stop being so REAL.

[Inverse Icarus]

the people on this board keep citing "well this is how it works in the real world...".

civ isnt the real world.

and IMO, the real world would make for a rather boring game.

think from a strategy POV before posting "infinate plane movements" or the like.

sure a stealth bomber "can fly from nevada to the middle east and back without refueling", but if u made bombers fly around the map, wouldn't that suck?

[joseph1944]

Re: stop being fo fawking REAL.

Originally posted by UberKruX
the people on this board keep citing "well this is how it works in the real world...".

civ isn't the real world.

and IMO, the real world would make for a rather boring game.

think from a strategy POV before posting "infinite plane movements" or the like.

sure a stealth bomber "can fly from Nevada to the middle east and back without refueling", but if U made bombers fly around the map, wouldn't that suck?

Actually it can not without midair refueling. Hi-Lo-Hi unrefuelled range w/37,300 lbs 5,300 n. miles. High altitude unrefuelled range w/24,000 lbs., 6,600 miles.

[popcornvendor]

i want a game thats as realistic as possible. if that means i have to face guerrila forces in a remote mountain area or see half my forces die in a desert or tundra landscape, boo hoo, work around it. This is stuff that people face in the real world. id like to see violent revolutions and civil wars. if i wanted to play a mere "game" id be playin Super Mario Brothers

[Dr Strangelove]

I pretty much agree with you popcorn, I'd like to see units of the modern era get realistic movement allowances. OTOH it's necessary to think of game balance. Have you ever played the game "Risk"? It's possible to nearly sweep the board in a single move. I think that would be terribly un-fun in a Civ type game. One way of restoring game balance would be to put in supply rules that prevent a player from staging unlimited trans-oceanic invasions. Another possibility would be to give each player a certain number of action points to be used in each turn (similar to the system being developed for MOO 3).

I might also add that even though American bombers can fly inter-continental distances with the support of inflight refueling most of the actions where this has been used have been limited raids. For sustained (non-nuclear) bombing campaigns much shorter ranges are preferred.

[Alex 14]

I completely agree with UberKruX, many aspects of a game matter: graphics & detail, sound & music quality, gameplay & realism.

However, it all gets down to one questions: is the game fun? If Firaxis created a city improvment that gave units invinciblilty or something like that, i wouldn't say 'oh no that's not realistic', i would say 'cool!'. I mean it's a game, why should it be that much like the real world, and if it is it won't be fun. Scenarios are for people that want a game to be so realistic and like the world.

What is the concept of Civilization games? Is it to reactreate history in your eyes? Well thats what i think anyway, reacreating history the way you want it doesn't mean everything will be the same as it is in the real world.

[TechWins]

Isn't it supposed to be a game to have FUN in to get away from the real world?

[Kurgan]

If you want realism, civ will have to change and become an RTS. I think that it is so difficult to translate reality and compress it in a game, that things that in the real world happen, will be less realistic (or too complicated) if translated to the game.

[Vrank Prins]

I've always been in favour of reality in the game, historical reality. That is, it should not stand in the way of fun, it should be an inspiration to make a great game. Very often using reality gives you a great edge. Sci-fi fantasy like f.e. in CTP is mostly too far fedged.
Here's another point. CIV usues history as its setting, there are so many things to be gotten from that, that we shouldn't have to use fantasy, to create a smashing game.

[Adm.Naismith]

Both of parties have their point, simply agreeding there are different kind of games and different style of play.

Lot of games are fun because let you do things you can't do in real world (AFAIK there are not a lot of Breathing Fire Dragon out of my window, right now ), some because let you simulate a thing you should do in real world but can't (not a bunch of Formula 1 or Nascar car driver inside my house, too).

Civ is so succesful because it blend simulation of mankind dynamics with fun, simplicistic view.

No one alone can manage in real world such a complex task as develop a Civilization for 6 thousand years (and yes, I know about President George W.Bush jokes seem to show the opposite ), so something must be cut or simplified for sake of playability.

But you can't go too much into the other way, or any Tennis Game become Pong with better graphics.
My opinion is:
1) Can this (read: any proposed enhancement) better reproduce reality into Civ III?
2) Can it let game at least playable and enjoyable as before?

Sorting them into opposite order change Civ III fundamentals, IMHO.

[yin26]

Thinking that I'd like a "realistic" war game as well, I went out and played The Operational Art of War 2. Now let me just say...it figures in just about as many realistic factors as you can imagine. Weather...fatigue...supply...experience...terrain. ..initiative and on and on.

You know what? IT'S BORING!!!

Highly instructive? I suppose. Challenging? Absolutely. But a fun way to spend a few hours? Hardly. Not for me. No way. I don't mean to argue that realism and fun are bitter enemies, but more often than not they are. While many more subtle gamers might actually thoroughly enjoy the steep realism of a game like TOAW, in my mind I play a game not to learn by being confronted with life's real (and mundane) problems but to be entertained.

Imagine, for example, Laura Croft forcing you to take her to the ladies room every few hours...wait. Bad example. That one might actually HELP gameplay.

[Adm.Naismith]

Hi Yin, I miss you in this Civ 3 forum!

Originally posted by yin26
You know what? IT'S BORING!!!
Highly instructive? I suppose. Challenging? Absolutely. But a fun way to spend a few hours? Hardly. Not for me. No way.

Yin, you know simulator like games aren't for fun in a few hours. Try Solitaire, or a Pinball simulator then

Imagine, for example, Laura Croft forcing you to take her to the ladies room every few hours...wait. Bad example. That one might actually HELP gameplay.

Yin, you sex maniac
I'm wondering how far can you go into Maxis Sim game with flirt&love approach
IMO, nothing can simulate the real thing there

[DarkCloud]

But, realism adds a new dimension to the game and helps increase the fun and 'drawing in' aspects of the game.

[Inverse Icarus]

if you really wanted to be REAL, all the civs would start as one and break off from eachother.

and all cities in the early ages had to be build near some form of fresh water to live.

theres too much crap to comprehend.

[Footie Mad]

Originally posted by UberKruX
if you really wanted to be REAL, all the civs would start as one and break off from eachother.

and all cities in the early ages had to be build near some form of fresh water to live.

theres too much crap to comprehend.

Why not let us manage all our cities like in simcity

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by UberKruX
theres too much crap to comprehend.

For some of us, possibly.