Tweet
I have watched the boards for a considerable amount of time, noting many of the criticisms that have been made -- some well founded, others not, yet others a matter of personal tastes. But many of the criticisms are not well founded simply for the fact that they are attacking Civ III for being a game that it is not, and has never aspired to be.
For example, take certain combat issues, such as an airplane's ability (or lack thereof) to sink ships, or a spearman's ability to defeat a tank. Some people have decried these as examples of a lack of realism. This strikes me as a bizzare viewpoint, since Civ has never been about realism. It includes some historical references for flavor, but all in all, Civ is as much set in a fantasy world as many other games.
To the extent that Civ does reflect some historical, economical, and military "realities" -- which it does to some degree -- it is very abstracted. For example, in the early stages of the game, if it takes my settler 5 turns to reach its destination, it obviously did not require a hundred years to get there. Rather, it would abstractly represent the slow pace of expansion in early times.
Given this abstract concept, it makes no sense to ask for realism in combat. This is not a war game attempting to accurately depict combat. Indeed, does anyone think it's realistic for an army of tanks to take 5 years to get to its target? Obiously not. But since combat shares the same abstract turn system of the over-all game, that's how it works out, and everyone generally accepts that.
Why then, do so many people bemoan that it's not "realistic" for a knight to kill a tank? If realism was actually included into Civ combat it would (besides making the game an utter catastrophe, since that's not what the game is about) render most of the things players do impossible. To give one example, do you think it's "realistic" that I can send my armies of tanks deep into enemy territory and wreak havoc for years at a time? Of course not. Once my powerful army passed deep into enemy territory, I would be unable to maintain any lines of supplies, and within a couple of days, I would have starving soldiers and out of fuel vehicles.
So, summing up my ramblings, it seems that the pertinent questions on any aspect of Civ III should be: is it fun? does it balance play?, etc. If the answers to such questions are "yes," then to heck with "realism." If the answer is "no," then those are the issues that need to be addressed.
For example, take certain combat issues, such as an airplane's ability (or lack thereof) to sink ships, or a spearman's ability to defeat a tank. Some people have decried these as examples of a lack of realism. This strikes me as a bizzare viewpoint, since Civ has never been about realism. It includes some historical references for flavor, but all in all, Civ is as much set in a fantasy world as many other games.
To the extent that Civ does reflect some historical, economical, and military "realities" -- which it does to some degree -- it is very abstracted. For example, in the early stages of the game, if it takes my settler 5 turns to reach its destination, it obviously did not require a hundred years to get there. Rather, it would abstractly represent the slow pace of expansion in early times.
Given this abstract concept, it makes no sense to ask for realism in combat. This is not a war game attempting to accurately depict combat. Indeed, does anyone think it's realistic for an army of tanks to take 5 years to get to its target? Obiously not. But since combat shares the same abstract turn system of the over-all game, that's how it works out, and everyone generally accepts that.
Why then, do so many people bemoan that it's not "realistic" for a knight to kill a tank? If realism was actually included into Civ combat it would (besides making the game an utter catastrophe, since that's not what the game is about) render most of the things players do impossible. To give one example, do you think it's "realistic" that I can send my armies of tanks deep into enemy territory and wreak havoc for years at a time? Of course not. Once my powerful army passed deep into enemy territory, I would be unable to maintain any lines of supplies, and within a couple of days, I would have starving soldiers and out of fuel vehicles.
So, summing up my ramblings, it seems that the pertinent questions on any aspect of Civ III should be: is it fun? does it balance play?, etc. If the answers to such questions are "yes," then to heck with "realism." If the answer is "no," then those are the issues that need to be addressed.
I celebrate, I shout "wooohooo!!!" heheh
Comment