I want a more realistic CIV

[DeeMG]

Dear fellow Civ players,

Civ IV + warlords is a great game and the Civ series have come a long way. Still, as an economist and political scientist, I think A LOT can still be improved, and we don't necessarily with difficult changes. A grasp of suggestions (please comment):

* Loans between countries, including "syndicated" loans, debt defaults

* government debt, financial crises, exchange rates, big company contracts

* influencing regimes

* "peacekeeping" war, UN armies

* countries falling apart (happened in Civ III)

* building units, never using them before they get outdated: this is a problem for a Civ player who likes to play realistically and not attacking all the time. The "Marathon" mode helps a bit, but not much. Ideally I think the turns should be in MONTHS, with the techonology tree remaining unchanged (in decades, years...)

What do you think?

[proviisori]

The economic side:
wait for Europa Universalis III and play that.

UN armies:
good idea, but it would affect only a very small part of the game

Turns in months:
That would make the game about 12 times longer!!! Not good...
Team demogames would take 15 years!!!

[Thedrin]

countries falling apart (happened in Civ III)

I honestly can't remember this in CivIII but before Warlords it was the thing I most wanted to see included in CivIV. I'm not so bothered now since vassal states offer an abstract way of allowing empires to disintegrate.

[Aro]

Re: I want a more realistic CIV

Originally posted by DeeMG
Dear fellow Civ players,


* countries falling apart (happened in Civ III)

[CrONoS]

I think he wanted to talk about the nation split of Civilization2, when you was able to conquer the capital and the civ was splitting in two!

Originally posted by Thedrin


I honestly can't remember this in CivIII but before Warlords it was the thing I most wanted to see included in CivIV. I'm not so bothered now since vassal states offer an abstract way of allowing empires to disintegrate.

[CrONoS]

Re: I want a more realistic CIV

Originally posted by DeeMG
Dear fellow Civ players,

Civ IV + warlords is a great game and the Civ series have come a long way. Still, as an economist and political scientist, I think A LOT can still be improved, and we don't necessarily with difficult changes. A grasp of suggestions (please comment):

* Loans between countries, including "syndicated" loans, debt defaults

* government debt, financial crises, exchange rates, big company contracts

I think that the economics side of Civilization need a major upgrade, many eco-pol things are missing, things that would add depth AND fun to Civilization.

But it would be difficult to implement in a games like civ. I think giving the very nature of the Civilization series, it would be easier and more appropriate to add more social engineering scheme to Civ4, give more depth to the role of religion, adding more depth to diplomacy.

What I would like to see; is a macroeconomics-sim games! That would be fun!

[Aro]

Originally posted by cronos_qc
I think he wanted to talk about the nation split of Civilization2, when you was able to conquer the capital and the civ was splitting in two!

Yes...

[senowen]

I completely agree that a much more complex, variegated, and unpredictable game with boom-bust economic cycles, advanced internal, and international political models, etc, would be great fun.
However, only a relatively small number of people would be interested in playing such a game. The vast majority of people would find such a game completely overwhelming and not fun. What makes CivIV great is that it is an attempt to bridge the gap between those who wanted a much more realistic civ game and the regular folks who just want to play a war game.

[Jaybe]

There was a Random Events mod in the early days of Civ4. Famines, great harvests, and I don't remember what else. I liked it alot, but the modder's interest waned, and it wasn't updated with the patches.

[DeeMG]

Indeed, Senowen, Civ IV limits itself to a war game to please everybody, though it could go a lot further...

I would like to see a macro-economics Civ game like Cronos cq suggested, but still with the possibility to wage war, or wage "liberation" or "peace-keeping" wars.

Indeed I was mistaken: Civs did not split in Civ III, that was in Civ II. Why did the developers drop that feature?

Another strange thing in Civ IV is that usually other civs ask for either knowledge or stopping trade with... In fact they often ask the latter one. That's not realistic. In the real world everyone trades with everyone, even with foes, except for such rare exceptions such as USA-Iran

Why don't civs just ask for money and loans like in real life?

[DrSpike]

Just because something is realistic doesn't mean it makes for a good gameplay element. Sometimes it does, and sometimes not, and when not gameplay must triumph. If you want more reality there's a great reality simulator that can be loaded when you are not playing Civ.

[alms66]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Just because something is realistic doesn't mean it makes for a good gameplay element. Sometimes it does, and sometimes not, and when not gameplay must triumph. If you want more reality there's a great reality simulator that can be loaded when you are not playing Civ.

Rubbish!
Any real-world concept can be turned into a realistic and fun gameplay element.

[snoopy369]

I want a traffic sim game

[DrSpike]

Edit: to Alms

Did you read the post at all? Yes, any concept at all (including real-world concepts) can theoretically be turned implemented well in the game. However, the point is that just because something is realistic it doesn't mean it will necessarily work well in civ.

From the list above I'd highlight the country splits as being very hard, perhaps impossible, to implement in a way that improves gameplay. There are many other examples from across the games and from threads such as this one.

So, in conclusion, I was right.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by DeeMG
Indeed, Senowen, Civ IV limits itself to a war game to please everybody, though it could go a lot further...

Ahem, I've played numerous Civ4 games without significant warring. Civ4 is NOT a war-only game, and I've heard people complain that it's unbalanced towards builders...

Indeed I was mistaken: Civs did not split in Civ III, that was in Civ II. Why did the developers drop that feature?

Because it was not fun and people didn't like it. After all, if it happened to you, your whole game was basically over. Leaving it in and only allowing it to happen to the AI is bad for game balance. And again, people did not like it.

Another strange thing in Civ IV is that usually other civs ask for either knowledge or stopping trade with... In fact they often ask the latter one. That's not realistic. In the real world everyone trades with everyone, even with foes, except for such rare exceptions such as USA-Iran

Eh? Although the civ style of 'trading' is obviously rather severe, due to its limited scope, we use various forms of trade war to great lengths in the real world. Reducing foreign aid, placing tariffs on products, etc.

Ultimately though, Civ isn't trying to be perfectly realistic, it's trying to be FUN... Remember that a perfectly realistic game can be horribly boring, and an unrealistic game can be fun. Civ strikes a pretty reasonable balance between the two, IMO. Making it too complex or too realistic would make it boring and not fun for a lot of people ...

That said, some of what you suggest could quite possibly be modded in. It wouldn't be hard to mod in loans, for example, though making the AI understand them and deal with them properly is a whole different ballgame ...