An intellectual's review

[Unimatrix11]

Okay - i only read till page 4... i think the debate really came to a conclusion with post number 97 by adam. It clarifies a lot. I can agree with what is said there, tho i still wouldnt call civ a simulation. Its a game. Every game to some extend is a simualtion, tho. But if it is a simulation made for the purpose of having fun, and tweaked towards that purpose, it stops being a sim and becomes a game in my book. Civ is among the games a bit of an exception, since it has the ambition to retain a certain level of realism while still being a fun game .It does that via abstraction and while it may (or may not) do that in a perfect manner, it cannot be a perfect game of both: fun and realism (tho it is clearly the doctrine of the devs as far as i can tell: gameplay beats realism - so that´s basically the answer if you were to ask if civ was EITHER a game OR a sim).

But Adam only said, that civ contains elements of a sim - not that it IS a sim. Now with that i can agree. Still i think that while civ is very good at balancing sim vs. fun, i also think that there are games more geared towards sim than civ and are still fun. I already named two and i´ll give a third example: M.U.L.E. - now with that one, realism is a tricky term, since it models the economy of a colony in outer space (its from 1984 i think, by Dan(ielle) Bunton). I guess it matters for a program if it wants to be a sim, if what it models as a real-life occurance. It is much easier to be "realistic" when the modeled situation isnt real. That might be, what gives civ such a hard time as to count as a sim for me...

[East Street Trader]

Chess is a very satisfying game and has that hallmark of the classic game, simplicity.

But from time immemorial it has been acknowledged as a paradigm for war.

No one thinks it is an exact model or that seeking to create a model for war has been any part of its evolution. But that has not prevented countless people on countless occasions obtaining some insight into the tactics and strategy of war from it.

To say of Civ that it does not attempt to be an accurate model or that it lacks the complexity that would be needed if an attempt were to be made to create a model of all those things represented in Civ does not destroy the simple proposition that it has the ability to afford insights into real life.

I find my abiding interest in Civ as a game interesting. If I compare it to the classic games - chess, bridge, poker - it lacks the elegance and simplicity which lie at their heart. Yet it still grips me nearly as strongly. And I think the reason for this does lie in the fact that the game has managed to catch just enough of the com-lexities of life while retaining enough simplicity to preserve its qualities as just a game.

Adam's proposition is self evidently true and is not undermined by saying that some other model, real or imagined, is or could be more accurate or complete or complex or useful.

[couerdelion]

So those people who believe that the simulation is poor like to play Civ because it is a fantasy game with a very small link to reality. Those who think the simulation is quite good are playing a game modelling the development of their own civilisation through the ages from the ancient era to the modern era.

I will admit to being able to play fantasy games but Civ holds my attention longer because of its fairly good correlation with historical development.

Surely this is the test of whether it is realistic or not.

[Wiglaf]

Re: Q

Originally posted by Bhruic


Neither is Kuciwalker, if that's relevant. The first person to mention microeconomics was Wiglaf.

First, I like how my name is bolded . Second, macroeconomics was in his review and he defended the idea Civ is a simulator when he was called out on it.

Chess is a very satisfying game and has that hallmark of the classic game, simplicity.

But from time immemorial it has been acknowledged as a paradigm for war.

NO ONE SAYS CHESS IS A WAR SIMULATOR. NO ONE NO ONE NO ONE. What the hell are you thinking?

To say of Civ that it does not attempt to be an accurate model or that it lacks the complexity that would be needed if an attempt were to be made to create a model of all those things represented in Civ does not destroy the simple proposition that it has the ability to afford insights into real life.

A toddler can afford insights into real life. The original claim was that Civ has "many of the better features" of a macroeconomic simulator, not that it can tell us things about real life.

[Adam Weishaupt]

It appears to be the case that I glanced to fleetingly at part of the exchange involving Kuciwalker. For misrepresenting his position on the macro vs. micro issue, I apologize. As for the rest though, I stand by what I said. As an aside though, I find it funny that Wiglaf believes a elements of a macroeconomic simulator have nothing to tell us about real life. Here's a miniscule subset of real life lessons I believe Civ demonstrates aptly . . .

--Cities tend to prosper more quickly when they have access to a river, sea, or ocean.

--A society with a poor standard of living is more vulnerable to disorder than a society that maintains a high standard of living. (Julius Caeser made this observation when writing of "bread and circuses.")

--Wise long term investments will eventually outperform efforts to achieve the largest possible short term gains.

--As a practical matter, prosperity in a large nation is virtually impossible to maintain without the rule of law.

--Trading partners are not always rational. Some can be inclined toward friendly altruism by a pattern of generosity and others may be inclined toward obeisance as a result of intimidation.

--Beyond a certain point, the size of armed forces begins to generate serious drag on a nation's ability to continue with other economic activity.

--The world is slow to forgive the worst sort of atrocities deliberately inflicted on civilians.

--Transoceanic voyages safe and reliable enough for purposes of hauling significant freight require at least the technology of a simple compass.

--A diverse diet improves human health (as does sanitation, medical care, etc.)

--When strangers discover an aboriginal community that knows little of the outside world, local hostilities may follow.

--Navy SEALs kick ass.

Of course, they aren't all clearcut. Much of it depends on the ability to look at things abstractly. Of course in life moving on the diagonals does not enable you to go 1.4x your normal speed. On the other hand, in real life it is not at all uncommon for a particular area of terrain to be more easily crossed along one route than another. The same army marching the same distance may require a substantially different amount of time to cope with obstacles and hazards along the way, or perhaps merely to forage effectively. In modernity, road and rail networks tend to incorporate express routes into the infrastructure for ordinary traffic. To always favor the diagonal is unrealistic, but so too would be settling for an "all equal distances impose equal transit times" approach.

To go back to where all this started, the question to be answered is not "does this satisfy an arbitrary standard of realism?" but rather "is there relevant meaning in the relationships between inputs and outputs given the simulation?" A complete game of Civilization will feature hundreds of trade-offs in which the fate of a nation will be influenced by a decision to pursue one goal by paying the opportunity cost of not pursuing mutually exclusive alternatives. It is also a constant balancing act in which attentiveness to financial and geopolitical factors may inform more successful adaptations to circumstances that vary from generation to generation or even year to year. To argue the position all that entails no more of the features of a macroeconomic simulator than Zelda is an outright insult to the intelligence of the entire forum.

Regards,
Adam Weishaupt

[snoopy369]

NO ONE SAYS CHESS IS A WAR SIMULATOR. NO ONE NO ONE NO ONE. What the hell are you thinking?

Chess is a war simulation.

Okay, someone says it... your point gone

Chess (and Go, even more so) is a very effective war simulation (or model). I think you (and Kuci) are simply restricting the definition of "simulation" to a much more specific meaning (must simulate many of the elements faithfully) than some others of us would (abstracts the complexities to a simple model).

Is Microsoft Flight Simulator not a simulator because you don't have to check all the gauges before takeoff?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by snoopy369

NO ONE SAYS CHESS IS A WAR SIMULATOR. NO ONE NO ONE NO ONE. What the hell are you thinking?

Chess is a war simulation.

Okay, someone says it... your point gone

Chess (and Go, even more so) is a very effective war simulation (or model). I think you (and Kuci) are simply restricting the definition of "simulation" to a much more specific meaning (must simulate many of the elements faithfully) than some others of us would (abstracts the complexities to a simple model).

Is Microsoft Flight Simulator not a simulator because you don't have to check all the gauges before takeoff?

You've already admitted to using a completely different definition of simulation than everyone else in this thread. Any argument you make, then, is a deliberate misrepresentation, because you're changing the definition of a term in the opposing argument. Since our thread of conversation is over (and you weren't involved in any other), could you either leave the thread or start using the definition the rest of us are?

Also, does this mean that Zelda is a macroeconomic simulator AND a war simulator?

Your definition is absurd because it makes pretty much EVERYTHING a macroeconomic simulator.

edit: and that final comment shows you haven't read any of my goddamn posts. Literalism isn't necessary in any simulation, just accuracy in most of the elements present. That's what distinguishes a simulation from just a game about something.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Adam Weishaupt
Here's a miniscule subset of real life lessons I believe Civ demonstrates aptly . . .

In advance: because something tells us real life lessons doesn't mean it's a simulator. To be a simulator, it must model a real phenomenon. The key word there is model. There has to be some internal representation of state that corresponds to a state of the real phenomenon, and that state must evolve based on its inputs and environment in the way the real phenomenon would. In neither part does it have to be complete or perfectly accurate, but it must have at least the essential features of the real phenomenon, and be relatively accurate in their evolution.

Essentially, just enumerating ways in which it shows similarity to the phenomenon isn't sufficient - you need to show that the foundation behaves according to the real phenomenon, from which we can conclude that the whole model is somewhat accurate. I have demonstrated the negation of that - the foundation of civ's economics is not sound, therefore the entire model is inaccurate and therefore it is not a simulation.

I'm still going to quibble with some of your examples, though.

--As a practical matter, prosperity in a large nation is virtually impossible to maintain without the rule of law.

I'm curious what this even means in civ terms. When don't you have the rule of law? When you are going through the turn of anarchy? Your civ actually does just fine during that turn.

--Trading partners are not always rational. Some can be inclined toward friendly altruism by a pattern of generosity and others may be inclined toward obeisance as a result of intimidation.

BAD example. The diplomacy AI in Civ is horrible.

--The world is slow to forgive the worst sort of atrocities deliberately inflicted on civilians.

Also a bad example. The world has readily forgiven the razing of cities. Or do you think Germany is still pissed at the UK for Dresden? Hell, I don't think we even have a -1 from Japan for Hiroshima and Nagasaki together...

--When strangers discover an aboriginal community that knows little of the outside world, local hostilities may follow.

Rarely do said hostilities result in an army that conquers one of MY cities. And yet, that happens in Civ.

--Navy SEALs kick ass.

Actually, in Civ they aren't that great.

Of course, they aren't all clearcut. Much of it depends on the ability to look at things abstractly.

That's amusing, given that all of them were very literal.

To go back to where all this started, the question to be answered is not "does this satisfy an arbitrary standard of realism?" but rather "is there relevant meaning in the relationships between inputs and outputs given the simulation?"

And I've already demonstrated that there is not, given the complete brokenness of the food/hammer/commerce mechanism

To argue the position all that entails no more of the features of a macroeconomic simulator than Zelda is an outright insult to the intelligence of the entire forum.

I was talking to Snoopy about his messed-up definition, kid. You keep misreading my posts.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You've already admitted to using a completely different definition of simulation than everyone else in this thread.

Do you define "everyone" as 2 or 3 people? I am an exception to your "everyone".

[Adam Weishaupt]

To begin with, Kuciwalker, the definition of simulation you are using is the definition you made up without any regard for how the term was actually used. As the guy who used it, I do have some basis for claiming to understand the intent of that usage. Based on your other comments, I'm guessing you had some gut reaction like, "it's a game . . . it can't also be like this thing that sounds really boring, like only grad students and such would ever use." That is a senseless approach to understanding simulations, even macroeconomic simulations.

I've mentioned Kingdom but I don't expect someone born after the development of early personal computers to be familiar with something so old and obscure. However, it was to macroeconomics as Lemonade Stand is to microeconomics. There are only a few variables, the underlying model is extremely simple, yet it nonetheless is an economic simulator. I would think that Lemonade Stand still is a common textbook problem for students of computer science, and there must be plenty of versions of it, so you could get a sense of what I'm talking about. Could you perhaps provide a specific example of what you believe would qualify as a macroeconomic simulator, or is your knowledge of them limited to what is convenient for purposes of being disagreeable and obtuse?

Speaking of realism, I'll try to spell out Kingdom since it is so simple. Basically the program kept track of values for a treasury, population, public morale, agricultural productivity, rate of taxation, and an immigration/emigration rate. Each turn the player decided how much to spend on supporting agricultural development and how much to demand in taxes. Then the program crunched some numbers in mostly obvious ways, though there was a complex relationship in that immigration/emigration had a quirky sensitivity to agricultural productivity and public morale. I don't even recall if any of the numbers had units associated with them. If they did, one could easily miss the point by whining, "but 50 gold coins is way to much to spend to plant 5 extra acres of grain!"

The point of the simulator was not to be precise in modeling any real medieval economics. The purpose of it was to enable users to explore the relationships between the variables and learn how to optimize investment and taxation. The goal was to end the final turn with the largest possible population. Achieving that goal required understanding feedback loops in an economic context. There were lessons to learn from it about managing a complex dynamic system over time. It was a useful macroeconomic simulator in spite of the fact that the level of realism was something like the relationship between Pong and tennis. Unless someone has very little knowledge and absolute self-assurance, it is hard to dispute that old academic consensus. Yet if Kingdom were Pong and tennis were reality, then I believe Civ would at least be the Wii Sports version of tennis.

Now, let the quibbling continue . . .

I'm curious what this even means in civ terms. When don't you have the rule of law? When you are going through the turn of anarchy? Your civ actually does just fine during that turn.

The rule of law comment refers to the fact that Courthouses and ancillary capitals are so vital to the economies of sprawling Civs. Dittoheads have so perverted political discussions that many Americans seem to embrace Randyland (Ayn Rand as applied to Candyland) thinking. To them wealth is just something that happens because entrepreneurs go out and exert their will. In reality a host of civic institutions (courts and oversight of banking providing a foundation of this sort) are essential to facilitate concentrations of wealth. Without the rule of law in reality, only gangsters and warlords can maintain personal fortunes. As a society drifts toward anarchy or kleptocracy, the economic symptoms have much in common with the "bloat" that comes from a prohibitively large value for city upkeep in Civ.

The diplomacy AI in Civ is horrible.

I'm not sure where the "AI is horrible" sentiment comes from. Perhaps it just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. Critics dig it from a gaming perspective. Also, I sense in the heart of it something very much like the Prisoners' Dilemma. Serious academics have long recognized that as the essence of international relations. In fact, it is a significant part of the work on game theory that led to a Nobel Prize in economics. I think in this instance it is your evaluation of the AI, and not the AI itself, that is truly horrible.

The world has readily forgiven the razing of cities. Or do you think Germany is still pissed at the UK for Dresden? Hell, I don't think we even have a -1 from Japan for Hiroshima and Nagasaki together...

We all know how Civ models the flow of history. As a result, in ancient times "slow to forgive" might span several centuries while in modern times it is a matter of decades. Many intervening events have profoundly reshaped Anglo-German and Japanese-American relations since the end of World War II. Yet it would be fair to say that some living Britons still harbor a little grudge about The Blitz, and no doubt some living Japanese people resent Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Besides which, Civ's model would characterize both the Blitz and the firebombing of Dresden as conventional attacks that do not trigger the "he/she used nukes" factor . . . heck, I so rarely use them myself it may be that other special circumstances are required to draw the penalty now. As an afterthought, I recall a 1980s Michael Douglas film called "Black Rain." The main villain was a Japanese industrialist eager to murder Americans because of his simmering hatred about Fat Man and Little Boy. There may not have been any real murders driven by a similar motive, but at the time no one panned the film as being too "unrealistic" for a crime drama.

Rarely do said hostilities result in an army that conquers one of MY cities. And yet, that happens in Civ.

Aboriginal first contact in the modern world doesn't result in the sacking of a city because the modern world is full of guns. Civ reflects this as well as the fact that prior to, and theoretically (but not practically for any halfway organized position in the game) during the Bronze Age an uncivilized tribe could seize control of a city. Ancient history and late prehistory tended to blend fact with legend. Yet it seems likely that some conflicts involved precisely that scenario -- an expanding civilization ran afoul of a less advanced tribe and wound up taking significant losses in the aftermath of it. Is your sense of history so feeble that you cannot get a grasp on "barbarian invasion" as a thing that may have actually happened a time or two?

Actually, in Civ they aren't that great.

Navy SEALs in Civ are incredibly useful if you are actually playing at a decent difficulty level (and without cheating with the world builder, of course.) Perhaps your critique of the AI stems from an inability to pull the training wheels off this bike. SEALs come equipped with antiaircraft and amphibious assault capability. If you are in a real war against something other than an easily overwhelmed wimp, SEALs provide both offensive and defensive flexibility. If you find yourself in a sophisticated enough scenario to be facing down combined arms, a few SEAL units will let you get more done with less from whenever you develop them until very near tech tree completion.


I do not dispute that your understanding of the agriculture/industry/commerce triad is that reality is so completely different as to make that approach useless in economic simulation. Yet I believe this stance only goes to show that your knowledge of economics is itself "broken." Perhaps you would be well-served by cracking a book or two on the subject, then seeing if your opinions survive the experience intact. Obviously being silent is not an option for you, so I can only advise that you try to replace foolishness with wisdom. You don't have to accept what I offer in this department -- libraries are just packed full of the stuff, and I bet there's one not far from where you live.

Also, I suppose in misinterpreting your stance on the macro/micro issue I have made another mistake (re: the Zelda thing.) For that I am also sorry. That makes two apologies and two admissions of error. I haven't done the leg work on this, but I'm pretty sure that is two more of each than could be found amongst your prolific posting. If that is the case, might that not reveal good cause to reassess your approach to discussions in general?

Regards,
Adam Weishaupt

[Wiglaf]

" Perhaps you would be well-served by cracking a book or two on the subject, then seeing if your opinions survive the experience intact. Obviously being silent is not an option for you, so I can only advise that you try to replace foolishness with wisdom. You don't have to accept what I offer in this department -- libraries are just packed full of the stuff, and I bet there's one not far from where you live.

For that I am also sorry. That makes two apologies and two admissions of error. I haven't done the leg work on this, but I'm pretty sure that is two more of each than could be found amongst your prolific posting. If that is the case, might that not reveal good cause to reassess your approach to discussions in general

Ban him Ming

In advance: because something tells us real life lessons doesn't mean it's a simulator. To be a simulator, it must model a real phenomenon. The key word there is model. There has to be some internal representation of state that corresponds to a state of the real phenomenon, and that state must evolve based on its inputs and environment in the way the real phenomenon would. In neither part does it have to be complete or perfectly accurate, but it must have at least the essential features of the real phenomenon, and be relatively accurate in their evolution.

This is key. I have no idea why this intellectual man insists on mentioning board games when we're talking about Civ, but the fact remains that all Civ does is enforce rigid, often incorrect principles -- eg, cities with hills nearby are the most productive, diplomacy between nations is and has always been determined by about ten simple plus/minus modifiers, etc.

[Bhruic]

Originally posted by Adam Weishaupt
I'm not sure where the "AI is horrible" sentiment comes from. Perhaps it just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. Critics dig it from a gaming perspective. Also, I sense in the heart of it something very much like the Prisoners' Dilemma. Serious academics have long recognized that as the essence of international relations. In fact, it is a significant part of the work on game theory that led to a Nobel Prize in economics. I think in this instance it is your evaluation of the AI, and not the AI itself, that is truly horrible.

The diplomacy in Civ has nothing to do with the Prisoners' Dilemma. And trying to suggest that it is good because "critics" like it is a ridiculous assertion to make. I wouldn't agree with Kuciwalker that it is horrible, but I'd certainly categorize it as "weak".

Navy SEALs in Civ are incredibly useful if you are actually playing at a decent difficulty level (and without cheating with the world builder, of course.) Perhaps your critique of the AI stems from an inability to pull the training wheels off this bike. SEALs come equipped with antiaircraft and amphibious assault capability. If you are in a real war against something other than an easily overwhelmed wimp, SEALs provide both offensive and defensive flexibility. If you find yourself in a sophisticated enough scenario to be facing down combined arms, a few SEAL units will let you get more done with less from whenever you develop them until very near tech tree completion.

Navy SEALs are a very weak unit in the pantheon of Civ units. Their advantages over the default Marine unit are slim, they are poorly timed, and their main strengths are against units they'll rarely be facing.

Really, it sounds to me as if you have very little experience playing the game. You want to make all sorts of grandiose claims about it, without enough understanding of fundamental game issues to make your claims believable.

I highly suggest that you engage in some serious discussions with people who have spent time mastering this game, they might be able to give you more insight in those areas your own understanding is deficient.

Bh

[Adam Weishaupt]

Wiglaf, Kingdom and Lemonade Stand were not actually board games, but hey, at least there's some effort being made to do more than a pot & kettle routine. The underlying point is that a simulator can be extremely simple relative to the phenomenon it simulates. I've been asserting all through this that what matters is whether or not the exercise is meaningful, not the degree to which it conforms with any individual's sense of reality.

Again and again people have been saying that they don't see this point, but there it is. Kuciwalker at least also takes the extra step to disagree, though so far the basis for that disagreement seems to be "because I wanna be the one to say what you intended when you used a word that is widely regarded as meaning what you say you intended it to mean."

Regards,
Adam Weishaupt

P.S. It sounds to me like SEALs are being evaluated in the context of evaluating America, not in the context of using them in warfare. What matters isn't that they only have a couple of advantages over Marines. What matters is that when you mix them in with a complex force being confronted by another complex force, they hold their own in a more diverse set of circumstances. I'll concede that I don't often play through modern wars -- I am more of the creative/builder sort with a fondness for Space Race or UN victories. However, I have found in more than one instance that a few SEALs made it possible to do more with less when it comes to resisting a combined arms attack or outmaneuvering a rival. I think the trick here is not that I haven't played, but rather that I haven't been in the endless discussions in which the mythology of excellence causes people to embrace "the one true way" of looking unfavorably at something that does not look so bad from another perspective. Either that, or they've been wickedly nerfed in the expansion packs.

[wodan11]

I feel increasingly like I'm watching Gladiator. People slicing each other to bits, and Wiglaf shouting "Are you not entertained!?!"

Wodan

[Kataphraktoi]

P.S. It sounds to me like SEALs are being evaluated in the context of evaluating America, not in the context of using them in warfare