Realism may have killed this game.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by gamma
... (although my elite swordsman just defended on tundra against 16 barbarian horsemen and lost 1 (count'em, one) hit point, which was certainly aberrant...). ...

(Check the Editor -- the player has a combat advantage against Barbarians at every level lower than Diety (at Chieftan, a whopping 400% I recall).)

[Monoriu]

Re: Realism may have killed this game.

Originally posted by Chevin
One of the most hotly debated topics that crossed this forum was the call for more "realistic" and "historicly acurate" gameplay.

I am afraid you may have gotten what you asked for at the sacrafice of some of the things that may have been very unrealistic but fun.

I saw the argument about how "unrealistic" it was to be able to flatten a mountain into farm land. Well as unrealistic as that may have been it gave the player the option to make better use of his land. But realism won the battle and that option is gone.

I saw the argument that resources in Civ II were meaningless to trade and gameplay, they were just bonuses to the city they resided in. Well gues what you got that too. Now they are vital to the things you build. Because they are vital you got collonies to help you gather resources from areas that you can't build cities in because they are all desert or mountains that you can't teraform anymore.
And now you argue that collonies don't grow into cities. How many threads on how to make collonies useful are we going to see? How long before you realise they are just there to help you get the resources you demanded play a more important role in the game?

I saw the posts about how rediculous it was that you could build a small mass of tanks and take over the world in Civ II. That your population should object to long bloody wars, how many examples from our history did you point out?

So now you have war weariness.

How many threads on fundamentalism isn't a real government did you start?

well its gone.

How many times did you say that huge globe spanning empires would be very hard to control and riddled with corruption?

well you got that too.

I would like to thank firaxis for giving us what we said we wanted. For listening to us and delivering a product that was right on the money..

Now that we released Civ III (an experiment in community tampering) can we make Civ IV a fun game.

I happen to think that fun is more important than realism, but I also like many of the changes you mentioned.

Actually, a lot of the things were changed not for realism, but for fun.

Terraforming. At first I missed that too. But now begin to appreciate why they did it. First, with settlers and workers no longer require food support, and railroads improving food output, you will get absolutely huge cities if you also get farmland. Also, excessive terraforming kills any diversity in my cities. Every one of my civ 2 cities were the same, with some grassland, and some hills. Now I actually have diversified cities, some with more commerce, some with more shield and some with more food.

Resources: I like the resource and trade system. Surely beats moving dozens of camels around. The need for strategic resources also makes for many challenges in the game.

Colonies: yes I agree its screwed up.

War weariness: Its because they want to get rid of the micro-management of assigning home cities to units. With that gone, you HAVE to have global war weariness. Also, without war weariness, then there will be no reason to go communism in the late game and every civ would be a democracy.

Fundamentalism: it was unbalanced. In the late game the 50% science penalty doesn't mean anything, while you get all the nice advantages.

Corruption: I agree there should be some sort of penalty for sprawling empires, and corruption was a bit weak in civ 2. But I have to agree that it is overdone in civ 3.


Realism is not a bad thing. Imagine if we change the names of all the civs into A1, A2, A3, all the tech names into T1, T2, T3, all the unit names into U1, U2, U3, and so on the game will probably not be enjoyable anymore. Fun is more important than realism, yes, but if fun is not sacrified, then more realism is good. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Deathwalker]

Realism did not kill this game, it was in some cases the lack of realism e.g. ships Vs Air Power and all modern units. Its as if they did not finish the modern eara at all

[rid102]

I happen to think that fun is more important than realism

Strategy vs simulation is really at the heart of this debate. And both appeal to differing types of player. Civ is fairly unique in that it tries to straddle to two and hence the two camps of player collide.

First, with settlers and workers no longer require food support

Which is absolutely silly from a simulation perspective for several reasons:

- Settlers cost two population points. A city of size costs 4 food to support, yet a settler (consisting of a comparable number of people) costs zero.
- Cities can become settler factories. E.g. you can have 10 settlers yet only 1 size 1 city. Essentially a nomadic civilisation.
- Settlers cost two population points yet can only found a city of size one population point. Where do the other half of the people go?

Unit support in general is crazy for many reasons. At least Civ2 has abstraction mechanisms in place for handling support, rather than the "everything costs money" approach of Civ3.

you will get absolutely huge cities if you also get farmland

Moving Sanitation much further up the tech tree castrates civilisations at size 12 cities for far too long, while this may be more realistic (e.g. how many cities of population 1M+ were there in 100AD?) it is also more frustrating for a player who's worked hard to drive up city growth.

. Surely beats moving dozens of camels around. The need for strategic resources also makes for many challenges in the game.

It does and is one of the few added elements that couples realism and simulation with strategy. However, there are weaknesses. How come I need Oil to build a Jet Fighter but not Oil to run it? Same for railroads as well, where you need Coal to build but not to run. Why doesn't Electricity also negate the need for Coal to build railroads? There are aspects which are not refined enough and the lack of realism causes a detraction of gameplay.

War weariness: Its because they want to get rid of the micro-management of assigning home cities to units.

Isn't that really just an example of how additional game rules and concepts were bent around the game engine rather than vice-versa? Seems to me like a bigtime shortcut. If you wanted to add both realism and gameplay here, then keep War Weariness but also keep unit basing in cities. Don't you think that if a single city kept building and sending units to their death (i.e. soldiers from that city) then the citizens would get a lot more upset than over the other side of your empire? Again, not refined enough.

Fun is more important than realism, yes, but if fun is not sacrified, then more realism is good.

You need a balance between both. A game is not fun to many people if they do not think a certain degree of realism is being adhered to (a prime example of this is the complaints about the combat system).

The reason why Civ1 and (to a less extent) Civ2 were fun to many people is because they abstracted away a lot of the nitty-gritty of realism into concepts which were translated simply and elegantly in terms of strategic gameplay. Civ3 has changed many of these, preferring more complex, concrete mechanisms (e.g. resources vs trade) over the previous abstractions. Part of the involving imagination that was such a strong part of "that Civ feeling" is subsequently lost, at least IMHO.

[Akka]

Re: Realism may have killed this game.

Originally posted by Chevin
One of the most hotly debated topics that crossed this forum was the call for more "realistic" and "historicly acurate" gameplay.

I am afraid you may have gotten what you asked for at the sacrafice of some of the things that may have been very unrealistic but fun.

That's strange, because as far as I can see, there is much more complaints about LACK of realism than about EXCESS of realism.

I saw the argument about how "unrealistic" it was to be able to flatten a mountain into farm land. Well as unrealistic as that may have been it gave the player the option to make better use of his land. But realism won the battle and that option is gone.

I would like to see the option in the game editor to give a unit the possibility to terraform (to allow more possibilities in mod about a sci-fi or fantasy scenario). Though, like said Monoriu, the ability to terraform made that at the end of the game, the entire map was grassland with some mined hills/mountains. In my games on the Earth map, I ended razing the whole Himalaya and Sahara into grassland. That was perhaps a little overpowered
So, make it optionnal.

I saw the argument that resources in Civ II were meaningless to trade and gameplay, they were just bonuses to the city they resided in. Well gues what you got that too. Now they are vital to the things you build.

It's true that the ressources system is actually more realistic than in Civ2. In fact, it's MUCH more fun. Another fact to show that more realism can end in more fun.

I saw the posts about how rediculous it was that you could build a small mass of tanks and take over the world in Civ II. That your population should object to long bloody wars, how many examples from our history did you point out?

So now you have war weariness.

In fact, it's realistic to only need a few armored divisions to take over the world IF the world is composed only of civilizations still at the bronze age. And allowing old units to be increased in power toward new ones is actually one of the most argued issue. So it's not ADDING realism that made more complaints on this very case, it's REMOVING it.
And about the war weariness and the home city : I'm DAMN GLAD they have removed it, it's one of the things I always hated. The war weariness is a much better way to handle war under democratic government than a senate that constantly try to make peace and units that made population unhappy just because they are far away. Not only it make more sense, but it's adding to the game.

How many threads on fundamentalism isn't a real government did you start?

well its gone.

IMHO, fundamentalism is gone due to 9/11 rather due to complaints. A too powerful government can be modified to be balanced, removing it is only if it just does not fit in the game. And after seeing AC and it's Believers faction and the "religion" (don't remember the name) social choice make me think that it was actually fitting pretty well in the game, even more in Civilization. So I think it's rather a politacally correct choice than a design one.

How many times did you say that huge globe spanning empires would be very hard to control and riddled with corruption?

well you got that too.

Again, the corruption in Civ3 can in no way told it's even close to realism. These 100 % corrupted cities does not even exist in third world. Civ 2 was much more realist on this one.

So well, rather than saying that excess of realism killed the game, tell that LACK of realism hampered it.




About the support unit issue, I think that the new system is better. A modern army don't suck ressources from just one city, it's supported by the centralized govenment. Though, soldiers need to eat. The fact that a city can die because of starvation while the city next door has a +8 food output is a little silly too.
I think that the food could be centralized just like the support for units : all the excess food production of all the cities should be gathered, then 1 food for each unit would be substracted from the total, and then the rest would be distributed between your cities. This would require to add to each city a new ability, the "food meter" or something like that, to control how much food would be given, so you could control which city would grow the faster.
Same for the support, each unit could require one shield, and then if you have 50 units, the 50 shields used for supporting the units would be removed evenly to all your cities (could be a "X shield used by city", or a "for each Y shield produced in each city, one shield is used", or whatever you feel is best).
And one last thing : to keep the "producing two hundred units in five turns" syndrom, and to add more realism (and I think more fun, but that is subjective), I suggest that each unit who normally require a lot of people (infantry, cavalry, armored division, etc... ie nearly all but missiles, ships and planes) should cost 1 population to build. It's somewhat disturbing that the computer can loose 60 units to my strong defenses and still just waste some production. I mean, hundred of thousand people DIED while attacking. This thing disturb me since Civ 1, but now with the editor it can be fixed
It would reflect the cost in lives in a war, and would prevent sending hordes of units just be slaugthered (=> urging people to upgrade and produce more modern unit, can resolve a lot of "old units wins are more efficient than modern ones". The only drawback is that I don't know if the AI can handle it pretty well...

BTW : the food/money system for units was already used in Master of Magic and worked pretty well. It was even much better done than Civ 3 one, as each unit had its own cost. And MoM is only 2-3 years younger than Civ 1, talk about great ideas not used).

It does and is one of the few added elements that couples realism and simulation with strategy. However, there are weaknesses. How come I need Oil to build a Jet Fighter but not Oil to run it? Same for railroads as well, where you need Coal to build but not to run. Why doesn't Electricity also negate the need for Coal to build railroads? There are aspects which are not refined enough and the lack of realism causes a detraction of gameplay.

Good point.
Units requiring coal and oil would be reduced to 0 movement when your supply runs out for more than, let's say, 5 turns (to simulate the stocks).
Railroads should not require coal after you build your first power plant.

[rid102]

I suggest that each unit who normally require a lot of people (infantry, cavalry, armored division, etc... ie nearly all but missiles, ships and planes) should cost 1 population to build. It's somewhat disturbing that the computer can loose 60 units to my strong defenses and still just waste some production. I mean, hundred of thousand people DIED while attacking.

A very good point. This also makes larger cities stronger (they can support larger armies). Prevents early military conquest of the world unless you have a big empire to support it (e.g. Roman Empire) and makes city attacks to cut supply lines (unit support) more worthwhile again; amoungst other things.

This adds to gameplay: Should you build that additional army or do you need the population to help build a Wonder quicker? Can I afford to build another ten Cavalry regiments or should I use the population to keep earning me more cash?

Another non-realism which would also help towards the combat system also is the silly fact that say you have three Spearmen in a city, when the sity is attacked only one Spearman defends? WTF? Are the others like "Oh OK he's fighting the battle, we'll relax". It's stupid. They'd all fight together of course. Then again, this was also the case in Civ1 and Civ2.


Hmmm...

Science Advisor
Sire, The People's Republic of Firaxis has discovered the secret of Programming, this allows us to produce Civilization III. Where should our wise men direct their efforts next?

Refining

OK

[Warhammer]

I gotta throw my hat in the ring here....

There are always going to be trade offs no matter what we do...

For example:
Resource system: I truly feel that the current system is far better than Civ2. I really feel in Civ3 I am running a connected whole rather than a bunch of city-states. In Civ2 if I lost any city other than my capital it was no big deal, I just had to churn out more engineers to terraform another mega-city in a few turns.

Fast forward to Civ3... If I lose my city that is my source of coal or iron, or heck, if my supply chains are cut, no more railroads, or knights, etc. Granted, there are issues about using your fighters or tanks when your oil supply has run out, but where does that stop? You can take that arguement through ad naseum. Plus it would add undue complexity to an otherwise fairly elegant system. Which brings up my next point...

The simpler a given system is the better. By simple, I do not mean you do not have options, I mean you do not have to micromanage it. Again, let me compare and contrast the last two Civs:

Civ2 - The caravan unit was the only method of trade. Not only that, the only thing that it did was generate additional trade (plus the intial bonus cash and tech bonus). The problem was, unless I produced a caravan, I had little to no trade. It could also be exploited to a large extent, produce enough caravans and forget about your science rate, etc. Finally let's not forget about the hunt to find the ideal city to send each caravan to. Micromanagement to the extreme.

Civ3 - When I contact another civ I merely need to get a route to his capital. Once this is complete, when I want to initiate a trade I call him up, put him down for some furs in exchange for 10 gold a turn, etc. There is a negotiation, not an arbitrary this city has 10 pop this has 12 and they are separated by 20 squares. Not only that but rather than merely generating additional trade arrows, now I get cash in my coffers or I can get a valuable resource. Finally, these trades can be renegotiated later or cancelled. Having issues with the tech leader or with someone who has tons of money to rush build units? Slap a number of embargos on him and see how long that holds true! More options, more in depth, but less turn to turn micromanagement.

One more issue, the tech tree:

Civ2 - A beautiful tech tree with many interconnections and plenty of different paths to research. I have no real complaints here. However, many of the paths gave you something new, which is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem was nothing was useful for any length of time. Why build tanks when in another few turns I will have howitzers? Why build riflemen when I am getting alpine troops or marines in the next few turns, I'll just have to upgrade again. My big beef here was when someone would get Space Flight, but had never researched pottery, or they had navigation with no map making.

Civ3 - A more simplified tech tree with some interconnections, and a few primary paths. There is less flexibility here. But there is some benefits in this. Units are now useful for a good length of time. Combined with the resource system, the higher tech civ is not necessarily the scourage of the earth. Additionally, because of the method of tech advancement, we no longer have people that are going through the industrial revolution that do not know how to read and write. More simplistic, less, but better.

That is not to say that Civ3 does not have its faults, but it is in general a more elegant system with less micromanagement. The majority of the complaints I have seen have been because people did not get what they want, or did not get Civ2/SMAC with new graphics. Some of the decisions were wrong or they went overboard (i.e. corruption) but because they made a given decision does not mean the game is broken. Most issues will be fixed or balanced in a patch.

[Dan Baker]

I rather liked the changes in Civ-III. Actually, the biggest 'flaw' with Civ III is that is is called Civ-III, and on the surface the interface looks the same. In reality, it is a very different game - maybe they should have shaken things up a bit more to reinforce this. I did read an amusing review of Civ-III on CNN.com about how the secret to Civ-III's success was how similar it was to Civ-II. This begs the question, do reviewers actually PLAY the games?

Addressing some commen complaints:

Corruption used to a problem for me, because if you play Civ-III civ-II style, its a major bummer. Then it goes away - I think some simple tweaks to corrptuong would make it about right, decrease in democracies more, road-connected cities, etc. This is a commen complaint by many beginners, but most people tend to think the corruption is only slightly off kilter, not a major flaw.

The resource system is an excellent idea, although the importance and scarcity of oil should be downplayed a bit (I've never had a problem with any of the other resources). Naval units should not need oil (coal or nuclear power should be sufficent, actually Nuclear powered vesels should be much faster). There should also be economic benifits for having excess (i.e. units are cheaper to make.) resources - in case you have stuff you can't sell to anyone else. The Mutual Protection Pact is a good idea, in my first Civ-III game I got into both a World War I Secnario, AND a World war II (Japan) Scenario (no oil).

There are other small problems, but they've been covered Ad Nausem here.

I like the fact that is quite difficult to maintian a pro-longed war in enemy territory. Civ-II was horrible, you could use your enemies railroads against him! Build enough Howitzers, and poof! He's dead in one turn.


"Thus in miitary campains I have heard of awkward speed but have never seen any skill in lengthy campains. No country has ever profited from protracted warfare..." - Sun Tzu, the Art of War, Chapter 2.

[rid102]

There are always going to be trade offs no matter what we do...

Not quite sure what this "we" business is; I didn't have anything to do with this game being made.

Anyways, I don't think this is particularly true. E.g. look at Civ2 over Civ1. There were a lot of things improved and a couple of new things added and isn't wasn't a case of "trade-offs" by any means.

Resource system: I truly feel that the current system is far better than Civ2.

I agree BUT it needs refining. There are many things which don't add up and hence detract from gameplay. It's a solid idea but more attention to detail and grounding in reality would make a half-assed semi-idea a truly powerful gameplay enhancer (as opposed to the gameplay alteration it is at the moment). As it stands, the game now revolves too much around resources. The game isn't about who controls the most powerful empire or who is the most cultured (or whatever) it's simply about who controls or has access to resources. Technology and science advancement is neutered by the new resources model. It's too powerful and not refined enough IMHO. It's an interesting idea that should have been pioneered in CTP3 (or some other game) and then refined into Civ3 when the model was more mature.[/RANT]

I really feel in Civ3 I am running a connected whole rather than a bunch of city-states.

Yes, I think this is very true. In fact, I was playing Civ3 last night and actually thought this to myself. I think this is mainly due to two things: connected trade network (roads) and culture.

The simpler a given system is the better.

Agreed, but was not Civ2's (and even Civ1's) trade model not simple enough? Granted there was a lot of abstraction but it was simple to grasp as well as being easy to handle and (reasonably) powerful? The problem with taking a trade model (e.g. Civ3's resources) out of abstraction is that you then get discontinuities with realism, are forced to fill in the holes and end up with a semi-elegant, semi-working system like Civ3's resources.

I strike a deal with the Greeks for some Oil, build some Modern Armour but then the deal ends so I'm back to building Swordsmen and Longbowmen... hmmm. Oh yeah and I've been to the moon yet apparently my wise men haven't worked out how to run a railroad on anything except Coal (electricity isn't good enough, apparently). etc. etc.

Civ2 - The caravan unit was the only method of trade.

Civ2's mechanism of trade (and Civ1's) was, to be frank, crap. This has always been known from day one and the resource system is definitely an advantage over that. However, by taking away a chunk of abstraction you're also becoming wide open to crazy scenarios e.g. 2000AD Longbowmen despite me visiting the moon etc.

Also gameplay disparities open up. E.g. I discover Steam Power and want to build railroads but can't as I have no Coal in my territory. Great OK, let's go and trade for it. Oh, except no-one else is anywhere near as advanced as me, so no-one else has discovered Steam Power and so I can't get Coal.

Coal is actually located in most places all over the world. Civ2 abstracted this out yet Civ3 makes a meal out of it.

The problem was nothing was useful for any length of time. Why build tanks when in another few turns I will have howitzers?

Exactly the same is true of Civ3 though. Maybe the timescales are slightly longer but not by much. By the time I've actually discovered Gunpower, got around to negotiating or seizing Saltpetre and built a few Musketmen in most cities then I've discovered Riflemen....

Civ3 - A more simplified tech tree with some interconnections, and a few primary paths. There is less flexibility here.

The Civ3 tech tree is again something which is good but not great. The Civ2 tech tree over the Civ1 tech tree was a solid improvement, yet again with Civ3 it's a bit more of a re-juggling effort. Almost as if Firaxis just kind of felt obliged to change it because even though it wasn't really broken at all, they're not going to release exactly the same tech tree as before, are they?

The tech tree also has a much narrower traversal range in Civ3. There are only a couple of routes you can go through it efficiently. If you take an inefficient route then you'll take longer to get the same set of advances. It restricts gameplay (as e.g. you can't go for quick democracy anymore). Whether this is a good thing because it makes the game harder is IMHO questionable.

Seems to me that a lot of the proponents of Civ3 are people who are claiming that things which were never highlighted as major problems in Civ1/Civ2 (e.g. Howitzers+Railroads = Death) but which Civ3 is now this miraculous improvement over.