#c207 A BOLD STEP FORWARD INTO THE PAST

[MarkG]

===================== COLUMN INFORMATION: #207 ======================
title      : A BOLD STEP FORWARD INTO THE PAST
date       : June 13, 2002
intro      : It's never to early to start discussing Civ4, Ron argues
author     : Ron Jeremy

http://apolyton.net/misc/column/207_bold.shtml

[hexagonian]

Good points about the historical strengths of the City Builder series (Pharaoh and Caeser III). I would add EU and EU2 to that list too. (Although they are not 100% reflective of history, because simulating events as they occured would take away from the ability to shape your own history)

EU and EU2 maintain a historical flow because of the addition of actual historical events that trigger good and bad things to your nation, and the addition of leaders/generals/exploreres that are based in history. (A player, if he plays Spain, will get Columbus/Magellan/Cortes.) However, there had been a huge discussion on the EU2 forums concerning the fact that the game does not reflect the actual history as it occured - some players do not like the fact that EU2 is not a true historical simulator. Personally, I do not think that it is possible to make a game that does that though.

After playing EU2, I believe it is possible to program these events and historical figures in the civ games, and it would be a welcome addition. The one problem is that there would still have to be a random element in the events (playing the Romans would not automatically have your empire go in decline after 300AD) because then the game may lose the unpredictability factor that makes the game fun in the first place.

BTW, this discussion about the ability to script in events (good and bad) in a game is already occuring in the CTP2 Mod Forum. My Cradle Mod is in the process of creating a Dark Ages science and government dip within the framework of the game.

[TCO]

The key feature of Civ is the gameplay. Hisorical goodies would add to the game provided that is don in a way that does not detract from the free-form gameplay. It is possible to do this, but not in terms of events, etc. Having leaders change names after a certain amount of time or acheivement is fine.

For me, I just want the essential gameplay of Civ2 with improved AI and some eye candy. I think Ron is a little off in thinking that the game won't sell with that kind of upgrade.

[asher274]

I would have to agree with the preceding posts. The limit of true historical gameplay would be like watching a history lesson unfold rather than the free will of the gameplayer. One of the aspects I like about civ is the ability to change the course of events that have led to the modern era. What if the Aztecs had horses? I would not be thrilled if I was playing as the Germans and forced into a genocidal/emperial madness event everytime the 1930's rolled around. The static cultural leaders do get on my nerves...
I would like to see an expanded historical base in the game - I guess this means I wish the civopedia to expand. I may be an uber geek but learning "ain't never hurt no body." In foresight Firaxis would probably make such remarks ignorable via preferences.

what does this button do

[rhenric557]

Originally posted by GP
The key feature of Civ is the gameplay. Hisorical goodies would add to the game provided that is don in a way that does not detract from the free-form gameplay. It is possible to do this, but not in terms of events, etc. Having leaders change names after a certain amount of time or acheivement is fine.

For me, I just want the essential gameplay of Civ2 with improved AI and some eye candy. I think Ron is a little off in thinking that the game won't sell with that kind of upgrade.

I agree, what I wanted out of CIV 3 had everything CIV 2 had plus all the added things in CIV 3 as we know it now. Bring in the abilities to add new units, an actual senario building editor, basically just give us the ability to make the game what we want such as we could in CIV 2.
The AI is far more improved over that of CIV 2. Plus I believe every unit especially modern ones need to have their own little nitch, and as such I've given the Stealth Fighter(basically a cheaper, weak version of the stealth bomber) Fatal Bombardment. Realistic or not it gives it a purpose, I made many more adjustments to naval unit namely the Nuc. Sub. , Bombardment w/Fatal Sea Bombardment( Which is basically giving them the ability to use anti-ship missiles). I've made many more changes which just make the whole Idea of naval combat more complex. With these changes the AI loves the sub and it is very hard to counter, becuase even as they bombard you don't know where they are. My changes are only meant to give every unit it's own unique purpose. Before the changesI had no use for the sub, stlth ftr, the Helicopter(which I also gave the ability to see subs.) The problem is that there is no way to extend the naval unit tree< or any unit tree for that matter) with out adding units, which you could do In the previous version of civ. So as you can tell by now aside from no MP yet my major problem lays with the editor and not the game itself.

[St Leo]

There is every chance that I'm outing myself as a rampant and obsessive historo-geek, but the fact that I can buy into "Caesar 3" as a halfway believable recreation of an ancient Roman city really adds to the charm of the game. I learn things from it!

Yes, Roman cities were based on the principles that intersections make life harder for pedestrians and that plebs won't live anywhere that doesn't have home delivery of vegetables. Caesar II was at least somewhat realistic. Caesar III was an unplayable farce.

The drawbacks? Well Civ players might run the risk of being labelled uber-geeks, but I suspect we've already got that reputation pretty much nailed down already.

Nope, we EU2 players are the ubergeeks. You Civ guys are just geeks-in-training at best.

[Jer8m8]

Just curious, has the author of the column played EU/EU2...I stopped playing civ months ago when I got Eu 2. I almost laugh when I see people on this forum anxious to have 24 civs to play from. This game also does not have Mao and Joan of Arc chatting like they knew each other. And, there are events-a big advantage

[Pythagoras]

This series is popular enough that it should get one or two more XPs before it goes away IMO.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by St Leo
There is every chance that I'm outing myself as a rampant and obsessive historo-geek, but the fact that I can buy into "Caesar 3" as a halfway believable recreation of an ancient Roman city really adds to the charm of the game. I learn things from it!

Yes, Roman cities were based on the principles that intersections make life harder for pedestrians and that plebs won't live anywhere that doesn't have home delivery of vegetables. Caesar II was at least somewhat realistic. Caesar III was an unplayable farce.

Would it be a lapse in manners to draw attention to that crucial word "halfway"?

I played Caesar II, and I certainly wouldn't describe it's successor as "unplayable".

[CapTVK]

Originally posted by GP

For me, I just want the essential gameplay of Civ2 with improved AI and some eye candy. I think Ron is a little off in thinking that the game won't sell with that kind of upgrade.

Why not Freeciv then? It's AI is far better (calculating behaviour) than Civ2's and has a number of features (automated settlers, proper goto etc..) lacking in Civ2.

Would that 'sell'?

[Straybow]

Beat me to it, CapTVK! The only thing that has held me back from FreeCiv is the compile-it-yourself nature. Now that a beta of Andreas' precompiled Win version is available I'll be checking it out for myself soon.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Oh, I'm sure that with minor tweaks to AI and a spot of new graphics a Civ 4 would still shift units.

Baaa-aaaaa.

[Straybow]

[shameless self promotion]
Ron, you should check out The List in the Archives. I've said that to every clone developer. Especially check out the brilliant section on Movement.
[/shameless self promotion]

[notyoueither]

The idea of a civ, or the whole world experiencing a 'dark ages' of reduced trade has some merit.

A way to trigger it for the whole world might be when a somewhat random percentage of original capitals fall to conquest. If this resulted in reduced commerce from all tiles for a period of 20 or 40 turns it would be somewhat realistic.

[TheRascalKing]

Actually, the game which is described in the article exists already: Europa Universalis 2. The game is almost ridiculously historically accurate, with all of the features and suggestions that were mentioned; dynastic leaders (of varying political, military, and economic skill, no less), cultural stability (that is "good times" and "bad times" caused by random or true historical events), civil wars (England hurts during the War of the Roses), diplomatic marriages, alliances between up to 5 members (no more groaning as one of your allies declares war on your other ally; a single alliance can contain up to 5 members), and about a bazillion other features. The game actually dragged me away from Civ for *months* and I'm one of those people who played Civ2 for 16 hours straight on occasion. It's worth the 20 bucks or so I paid for it, and more.

I guess my point is that if I want historical accuracy, I'll play EU2. If I wanna run around in a completely fake world building a completely fake civilization up from nothing, I'll play civ, and I'd rather civ not become EU2, because then I can't satisfy my "build fake stuff from scratch" urges.

[rhenric557]

I like the Idea of a "Great Depression". Maybe it could be added in and work like a lost resourse, completely random by a dice roll. Of course the odds would need to be a 1 : 1000 or more. But don't just add commercial strife, create a dust bowl effect that acts like global warming.
For all of you Historical Accuracy addicts out there, the game is CIVILIZATION, your own civilization. It isn't called History. It was never meant to be historically correct. It is suppost to be enjoyable, and it is just that nothing more.

[Radiation Zero]

The problem with this that I see is that, although there are no actual 'Hard Times' Turn account for more years in the early game to account for things like the Dark Ages.

And while many players complain about hitting the modern age in 1000 AD, I usually get my modern ages late, so I don't want to see changes that will set me back even farther.

The modern age is the most fun part of the game for me.

Maybe something they could do is have tech trates for each difficulty?

Or at least more playtesting on the flow of the game to make sure the era advances at least come within a somewhat reasonable arc.

[rhenric557]

I to like the modern age best. A depression type situation could be added, but could also be disabled for those who would rather play with out it. It could also be triggered like a negative golden age for you civ. Instead of bonuses you would loose a persentage of your cives commerce, production and food supply. Think of it as a time period with higher corruption say for 20 turns.

[Grumbold]

I tend to agree with TRK. Every time I dream of "improving" Civ, something from EU2 comes to mind. It could be random events or the domestic policy sliders that allow nations to change emphasis on a far more macro scale than choosing to build libraries before marketplaces. Whatever it is, I then wonder why I'm playing Civ and not EU2. The only remaining appeal Civ has for me is the ability to be God and dictate the placement of everything from scratch. If the EU programmers work out how to scale all the way back to Ur and beyond, even that will be redundant and I can sweep the various incarnations of Civ to the back of the cupboard with a sigh of relief.

[reds4ever]

the random 'hard times' idea seems unfair, as the player would be penalized for doing nothing wrong

also the historical comentary would be hard to implement as the situations could involve 2 or more (real)Civs, that are also in the game, with the situations not happening in the game

ie. The America War of Indepence with England being brought up, but the two Civs in the game being allied