Sid Meier's Civilization

What is Civ? Is it about battles? Is it about production? Is it about building wonders? Is it about Science? Or is it about something all different? Why we play Civ? Why is it so addictive?

I remember to have started to play civ because someone put me in front of it. The guy said "it should please to you", then i gave it a try. I don't remember how far i went into it, but i remember to have got a pirate version of Civ2 that i could play on my own computer, and played it to death. Why was I so enthousiastic about playing Civ2?

What pleased me the most when playing Civ1 for the first time was the "game system". Not the gameplay, the "game system". You could do things little by little, without understanding the whole picture. You could try this, do that, and have this result. First, you had to discover what game you were really playing. What is this thing? What is the meaning of this icon? What if i click here? could I try to do that thing i saw we could do? Why can't i do it now? Where comes this unit from?

Let's face it, Civ games have always been simple to play. Okay, when you first play at it, you don't automatically know what all those menus are for, but that's because you don't know in what direction to go. But the discovering of each menu, button or option available is pretty fun to me. In fact, this is the passage from knowing nothing of the game and discovering few by few his many aspects that conditions the whole feeling i had about Civ1 and Civ2.

For example, I had this feeling in Civ2 to rule a true country, whereas at the start we have only little view, turns are numerous and long, and we don't get immediately the big picture. Because let's face it, whereas Civ is addictive, it does never give you the big picture at the start, nor pretty far from the start.

At start, you only play a city, and maybe some units that wander through the land, and maybe, if you discovered it, a worker. You play some units (weird and mysterious icons in the case of Civ1 and in some extent Civ2), a tech path, one production, in a strange world divided into squares and turns. The feeling is pretty odd, but hey let's try it it's just a game.

Oh was there supposed to be foreign "civs" in that game? Oh well, I guess i should go with it. Oh i can found a second city? I guess I should do that then.

In one of my games of Civ2, I remember to have noticed that i was "surrounded" by AI civs. Then i said to myself: I rule a true country! There was frontiers, cities, armies, diplomacy, all that made me feel like ruling a true country. I was not ignorant that there were other "civs" (let's call them factions), but i was ignorant however at which point this feeling could be true.

That's what i liked about Civ. Later, being surrounded by other countries, i felt like i had to gain more space. I was envisaging war for the first time. In following games, i tryed to lead my games towards war. What a great feeling that was! Instead of the peaceful or defensive games i had usually, i started to build agressive units early and send them to other factions's cities. What a feeling when i first "raped" a city and came into it! Instead of factions that i wanted to deal the fewest possible with, becoming agressive was a strategic choice first, then an unforgetable experience. When all that was about building, moving squares, passing turns and getting techs, i could "rape" all this cautious construction into ashes and get a decisive advantage. The big picture was more and more close...

At the end of my playing with Civ2, I knew that i had to take a tech lead, build an army and crush my enemies... but even there, the game surprised me again! I was literaly blowed by the insane production my cities had, compared to their initial productions. I was blowed by the food also, and all those farms across the land that made the game and the map look so realistic. The more when i did it myself with my little hands, from ashes, little by little! (but there was only a threshold under which it didn't hit me really) I was blowed also by the power of the battleships, super units of their kind. Etc...

So what does make Civ is not one particular aspect of it taken individually, nor the rough sum of them, but the way you discover them gradually, with curiosity and abnegation.

What with Civ3? I admit it, I was not as enthousiastic when waiting for Civ3 as when playing and discovering Civ2. But I was enthousiastic anyway. Culture borders, ressources, specific civs and units, all new aspects of Civ yet to discover! But the only aspect that really blowed me was war. Maybe this was due to the unique units animations (with real smooth musics - in one word, Civ3 unique flavor), the color (culture/territory) changing and growing on the mini map, or the fact that battles were more random thus requiring more troops to win, and therefore more a feeling of progressive and unstopable invasion? Maybe the forbidden palace too, that implied more usefull conquests? Probably a combinations of the four (or more), but i really don't know. Oh no I'm wrong, war is not the only thing that blowed me in Civ3. Multiplayer also did, although it was weird.

Now Civ4. Still enthousiastic (and will ever be!), but less again. Already have been blowed by its different aspects, so no new big things. Now a thing that i took for an advantage in previous civs but that hated in this one: gameplay changes. I felt it was too confusing. More yet random* battles, making a must have a big army, not speaking about suicide catapults. You can't just discover-a-strong-unit-and-go-to-war. You have to build a ton of them. (and beware! a ton sometimes means bankrupt and wasted games by a silly way!) You have now to think PRECISELY at the VERY BIG picture in order to have a decent game, or you will not understand anything.

* "random" can be understood also so that there is not enough overall power (with all bonuses) between the attacker and the defender. Maybe due to the 1 strenght number?

I really hope that they will go back to a more senseful game with Civ5, and i have hopes!

What do you think of all this? Comments? Experience to share? Expectations about Civ5? please let me know!

A nice read, thank you.

Not counting Lemonade Stand, Civ 1 was my first real computer game, and it was all I had ever hoped for from a computer game. For a while, I'd buy every new strategy game that came out. But in the end, I realized Civ was what I really wanted to play... so here I am: waiting for the next installment of Civ, instead of playing one of those others.

Why? I suppose it is because Civ is exactly what I had always wanted the boardgames of my youth to be like. And yes, I come from the Panzer General generation, so I'm looking forward to see what they do with it.

And although Civ is just a war game (War Mongering being the most efficient way to win), Civ manages to be more than just a wargame. I suppose because the factors of production go into it, and then there are the movies... and Monty. You see, I have an emotional reaction to Monty. I don't like him. I don't want him to be my neighbor. It can only get worse in C5. But then, no. I am told the way to handle Monty, Cathy, and the rest is to make them your War Dogs. If you can't beat then, join them, that sort of thing. Anyhow, the point is, there's an emotional reaction to the game, the fictional characters, and the AI.

Yet that doesn't explain the one more turn phenomenon. Why even if I turn the game off, I roll strategies around in my head, until turning my computer back on becomes irresistable. And in that is probably the answer for me, the puzzle is compelling. Even when I think I have the pattern, the solution, I somehow seem to lose it. That I can't quite achieve the level of victory I'd like game after game, civ after civ, map after map. And I suppose until I can, I'll keep on coming back.

Perhaps that's why I'm hoping the AI in C5 will be better than ever.
Sure would suck if I could beat C5 right out of the box.

yea the main problem with the civ4 AI (and most likely every strategy game) is that it lives in the moment. Meaning that it literally can only think 2-5 turns ahead. Almost every recent game I've played in civ has been on a huge map, on emperor/immortal difficulty and always they jump out to a huge lead, sometimes doubling me in points, but nearly every time I slowly but surely rise because I make decisions that make sense over 4000 years, not 5. The AI could never do this. Honestly I expect to blow the pants off the AI in civ5 on my first try on noble difficulty.

also I agree with the OP about how civilization is becoming more boring, not as enthusiastic I guess. Its more like generic immersion now.

It's not the game that's becoming more boring, but you that's becoming older; thus realizing that real life is more interesting than playing a game alone in your basement. Personally I've stopped playing any games, I don't even play games I used to love such as Morrowind. The only ones I still play are civ4 and Alpha Centauri. Although I now prefer to go out with my dog, or eat dinner with a date, I do find myself playing those two games on rainy days, and even sometimes ( such as this week) do I occasionally get the ''one more turn'' syndrome when I get into a particularly interesting game.

Great opening I must say. Poses a very intresting question.

I guess after fiddling with Civilization 2 the main staying power of the series for me has been the ability to see how big conniving SOBs some of my best friends, and of course myself too, can be. What brings me back to Civilization is the interaction the diffrent ways to victory and overall gameplay, not the desire to find the best way to powergame through the opposition. I like the way that with each new game in the series they have given us more options to tinker with. Some might consider this unimportant and confusing randomization but I for one would not hope to see the return back into the rock-paper-scissors method of warfare we saw in f.ex. Civ 2.

As with every strategy game the AI is bound to be predictable after few games and the diplomatic options in Civilization games have always been mediocre at best. That's why I enjoy my games with as many human opponents as possible.

ABHPage said:

It's not the game that's becoming more boring, but you that's becoming older; thus realizing that real life is more interesting than playing a game alone in your basement.

Click to expand...

My real life must just be so boring that I can still find joy in spending a friday evening playing Civilization or DnD or whatnot with good friends. While adult life certainly is more demanding than the care free days of high school, I wouldn't call a growing disintrest toward gaming necessarily a sign of growth and maturity, besides I resent your notion that gaming is by default a lone, basement dwelling, activity. Heck, I met my current fiancée in a game of Call of Cthulhu.

I miss the Civ2 style too.

Exploring everything, you know... discovering the cheap fundamentalist human wave, D) the power of trade caravans...

I also miss the battles of Civ2 and 3. Maybe the Combat Calculator is handy for some people, but I think it makes the game too calculated, too precise: After all "In war, more so than in any other endeavor whatsoever, does the outcome correspond less to expectations"

Not so when you know exactly what % chance you have of winning.

I miss civ2 where you're like:

"Can these cannons destroy the enemy musketmen formations?"

"Oh, no, they can't. Crap, I'd better build some more muskets of my own."

or,

"Are these four tanks sufficient to capture Minsk?"

"nope, the defenders rallied and made a last stand with their last rifleman and stalled our offensive... I'd better bring in some more units from the Western Front!"

Now it's just too calculated imo. It can lead to more frustration.

"Can these cannons beat riflemen?"
40% chance,
"well that was a waste of time building them I guess "


"Can this last tank wipe out the defenders at Minsk?"
97% chance OK I win

Lemonade Stand

Click to expand...

LOL, fond memories...

The game reminds me of one of the early text only computer games called 'Hammurabi.' You planted so many acres of wheat, harvested so many, and your population grew and shrank depending on the vagaries of rats and plagues. There was something very basic and addictive about it.

The other aspect I really find attractive is the need for basic tactics and strategies amongst the seeming chaos. There was an irritating fellow a few months back who attacked the game as having no strategy, just chasing a lot of details. He obviously hadn't played it very long and was looking for the clean strategies of Chess or Go. Seeking out reasons or just attractive methods for accomplishing my goals in the game is very appealing to me. As opposed to the fumbling around I did for years in Civ2 and Civ3 before developing a sense of the game and having something to base my decisions on.

I look forward to hearing about Civ5 to see if it is worth getting to know!!! No small investment getting to really know one of these versions of Civilization!!!

I think the main attraction of Civ games (especially Civ I and II) to me was the aspect of early exploration - you never knew what your units would find when you sent them forth. And by the time you had explored it all, you had grown interested in your own civilization and how it would fare in this land.

In all of Civ games, the modern age is the most difficult for me: tanks etc. just don't hold me in such a thrall as spearmen, swordsmen and horse archers, and especially sail ships do.

I'd hate seeing Civ degenerate into a wargame of sorts (Civ IV has some of that fault), where different leaders compete over "winning" the game (civilization is not about winning, it is about the survival and thriving in your own way of living). That's not something that interests me.

I'm one of those heretics believes that, fundamentally, Civ3 was better than Civ4. Sure Civ4 had all its new features and stuff, it never got to the level of Civ3 for me.

For one, Civ4 plays too slowly. Civ3's turn are lightning quick, you just feel a rhythm that I feel is missing from Civ4. Second, Civ4 was a lot of flair, but there is a point where any more flair detracts from the game; the beauty of simplicity. I believe that Civ3 had the perfect balance between simplicity and complexity. I feel that Civ4's music, as good and realistic as it sounds, detracts from the game as well. Civ3 has some cute songs, that were more-or-less upbeat, and that kept the game flowing. Especially with the Gregorian Chants, it feels like the game is moving as slow as a slug dancing on salt.

I don't know. I've been playing Civ3 since like...nine years old or something. And I still play it all the time. It just makes me feel all nostalgic. Mebbe that's why.

But Civ4 does have it's bright spots. The last version of Civ3 Conquests is still pretty heavily bugged (though it one more patch would fix about 90%) and Civ4 is pretty good in the functionality department, and there are a lot of other things but everyone kinda knows them.

My biggest input into Civ5 would just be KISS; keep it simple stupid. No real need for complex game mechanisms. Quick, fluid turns, no rigamarole, don't try to strive to gain every inch of historical accuracy. It's a strategy game, not a history sim. Things have to be unbalanced just a bit.

I originally got into CivI after playing a number of games on the board Game "Advanced Civilization". Although there were differences, I was hooked with CivI almost from the get-go. Then I quickly switched to CivII-with its "improved graphics" & better game play. However, when CivIII was first announced, it really highlighted all the things I'd always disliked in CivII-a lack of resources, a lack of differentiation between Civilizations (beyond the names), no sense of running a country-just a coalition of city states. CivIII really shook up the Civ genre-with culture & borders, resources, armies, unique units & Civilization traits. Unfortunately, it fell short of the mark by failing to adopt some of the better elements of SMAC-which had come out between CivII & CivIII-things like a Unit Workshop (or at the very least a promotion tree) & Social Engineering could have really made CivIII great (& the AI was still incredibly irrational). CivIV was where the game really hit its high mark-particularly by the time of Beyond the Sword. In spite of some implementation problems, the introduction of Civics, Religion, a half-way decent espionage system, Unique Buildings, improvements to AI diplomacy & unprecedented modability has, IMHO, really set the bar extremely high for any future addition to the franchise. Truth be told, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the very first time that I play two versions of Civ concurrently!

Aussie.

Civ is all about Gandhi threatening us with nuclear weapons.

Naokaukodem said:

Now Civ4. Still enthousiastic (and will ever be!), but less again. Already have been blowed by its different aspects, so no new big things. Now a thing that i took for an advantage in previous civs but that hated in this one: gameplay changes. I felt it was too confusing. More yet random* battles, making a must have a big army, not speaking about suicide catapults. You can't just discover-a-strong-unit-and-go-to-war. You have to build a ton of them. (and beware! a ton sometimes means bankrupt and wasted games by a silly way!) You have now to think PRECISELY at the VERY BIG picture in order to have a decent game, or you will not understand anything.

I really hope that they will go back to a more senseful game with Civ5, and i have hopes!

What do you think of all this? Comments? Experience to share? Expectations about Civ5? please let me know!

Click to expand...

I have high expectations for civ5, mainly because it seems like the devs have noticed what happened with the latest civ. They're taking a few steps back, drastically changing things that isn't fun and scale down aspects that make the game bloated.
Some of the features in civ4 didn't bring anything more to the game than complexity and a vague resemblance to real life. The game became too heavy compared to the fun gameplay in the earlier civs.

I'd like to see religion in the game, but only if it makes the game more fun. Fun is of course subjective, but it seems the devs have singled out some features that could be better and cut them off until later. I think that's wise of them.

Uh, well

Civ is just the best game for me. Period. And Civ III is my favoured one - so far...

I believe that the most important thing for me in Civ is that it gives me the feeling that I am the leader of a nation for real.

I really liked Civ IV but I hated the modding system... They made it too complicated. I loved having a program for mod/world-buildling like Civ III but I thought Civ III hacked some things by not having enough features in their scenario editing.

Civ III scenario editing problems: Too easy to crash with unit graphics, no pre-set diplomacy, no triggers.

Civ IV editing problems: TOO FING COMPLICATED and takes TOO MUCH TIME

Civ II editing: PERFECT

Wow, I don't know what editor you were using-I found XML & Python to be extremely easy to use-& extremely flexible in the level of modification you could achieve. Even SDK, once someone explained it to me, was relatively simple to tackle. So in terms of both ease & modification power-I'd definitely rate CivIV as the best in the series so far!

Aussie.

volbound1700 said:

Civ II editing: PERFECT

Click to expand...

You couldn't do half of a tenth of the things you can mod in Civ IV, though.

LDiCesare said:

You couldn't do half of a tenth of the things you can mod in Civ IV, though.

Click to expand...

For example to now rename Civs I have to go outside the game, go into the folders... dig up the World map file and rename all of them by hand.

If I want to Mod it, I have to do all this damn set up with the mod folder, etc. It is annoying.

In Civ2, all I did was go into the game, put cheat, then go to event editors and do a tribe editor or unit editor or trigger editor, etc. It was simple. I mean I haven't even really made one good mod yet with Civ IV because it is SOO complicated and takes so much time.

I finished one but apparently it messed up because it was the 1800s and I had the British too large so that when the game started a chunk of the British empire formed the colony of Korea out of the British Empire in AFRICA!

See I didn't have to deal with that in Civ II or Civ III. It was simple. Civ III would have been great if for not all the crashes if you get one thing off with the unit editor and if you could do pre-set diplomacy. In fact diplomacy in general in Civ III sucked.

The best Microprose/Activision game for Diplomacy was Master of Orion II. Civ should have looked for it for inspiration (I loved the trade treaties and research treaties). Although Civ IV's diplomacy options are not bad (just wished you had defense alliances and vassal state options more early).