History Simulation vs Superpower Simulation

[Nenad]

Youngsun

Someone said about realism in civ: Play 2 turns, and die of old age. In fact, I agree with almost everything that you said. I was using that example with USA because it looked most obvious to me. As I recall, I claimed that game even shouldn't be 100% real, and I know it's impossible. However, I still don't think that it's history simulation, but rather some sort of chief-of-state simulation (for a very long period of time, of course). It seems to me like I played the game bilion times, but I simply never had that "history" feeling. Maybe it's just me. I can just repeat that history is more dynamic then the game. Sorry if this doesn't match yours opinions, experiences, feelings or whatever else. I go now to play some more civ.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 05-03-2001 07:54 AM Civ is a "history simulator" and a simulator doesn't have to have the same result as the real life examples. The primary purpose of civ is to re-write history so every time you run it you get different results. The variables remains the same but the variables are stirred and twisted by your move and decisions. People shouldn't be confused about "simulation" and "role playing". In simulation, the process and the result vary(almost infinite possibility) based on the player's decision whereas in role playing, the players walk through the fixed path or several possible path pre-designed by the game developers. If civ was a game that asks you to follow the exact path of human history that's a "history role playing". Civ is history simulator but that doesn't mean it follows exact path of human history. However, the variables such as civ, tech, wonder etc should be faithful to history otherwise it's not a history simulator at all. In flight simulator, variables like plane characteristics, terrain, weather effect,etc have to be faithful to reallity. The only changing variable is player's control.

excellent analysis, youngsam. COuld you please apply it to the unique civ threads?

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by Nenad on 05-04-2001 01:55 AM It's not winning that's interesting, that's ok with me. I play for fun, too. However: "In simulation, the process and the result vary(almost infinite possibility)" Well, yes. Almost infinite. Everything is possible, with one exception. You can't start rebelion in XVIII century end became world's top nation by the mid of XX century, and that was the exact course of events in history. I thing that Stuff2 has the point. What we need is more dynamic world (Only in game, of course. As for me, I would like real world to be much, much, much less dynamic). On the other hand, if I start the game in 4000 BC, I don't see how to win ever, if the winner is (as it seems), somebody who does not exist in the beginning of the game. I know that winning is not everything, but to play and to know that you are never going to win, it's frustrating. So, from that point of view, it would be stupid to expect the game to be 100% realistic (and probably from any point of view). I'm not advocating the position that the game should be 100% real history simulation, I'm just saying that it isn't and it shouldn't be. If you never got real results, it's not simulation at all. In short, I would like the game to be more dynamic, and I still don't think that it's history simulation.

Well if someone conquered London, its at least possible the English civ would split, and Americans would emerge and win. Not very likely, but not impossible. OF course AMerican rev, like most splits, didnt happen that way. So other basis for civ splitting would be required.

Still i agree with youngsam. You can have an inaccurate, but fun simulation. It can still be a simulation.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 05-02-2001 06:19 PM Civ isnt really a "historic simulator". Its more a great game for the earth-empire megalomaniacs amongst us - with some nice real life historic flavour. If you want to play a more exact historic simulator; check out http://www.europa-universalis.com/. A swedish historian said that EU was historically accurate by factor 10:1 comparing with Civilization-2. Nevertheless, I think I understand what you mean. I seldomly expanded my civ-empires beyond 15-25 cities. I think it was/is much more fun spending time on cultivating the existing empire, and later make a run for the space-race, then desperatly try to found/conquer hundreds of cities covering the whole map. I have seldomly, however constricted myself to only build/maintain less the 15 cities empires. Perhaps an idea. To give the surrounding AI-civs a good leadstart on a relatively small map, by deliberately constricting oneself in each areas - just in order to see how long one can hold out... [This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 03, 2001).]

The more i hear this stuff, the more convinced I become to get EU, and forget about Civ3. Still I think a civ type game can be a unique history simulator in a way an EU cannot be. The long time span makes it possibleto ask what if questions that cant be asked of a shorter time span game. EU can ask - what would have happened if Phillip2 had given up war in Flanders. Civ can ask what would have happpened if Roman empire had survived, or what if iron working wasnt developed till 1000 years later.

Of course existing civ2 cant answer those with its accuracy issues. And no civ type game can be completely accurate and remain playable as a game, due to scale problems. (IE realistic movement means either units move to fast for interesting turn based wars,etc or there are too many turns to make game playable in realistic amount of time.) So civ can never be a fully realistic simulator. nonetheless it is already close enough to one, to tempt many of us to want more realism, and to oppose any changes that reduce realism. And of course those reductions in realism are most hateful when they contradict the basic principles of civ (IE unique civs)
Civ2 may not teach exactly what would have happened if iron working came later, but it does teach important principle of historic causality. IE that the nature of the modern world is shaped by sequences of past events, by strategy and geography and society, and that the forces of competition among states create a force for "rationality" - certain strategies just wont survive, especially ones that freeze research and lead to stagnation.

Read Paul Johnsons "Rise of the Great Powers" or Jared Diamonds "Guns, Germs and Steel" and then come back and tell me that Civ2 isnt perhaps the best guide to understanding macrohistory of any game commercially available. It is an open question now whether civ3 will be better or worse in this regard. If it is worse, it will be a missed opportunity.

LOTM

[Youngsun]

Nenad

quote: Someone said about realism in civ: Play 2 turns, and die of old age.

haha now, that was funny!

quote: I still don't think that it's history simulation, but rather some sort of chief-of-state simulation (for a very long period of time, of course).

That's why, man. very long period of time..... different ages, prehistoric to modern....you are shaping your civilisation's history throughout the whole game. and ONLY civ allows you to do this(well, ctp too..)

Games like AOK, Cossacks and EU are NOT history simulations since their purpose has nothing to do with shaping your civ's history. They fit more into your definition of "chief-of-state simulation".

lord of the mark
thanks! and which thread should I put? (there are too many threads out there which deal with the issue.)