CIV3 as Historical Simulator

[polypheus]

An overwhelming majority of us seem to prefer playing CIV as a sort of long term historical simulator than as a pure wargame. I think this is the allure of CIV since they are many much better pure wargames available.

Now trying to simulate 6000 years of history with the level of historical detail of a game like Europa Universalis is impossible. Nevertheless, simpified implementations of important historical concepts can make CIV3 a better historical simulator than previous versions of CIV. Some of these have already been implemented and with just a few more concepts being implemented, CIV3 might actually serve as a decent historical simulator in a top-level, abstract sort of way. (Obviously it can't be in a detailed way).

Now let's look at the scorecard for CIV3.

Trade Model: Trade in luxuries and strategic resources was so overwhelmingly important in history that I am finally happy it is being implemented, albeit it took 3 versions to get it in. The CIV3 model is good in that the broad general idea is implemented in an adequate and yet simple way.

Culture/Nationality: Another essential concept, it is being implemented in CIV3 and decently models the effect of this concept in a simplistic yet adequate and realistic way.

7 Civ Limit: If Firaxis confirms the rumor that 16 simultaneous Civs are available, then this is not a problem. But having only 7 total Civs at once is insufficient to have the amount of interaction necessary to get any sort of historical simulation feel to the game.

Civil Wars/Secession: CIV2 had only one model of secession. If the capital is taken of the largest civs, it will split. However, I think that the model needs refinement so that secession becomes a more prominent part of the game. The vast majority of nations were formed IRL as a result from secession. Of course for this concept to work, you'll need at least 16 simultaneous Civs being possible.

Later starting Civs: CIV2 did have a model of late starting CIVS. If one civ died before 1AD, another civ might re-start. However, it is better if this becomes a regular feature. A good idea might be to have some barbarians become civilized and start a new civ. This is more realistic and also a lot more interesting and fun.

Diplomacy: CIV1 had basically non-existent diplomacy. CIV2 made a half-hearted attempt at it but it was still pretty meaningless and shallow and you didn't need it at all to do well in the game. In CIV3, this seems to be fixed so that diplomacy now becomes essential. It also has much greater depth to make it meaningful. But again, I think that at least 16 simulateous civs are needed to really take full advantage of all that effort Firaxis has put in to improve the diplomacy model.

Number of turns: I don't think Civ has enough turns. The age of wooden ships for example is simply bypassed. I think that more turns should be added and the technology development more balanced so that you don't have lots of units that simply never see the light of day because they became obsolete too quickly.

Well this post is starting to get long so I'll stop here. CIV3 still will still probably not be a great historical simulator. But compared to CIV1/CIV2, it has made huge strides in this direction. Just a few more concepts and it might be actually pretty decent in that regard!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

to play 6000 years of EU it would take a year of committed playing.

Most of us play civ for fun, and 'historical accuracy' just boosts immagination.

Maybe too much of a good thing is not good...

Scenarios can compensate for number of turns, and added realism in any case.

[Fidel]

Well, historical accuracy simply has to give way to 'American' civilization as one of the 16, otherwise no one would buy the game in the US. Even if they did not, it would take quite a game mechanism to provide for creation of the US (major nation split, etc.). So we are stuck with American hoplites and catapults....
It's just a game....so treat it accordingly.

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah, I think the historical slant of civ made it good, but not in the sense of historical simulation but some sense of familiarity and that you are writing the direction of humanity. But historical simulation is not what it is supposed to be. It is supposed to be a game, and a damn fun and enthralling one at that. Civ has always been possible to keep track of. I don't want too many things to keep control of or have to sort out, you just begin to lose track. Keep things simple and clean, and I think this is what they are doing...

However saying that, some things are good to play with; combat system, trade, diplomacy. They do not make empire management any more difficult, they just increase the options open to you...

[Grumbold]

The beauty of Civ is that it never pretended to be a proper "wargame". Instead it was about the earliest 4x game where military action was only one tool available to allow you to explore, expand and exploit your way to victory. However it was the only one to do so on a historical backdrop, rather than some colourful fantasy or sci-fi setting. People identified with the idea of fighting back the Mongol horde or resisting the domineering tactics of Stalin even if the historical setting was paper thin. Civ III is introducing some new ideas that help put the peaceful aspects of national growth back into the game that Civ II rather lost focus on with the increase in military options.

I don't think many people thought it would be possible for a game like EU to represent 200 years of history until they did it. If the voting going on on their website is any indicator, their next project will be an ambitious attempt to cover 1,000 years of history centering around Rome. Now if that proves successful then it opens up real hope that a blend of the two genres is both possible and potentially commercially viable. Like EU I would expect such a giant game would require abundant scenarios, from one night specials through week long campaigns to the ultimate historical Grand Campaign or random map campaign.