civ3, civ2, civ1 and history

[lord of the mark]

I am confused


Snapcase says elsewhere that civ2 went more towards historical accuracy than civ 1, and that civ 3 is returning to civ 1 roots.

ive never played civ1, and so i am at some disadvantage in understanding what is being referred to.

as far as i can tell all the changes proposed (with the controversial exception of CivSpecificUunits) are neutral or ADD to historical accuracy. I realize some of these could also be justified on gameplay grounds, although in some cases i think an argument could be made either way.

Let me give some examples.

1. Stacked combat - clearly more accurate than one unit defends but all die - im not sure about gameplay impact apart from accuracy - yeah all die could be frustrating, but was also challenging.

2. Zones of control - I think of eliminating ability of a pahalanx to stop passage of armor as adding to historical accuracy - though i realize that there is a pure a gameplay issue involved here - early units should not be as powerful as later units that are costly to research and build - in civ2 a weak unit fortified on a mountain is over powerful, history aside.

3. New resource model - seems significantly more accurate - whether it will be more "fun" on pure gameplay grounds is not at all clear.


4. Culture model - definitely makes the game more historically rich. Is it an addition to gameplay? Will better balance among improvements offset additional micromanagement?

5. Modified wonders - A great wall that actually is a wall around a territory rather than walls around every city - definitely adds to suspension of disbelief. Does it add to gameplay?


I think part of the confusion is that in the overlap between fun and historical accuracy is "the willful suspension of disbelief" ther are many features we would all hate to lose, or want added, to make the game more "fun". They add nothing to gameplay apart from adding to the suspension of disbelief. Nonetheless they seem so obvious that people think of them as gameplay improvements rather than additions to historical accuracy. Some people seem to think its only a historical accuracy issue if you actually have to look it up in a text book. (thats the grognard point of view - the reason "TOAW" or "Combat Mission" is more "realistic" than civ - bomber range is something you can look up - the tradeoff of guns and butter is so obvious that it is not visible as a historical accuracy issue)

Can someone clear this up for me - what expected changes are there that will make civ 3 less like civ 2, more like civ 1? Which of these (and other changes-apart from CSU's) will make the game less historically accurate? What is the gameplay justification for them?

LOTM

[Buck Birdseed]

Okay, I was exaggerating a bit, but basically:

Civ3 is getting more "Quirky" and "Humorous" graphics- basically the reverse of the transition from Civ to Civ2 or Civ2 to SMAC, which looked dead unexciting.

The number of civs is cut down to the original Civ1 numbers, in order to make them more distinct.

New models are taken in because "they found that people did a lot in that area" or "they were fun to play with" or "it added strategic depth", not because of realism.

And so on. The fun factor is the dominant theme.

[MrFun]

The NERVE of Firaxis in trying to make a game fun!!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Snapcase
Okay, I was exaggerating a bit, but basically:

Civ3 is getting more "Quirky" and "Humorous" graphics- basically the reverse of the transition from Civ to Civ2 or Civ2 to SMAC, which looked dead unexciting.

The number of civs is cut down to the original Civ1 numbers, in order to make them more distinct.

New models are taken in because "they found that people did a lot in that area" or "they were fun to play with" or "it added strategic depth", not because of realism.

And so on. The fun factor is the dominant theme.

But all the new "fun to play with models" are also more historically accurate - no contradiction, if, like me, you think of historical accuracy as adding to the fun.

Maybe they've just figured out a better way to market - talking about historical accuracy scares off the mass market they want("egad - i bought that game that had a supply phase, a reinforcement phase,an anti-air phase, im never buying one of them gosh darn war history games again - but i hear this fella sid meiers makes FUN games") while us hard core civers can see and understand the improvements in historical accuracy.

LOTM