscription level.

This is somewhat similar to the Feats of Wonder in CTP2. There, if one was the first to circumnavigate the globe, one got a naval movement bonus. Instead of doing something and being rewarded for it, though, we are giving some probability for someone/thing to occur given some situation. This adds another element - chance. So much of history is built upon luck, hence any realistic game must include some aspect of probability. Also, it makes the game much more enjoyable and gives it greater replayability.

[SerapisIV]

quote: Originally posted by Russell on 05-17-2001 11:25 PM Democratic government - no more corruption? How real is that?

As real as the Dailey clan in Chicago, wait, maybe I'm proving myself wrong, no corruption in democracy is as likely as an accepted Florida election.

I agree that no corruption is not realistic, but democracy has got the least corruption in comparison to other forms of government, also as democracy ages, the acceptable corruption level gets lower and lower, people today wouldn't accept the political machines that operated in the prior to the 60s. They still exist, but no where near the strength they once had.

[The Rusty Gamer]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 05-18-2001 10:53 AMI agree that no corruption is not realistic, but democracy has got the least corruption in comparison to other forms of government, also as democracy ages, the acceptable corruption level gets lower and lower, people today wouldn't accept the political machines that operated in the prior to the 60s. They still exist, but no where near the strength they once had.

Sorry but you sound very naiive if you think corruption has got lower. It's taken on a different less obvious form, that's all. They've got more cunning and are using new methods to pull one over on us. There has also been an "invisible" government for a long time now, working behind the scenes and manipulating the media etc. But let's not get into world governemnt conspiracies here.

Also, our own standards of what's expected of those who rule us have dropped. Clinton would never have got away with the things he did a few years ago.

So I disagree with you. Democracy has got more corrupt, not less. Democracy means freedom, which includes the freedom to be a lying, manipulative cheat apparently.
[This message has been edited by Russell (edited May 19, 2001).]

[SerapisIV]

Democracy in this country hasn't gotten more corrupt, the US has become less democratic, now politicians listen to their financial supporters, not voters, elections are decided by court justices, not by vote counts. At the lower levels of government, state and city, less and less corruption is tolerated in this country especially as the media hunt down the slightest semblence of scandal with a vengence. Democracy is by far the least corrupt government type in comparison to the many other types people have used.

[Bereta_Eder]

quote: Originally posted by Russell on 05-19-2001 03:11 AMDemocracy has got more corrupt, not less. Democracy means freedom, which includes the freedom to be a lying, manipulative cheat apparently. [This message has been edited by Russell (edited May 19, 2001).]

Aparrently you have not lived or heard stories about dictatorships, to some extend, communist rule, not to mention medieval monarchies.

[The Rusty Gamer]

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 on 05-19-2001 01:52 PM Aparrently you have not lived or heard stories about dictatorships, to some extend, communist rule, not to mention medieval monarchies.

I am not saying that democracy is more corrupt than communism or dictatorships etc; what I am saying is that democracy still has more than its fair share of corruption and the game is unrealistic when it says that when you have a democratic government, there is no more corruption. From the point of view of realism (since this is what this thread is about), the corruption should still be there but perhaps implemented in a different way.


[This message has been edited by Russell (edited May 19, 2001).]

[The Rusty Gamer]

I've had an idea for how to implement corruption in a democratic government.

Perhaps when you first change to democracy there is virtually no corruption - it is cleaned out. But it begins to rise over time. However this can be counteracted by keeping spies in your cities which not only help prevent enemy espionage as has been their previous function but also which do "internal investigations" and every now and then some corruption is exposed in the city and the crime rate drops for a while. Every exposure also uses up one spy. If there are no spies in the city then crime will just keep on rising. If there is more than one spy, then it will increase the chance of exposing crime but the law of diminishing returns will apply for each extra spy.

Also, in general as regarding spies, they should have to be supported with resources like other units - they are too powerful at the moment.
[This message has been edited by Russell (edited May 20, 2001).]

[Bereta_Eder]

quote: Originally posted by Russell on 05-19-2001 09:22 PM I am not saying that democracy is more corrupt than communism or dictatorships etc; what I am saying is that democracy still has more than its fair share of corruption and the game is unrealistic when it says that when you have a democratic government, there is no more corruption.

Agreed.

But you gotta love democracy in civ 2. All these money

[The Rusty Gamer]

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 on 05-20-2001 10:34 AM But you gotta love democracy in civ 2. All these money

Yes, it's almost too easy. It's just that this thread is titled The Realists List so I'm trying to be realistic about it.

[Bereta_Eder]

If you try to put too much realism into civ you'll ruin the game

[Mathphysto]

The problem with any government or institution is that it will eventually be manipulated and abused by the ambitious. As time goes on, more people figure out better ways to abuse the system for their own self-interested ends. American government was relatively pure in the first few decades, but as the 19th century wore on, corruption became more commonplace as the rich figured out how to use the politicians. It's a trend that has grown in scale, so that today America is as much a plutocracy as a democracy.

This isn't to say that democracy is flawed, but only that the combination of a democratic government and a capitalist economy is. The Founding Fathers saw the state as playing the role of a class mediator, in protecting the minority capitalists from the majority proletariat, and protecting the proletariat from abuse. However, corruption gives the state a role of class dominance, so that the agendas of the minority capitalists may be more important than the opinions of the majority proletariat.

A primary reason why America hasn't fundamentally changed to address this issue is the following. World War II brought a fear of the right (the Nazis), and the Cold War brought a fear of the left (the Soviets). After witnessing the tragic consequences of other forms of political economy, we are scared to do anything ourselves. In fact, without the economic booms of WWII and the Cold War, it's likely that fundamental change would indeed have ocurred in the US.

I would have to say that our system is less corrupt than the soviet communists (which wasn't really communism, but just state capitalism) or monarchies, etc, simply because no matter how much money the corporations give to the politicians, the politicos must still appeal to the people for support and power. Money may get a bill composed and ready to be voted on, but public polls, as much as money, are an important factor in a representative's decision to support or oppose the bill. There haven't been any other systems in which the public's opinions played such an important role. But, it's certainly a much lesser role than desired, and that means there is plenty of room for progress.

[Lord_Davinator]

Whats the Real chance of having realism implented?

Very small??

tiny??
you tell me....

[Mathphysto]

Hey, we can at least pine away for some impossible dream, right? It may be a waste of time, but it's fun, and no more a waste of time than talking about or playing civ.

[Captain]

What? Four days and no new ideas on how to make civ more realistic?
I guess everyone's too busy discussing what the actual or suspected civ 3 game is going to be like.
We had some good ideas but it looks like it'll be at least civ 4 before some of these get addressed! Oh well, it was nice to dream for a while.

[Sava]

I got some realistic ideas for you.

1. Military Units - Built according to number of available men, available weapons, and training. Each Unit's attack, defense, range, and movement is based on what the unit is made up of. A WWII style infantry unit would require men and guns. Then the amount of training determines how well they fight and their guns determine range and attack power in each range, i.e. 100 attack in 0-50 yards, 50 attack in 50-100 yards.

2. Weapons - Just look at the past 100 years and the invention of modern weapons. Subtle features such as a bolt-action, smokeless gunpowder, metal cartriges have changed the face of firearms. I think you could have a building called a "weapons workshop" that would evolve over time. Then it would research advances in weapons AOE style. Then once a breakthrough is discovered, you could ship new weapons to the front lines and equip your troops with them Colonization style. Armies are just guys with weapons. The difference between Riflemen and a Legion is the type of weapons they use. Why waste time building a new unit when all they do is drop their sword and pick up a gun?

3. Science and its relationship with war - WWII created this technological era we are entering. WWII gave birth to Penicillin, ushering in this age of Pharmaceuticals. Rocketry, all of the US's smart bombs were developed from a Nazi rocket called the V-1. The Nazis invented the rocket. Atomic Energy, no explanation needed. The computer evolved from simple calculators and code breaking machines used in WWII and led to the invention of the microchip. Flight... WWI actually paved the way for the modern Jet Age, but in WWII both the Axis and Allies researched and improved flight. Did you know the Nazis invented the first Jet Engine? If the US had been a year late in their invasion, the Germans would have been able to mass produce there Jet Planes and win the Air War. Firearms... WWI actually saw the invention of the automatic rifle, but pre WWI weapons research focused on creating effective semi-automatic weapons. Most breakthroughs in science in the modern age have been due to war and the need for more advanced weapons and technology. Although industrial power won WWII, the United States used advanced German technology to shape the world we live in today.

4. Tile Impovements - Yeah, workers are what Civ 3 is going to be, but this is a more realistic approach for Civ 4. TI's should be almost completely AI controlled. Farms, roads, rail and mines should be built automatically by the AI based on the needs of the people. Military TI's (Radar stations, castles, bunkers, mine fields, air bases, etc) should be player controlled. TI's should also be built much like city improvements. And dependent on the workforce.

5. Transportation - For thousands of years, the Rhein river protected the Germany from the Greeks, the Romans, and almost the Allies in WWII. River travel is very under utilized in Civ games. You should not be able to cross a major river without a bridge, period. Destroying bridges has been a major part of warfare since warfare has been around. The Allies bombed bridges in WWII and effectively destroyed the German infrastructure. I'm very disappointed that you can't travel on rivers with sea units. Look at Chicago, for instance. Chicago has grown to become the third largest American city because of its water based transportation. The Illinois-Michigan canal connected Chicago to the Mississippi which connected Chicago to the Gulf of Mexico. And the St. Lawrence Seaway connected the entire Great Lakes Region to the Atlantic ocean. I want to see transportation more of a factor in city growth than farming. How many farms are around New York or Los Angeles? Food is shipped from around the world to these regions. Local farms don't necessarily determine a city's growth.

I'm tired of typing and I'm off to go see Pearl Harbor, so I'll continue later. Please guys, respond to my post.