Applying Real World Concepts to Civ 4

[Scholastic]

Civilization 4, in my experience, has thus far been the most realistic Turn Based Strategy in existence. It is my personal finding that many real world concepts hold especially true in this game. Allow me to explain:

A) Agriculture

The greatest civilizations of all time were always forged on the back of stable food sources. Consider ancient Egypt. The Nile River, with its regular flooding, provided fertile soil, making suitable farmland to feed an entire civilization, and then some. Egypt, at the time, supported a population that, for the time and location, became an industrial and military powerhouse.

Consider Europe. Noone can deny that the European powers have been the most influential civilizations ever to exist, and easily the most powerful military presences. Consider the strongest nations as of late: The US. Germany. Britain. All of them are European. Why were they so successful? Europe sits on really fertile grasslands, and was really suitable for wheat and barley.

Gaming concept: Focus first on farming to rapidly increase your population, and productivity shall follow naturally.

B) Money

In the words of the Wu Tang Clan in the Chapelle Segment entitled Wu Tang financial, "We all know that cash rules everything around us. Get the green, dollar dollar bill y'all." Everything costs something. Its better to get the green and have a good surplus rather than just to break even.

Gaming concept: Once you have a basic level of military security (ie, you won't get invaded, you have something in your cities), and you have reached a good amount of population growth, make sure you get banking and currency and some religion. (Shrines rake in the green)

C) Technological Advance.

Very simply: A spearman ain't gonna beat a modern armour. Nuff said.

Gaming concept: Once you reach economic stability, and only when you reach economic stability, move in with the weapons advancements

D) Warfare tactics

Hitler was a military genius. His tactics were called "blitzkrieg" or lightning warfare. It was comprised of 3 steps.

A) Precision bombing.
B) Tank rush
C) Infantry clean up.


The idea of blitzkrieg is to keep moving. Take one city and move on to the next, and the next, etc etc etc, until you control everything.

Gaming concept: In Civ 4, it works remarkably well. If you have a group of bombers stationed in a city, and you bomb the crap, not out of improvements, but the military units stationed in the targets, you can easily deplete their health, making them super vulnerable to your tank forces. Once you move in, a single infantry or mech infantry (depending on how late the game is) can consolidate your control of a city. The cool thing is that airports are not required to rebase planes, so you can keep moving forward. Take one city, rebase planes, move on to the next.

 

[Scholastic]

Does anyone have any opinions?

 

[DaveMcW]

It's fun to see real-world concepts in Civ4, but I wouldn't recommend using a history book as a strategy guide.

 

[Thalassicus]

Well, honestly all I can say is, you're right! Civ does apply the basic principles of everything from expansion to production, it's always been excellent in that regard (despite how many small inaccuracies may bug some ). There's just not much to say in that regard.

 

[GenericUsername]

Hitler was a military genius.

Not really. Most historians consider his bungling mismanagement of the army (and indeed the insistance on running it himself) to have accelerated the defeat of Germany.

 

[Yeeek]

Okay, i'm usually just reading this forum. BUT I had to register and reply to this very misinformed bit :

D) Warfare tactics

Hitler was a military genius. His tactics were called "blitzkrieg" or lightning warfare. It was comprised of 3 steps.

A) Precision bombing.
B) Tank rush
C) Infantry clean up.

I'm no History buff but World War Two is a period of History that i read about alot. That said, now about that quoted part of your post.

"Blitzkrieg" literally lightning war was not created by Hitler. It was first used in the early war against Poland, France and early campagin against Soviet Union. One of the man behind this strategy was Heinz Guderian, Rommel is another.

Hitler a military genius? What books have you read? Only Nazi propaganda or Holywood movies where Hitler is the only German's name you can remember? The Downfall of Germany could be credited to Hitler himself! This person killed millions of people just to boost his own ego, as far as military doctrines, tactics and strategies, i'm sorry but he isn't a "militarly genius".

I won't go on any longer but before saying such things you should open an history book and read, a lot.

 

[Scholastic]

"Blitzkrieg" literally lightning war was not created by Hitler. It was first used in the early war against Poland, France and early campagin against Soviet Union. One of the man behind this strategy was Heinz Guderian, Rommel is another.

The original blitzkrieg featured cavalry rather than panzers, if i recall correctly. It was the decision of a later German general to implement Panzers rather than cavalry. Whatever the case whether or not Hitler was the first mastermind behind it, he was indeed the person who first decided to implement it.

Hitler a military genius? What books have you read? Only Nazi propaganda or Holywood movies where Hitler is the only German's name you can remember? The Downfall of Germany could be credited to Hitler himself!

I must disagree. Hitler could be compared to Napolean. He brought Germany to its best.....and to its worst. It is my belief that the war was lost because of three key reasons:

A) He chose not to go through with his invasion of Britain. Had he done so immediately after the battle at dunkirk, it is my belief that he would have knocked Britain completely out of the ballgame. I believe that this error was made via arrogance rather than military incompetence.

B)He attacked Russia too soon, and left no room for retreat. This, again, was not because of military incompetence. This would easily be attributed to his Methamphetamine addiction. Crystal Meth gives a false sense of optimism.

C) He declared war on America when he didn't have to. I am still trying to figure that one out. But probably arrogance rather than military incompetence.

This person killed millions of people just to boost his own ego,

In civilization 3, when you disband a unit, you get back those shields, and that goes towards whatever you are producing at the time. Something i liked to do in Civ 3 was draft a bunch of units, and then disband them. Hitler essentially did the same with the Jews.

as far as military doctrines, tactics and strategies, i'm sorry but he isn't a "militarly genius".

That is a blanket statement. Be specific.

On a side note: Whatever the case! My statement was that blitzkrieg tactics (ie, precision bombing of enemy units and defenses, ramming in with tanks, and then cleaning up with infantry, and then rebasing and doing it all over again) works as well in Civ 4 as it did in southern and eastern Europe during World War II. What is your opinion?

 

[jerx]

A) He chose not to go through with his invasion of Britain. Had he done so immediately after the battle at dunkirk, it is my belief that he would have knocked Britain completely out of the ballgame. I believe that this error was made via arrogance rather than military incompetence

It is not really clear if he could have invaded quickly. His Luftwaffe could either bomb or tie up the British airforce, but it could not protect the invasion fleet and tie up the air force. The invasion and supply fleets would have been target practice for the Royal Navy (and the barges he was building were capsizable by the wake of a destroyer). Supply and heavy equipment transport (tanks and artillery) was and would have been nonexistant until 1941 and the Luftwaffe would have been spread too thin for much tactical support. His mistake was building up to this and not ruining the British air force by bombing their fields.

Hitler made numerous mistakes (for which I am profoundly grateful), but this specific one was not one of his errors

 

[Padmewan]

I had posted a thread titled strategy GAME vs. historical SIM to compare the game mechanics of Civ to what we see as "real life." In that thread I think one of the biggest elements of "non-realism" of the game is the concept of national boundaries as determined by culture, although some examples were given of real-world "culture flips." While the addition of religion was a neat step forward for Civ4, I think the lack of intra-civ religious conflict is VERY unrealistic (more religions in your cities is NEVER a bad thing, except for maybe giving the shrine owner more gold and LOS, but it certainly doesn't create UNhappiness).

Another major element of un-realism is the fact that while each "era" is (IMHO) generally well-modeled, I don't think you can name any civilizations that have an unbroken history from 4000 BC to today... China is probably the closest you can come to this ideal. Instead, civs rise, fall, and split, but in the game you instead play the entire game with the same set of cohorts (which only shrink in number as time passes).

In many respects I find Total War more "accurate," but it has a much lighter burden in only having to capture one much smaller slice of history. I think it's fundamentally impossible for Civ to "model" all of human history well, and think it's a wonderful (and more importantly, fun) attempt.

 

[Scholastic]

In that thread I think one of the biggest elements of "non-realism" of the game is the concept of national boundaries as determined by culture, although some examples were given of real-world "culture flips."

I disagree. I personally think that the culture switch, especially in civilization 4 (it inspires a rebellion rather than an instant switch) is highly realistic. I want you to consider post World War II. Berlin is divided into east and west. The Soviets control one side, the allies the other. Soviet germany was stagnant, poor, etc etc etc. Nobody liked being there. They therefore rushed to allied controlled Germany (thus the reason for the berlin wall.) Culture does play a big role in national borders, namely because people don't wanna live in a place without it, and will probably rebel in favour of greener pastures.

While the addition of religion was a neat step forward for Civ4, I think the lack of intra-civ religious conflict is VERY unrealistic (more religions in your cities is NEVER a bad thing, except for maybe giving the shrine owner more gold and LOS, but it certainly doesn't create UNhappiness).

Not necessarily unrealistic if you'll consider the fact that there are religious civics. Why would a hindu raise trouble in a Christian theocracy?

A

nother major element of un-realism is the fact that while each "era" is (IMHO) generally well-modeled, I don't think you can name any civilizations that have an unbroken history from 4000 BC to today... China is probably the closest you can come to this ideal. Instead, civs rise, fall, and split, but in the game you instead play the entire game with the same set of cohorts (which only shrink in number as time passes).

I think that's the purpose of barbarian civilizations. The fact that barbarians can control cities and get weapons advances boosted that bit of realism.

 

[Byrath]

Not necessarily unrealistic if you'll consider the fact that there are religious civics. Why would a hindu raise trouble in a Christian theocracy?

Perhaps A Hindu would not, but a sizable enough amount of Hindus certainly cause some problems. Would the Christian Theocracy allow Hindu temples and cathedrals to be built? Unlikely.
A negative side-effect to having multiple religions, under certain civics, would be more realistic.. and could have added a strategic element to gameplay.

 

[Scholastic]

Perhaps A Hindu would not, but a sizable enough amount of Hindus certainly cause some problems. Would the Christian Theocracy allow Hindu temples and cathedrals to be built? Unlikely.
A negative side-effect to having multiple religions, under certain civics, would be more realistic.. and could have added a strategic element to gameplay.

I'd like to bring up most parts of the middle east. I think that noone would argue that there is anything but a theocracy in many parts of the middle east. Yet there are other religious groups there. I can safely say, however, that i have never heard of a buddhist uprising in say.......Baghdad (sp?), lets say. The reason why? They already know they are the minority, and they will not be tolerated. The only real time you have a problem is when you start offering the minority legal protections. Otherwise, they know their place.

 

[rcoutme]

Well...to put my 2 cents in...

Hitler was not a military 'genius', he was more like an inveterate gambler. His attacks on Poland helped his generals to perfect their tactics (used later in France and elsewhere). He allowed Guderian & Co. to control their units early on, this was very useful. Both Hitler AND Churchill made the mistake of 'playing General' in WWII, usually to the detriment of their troops. The comments about Hitler hastening the fall of Germany are both accurate and off the subject--Hitler didn't want to 'delay' the fall of Germany, he wanted to win. He did, however, give some (relatively) stupid orders, particularly in the eastern front where he followed Stalin's lead and refused to allow his generals to retreat (thus causing them to be surrounded and captured).

I did suggest, in the suggestion thread before Civ IV came out, that Firaxis try to create a more dynamic game. In other words, one that had empires split at various times (e.g. when certain techs were discovered or when certain government/civic options got used). I recommended that the 'civ' that did so (if human-controlled, especially) be marked such that if the 'followed' civ should be defeated, the human player could 'take up' with one of the other civs he had generated in the process.

For example--Start as Northern European, later break into German, French and English (takes English). Germans break into German and Viking, later on. Vikings attack English (the human) and English wipe them out. English settle in North America (by 'trading' techs to a beleagured Iroquois) gaining about 6-7 cities. When implementing 'Democracy' (or something similar) they break into 3 factions. Vikings (now called Scandinavians), English and United States. Human Player opts for United States. At some point, human is wiping out the rest of the Iroquois, while Spain and France are taking out the Aztecs, Inca, et. al. English get Canadian provinces (as the human player does not want to attack English due to English parity in techs, of course).

Anyways...maybe when Civ V comes out

 

[Icepowder]

In civilization 3, when you disband a unit, you get back those shields, and that goes towards whatever you are producing at the time. Something i liked to do in Civ 3 was draft a bunch of units, and then disband them. Hitler essentially did the same with the Jews.

Are you crazy or just trying to be controversial?
I don't want to start culture/religion/nationality flaming here, but go to Auschwitz and see piles of children's shoes and clothes, learn that 1,5 mln people were killed there, their golden teeth, hair and nails "recycled" and even their fat was used to produce soap.
Then come back here and talk more about disbanding the Jews to get back shields.
But think first, then write.

 

[Scholastic]

Are you crazy or just trying to be controversial?
I don't want to start culture/religion/nationality flaming here, but go to Auschwitz and see piles of children's shoes and clothes, learn that 1,5 mln people were killed there, their golden teeth, hair and nails "recycled" and even their fat was used to produce soap.
Then come back here and talk more about disbanding the Jews to get back shields.
But think first, then write.

No no, you misunderstood me. I was making an analogy. What the previous person inferred is that Hitler killed the Jews only to boost his own ego. That is not the case. For good or for ill, Hitler did make economic use of the people he killed. For example, he liquidated their assets for use of the Reich. I am not trying to be controversial or otherwise flamant. I am not saying that it was a good or bad thing. I am just pointing out that the murder of 11 million people was not soley for egotistical reasons. Hell, if you take out the morality and emotion of it, what you had was a very ruthless, but effective economic maneuver.

 

[Gailainne]

morality and emotion

Pesky things getting in the way again...

I suggest you think before you write, try counting to 11 million, try it at one a second, it will take you over 127 days ! thats real people who had real lives. To relate it to a game is. Never mind if you dont get it, you never will.

I wrote a lot more, but deleted it, I dont wont to be banned from these forums but I think someone like you should be.

 

[anti_strunt]

No no, you misunderstood me. I was making an analogy. What the previous person inferred is that Hitler killed the Jews only to boost his own ego. That is not the case. For good or for ill, Hitler did make economic use of the people he killed. For example, he liquidated their assets for use of the Reich. I am not trying to be controversial or otherwise flamant. I am not saying that it was a good or bad thing. I am just pointing out that the murder of 11 million people was not soley for egotistical reasons. Hell, if you take out the morality and emotion of it, what you had was a very ruthless, but effective economic maneuver.

Not really; much of the hatred directed against the Jews of Germany sprang from the petty business rivalry and jealousy of small, middle-class business-owners who suffered from something of an inferiority complex towards their Jewish competitors.
I’d say it stands without saying that the long-term health of the German economy suffered severely from the brutal removal of some of its most skilled participants.

Also; Hitler most probably did it out of personal spite, he was a small person like that, and he had the economic sense of a bag of potatoes.

 

[anti_strunt]

A) Agriculture

In Civ 4, a region of floodplains is a unhealthy death trap to be avoided at all costs; or pawned of to the gullible AI. If you nevertheless have a city with several high food tiles nearby, switch to caste system and turn EVERYONE not needed for food production into a scientist; BOOM! Instant Great Scientist Factory! If only the ancient Egyptians had known!

(Then they would probably have moved their starting settler south to the more balanced lands in the Sudan; plenty of hills for production; rivers for commerce and grasslands for food. Alas they did not&#8230

B) Money

OMFG COTTAGE SPAM!!!!!!!11!!121!

C) Technological Advance.

Very simply: A spearman ain't gonna beat a modern armour. Nuff said.

Tho I heard some people complain about their Gunships being not so lucky...

Hitler was a military genius. His tactics were called "blitzkrieg" or lightning warfare. It was comprised of 3 steps...

1. Disposable Howitzer-Suicide-Smash! (Since they obviously have a shorter range than a rock thrown by an elderly man with a heart condition and a very fake hip.)
2. Panzers!
3. Bring in Great Artist for a culture-bomb to insta-end resistance.

OR you just play as the Romans.


Yeah, Civilisation is a great game, a very great game, a fanatastic game. But it's just that, a game. Let's give credit were credit's due...

 

[Scholastic]

Not really; much of the hatred directed against the Jews of Germany sprang from the petty business rivalry and jealousy of small, middle-class business-owners

One key concept of fascism is state ownership of the means of production. Why would business owners be necessary in a fascist state, Jewish, German, or otherwise?

I’d say it stands without saying that the long-term health of the German economy suffered severely from the brutal removal of some of its most skilled participants.

Again, not in a fascist state. The state owns everything. The key features of a fascist state are labourers and soldiers.

Also; Hitler most probably did it out of personal spite, he was a small person like that, and he had the economic sense of a bag of potatoes.

The way you talk, you would probably say that Queen Isabella, Karl Marx, among others also had economic senses of bags of potatoes.

 

[IrishBornKiller]

It is my belief that the war was lost because of three key reasons:

B)He attacked Russia too soon, and left no room for retreat. This, again, was not because of military incompetence. This would easily be attributed to his Methamphetamine addiction. Crystal Meth gives a false sense of optimism.

Here I would actually argue for the opposite. Hitler's mistake was that he invaded the Soviet Union too late. Hitler became angered with a pesky (thankfully) diversion of Yugoslavia. His insistance that Yugoslavia bow to his demands (and subsequent Nazi invasion) post poned his assault on the Bolesheviks from April to June. Since the Nazis came within 15 miles of Moscow before the Russian winter stopped their advance; you could imagine what they could have done with another 2 months of good weather.