stop being so REAL.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, I'd argue for a compromise, but no doubt, I'd want Civ3 more realistic than Civ2. I mean, conquering the world should be nigh-on-impossible. Have SOME Balance of Power... you know.

[Steve Clark]

I think this is the same debate about EU vs. Civ/Imp2. EU is a complex, deep historical simulation while Civ2 and Imp2 are more straight-forward strategy games. One is more FUN than the other.

[samurai]

Instead of trying to make civ III be more like the real world, why not try to make the real worl more like Civ.
Make Sid Meier a God, start a space program for alpha centauri and put 60% of all the income in the world into science

[Dr Strangelove]

Frankly I'd take EU over Imperialism 1 or 2 any old day, and I wouldn't lump Civ 1 and 2 in with the Imperialism games either. The Imperialism games have made a weak attempt to blend strategy with tactics in the same game, but they failed miserably with regards to the tactical component. Now, if someone wanted to do this (a combined strategy and tactics game) right I'd be very interested. I love TOAW, but the TOAW game community is pretty much moribund by now, so new scenarios are getting more rare.
Are RTS games more realistic? I doubt it. I mean, historically, in how many battles did both sides raise and train units during the battle? Most of the RTS games that I've seen are really designed to replicate action more reasonably associated with a WWF slugfest instead of real life combat. The activity is helter skelter and virtually impossible to organize.

Have all our world's civilizations evolved from one predecessor? I think not. Oh sure, one might conclude that the civilizations of Europe had a common origin, but which one? Are they descended from Egypt or Mesopotamia? It appears to me that modern European civilization can best be described as having evolved from Minoan and Mycenean civilizations, which though influenced by the Egyptians and Mesopotamians, arose as a distinct civilization in its own right. Furthermore, Celtic and Germanic civilizations appeared in Europe long before those areas had contact with the middle east. Also, in what way are Chinese, Indian, Aztec and Incan civilizations derived from the middle eastern civilizations. No, history is much more non-linear than many people realize. Not only do civilizations rise and fall, but a young civilization may be influenced by more than one older civilization, and unrelated cultures may evolve similar features by seeming random chance. IMHO designing a new civilization game to reflect the vagaries of history would enhance the fun of the game.
OTOH I don't want a turn based version of "Myth" or "Lord of the Rings" or some other bizarre fantasy title.

[yin26]

Adm.Naismith:

Thanks for the kind words. I miss "the old gang" as well.

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

The first part, of course, is very true. And my lifestyle these days (have a two-year old, work too much, etc.) doesn't let me just sit down for hours and enjoy something complex. Not the fault of the game. On the other hand, Solitaire and Pinball simulator are also horribly BORING! My challenge these days is to find that "just right" blend of mindless entertainment and thought-provoking challenge...that can be enjoyed in small, 1- 2-hour blocks.

I was enjoying Age of Kings just for that reason...but then it got too competitive and started taking more and more time (and hard to pause/save an on-line session). I'm currently trying to get into Europa Universalis...but a Grand Campaign takes about 25 hours to finish, which is fine in and of itself, but there are so many quirks to the game that I'm afraid I'll need to invest at least that many hours before I begin to really have a grip on its oddities.

Alas...perhaps this is the "non-gaming" phase of my life?

[JMarks]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

Have all our world's civilizations evolved from one predecessor? I think not. Oh sure, one might conclude that the civilizations of Europe had a common origin, but which one? Are they descended from Egypt or Mesopotamia? It appears to me that modern European civilization can best be described as having evolved from Minoan and Mycenean civilizations, which though influenced by the Egyptians and Mesopotamians, arose as a distinct civilization in its own right. Furthermore, Celtic and Germanic civilizations appeared in Europe long before those areas had contact with the middle east. Also, in what way are Chinese, Indian, Aztec and Incan civilizations derived from the middle eastern civilizations. No, history is much more non-linear than many people realize. Not only do civilizations rise and fall, but a young civilization may be influenced by more than one older civilization, and unrelated cultures may evolve similar features by seeming random chance. IMHO designing a new civilization game to reflect the vagaries of history would enhance the fun of the game.
OTOH I don't want a turn based version of "Myth" or "Lord of the Rings" or some other bizarre fantasy title.

No, to my knowledge there was no 'mother' civilization. By the time civs started popping up there were already distict cultures that were interacting with each other. Now they did all have a common origin (Tower of Babel anyone?) even if you're a biased evolutionist. Yes, even China and the indigous American Natives. We are all of one blood.

Now to the realism debate. There needs to be a dose of realism in this type of game, few I think would debate this. This is one of the reasons I support the 'revolution' idea. There need to be more splits. This is real, yet can be done in a semi-real way that Civ is all about. Right?

Ioanes

[connorkimbro]

If you want to play a fun GAME, play Civ. If you want realism, go out and start your own damn country.

[Cyclotron]

Although I usually am in support of realism on most topics, I must say that to argue about the very idea of realism removed from any sort of actual topic can't really be too constructive. Should planes go around the world in one turn? IMO, no. But does that mean that I am now defining myself as "anti-realism"? No, it doesn't. These "realism or not" issues should be solved and debated on a case by case basis, again IMO.

[Jeje2]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
EU vs. Civ/Imp2 - One is more FUN than the other.

Trying to say that EU is not fun?

Originally posted by Yin26
...I'm currently trying to get into Europa Universalis...but a Grand Campaign takes about 25 hours to finish...

Swell,
when do we get your opinion about the game?
Oh, while at it do yourself a favor and install IGC - it's just soo much more better.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
..I must say that to argue about the very idea of realism removed from any sort of actual topic can't really be too constructive....These "realism or not" issues should be solved and debated on a case by case basis, again IMO.

I entirely agree. Realism can certainly make a game more boring if it is done badly. If it is done well it makes the game challenges more like those faced in life/history, less like arbitary game rules that need to be understood and exploited.


Oh, and IMO Europa Universalis is an extremely enjoyable game, but I freely admit it takes some playing time and some visits to the website to get rules explained to make it so. It is certainly not a lightweight game to play, any more than Civ II would have been to a first time player.

[yin26]

Jeje: (and anybody else with some interest and a few moments)

I'll have something posted about EU as soon as I've given it more than one GC...which is going to take me a while. And since most people have already either decided to buy EU or not, I likely won't be influencing anybody.

But it's nice to know you're interested in my take on it.

[johndmuller]

I don't think that it is Realism or Not Realism so much that bothers people (after all, surely someone could drive more than twice as far as someone can walk and that doesn't seem so bad in the game). No, I think it is something more subtle; something that the infinite RRs and infinite or not planes must somehow irritate more than most.

Maybe its the relationships between the various elements and their near cousins that sometimes seem incongrous, there's plenty of that in the transport world. When was the last time that you could go farther/faster on a train than even a car, let alone a plane. Intellectually, I can understand that they make some adjustments so that the game play works out better, but when they stretch my credulity too much, I notice, and that's what this all comes down to, some things just aren't as believable as others, and they stick out and get attention.

I think that there are a lot of little things that can turn on the "tilt" light in any game, but as long as they aren't too weird or have too much of an impact on the game, we deal with them, but when they tread to closely on either and especially both of those things (and maybe other stuff too), then we notice it.

[ACOLKitty]

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

I'm sure tehy will keep that in mind when they start making Dino-Civ again.

[Captain]

Gameplay takes precedence over realism but realism CAN add tremendously to the fun if done properly.

Someone posted about the game RISK, and I think that's a great example. Have any of you played RISK II? It includes a modified game called "SAME-TIME RISK", which is simultaneous turns - you submit all your orders at the same time, movement is made simultaneously, and combat resolved according to an ordered sequence. Much more realistic, and once you've played it a few times, very addictive - way more fun than regular "classic risk".

The game does not take any longer than regular RISK (often can be played faster), but has more strategy (since you can't just plow your way through using a single big army stack - you've got to consider fronts, and how the enemy is going to move, whether it'll attack you, the neighbour, split forces, mass attack, attack neighbour then surge through to you, whether you should mass your armies and defend or attack all around in a border clash, or attack weak hoping the enemy will be attacking in another direction and leaving the territory almost empty).

It is incredibly more fun, because of the above strategy considerations, the unpredictability, the gambles, and during the turn, the back and forth victories and defeats are very exciting, but at the turns end, we can see how everyone did and plan next - whereas with classic risk, the game balance depends on who's turn it is. I think the game is like $20-25 now, so if you can spare it, check it out - very fun, also quick (1-2 hr game).

[sebanaj]

if you want the movement time to be realistic, then youll need a realistic map also mantaining a relation with the unit! a tank is not bigger than 5 or 6 metres i think, so the map will have to be much bigger to represent lets say like 1000 metres! which is nothing in real life!