Is Civ 3 A Realistic Game Or Not???
- Thread starter Attilla
- Start date
sealman
Hater of Babylonians
It is just a game. If people want reality, turn off the computer and go outside. If you want some fun, stay in and play Civ!
rev063
Chieftain
Civ3 is unrealistic, but then, that's how I expect it to be. I'd rather a game was fun, and dispensed with "reality" (whatever that means) in favour of enjoyment. If I want reality I'll go outside or read some history.
I tend to think of Civ as a very advanced, computerised version of Risk anyway.
- rev
I tend to think of Civ as a very advanced, computerised version of Risk anyway.
- rev
Hamlet
Manic Depressive
It's unrealistic; if it tried to be realistic, then it would probably be not much of a good game.
Black Fluffy Lion
Qxria
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
- Messages
- 977
I agree with everyone else who has posted so far here.
Civ3 is unrealistic. It's a game, it's not meant to be realistic.
Civ3 is unrealistic. It's a game, it's not meant to be realistic.
Well REALISTIC is a highly subjective term isn't it?
Is Civ3 realistic in the way it represents real-world politics/culture (i.e. as a 'model' of real-world behaviour)? - No of course not. You'd need a lot more computing power to even come close to representing that sort of complexity.
However, in the context of a game, does it contain enough aspects of real-world behaviour to make it resemble the real-world? Yes I think it does.
Compare it to other games that supposedly had a basis in reality - such as Chess. No-one would pretend that in that sense, Chess (or Risk or Monopoly for that manner) were realistic.
What I like about Civ3 is that you can approach it using real-world strategies (such as being a war-monger, pacifist, scientific or religious) and in general the game responds correctly.
I also like that (in general) results of actions are not always predictable (due to the complexity of some of the rules, and pure random factors) - this is how it should be.
I suspect that the result of this poll will be that Civ3 is unrealistic - but I think in terms of a being a game that attempts to model real-world history - it is fairly realistic.
Is Civ3 realistic in the way it represents real-world politics/culture (i.e. as a 'model' of real-world behaviour)? - No of course not. You'd need a lot more computing power to even come close to representing that sort of complexity.
However, in the context of a game, does it contain enough aspects of real-world behaviour to make it resemble the real-world? Yes I think it does.
Compare it to other games that supposedly had a basis in reality - such as Chess. No-one would pretend that in that sense, Chess (or Risk or Monopoly for that manner) were realistic.
What I like about Civ3 is that you can approach it using real-world strategies (such as being a war-monger, pacifist, scientific or religious) and in general the game responds correctly.
I also like that (in general) results of actions are not always predictable (due to the complexity of some of the rules, and pure random factors) - this is how it should be.
I suspect that the result of this poll will be that Civ3 is unrealistic - but I think in terms of a being a game that attempts to model real-world history - it is fairly realistic.
kundor
Chairman of the H.I.V.E.
Yes and no.
In a lot of ways, Civ is extremely unrealistic. It takes a decade to get around the world in 2000 ad and centuries to exit a city's farming radius in bc. Empires--and their leaders!!!--survive for 6,000 years. Spearmen kill tanks.
But if you ignore all that and look at the big picture...at the overall strategy and the ebb and flow of nations...it is more realistic.
In a lot of ways, Civ is extremely unrealistic. It takes a decade to get around the world in 2000 ad and centuries to exit a city's farming radius in bc. Empires--and their leaders!!!--survive for 6,000 years. Spearmen kill tanks.
But if you ignore all that and look at the big picture...at the overall strategy and the ebb and flow of nations...it is more realistic.
Zouave
Crusader
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,603
Civ 3 is "just a game" that fails miserably to SIMULATE reality, in Diplomacy, warfare, and in trading. The reasons and examples have been discussed endlessly here for months.
Civ 2 did a much better job at giving the appearance of realism; the system worked better,
And everyone who played both games KNOWS this.
Civ 2 did a much better job at giving the appearance of realism; the system worked better,
And everyone who played both games KNOWS this.
simwiz2
Warlord
civ3 cannot be completely realistic and still be fun. most unrealistic things, such as it taking decades to leave a farming radius, are still fun. there are a few things, however, that could (and should) be made more realistic to improve gameplay.
zouave, civ2 may have been better in some ways but it is hardly more realistic-seeming than civ3. in civ2 the first person to get ironclads/BB's can almost completely wipe out an opponent. one cannon could kill a stack of 50 riflemen and 30 cavalry instantly. modern military strategy consisted of "pump nothing but howies and go kill em in one turn".
with the exception of the unit values (editable), bombardment (will be editable next patch), and city flips, theres not much that civ3 "fails miserably" on. civ2 had its problems, just like civ3 does.
zouave, civ2 may have been better in some ways but it is hardly more realistic-seeming than civ3. in civ2 the first person to get ironclads/BB's can almost completely wipe out an opponent. one cannon could kill a stack of 50 riflemen and 30 cavalry instantly. modern military strategy consisted of "pump nothing but howies and go kill em in one turn".
with the exception of the unit values (editable), bombardment (will be editable next patch), and city flips, theres not much that civ3 "fails miserably" on. civ2 had its problems, just like civ3 does.
korusus
Dictator
I don't know...I'd be a little worried if my hometown had a city-sized man with a spear towering over it.
Dralix
Killer of threads
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2001
- Messages
- 2,407
I would love to read a parody of someone complaining to the creators of chess about how unrealistic it is. "Bishops can only move diagonally? How realistic is that? What were those idiots thinking?"
Any creative people out there want to take a stab at it?
Park Ranger
Wonder hog
I voted unrealistic but then on reading Exile Ian's post I have to qualify:
As a game that attempts to model history, it contains a lot of inherent realism in the tech tree, military units (okay it's not perfect but IMO the civ games have slowly been improving on this.)
The unrealistic part is the basic premise that terrain resources can be used endlessly without ever degrading or running out - except for the strategic ones, which in reality tend to be very abundant! (Coal, iron, oil, etc).
Speaking of RISK, chess, and other board games: anyone out there familiar with the CIVILIZATION board game? Predates Sid's CG's, and is much, much simpler, but very fun with the right crowd.
As a game that attempts to model history, it contains a lot of inherent realism in the tech tree, military units (okay it's not perfect but IMO the civ games have slowly been improving on this.)
The unrealistic part is the basic premise that terrain resources can be used endlessly without ever degrading or running out - except for the strategic ones, which in reality tend to be very abundant! (Coal, iron, oil, etc).
Speaking of RISK, chess, and other board games: anyone out there familiar with the CIVILIZATION board game? Predates Sid's CG's, and is much, much simpler, but very fun with the right crowd.
BigBirdZ28
Fundamentalist in a Z28
It's realism is great for the game.
Zouave
Crusader
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,603
The game mod (before we Edited it) contains such bizarre unrealistic features as cavalry, tanks, and even war elephants that can be airlifted, but not leaders or workers. For the stupid, fifty ton tanks, herds of pachyderms, and hordes of horses do not fit very well in airplanes. I guess that was too much for Firaxis' programmers to figure out.
The units in the mod are far too few, and mindlessly simplistic. Why do knights who never heard of gunpowder have the same defense factor as cavalry armed with rifles?
The inability of privateers and submarines to do what they in actuality were designed to do - attack trade routes and merchant shipping - is a major problem with realism.
Bombers being unable to sink warships is just a joke. And a lot more.
The Diplomatic AI is just a bean counter.
As for chess, it was designed as an abstraction - not a simulation.
BTW, I discovered last night that in Civ III the AI DOES build warships in lakes - just as in Civ II. I spotted the English building Men-o-War in a ten tile landlocked lake. And yes, the idiot city governor of mine also started bulding battleships there until I stopped him. So much for realism.
The units in the mod are far too few, and mindlessly simplistic. Why do knights who never heard of gunpowder have the same defense factor as cavalry armed with rifles?
The inability of privateers and submarines to do what they in actuality were designed to do - attack trade routes and merchant shipping - is a major problem with realism.
Bombers being unable to sink warships is just a joke. And a lot more.
The Diplomatic AI is just a bean counter.
As for chess, it was designed as an abstraction - not a simulation.
BTW, I discovered last night that in Civ III the AI DOES build warships in lakes - just as in Civ II. I spotted the English building Men-o-War in a ten tile landlocked lake. And yes, the idiot city governor of mine also started bulding battleships there until I stopped him. So much for realism.
Switch625
I don't care.
Then go play Civ2.
Switch625
I don't care.
Most of your rant is so old it's ready for Social Security, but this needs a reply.
If you check the "lake" you'll probably find it's large enough to have some sea, or even ocean, tiles. The game treats this kind of "lake" as an ocean. The AI can't distinguish this "closed" kind of ocean from the "open" kind. Perhaps you should villify Firaxis for THAT, as well.
Oh, and you should read more about WWI. There were naval battles between the British and Germans on Lake Victoria. Also, there were naval battles on the Great Lakes during the War of 1812. It happens.
