When does Civ become not-Civ?

[okblacke]

OK, so, we all have a jillion ideas about how to make Civ 4 better than Civ 3.

But at what point do these ideas become "not-Civ".

For example, I see the extensive comments on military tactics which, while often valid, threaten to turn Civ into a wargame.

Another: Civ is basically you vs. the world. It's not particularly realistic, since every empire was defeated internally before being defeated by an enemy, where in Civ your total population management comes down to keeping citizens happy and either building culture or keeping troops in to prevent flipping. But a greater focus on internal details at some point changes Civ from a "us against the world" game to a more SimCity type thing.

And I'm not saying that either of these ideas might not be fun, but would it still be Civ?

Infininte movement railroads are widely hated apparently, but for me I've found them to severely reduce micromanagement in the late game.

I also think, in general, that Civ 4 is going to be Civ 4. I don't think it's going to leap off into a new direction. (Look at Heroes of "Might and Magic IV" and "Warlords IV" and how disastrous recent attempts to "change the formula" have been. ) I think a lot of these ideas (not excluding my own) are so "un-Civ" as to be immediately dismissed by Firaxis.

So, where should the line be drawn? At what point does maintaining military stacks, adding coastal/naval terrain penalties, civil war, etc., become "un-Civ"?

[ok]

[Peter Triggs]

in Civ your total population management comes down to keeping citizens happy and either building culture or keeping troops in to prevent flipping.

Culture? That's not Civ! Sid didn't think of that.

[VetLegion]

So, where should the line be drawn? At what point does maintaining military stacks, adding coastal/naval terrain penalties, civil war, etc., become "un-Civ"

It's a good question not easily answered.

The problem with Civ is that it is a computer game. I consider the basic game a classic, like chess, but contrary to chess and owing to the fact it is a computer game, it constantly has to be modified and improved. We can't really freeze some features in time and call them "The Classic Civ".

So when does it stop being Civ? I used to think there are only two features basic to civ - tiled map and the tech tree and that all else can be radically changed without critical impact. I am not that sure nowadays.

I'd say it stops being Civ when it becomes bloated with features with no vision behind them. And when every game starts looking almost the same.

[okblacke]

Originally posted by Peter Triggs
Culture? That's not Civ! Sid didn't think of that.

I think the very things many people object to about culture are the most Civ-like things about it. Yeah, it lacks subtlety, entire cities flipping like they were bribed by a spy but what could be more Civ-like?

Another example:

One of the least sensible things about Civ is that it's structured around ancient concepts of countries--allied "city-states" surviving based on local resources. A little silly when representing a modern nation.

But Civ 3, with borders, distributed troop support, and luxury/strategic resources "nationalized" certain elements while keeping the Civ-feel. (I think, again, for precisely the reasons that many people object to: Either you have these resources or you don't, no fiddling about with how much.)

But could you make it so that an advance (like "Nationalism" or "Industralization") switched the game's mechanics around so that raw land working was secondary to development, size, traffic, etc.?

Could it be fun, and could it still be "Civ"?

Oh, and as for needing to come from Sid: isn't Civ based on a board game?

[ok]

[Odin]

When does Civ become not-Civ?

When it becomes too much of a wargame, which, unfortunatly, I think is happening.

[Kuciwalker]

At the expense of being (probably) unhelpful, I'll say this: Civ stops becoming civ when an addition is not a natural extension of the game.

Here's what I mean by this: culture is civ because culture is a natural extension of the primitive territory system in C2 and the more powerful one in SMAC. A tactical minigame is not civ because it is a feature added completely out of the blue - it isn't a refinement and extension of another feature.

[Odin]

Originally posted by skywalker
At the expense of being (probably) unhelpful, I'll say this: Civ stops becoming civ when an addition is not a natural extension of the game.

Here's what I mean by this: culture is civ because culture is a natural extension of the primitive territory system in C2 and the more powerful one in SMAC. A tactical minigame is not civ because it is a feature added completely out of the blue - it isn't a refinement and extension of another feature.

I am worried that civ is going to turn into a "kill-kill-kill" game and quit being an empire building game. If I want a "kill-kill-kill" strategy game, I play RoN.

[Kuciwalker]

I play Counterstrike

[Maquiladora]

"Civ" is what Firaxis gives you.

I play Counterstrike

Figures. I stopped playing at beta 6 when all the noobs found out.

[Flinx]

Re: When does Civ become not-Civ?

Originally posted by okblacke
... to a more SimCity type thing. ....

SimCiv

...but would that be 'Civ' or 'not-Civ'?

[okblacke]

Originally posted by skywalker
At the expense of being (probably) unhelpful, I'll say this: Civ stops becoming civ when an addition is not a natural extension of the game.

Here's what I mean by this: culture is civ because culture is a natural extension of the primitive territory system in C2 and the more powerful one in SMAC. A tactical minigame is not civ because it is a feature added completely out of the blue - it isn't a refinement and extension of another feature.

That says it, though probably only to those of us who agree: I don't think military tactics--beyond the crude current ones--would be "Civ" and I do think the, em, ham-fisted approach to culture is.

Moving from caravans to trade treaties made Civ 3 more "civ-like", IMO.

Dunno about workers. I could see workers being eliminated inside city-radii as being more civ-like but I don't know about abandoning them completely. Maybe I'll come across CTP 1/2 in the bargain bin this winter and see how it "feels".

But there has to be some unit movement, I think. One flaw with current Civ implementations is that they don't scale well. I think Jesse from Firaxis mentioned "worker-gangs", and with stack movement, I think Firaxis is probably on the right track.

[ok]

[MrFun]

Re: When does Civ become not-Civ?

Originally posted by okblacke
I think a lot of these ideas (not excluding my own) are so "un-Civ" as to be immediately dismissed by Firaxis.

It's Atari now -- not Firaxis.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Odin


When it becomes too much of a wargame, which, unfortunatly, I think is happening.

quiet, you hippie

[hexagonian]

Since the idea about 'civilization' is about evolving AND the creation of new concepts (Does the ancient Egyptian society reflect the modern Egyptian society? - NO), I would say that any new concepts that add to the depth and flow of the game, even if they were never part of the original concepts of civ1/civ2 are valid for consideration.

[Fosse]

I have to agree with Hexogonian. Civ is a game that explores the whole of human history. To say that taking the next Civ in a new direction is NotCiv seems overly cautious.

I think the greater disservice to Civ would be to keep things that are "classic" when something better exists today. Many of Civ's models were designed because computers of the day couldn't handle anything more complex. To say that they must remain as-is (or as-was) to remain Civ is to stagnate the series.