Applying Real World Concepts to Civ 4

[necrosmith]

That was 6million Jew. Isn't WW2 taught at schools in the US???

Not really. Teaching about Hitler makes people too uncomfortable. Too many similarities with the sitting president.

 

[Red Boxer]

Agriculture: I would seriously recommend everyone read Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel, for reasons why nations developed the way they did, he posulates that it has to do with alot more than just 'Grasslands.' Which should also place a nation in the Sahel of Africa, India, Russia and China well within the food requirements. You need access to everything in civ, food just isn't going to cut it.

Military concepts in Civ have, always been lacking (but one shouldn't play Civ if they want such things).

Using your armies and navies you are not able to acquire land alone through said means. You must acquire (or destroy) an enemy's city in order to do so. And even then your military does not actually do that job, but culture does.

In a tactical sense Civ's AI has behaved similarly for quite some time. When you go to war with an enemy, at the beginning you will face a large portion of their army (holding only their defenders in reserve). You need to withstand this attack and then prepare for them to attack in a thin stream. On the attack armies are rather medieval, applying a spearheaded attack of brute force to a position (city), with little regard for manuever. There are no real fronts, only the aformentioned spearhead to take a city. Thusly the concept of a blitzkrieg attack is useless, as an enemy has no actual supply lines and control center from with they are being separated. A doctrine truer to Civ would be one of mass/concentrated assault, not one designed to pocket an army between an armoured spearhead and its infantry.

The one thing I always felt lacking in Civ was its (the world) dynamism. Short of war, the world is rather static (though the more vicious culture in Civ4 is nice). Very rarely did I ever see Civs fail on their own (AI egypt could in civ2 if she neglected to improve her tiles quickly, because of a food drain fear). I have often thought about how to represent real world happenings. For example some way to represent revolutions and civil wars would be great. The USA doesn't really have a way to exist within the 'rules' of Civ. In Civ2 if someone took the capital of a large civ it could split, but who took London?

I have always enjoyed Sid's games. I enjoy them for their vastness. There are other games which do well to show more narrow points in time or idea, but Civ does nicely showing a loose and open picture of the world.

Would everyone please keep it on topic as well.

 

[CivCorpse]

He's referring to State Property in the game. Zero upkeep, removes all distance-based maintenance, and provides bonus food to many improvements.

I thought state property only gave the food bonus. I think it is the Kremlin wonder that removes distance penalties

 

[Ozyman8]

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.

Funny! Civilization is awesome, but it's not an accurate military simulation.

1. How many suicide Howitzers did the US use in the Iraq conflict?

2. How many knights does it take to defeat an Apache gunship?

3. How many cavalry men would have to charge across an open plain to take out a heavy machine gun?

4. 120 swordsmen carrying no siege equipment attack a castle. A defending force of 10 swordsmen and 30 longbowmen raise the drawbridge. Reinforcements will arrive to protect the castle in three days. Who will win?

5. If 10 macemen attack a castle defended by 100 swordsmen and 10 longbowmen, would they be able to reach the longbowmen without engaging the swordsmen?

Answers:
1. Siege weapons are not used as suicide weapons.
2. Melee weapons are ineffective against Air weapons.
3. Machine guns can devastate cavalry from far away.
4. Siege weapons, treachery, or long-term blockades are needed to defeat castles.
5. Weapons ranges {melee, ranged, seige} are important and enemies don't attack one-by-one.

 

[sandman_civ]

Ozyman8 I agree completely, that has also been one of my gripes. Although it could be possible in real life for an upgraded unit such as a "knight" to defeat a gunship - you would have a modern knight action hero type who can aim some sort of weapon at the gunship pilot to bring it down. However I agree there should be far greater penalties between units of different eras. Does not make sense that a knight is 10 but a musketman is 9. However a knight of 10 could very well beat an injured musketman of 5 as 2 knights rushing 1 musketman have a chance as the musketmen used to take quite a while to reload.

Back to the original poster's opinion about historical accuracy - yes civ4 is remarkably accurate and simulates the ages very well, and quite educational to boot.

 

[Yaype]

My prejudice that Americans are ignorant is getting stronger when reading this... Please read some books about WW2, or watch a few films.

Yes, when in doubt, bash Americans for being ignorant. Please keep these kinds of comments to the Off Topic forum where they are more appreciated (and where people like myself do not have to read them, having gotten sick of all the trolling and flaming of other nationalities, belief systems, etc. that go on in that forum).

As for the rest of this thread, I would have to say it was a bad idea from the get go. Civ 1, 2, 3, nor 4 is real life, and it is best to keep that in mind.

Now please, some civility.