In the beginning: An article about Ancient Civilization

[Shogun Gunner]

Excellent points, S. Kroeze. I too have been annoyed at the slowing and speeding of time in Civ. Reduce the 50 to 1 year ratio...at least double our turns in ancient times. Is that too much to ask?

As much time as we personally devote to playing the game, I think we have time to embrace ancient times a bit more.

Very impressive research on the city sizes!

[Paulypav]

I don't think its reasonable to try and compare Civ time with real time with respect to historical events. Regardless of how you structure the passage of time per turn it will be skewed in regards to real time. Under the current model not only are events of ancient time spread out, but the modern era is skewed as well. Consider WWII and the number of battles and the general progression of the war. Do you think it possible to portray all of that within 5 turns. That's why in the scenario it is broken down month by month so the whole war can be played during a real time frame.

CivII seems to be geared more towards a realistic development in terms of science and contrary to some previous posts, population. In the modern age scientific developments have been discovered much more rapidly than in ancient times. Furthermore, worldwide population has exploded, not because of an increase in the number of children we are having, but because more and more children are surviving and living long lives. I think the statistics provided on the growth of the largest cities bears that out. Cities barely grew over the first hundred years. From 1350-1750 the population of the largest cities doubled in Asia, but not so much in Europe because the Black Death decimated the population. Now look at the last 250 years. Beijing was the largest city in 1750 with 900,000 now it has 20 times that in only 250 years. Slowing down the number of turns reflects that type of population growth. This of course oversimplifies the argument as there are many other factors involved. Civ does not address the concept of rural populations which during certain time periods in history grew much faster than the populations within the cities.

Don't get me wrong I would like to see more ancient turns and perhaps some more technology from ancient times as well, but I don't think that the structure is that unrealistic. CTP II is going to be 800-1100 turns. I'm very interested to see how they structure the passage of time. I expect that it will continue to be weighted to modern times.

I think no matter how you structure the passage of time it will be skewed without heavy adjustments to scientific development and population growth in the ancient and middle ages. Hopefully, Civ III will be able to at least alleviate some of these difficulties.

------------------
"In war, there is no substitute for victory."
- Douglas MacArthur

[jrhughes98]

I agree sire!

In Civ2 there are already 570 turns at Chieftan or Warlord level, 520 turns at Prince level, 470 at King level, and 420 turns at both Emporer and Deity level. One non-multiplayer game takes me about 24 hours of playing time to finish. Multiplayer games take much much longer. Imagine a game of Civ3, with features that make the game even more complex than Civ2, and thus making human players have to think longer each turn. And with 1,000 or 2,000 turns in a single game? You must be out of your mind! That could take months to finish!

Not having enough turns is very unrealistic; there's not really enough time to do anything drastic.

I would be willing to sacrifice any kind of additional realism, in regards to years per turn, for better gameplay.

So, S. Kroeze, if say Firaxis were not to use the "magic date" feature to manage the passing of time in Civ3, then how else can they do it? What's on your mind?

------------------
JRH
[This message has been edited by jrhughes98 (edited November 02, 2000).]

[S. Kroeze]

Dear jrhughes98,

Did you ever notice there are actually a lot of features in the game that do thwart progress? To give you some examples:

-the first tech advance you research requires ten beakers, the second one requires twenty beakers -or maybe eighteen, I didn't check it- the third requires about thirty beakers, etc

-a new founded city with one head=10,000 inhabitants uses two squares on the map for production; a city with two heads=30,000 inhabitants uses three squares for production; a city with three heads=60,000 inhabitants uses four squares for production. So there is a tremendous slowdown of productivity as a city grows larger: in a city of 10,000 people, 5,000 inhabitants are enough to exploit a tile completely;
in a city of 2,100,000 people a 100,000(!) people are needed to exploit that same tile. So productivity decreases twentyfold!! This is absolutely unrealistic and distorts the whole structure of the game.
This problem is still more aggravated because one can be sure that the first tiles used for production will be the best tiles (e.g.Whales or Silk), while one can depend on it that the last tile to be brought in production will be desert or mountain adding next to nothing

-as a city grows, more and more food is needed as surplus to make the population grow: the food box becomes larger and larger

-the first citizens in a city have a positive attitude: without luxuries or cajoling they will perform their daily routine. Beyond a certain point all citizens become lazy, selfish and demanding, thus slowing down research and productivity

-the government you begin the game with, Despotism, is the best in terms of unit support: most units are supported free and for nothing, while settlers need only one food to survive

-the Tech Tree contains an unbalanced amount of discoveries of the twentieth century; one needs more and more advances to make some progress. Horsemen and Chariots -by the way historically in reverse order- are next to one another; one needs about twenty new advances to upgrade from Cavalry to Armour! In this thread I did a proposal of the most important techs to be included in CivIII:

I. Plant domestication
II. Animal domestication
III. The Plough
IV. The Sail
V. The Mill
VI. Printing
VII. Empiricism
VIII. Trias Politica
IX. Nationalism
X. The Arts
To me its no surprise that all are from the time before 1800AD, because CivII neglects Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern History! And when I would be asked to consider ten more new techs, I am sure most would come from the older periods. No one with some basic understanding of history would argue that Radio was more important than the Plough or Printing!

Some critics might point out that some predate 4000BC. They are right of course! My reply would be that it is not written in stone that a Civgame starts in 4000BC. I still hope that more prehistory will be included. And all the same the majority of mankind didn't master Plant domestication in 4000BC.
By the way, several advances in the current TechTree were used before 4000BC: Pottery, Granaries, Archery, City Walls, Masonry, Ceremonial Burial, Temples, Markets, Trade(yes, long-distance(!)trade), Polytheism, Seafaring. Roadbuilding was on the other hand barely applied!

There are many more examples of this organized slowdown of progress I could point out. I think this will do for the moment!

When you would read my previous posts you would notice I did argue for more realism in many aspects of the game. I also voted for Realism/Historical Accuracy as the feature most in need of improvement. And above all I think its important that Firaxis makes clear choices:
When they decide to include Ancient history in the game it deserves more than some feeble hundred turns. And when they would truly acknowledge its importance -and of the early modern period also- many of the progress halting structures now spoiling realism and encouraging ICS could be abandoned. If not, I would prefer to start in about 1500AD.

The argument that such a game would have too many turns is totally irrelevant. It all depends upon what one such turn would contain. As the game is now I hardly ever finish a game, because the beginning is much more exciting than the end. And those twentieth century turns tend to be tedious and extremely long: thirty or more cities to keep an eye on, hundreds of units to move around....

Lets just apply simple logic! Time passes with a constant velocity, and 2 million people can produce two hundred times as much as 10,000 people...

And: I wasn't discussing scenarios, I tried to put in perspective the importance of the twentieth century. The Romans and Assyrians also conducted complicated campaigns and waged many battles. Nor was the Thirty Years' War decided instantly! I doubt if most people in 3000AD will know exactly when and where WWII occurred. Was it before or after the Middle Ages???

Finally a quote of the Diplomat, who in my opinion always adds intelligent contributions:

quote: The player would be able to fully experience each period of History as if it were a game within a game. You would experience a lot more events like wars, revolutions, social changes, new discoveries, etc for each time period. When you reached the techs and fulfilled the prerequesites to advance to the next age, you could save the game, take a rest from the game for a while, and when you felt up to it, take the game up again where you left off, and play the next age as a game by itself. You might spend days maybe weeks playing just one period of History. When you reached the end, the replay would be that much more satisfying as you would recall the ups and downs of your civ throughout history. For example, maybe your civ was mighty during the Bronze Age because of the Legion but lost its influence during the Middle Ages because of the Plague, and regained its prestige during the Industrial Revolution because of a world war that decimated your rivals. I think this would provide a much more fulfilling experience of leading your civ to greatness. The player that does not want to play the game for that much time should be able to play a "quick" mode that would go through History a lot faster (in a lot less turns). Also, since each period would be like a game within a game, I suggest that a player be able choose any Period and play just that Period alone. In this mode, the game would just be that one period. There should be rewards and victory conditions for the player that just plays one Period. How great can you make your civ in that limited amount of time? If your civ does not last all of History, you should still get a high score based on your accomplishments. (even if your civ gets conquered, if you accomplished a lot like building great Wonders, you should still get a high score, and thus still "win"). Victory should be based on your accomplishments. After all, civs did not last all of History and yet a still viewed as Great Civilizations! (ie: Egypt, Rome, Babylonians)

(source: Experiencing each time period (and making it last longer) )

[airdrik]

Here's an Idea: Start at year 0 and count up. After all the terms 'BC' and 'AD' weren't even used till about 500 AD, so what did they use before then? They used references to events like '20 years after the discovery of fire', and 'in the 37th year of king Mufatsi's reign' (don't sue me for useing this name, I just made it up ), so why say start in the year 8000 BC when in the year 8000 BC, people probably didn't even use references to dates other than the day before yesterday when I killed that big bear.

[jrhughes98]

quote: Originally posted by jrhughes98 on 10-31-2000 09:14 PM 8000 BC: Development of fermentation [i]The processes for making wine and beer are about 10,000 years old. The process of creating an alcoholic beverage from honey or fruit juice or from a mixture of malted barley, hops, and water depends on the use of yeast. The purity of these processed beverages could be controlled by the people who made them.

With this in mind, I think that fermentation should be one the early advances in Civ3. It allows the making of alcoholic beverages, which could be used as a luxury. Alcohol gives drunken souls a mild high, temporarily relieving them of stress, and making them forget about their problems. However, it can also result in an increase in crime and reduced life expectancy. You should be able to ban the use of alcoholic beverages in your "mobile camps" and cities, or ban it completely if it gets to be a problem. But you better do so soon. If you wait long enough banning alcohol could result in increased crime and unhappiness of the people, especially in a Democracy, (this is exactly what happened when the United States passed the Prohibition Act of 1917, which resluted in another act that ratified it 1933).

Since there are many different uses of fermentation besides the making of alcohol, it could be used as prerequisite for such advances as chemistry and medicine. Many industrial chemicals and a number of antibiotics used in modern medicine are produced by fermentation under controlled conditions.

------------------
JRH

[Vrank Prins]

quote: Originally posted by jrhughes98 on 10-31-2000 09:14 PM ***A NOTE ON ARCHERY*** ... The use of archery in warfare reached its peak in the Middle Ages with the English longbow. English bowmen used this effective weapon against the French during the Hundred Years' War, and their skill helped England become a world power. ....

I'm sorry to have to say it didn't. The Mongols developed a bow with composite materials in the 13th century with just a bit more strenght than the long bow, but lighter and smaller which made it a very handy and powerful weapon to be used on horseback. That's one of the reason why they were so succesful on the battlefield about that time. (I've also told about this in the thread War&Progress by RRemus).
But something else. It's a great relief to me to see someone come up with ideas which don't concern the 20th century. I've just made a printout to read things in the train backhome. See if I can come up with some good comment. This looks promising


[This message has been edited by Vrank Prins (edited November 02, 2000).]

[Mannamagnus]

Good idea airdrik. Though I think time should be measured in relation to historic happenings e.g. five years since the founding of the first republic or the tenth year after the completion of the pyramids. That is until somebody completes the Calendar wonder" and then it should say something like 356 years since the "Messiah wonder" occurred in civ x.

[rremus]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 11-02-2000 11:46 PM Here's an Idea: Start at year 0 and count up.

I think this is an excellent idea. But I doubt Firaxis will accept it. First of all because of marketing reasons.
But even when starting at year 0, this year 0 should represent the state of mankind at the end of the last Ice Age, not the '4000 BC'.

[Vrank Prins]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 11-02-2000 11:46 PM Here's an Idea: Start at year 0 and count up. After all the terms 'BC' and 'AD' weren't even used till about 500 AD, so what did they use before then? They used references to events like '20 years after the discovery of fire', and 'in the 37th year of king Mufatsi's reign' (don't sue me for useing this name, I just made it up ), so why say start in the year 8000 BC when in the year 8000 BC, people probably didn't even use references to dates other than the day before yesterday when I killed that big bear.

I'm beginning to like this thread, quite a spicy and hefty discussion.
Just an idea which came to me, building on a idea from Ribannah. Why not start off without counting the years. From the moment you have developed calendar you should be able to start an "era" (is this correct anglo ?!, I mean to say "yearcounting" (dutch = jaartelling)). It would be fun to see a screen pop up asking you "hail Vrank, your scolars (whatever) have just developed the calendar, should we name this calendar the Vrankian calendar" (I play CIV also for my ego). And to continue "would you like to start this calendar from one*, or from .... , since our scolars have calculated that our CIV is ... years old"
*somehow I think the development of the Zero (derives from Arabian "zifer") should be introduced because it meant a huge step in the development of maths and arithmetic. A seamingly small but very important and crucial contribution of the middle-age Islamic world to modern science.
And why shouldn't it be able to restart the "yearcounting" later on in the game "hail Vrank, should we, in honour of the great prophet .... (whoever), reset our calendar ?"

[jrhughes98]

quote: Originally posted by S. Kroeze on 11-02-2000 07:07 PM When you would read my previous posts you would notice I did argue for more realism in many aspects of the game. I also voted for Realism/Historical Accuracy as the feature most in need of improvement. And above all I think its important that Firaxis makes clear choices: When they decide to include Ancient history in the game it deserves more than some feeble hundred turns. And when they would truly acknowledge its importance -and of the early modern period also- many of the progress halting structures now spoiling realism and encouraging ICS could be abandoned. If not, I would prefer to start in about 1500AD.

Well, you and I both agree on something. We both think that Realism/Historical Accuracy is the most in need of improvement. Though I voted for customisability, I wish I hadn't; I just overlooked realism for some reason.

It's sounds like the diplomat wants to kind of use a scenario after scenario kind of way of passing time, by going through different periods. In my opinion, this is like the game is making up it's own storyline without giving the player(s) a chance to intervene with history! You should be able to play a very different game each time. Playing it by periods would be fun at first, but would eventually get very boring. But there is better solution. . .

What if the player(s) were be able to choose how many turns they want in a game: just for example, there could be 500 turns in a short game, 1,000 turns in a medium-long game, and 2,000 turns in a long game. This would be great because some people will prefer a quicker game over realism and vice versa.


------------------
JRH

[rremus]

quote: Originally posted by Vrank Prins on 11-03-2000 07:48 AM *somehow I think the development of the Zero (derives from Arabian "zifer")

I thought Zero was discovered by Indians and brough to europe by Arabs. I might be wrong...
In rest, good ideea. Maybe also a wonder, "Julian Calendar" or "Gregorian calendar" that would impose to all civs your particular calendar, whatever that is. I cannot think at it benefits... 1 extra citizen happy? Better attitude of other civs toward you? ! extra citizen unhappy in all other civs ?

[Paulypav]

jrhughes98, I have to say that I enjoy the history lessons from the encyclopedia. They're a bit lengthy, but they spur on some rather good ideas. The development of the calendar seems like a wonderful idea for a world wonder.

I also like the idea of playing with a calendar that begins with the year 0 and would be adjusted by the calendar wonder. Perhaps this could be an option for players to either start at 4000 B.C. or on a calendar that starts with year 0.

I think that part of the reason for the abbreviation of the tech's developed in the ancient and pre-historic times is that they lump them together/or make them automatically part of your civ's knowledge. My hope for Civ3 is the addition of several turns during the early part of the game and adding techs to the tech tree as well. If these time periods are going to be added more attention should be paid to them.

I think its important to note that no matter how many techs are added we will always find more that could have/should have been added.

------------------
"In war, there is no substitute for victory."
- Douglas MacArthur

[Biddles]

I think the general problem is that when techs are placed in the game something that seems so simple today can be overlooked. What we would see as a small difference in a weapon (say, switching from a double edged bronze sword to something like a japanese samurai blade) can be a phenomenal advance to a more primitive culture (A good samurai blade when used properly can slice through solid objects like they were butter whereas the bronze sword would bounce off a solid object (or break)).

Now to us modern folk, bronze sword - samurai sword, we don't see much difference, they are both swords. But they are two extremely different weapons, requiring different tactics (thrusting as opposed to slicing), and made of different materials.

Why isn't the distinction between two completely different weapons in the game when we have flight and advanced flight?

If we made the distinction between broadsword and katana sword along with many other 'minor' distinctions, then the tech tree would be much larger in ancient times. Put a penalty on city growth in ancient times and then decrease the number of years per turn in ancient times and we can finally play in ancient history instead of skimming over it.
------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission
[This message has been edited by Biddles (edited November 03, 2000).]

[Shogun Gunner]

quote: Originally posted by Vrank Prins on 11-03-2000 12:58 PM This is something which I believe I've read about in another thread too, erosion. Agriculture in ancient times very often suffered from erosion. Or said in different how to handle it. This sometimes caused whole communities/civs/colonies to collapse. I haven't been able to think of anything of how this could be brought into the game, but somehow I think it's possible. It would be nice to have a few setbacks in the game, makes things more challenging.

Are talking about just erosion or all type of weather calamities? Tornados, Hurricanes, mudslides, storms (could sink ships), flooding...

Is this where the anti-simcity2000 people chime in?