History Simulation vs Superpower Simulation

[polymths]

When I first started playing Civ1 and later Civ2, the game had two goals you could reach to "beat" the game. One was to conquer the world, the other was to build the spaceship. But in either case, the game is designed so that you had to become a mega-superpower to achieve these goals.

I guess for me, I enjoy playing the game even if and especially if, I am not a superpower. This is because I try to play Civ2 (although it wasn't really designed for this) as a kind of role playing history simulation where I am but one of many medium size nations (which is way more realistic and interesting than being the one sole mega-superpower dwarfing all others.)

My best and most memorable games are rarely those in which I conquer the world because in order to accomplish this in Civ1 and Civ2 it means I already laid the foundation for doing this. Once I have enough cities and enough economic and productive power, it is merely a manner of mass producing units and overwhelming the AIs before time runs out. Most of the time I don't even bother because I KNOW that I can do it if I am willing to endure the tedium of doing this.

I hope that in Civ3, it is possible to become the USA but this should be very difficult to achieve and very rare (In Civ2, it is VERY EASY, you just needed to built and expand your cities like locusts, build the right wonders and inevitably you would in time overtake the computer AIs in production and techs).

I hope that it is also possible to become, say, the equivalent of Iraq but still have enough to do (via trade, alliances, rogue nation role-playing, ally in a superpower war) so that you can simulate the experience of many different nations and not just a superpower.

[Buck Birdseed]

"Game".

[airdrik]

In civ 3 there are going to be many different ways to win including allied victory and economic victory. Also, in civ 2 you don't have to conquer the world or fly a ship to AC, you could just let the time pass on and make sure that the AI doesn't do either. Then if you played your cards right, you will still get a pretty decent score.

[Ralf]

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).]

[polymths]

Maybe I'm the only one but for myself, "winning" is not that important. What is important is the game was interesting and exciting. I like games in which the final outcome is unknown for as long as possible and with the "history" of the particular game having gone through crucial twists and turns. I also don't mind playing thru the game as a minor power if the world history and action of that particular game is interesting enough.

To put it another way, I would way more enjoy a game in which I play a pivotal role as a medium power (or spoiler) than playing a game in which I am so overwhelmingly powerful and all other Civs are pathetic.

[Youngsun]

quote: Maybe I'm the only one but for myself, "winning" is not that important.

Well, I assure you there is one more person in the world who has the same attitude as you have.

I just enjoy the game and winning is certainty not my ultimate goal. How the game goes and how I interact with other civs are more meaningful to me.
It's the process not the result. I may win or I may lose but that's just secondary concern to me.

[Nenad]

I agree with Ralf that civ is not a historical simulation. Just one example: Would it be possible in civ game to go all the way from the colony to the world's only super power in, say 200 years, like USA did? That would mean, in game terms, that you have a civil war and that a rebelion faction in 150 turns became mightiest civilization, while, at the same time, very strong civilization at high technology level exists and are somewhat hostile to you.

[Zanzin]

Nenad, you're completely correct. It wouldn't, in Civ2 at least, be possible to start an empire in the 16th and by the 20th be ahead of everyone else. To acheive an empire like modern day USA would require the player to be playing from the start. It simple maths - the cities take time to grow, and build units and improvements...etc. But who knows, maybe it'll be different in Civ3

[Youngsun]

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.

[Stuff2]

I agree with what has been said. It´s not winning that´s interesting, it´s the game itself. The most fun of it in my opinion is the interaction between different nations. (even though i start to get tired of it after 1000 civhours).
What would make the game more interesting is a more "dynamic" world. A world where there are no given winners at 1 AD. A world where unexpected things keep happen every once in a while. Big empires fall apart, loyal allies can after revolution turn to bitter enemies, destroyed empires gets reestablished. Staying put in civ2 is easy (atleast if you don´t let your opponents get too strong). It´s too static. On a world map hardly a city in the world are older than 1000 years. Many of the cities people lived in before that are destroyed in war, in plague, natural disasters or as in sweden: the landscape has changed (the land rices up from the ocean with between 1 and 10 millimeter each year. During 6000 years this gives between 6 and 60 meters.

[Youngsun]

That makes three of us, Stuff2

quote: What would make the game more interesting is a more "dynamic" world.

quote: A world where unexpected things keep happen every once in a while. Big empires fall apart, loyal allies can after revolution turn to bitter enemies, destroyed empires gets reestablished.

[St Leo]

Yeah, I don't try to win when playing Random Maps. Of course, the AI goes hostile in the 1700s and maintaining the balance of power becomes hard-ish.

------------------
Leons Petrazickis (St. Leo)
http://aventine.cf-developer.net/minizigg/
petrazi@sprint.ca

[Roman]

I agree too that it is the game itself that is fun - not winning.

[Nenad]

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.

[Youngsun]

Nenad

quote: If you never got real results, it's not simulation at all.

If someone ask for little bit more realism, does it mean 100% realism? You never know unless you've been in that person's brain. So how do we draw the line? The answer will be as long as

1.it doesn't hurt the game play,
2.it provides fun.

and a simulator doesn't have to represent 100% realism. Do you think a flight simulator or driving simulator are faithful to realism in 100%? Hell no!

depends on your budget and time, you build various simulators ranging from somewhat mediocre to excellent in varing degree of realism.

Enhanced diplomacy, better trade and modified combat system are all part of the attempts to help the game one more step closer to complex reality to be a better simulator than the previous one. There is no perfect simulator compared to real life so far. Is there any? so it's all down to how much the simulator is close to the reality not it represents 100% reality.

You just keep bringing "America's rise" as an example and we all know the game doesn't handle the matter as the history does. Why? because it contradicts the aspect of game play ,as far as the developers are concerned.

Civ is a history simulator that is designed for a game play. Every simulator has it's own purpose and some of them are designed to drill(pilot cockpit,driving lesson,war simulation, etc)which require strict 100% reality to be perfect, while others are designed as a game to give fun and civ is just one of them.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited May 05, 2001).]

[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.)