Not a difficult question : Civ4 should have
a) Historical content (i.e. civ-generic religion)
b) Realism
c) Gameplay
d) other (please post)
Sorry if the question is not well asked.

a) Historical content -- is it historical to pigeon-hole nations into playing out the same way every time? Is it historical to have the Aztec tech tree end by the middle ages, for European Civs to be forced into a 500 year dark age before the middle ages?

b) Realism -- I'm not sure I get the difference between this one and the above. Is it realistic for your starting location to have a huge impact on whether you survive? Is it realistic to make it near-impossible for a Civilization to last for 6000 years uninterrupted? Is it realistic to implement a random disease that could kill off your civilization by nothing more than dumb luck? Is it realistic if your population decides to waste 8 turns researching "Astrology" only to find that it's a pseudoscience?

c) Game Play -- Is it good for game play to have little Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed units, running around, creating miracles? Should Yoga Fire go up against the ability to turn Water into Wine? Would it be cool to unlock the mysteries of alchemy and turn stone into gold?

My vote is for d) -- none of the above. ... and that this poll doesn't make sense.

History can inspire a game play feature, but should not dictate what goes in or not. Also, game play is important, but not to the point of making the game into a cartoon.

I think here is a better explanation, and terms, for this pole:

1) Historical Content - This is for the gamers that want to relive history. Using Civ as an history educational tool is the most important aspect.

2) Realism(Simulation) - This probably should be changed to simulation. Civ should integrate the ideas of as accurate and realistic as simulation models as possible.

3) Game Play - I voted for this. This means that the player is playing a game first, with a 're-create history' backdrop and setting.

4) None of the Above - Probably should not be included in the poll. I guess it could be balance, but we all want balance. The question is which do you value most about playing Civ.

History: We have accurate civs (correct city lists, correct leaders and 'small' leaders', accurate traits, etc.), accurate tech tree, correct civiliopedia, etc.

Realism: The AI acts realistic, the game plays as a replay of history.... with different starting points, different neighbours, different allies, enemies, etc.

That's my view of the terms... I've decided to vote History above because I feel that the realism is already pretty good in civ3. The history on the other side could be improved (just look at the city names...)

mfG mitsho

Using Sir Schwick's descriptions, I'd still lean towards game play. And yet, I can think of plenty of things that might make for fun game play while being totally outside the scope of what you'd expect in a Civ game. (Like magic spells.)

Still, I'd lean away from history -- the idea being that you should be able to simulate your own world with its own history, rather than repeating real world history. Imagine a tech tree where Europe is forced through a dark age, and other civs aren't, for example.

It should have some of all of these (like it already does), but clearly the most important thing is Gameplay, and that's why I voted for it.

In my opinion, if it was not for Gameplay already, Civ would never have had so many followers.

it should be a blend of all three with a slight emphasis on gameplay

Gameplay, IMO, should always come first. If you can add realism/history, w/o sacrificing gameplay... then more power to ya.

HistoryHistory is already play balenced; thier are so many routes that history could have easilly taken if not for the actions of one person, that almost nothing, if history was rewound, would be the same

some people complain that making a game historically accurate willr esult in a remake of history; these people are utterlly ignorant of the fact sof history, fo the swift tide, and many possible outcomes that may have happend, and could have easilyl happend, if not for a few, small, trickle like events, that, many times, were little more then random chance that they happend at all, and, as early said, if history was rewound, may not have happend at all, and all history could be changed because of it.

I would also say that it should be 'All of the above'-mixed together in fairly equal doses. That is, though it should always be possible-and preferable-to rewrite history in every game, it should also be possible for a player to replay history-up to a certain extent-but none of these should be at the expense of good, balanced and fun gameplay (though I kind of agree with Xen that history is remarkably 'gameplay balanced').
This is why, in relation to Religions, I am such a strong supporter of Generic religions which you can give your own name to, and whose traits are defined by the civics settings of the nation. This way, you can run the gamut from the player who ensures that Christianity makes it big amongst European civs-and is exactly as it was in history, through to the player who decides to play a North American civ which founds a version of the Christian Faith which is based entirely on a belief in reincarnation and self-denial, through to the player whose civ founds the Great Cult of The Aussie_Lurker. A violent and repressive faith which appeases its Great God, Lurker, by conquering other nations, and sacrificing 'Foreign Devils' on a burning pyre.
Now, thats a religion model I could REALLY sink my teeth into ;)!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Gameplay, IMO, should always come first. If you can add realism/history, w/o sacrificing gameplay... then more power to ya.


Thank you Volstag, that's the best way to say it. Gameplay is the ONLY reason this GAME exists at all. But it's icing on the cake if anyone can tweak the GAME to add realism or history.

I for one really enjoy historical replay in a game. Recreate/rewrite history. Why after all, didn't the Mongols cross the Bering strait and capture Teotihuacan, as in the novel "King of the Wood"??? And why did the Viking colony in Nova Scotia return home??? Oh, it couldda been different...

Gameplay. History is great flavoring though...

I want a game where it is "historical", as in the tech tree and such are based on real history. But what I really want is a game where everything that happened in history can happen, and if you played it out just right, you could make history as it really happened. But all in all CIV is a game that's made to rewrite history; let modders like Rhye's of Civ make historically- based games.

sthese people are utterlly ignorant of the fact sof history, fo the swift tide, and many possible outcomes that may have happend, and could have easilyl happend, if not for a few, small, trickle like events, that, many times, were little more then random chance that they happend at all

That's exactly my beef with too much realism, history, or whatever you want to call it. In reality, LOTS of successes and failures were determined by random dumb luck. A plague could wipe me out in theory. Just as much as my quarterback could be injured in football, thus costing me the game. But in the realm of gameplay, this is bad because it means that a really skillful player who does everything right could randomly lose.

Unfortunately, I've been on both sides of nearly every one of these arguments. Arguing for more inspiration from reality, and arguing against it. Arguing adamantly in a "less realism" thread that realism is highly important, and then creating a thread of my own to denounce so-called "bad realism".

Obviously, you have to look at the big picture. There's no hard and fast rule for what trumps what.

A balence is best, with gameplay being the most important factor. (Face it, when the Koreans build Hoover Dam in 700 AD, it's not going to be a historically accurate game :p )

History, realism or gameplay?

I want a mix of them all.

.

That's exactly my beef with too much realism, history, or whatever you want to call it. In reality, LOTS of successes and failures were determined by random dumb luck. A plague could wipe me out in theory. Just as much as my quarterback could be injured in football, thus costing me the game. But in the realm of gameplay, this is bad because it means that a really skillful player who does everything right could randomly lose.

Unfortunately, I've been on both sides of nearly every one of these arguments. Arguing for more inspiration from reality, and arguing against it. Arguing adamantly in a "less realism" thread that realism is highly important, and then creating a thread of my own to denounce so-called "bad realism".

Obviously, you have to look at the big picture. There's no hard and fast rule for what trumps what.

I find the thrill of the risk far more exicting the the hum drum of having soem always estbalished, clear cut path to victory ever time, plodding away, like a tutrtle (even though I love turtles :)); no, make me a wolf! Let me take my risk, take my chances, and let me have all the more lavish the rewards shoudl I succeed!

That said, a "skillful" player, whom cannot deal with a random event cropping up, and spoiling his plans is only deluding themselves into thinking they are a player of any calliber; history rewards the felxible, those whom make thier plans with the ability to change a huge number of minor detials as events and problem crop-up, including those unforseen, and still be able to achive it; the best way to do that, is via random events, and skewing off the side of the orderlly turtle; not entirlly; it still, obviouslly, has its uses; but so dose chance and risk; bith fo which, in my experince at least, are both rewarding, challenging, and more relaistic then any of the assortment of equations used to try to mak ea "perfect game" by someone whom dosent know how to deal with the unexpected

I voted gameplay, because, well, it's the most important aspect. Leave the historically accurate mumbo-jumbo to the modders, as they actually do a better job than the developers (probably because the modders have more time!). Granted, don't let me research math, and then nuclear physics, keep that degree of realism for logical progression.... but... gameplay is handsdown the most important part. Everything else is good too, but not the ultimate reason for the game being what it is.

"Can you build a civilization that will stand the test of time?"

I find the thrill of the risk far more exicting the the hum drum of having soem always estbalished, clear cut path to victory ever time, plodding away, like a tutrtle (even though I love turtles :)); no, make me a wolf! Let me take my risk, take my chances, and let me have all the more lavish the rewards shoudl I succeed!

That said, a "skillful" player, whom cannot deal with a random event cropping up, and spoiling his plans is only deluding themselves into thinking they are a player of any calliber; history rewards the felxible, those whom make thier plans with the ability to change a huge number of minor detials as events and problem crop-up, including those unforseen, and still be able to achive it; the best way to do that, is via random events, and skewing off the side of the orderlly turtle; not entirlly; it still, obviouslly, has its uses; but so dose chance and risk; bith fo which, in my experince at least, are both rewarding, challenging, and more relaistic then any of the assortment of equations used to try to mak ea "perfect game" by someone whom dosent know how to deal with the unexpected

I agree. There should be good random events too, like a massive gold rush. But I think they shouldn't have a set amount of random events; that is, you, the player, should be able to set the amount of random events that will occur in the game. That'll make everyone happy.

My point, Xen, is if two players are playing "perfect" games and both of them are equally capable of dealing with a disaster... and disaster strikes the second player at the worst moment, but not the first player, and so the first player wins the game...

Doesn't that undermine the value of skill?

I'd rather randomness come from the unpredictability of your opponent. Not giving them the ability to cause an earthquake suddenly. But, for example, espionage is one of many ways to make the game more unpredictable without relying on a RNG.

My point, Xen, is if two players are playing "perfect" games and both of them are equally capable of dealing with a disaster... and disaster strikes the second player at the worst moment, but not the first player, and so the first player wins the game...

Doesn't that undermine the value of skill?

I'd rather randomness come from the unpredictability of your opponent. Not giving them the ability to cause an earthquake suddenly. But, for example, espionage is one of many ways to make the game more unpredictable without relying on a RNG.
Ah, but if one is arguing for more reality/history - what would you consider the plague that struck the Aztecs and Mayans at a critical point in history - it decimated them so the Conquistadors could conquer. Granted, it was brought by the Spainish, - is it still considered Random?

Perhaops a better example of randomness - what of the original Kamikaze - the divine wind (typhoon)that saved Japan from Foriegn domination in the middle ages? Or the storm that destroyed the Spainish Armada preventing the early conquest of England? These were random events that greatly affected history - should not a game that is promoted as 'historical' incorporate these things? Yes, occasionally a better player will lose - but that is very much reality. A truly good player will always be aware of the possibilities and have a backup disaster recovery plan prepared.

I would vote for a combination of all, with gameplay holding a comfortable edge.

A mix would be great, but gameplay above all.

:)

oldStatesman, this is exactly an instance where I do not think that realism and history should trump gameplay. This is a perfect exception -- when realism means "a better player will lose", then it should not be included.

Now all we need is someone to come forward with an idea that sounds like lots of fun gameplay wise, but that will be so grossly unrealistic and historically biased that most sensible people would cringe. :)

Like I said, they all trump each other now and then.

Or the storm that destroyed the Spainish Armada preventing the early conquest of England?

What history books have you been reading? The Spanish Armada hit that storm after being pushed back by the superior English ships. This is a case where higher 'skill' ended up setting up another nation to fail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldStatesmen
Or the storm that destroyed the Spainish Armada preventing the early conquest of England?

What history books have you been reading? The Spanish Armada hit that storm after being pushed back by the superior English ships. This is a case where higher 'skill' ended up setting up another nation to fail.

Had the Armada not been destroyed by the storm, it would have sailed to Spain and returned to attack England the following year. As it was, Phillip intended to build a replacement armada - if he instead had an armada twice as large in 1589, he would likely have defeated the English.

There is some validity to that point. If the English did not have ammunition problems again though, it seems as though they coudl possibly hold of the Spanish twice. Their naval techniques were way better. Has anyone ever researched that question?

when realism means "a better player will lose", then it should not be included.


a "better player" isnt even "good", or even "competent" if they cannot cope with the random unexpected event, good or bad.

a "better player" isnt even "good", or even "competent" if they cannot cope with the random unexpected event, good or bad.

EXACTLY! In fact, I think that is what defines a good leader: being able to deal with the unexpected slights that history deals out to you. Truth be told, I'll probably be kicking myself for saying this when my armada is destroyed by a freak storm on the way to conquer my lesser enemies, but I don't think eveness makes for a good game necesarily. In fact, some of the most fulfilling games of civ I have played I ended up losing spectacularly, but that didn't matter because the character and narrative, for lack of better terms, of the game let me get lost in it. When everyone plays fair and gets the same cards, it's a game. When some get lucky and some get typhoons, it becomes an epic!

Realism. Not just with obvious aspects but in abstract application of concepts as well.

Now all we need is someone to come forward with an idea that sounds like lots of fun gameplay wise, but that will be so grossly unrealistic and historically biased that most sensible people would cringe. :)

All Western Eurocentric Anglo Saxon English speaking derived Civs who succesfully broke away from the crown and formed their own governments of the People in the 1700 era can have unlimited UU's available from the start with no tech/resource/civ/religious/population/happiness/production requirements! ;)

a "better player" isnt even "good", or even "competent" if they cannot cope with the random unexpected event, good or bad.
Yes, having half of a massive invasion fleet randomly sunk means you're an incompetant player. :lol:

In games between humans every little factor influences gameplay. Something big like that would be disastrous and mean instant defeat. Do I want that sort of thing in my games? No thanks...

Gameplay.
History in so far as I don't want to have metal casting (25 beakers) as the only pre-requisite for nuclear warfare allowing for ICBMs at a cost of 5 shields.
Reality in so far as I don't want to be confronted with the inventor of monotheism suddenly summoning hordes of zombie riders (strength 135, movement 17), while my best unit is still at 5/2.

Yes, having half of a massive invasion fleet randomly sunk means you're an incompetant player. :lol:
No, but not having a backup plan ready on how you may use the remaining half to salvage the situation may... ;)

In games between humans every little factor influences gameplay. Something big like that would be disastrous and mean instant defeat. Do I want that sort of thing in my games? No thanks...
I guess I will disagree...life is full of the unexpected, well laid plans never survive the test of time unscathed - learning how to deal with it is a huge part of life. And a game that portrays itself as reality based should reflect reality IMHO. :)

Will I lose a few games I may not have otherwise? Sure, but I'll probably learn from the situation so I don't get caught with my pants down again...and I'll also win a few too that I may not have normally had a chance in. They will balance out. Again, I will learn how to take advantage of those times. (Plus, the ocassioanal loss will only help to keep me sufficiently modest.) :mischief:

Speaking only for myself, the random occasioanl unexpected reality event would be welcome in Civ...because of the limitations to the AI we can't count on it coming from them except in limited form (sneak attacks, etc.). It will help keep the game from becoming boring to soon.

I'm sure the designers would make sure these random reality events would not happen often...and the designers in any case would make them optioanal; I have never played a decently designed game that had them where they were not (SimCity for example); and with a team as good as Firaxis there is little chance of them not doing this. Again, as long as they are balanced in the overall gameplay I have no problem with them occasionally.

Well, when I was playing a Middle Ages Scenario the other day, I was actually struck by the BLACK DEATH!!!! But, you know what? I didn't see it as a setback, I saw it as a challenge! It was also cool because I felt it accurately reflected what many Middle Ages rulers had to cope with. If I had a complaint, it was that there were fewer mechanisms available to the player to reduce the severity, duration or spread of the disease. Other than that, though, it was a random event that was interesting, without being a game-breaker!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Yes, having half of a massive invasion fleet randomly sunk means you're an incompetant player. :lol:

In games between humans every little factor influences gameplay. Something big like that would be disastrous and mean instant defeat. Do I want that sort of thing in my games? No thanks...

your not a good player if you dont have a flexible over all strategy, and at least one (prefferbaley several) back-up plans in case the unexpted happens. great empire werent built on luck sir, they were built on skill, and preperation.

Imagine I cope with a disaster perfectly. The only way I could beat a player of equal skill would be if "coping" with the disaster meant neutralizing it completely.

The problem is two players of equal skill would then have their game determined by luck.

Even if I was 5 percent better than another player, and a disaster happened to occur at a critical time in the game when it knocks off 6 percent of my accomplishments after I have built up all kinds of volcano protection, earthquake protection, and an emergency disaster relief fund... I would lose, despite being the most prepared player on the planet.

I'd have a big problem with that kind of game.

Of course, if you made disasters unrealistic in that the best players could essentially neutralize a disaster completely... that's a whole other story.

Well, when I was playing a Middle Ages Scenario the other day, I was actually struck by the BLACK DEATH!!!! But, you know what? I didn't see it as a setback, I saw it as a challenge! It was also cool because I felt it accurately reflected what many Middle Ages rulers had to cope with. If I had a complaint, it was that there were fewer mechanisms available to the player to reduce the severity, duration or spread of the disease. Other than that, though, it was a random event that was interesting, without being a game-breaker!
Yes, but everyone in the game is affected... that's the difference.

your not a good player if you dont have a flexible over all strategy, and at least one (prefferbaley several) back-up plans in case the unexpted happens. great empire werent built on luck sir, they were built on skill, and preperation.
Civ is a game of trade-offs. To gain military you have to sacrifice economics. To gain economics you have to sacrifice military. If half your military gets sunk and you've spent 50% on each that means you've instantly lost 25% of your investment. I don't know how much multiplayer you've played, but overcoming a 25% instant disadvantage is nearly impossible against someone who knows how to play the game.

@dh_epic: basically, I agree a lot with you, as you'll see below.

a) Historical content -- is it historical to pigeon-hole nations into playing out the same way every time? Is it historical to have the Aztec tech tree end by the middle ages, for European Civs to be forced into a 500 year dark age before the middle ages?

IMHO, the only real History content in Civ, is the city-names, Leaders, UU's that we all can read in the Civilopedia. This is a way for uninformed people to get to know something about a PART of the History of other Civs.

I have to admit though, it's intrigue to play just with the 'idea' that you rule a nation, it's UU's and it's Leaders to glory and prosperity.

b) Realism -- I'm not sure I get the difference between this one and the above. Is it realistic for your starting location to have a huge impact on whether you survive? Is it realistic to make it near-impossible for a Civilization to last for 6000 years uninterrupted? Is it realistic to implement a random disease that could kill off your civilization by nothing more than dumb luck? Is it realistic if your population decides to waste 8 turns researching "Astrology" only to find that it's a pseudoscience?

Realism simple DOES NOT exist in any kind of History game, since a player can win with every Civ and reach the modern Ages( =to last 6000 years uninterrupted, as you've said).

As you've mentioned, the starting location(food, resources, luxuries) plays the biggest role in your civ's survival or not.

Does ANYONE think that the UU's stats are realistic? History will tell you otherwise in [almost?] all cases: for example, the Roman legion has a smaller attack point than the Immortals, the Hoplite has only 1 attack point when it won against the original Immortals and was also very good at attacking, etc...

Even if someone tried to make more realistic UU's stats, the game would again be unrealistic, since a fortified spear in mountains or big cities(size 12+) could defend against units who would have easily won, in real world.

c) Game Play -- Is it good for game play to have little Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed units, running around, creating miracles? Should Yoga Fire go up against the ability to turn Water into Wine? Would it be cool to unlock the mysteries of alchemy and turn stone into gold?

Certainly not.

Having said that, as the game now is, it's a very good strategy game with an excellent map generator: sure, there're many annoying/unrealistic things, but I just see Civ as a game, nothing more.

History can inspire a game play feature, but should not dictate what goes in or not. Also, game play is important, but not to the point of making the game into a cartoon.
I agree.

Civ is a game of trade-offs. To gain military you have to sacrifice economics. To gain economics you have to sacrifice military. If half your military gets sunk and you've spent 50% on each that means you've instantly lost 25% of your investment. I don't know how much multiplayer you've played, but overcoming a 25% instant disadvantage is nearly impossible against someone who knows how to play the game.

the answer is simple- dont be stupid enough to put that much of your "investment" intot he position where such an event could occure, and if you need as large a quantity of troops as you put in that fleet actually in it for soem reason, create extras; if you cannot support such a plan with your current nation, its obviouslyl advasiable to switch to a plan that you can support without major risk, but with good potential benifit instead, and use it as a build-up, and eventually slingshot to preperation,a nd fullfilment of your current plan.

Realism simple DOES NOT exist in any kind of History game, since a player can win with every Civ and reach the modern Ages( =to last 6000 years uninterrupted, as you've said).
hardley; China and eithiopeia, while hurt, have certinalyl survived the test-o-time; and whiel hard, it is clearlly not impossible- as said before, history coudl have easilyl taken a different course all together, and, if history was rewound, perhaps significant number of ancien tnations would still have counter-parts existing today.


Does ANYONE think that the UU's stats are realistic? History will tell you otherwise in [almost?] all cases: for example, the Roman legion has a smaller attack point than the Immortals, the Hoplite has only 1 attack point when it won against the original Immortals and was also very good at attacking, etc...

Even if someone tried to make more realistic UU's stats, the game would again be unrealistic, since a fortified spear in mountains or big cities(size 12+) could defend against units who would have easily won, in real world.
your using a completelly outdated model of unit stats; single number statisics, and given bonuses in particuler sitations cruishes this entire line of reasoning; that said, its perfectlly possibel to take the historic record of troops, and see where they were most effective,, and in what sitations they were least effective, and apply this information into a game


the rest of your post bears no particuler point in me reffeing to, as it either re-estbalishes your opinion, or is an agreement with anothe rposter with thier opinion

I would rather have it be realistic gameplay.

An even mix.

I think we can agre that, up to now, a mix of all of those would be best, but a little more gameplay. I should also have graphics as an option, but anyway...

I chose gameplay, but in many cases, realism boosts gameplay for me.

I still maintain that some random disadvantages are only as surmountable as your opponent is bad. I might be able to overcome an awful start on a map against a crappy opponent, but if I'm playing against someone close to my skill level, overcoming that start is literally impossible.

Is this realistic? Absolutely. Many nations had not only their productivity and economics determined by their "starting location" but their entire value system. It's no surprise that the regular flooding of the Nile contributed to a cyclical world view among the ancient Egyptians. And the early Europeans had such fertile soil that it was not necessary for huge collectives to work together agriculturally -- which some people say contributes to a heightened sense of individualism among the Europeans and their descendants.

But when a "Deity level" player can lose to a "Monarch level" player simply because they started out in a crusty tiny island, realism is a bad thing.

If you have a poll at least explain what the categories mean. Just reading the thread you can just see the multiple interpretations so I would declare this poll invalid. At the moment I am writing a more detailed discussion concerning the article A Big Vision for civ where for the most part I like it. Concerning the history part of it I queried whether there are two markets and judging from the poll apparently may be several markets for variations in the game.

For the guys who want to have spells and prophets (as mentioned in A Big Vision for Civ). It sounds like you want a different game to me. Possibly you would enjoy playing a lord of the Rings game version of civ. This possibly would cover the people who fly spaceships to the moon 500AD and think the game is sound. Good luck to you. To the makers of Civ 4 if this is what your making don't try and market it to me as Civ:history of the world. What world "Alpha Centuri". I am the ultimate civ addict. I have fought the Civ addiction for ten years and then decided to learn to live in balance with it but civ III lost me. I just can't play it no more. There's nothing to identify with. Thank god my Roman Legions defeated those Portugese Muskets in 100AD or so and then a determined Babylonian infantry attack in about a 800 Ad or so, now I can say I beat it at it's best and can quit. Oh come on. It's another game. The concept of difficulty in Civ 111 was to turn the AI into a being (spelling) from Alph Centuri and it's still out of whack on lower levels. This is another game. I don't want to get into mods and rely on guys like Rhye, just don't try and sell it to me as Civ: History of the world. I will look for another game, particularly now that I suspect after reading this thread that instead of making individual games which is more expensive you are trying to be cheap and cover the whole market with one game (at least this seems to be the case with civ III). Patches could have fixed the problem (s).

MUST HAVES

The AI to represent the individual civs as human beings not dickheads from alpha centuri on all levels of the game playing within the capabilities of a simulated group of human beings from Earth. As implied through advertising.

Restore the element of exploration and discovery to the game. e.g., after the first goody hut its all barbarians. To predictable, cut down the breeding capabilities of the AI so I can explore. The game needs to be more than a settler factory.

Suggestion: The concept of health is good this could be tied in with overpopulation i.e max size of the city. This will simulate the need to spread and populate new areas. i.e., overpop can mean production loss etc to encourage expansion for a reason.

Get rid of the idea of building a warrior (human-based units) its been around since civ 1., you should be able to build military equipment for that warrior. He should come out like a worker be dependent on pop growth and then you can equip him. Building tanks etc is something different.To equip him could come in the form of an upgrade.


I took up civ 1 because it was an adventure through history. The idea of changing history but within the realms believability. Not armours in 1500Ad and crap like that. To that regard the game is worse than civ 1.

Personally the civ 111 screen would have done me with believabilty put into the game in terms of research rate etc. It's going to take more than a 3d screen this time.

Philosophy of difficulty needs to be changed. e.g huge production bonuses for military units for the AI. Something other than turning the game into another game.

Believability (historical balance in research) is my vote in line with the original advertising Civ: history of the world.

This does not mean programmed eras or phases but it does mean no battleships or destroyers 1000AD. With the game as it is just replace all the units with things from alpha centuri and you have anew game and it's perfect. Random chances to repeat history or change it is what I want.

Rhyes game shows the potential for historical balance transitional units between spears and muskets such as crossbowman. He also includes one ship a combined oar power and sail ship (I forgot the name) marking the transition between oar and sail. The game as it is just jumps from one extreme to another. I want the level of detail to units set by Rhye as the standard for the next game. Diff civs not just marked by diff colors but diff units across the board.

Identify your market and make games for both. Sid Miers genre for the game is highly adapatable.

I want the original Civ 1 promise with the technology of today i.e History of the world as determined by me and random chance of the AI within the realms of what could have happened on Earth with Humans not martians.

Also concerned about the no governemetns thing. I mean, How can I be the Republic of Rome. But if it fixes the game so be it.

Signed the original civ addict.

P.s this is what happens after 10 years of Civ. You could also make a Planet of the apes version of the game. Where's your imaganation.

P.S thanks to Rhye for reminding me of what I use to like about Civ.

I chose gameplay, but in many cases, realism boosts gameplay for me.
I agree. Realism is fun too.