Civ in the real world

[Timsup2nothin]

A couple recent threads have made me notice something. The much maligned AI isn't dumb, it just plays a more 'realistic' game than good players do.

Real civilizations just muddle along, trying to maintain security, maybe squabbling over territory and resources with the neighbors, maybe building one of a kind things or maybe not. They don't say 'we want to reach Alpha Centauri before the twentieth century, so we need more horse archers and we are gonna ignore any technology that isn't in a beeline for fusion.

Then I thought about a couple other recent threads, where the 'best play' has been hotly debated. While I'm as much into 'winning' as most people, it dawns on me that I had a lot more fun with this game when I played like the AI. I liked having a quality empire; pretty big, secure, made up of big cities that had buildings in them that it seems like a big city should have rather than a bunch of whip farms. If that quality empire happened to 'win' so much the better.

I think I'm going back to that.

 

[s.bernbaum]

Me too. That's why I play at a level well below where I could play. I enjoy the pseudo-history of my games! That and I find war mongering boring.

 

[The Diocletian]

Me too. That's why I play at a level well below where I could play. I enjoy the pseudo-history of my games! That and I find war mongering boring.

You might enjoy Rhye's and Fall of Civilization, if you're into alternate history on Earth. I just love to load up a civ, and not go for any victory condition; I just play the game and see what happens.

 

[Olson]

You might enjoy Rhye's and Fall of Civilization, if you're into alternate history on Earth. I just love to load up a civ, and not go for any victory condition; I just play the game and see what happens.

I just read about this mod in the BtS manual. In http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=505021 I was getting to the same point. It seem so "wrong" that one can play the game without worrying about success being a pressure to losing.

 

[gps]

Totally agree with you guys on this one. From the humble beginnings with Civ I I was mostly hooked on the "history simulation" aspekt of the Civ series (which - although many serious strategy game players don't want to hear about - is emphasized by Firaxis in the manuals of both Civ IV and Civ V). The way it tried to recreate pseudo history in a nutshell, the different character of the leaders and all the game elements that were designed to recreate some kind of simplified history mechanic - or whatever you want to call it. Which does not necessarily mean I don't play challenging levels and I don't actually try to win on the highest level I can manage. But I am the player, I paid for this game, I want to be challenged and entertained - and I want AI leaders that behave similar to how real world leaders would, an not like some crazy video game players trying to beat me in my very own game. That would be highly immersion breaking (and actually is in Civ V). And whenever the AI in spite of it's stupidness and the limited and simplified game rules actually creates something that resembles real world history, whenever it actually succeeds in telling an "epic" story - this is when I enjoy and love this game the most. Needless to say that RFC is also one of my most favourite Mods.

 

[TezaPsyborg]

What I like doing is starting a game as a random leader/civ then, once I've found out 'who I am' I quit that game and go back to the main menu. I then start a custom game and choose a map/AI civs that will be an interesting challenge to my civ and fit with its 'flavour'.

As examples; recently 'rolled' the Aztecs and so I selected a continents map and made sure I had the Maya, Inca, Native Americans and Spanish amongst my opponents.

Got Portugal and had an archipelago map with Dutch, Carthage, Vikings and some other civs that start with fishing as a tech among the AIs.

I always leave some of the AI opponents as random so I'm never quite sure what exactly I'm going to be facing. I don't like too much predictability

 

[Deckhand]

Totally agree with you guys on this one. From the humble beginnings with Civ I I was mostly hooked on the "history simulation" aspekt of the Civ series (which - although many serious strategy game players don't want to hear about - is emphasized by Firaxis in the manuals of both Civ IV and Civ V). The way it tried to recreate pseudo history in a nutshell, the different character of the leaders and all the game elements that were designed to recreate some kind of simplified history mechanic - or whatever you want to call it. Which does not necessarily mean I don't play challenging levels and I don't actually try to win on the highest level I can manage. But I am the player, I paid for this game, I want to be challenged and entertained - and I want AI leaders that behave similar to how real world leaders would, an not like some crazy video game players trying to beat me in my very own game. That would be highly immersion breaking (and actually is in Civ V). And whenever the AI in spite of it's stupidness and the limited and simplified game rules actually creates something that resembles real world history, whenever it actually succeeds in telling an "epic" story - this is when I enjoy and love this game the most. Needless to say that RFC is also one of my most favourite Mods.

I agree (with OP and gps*) completely.
Civ IV isn't an accurate simulation, but it does give a feel for history.

I've read criticisms of the AI that it doesn't try to win. This is a good (not bad) thing.

*

Spoiler :

except, I play game of the month almost exclusively and not RFC or other mods very much

 

[nerdfighter13]

I like the historical part of the games. Back in Civ 2, I almost never played the real game, only playing historical scenarios. In Civ 4, I've started to make a few maps to have other historical events played out.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I'm just the opposite with history. It bores me to death. I don't play Civ for the historical recreation or immersion factor, I play to explore tactics and strategies, and to keep my mind sharp. There's nothing that I enjoy more than getting a good empire up and running, with a healthy tech rate and economy, and some warfare in there, too. All of the other women that I know think I'm crazy for playing this game, but I love it for its complexity. In many games, I just wing it. Not going for a victory condition until about half way. Those, I think, are the most fun.

By any measure, I'm a truly "bad" player. I don't use a spreadsheet to optimize city yields, etc. I just play badly, ignore history, and win at my level about half of the time. As someone mentioned, I pay for this, I want to enjoy it my way.

 

[Daraexus]

You're crazy LM. Fortunately we all are, so, we won't notice anyway.



I love both parts of the game, I love enacting history using Rhye's mod, it's interesting, it's unpredictable and I love playing in a familiar environment, but I also love playing Civ just for fun, for the "What ifs".

I'm, by no means, a good player. I play intuitively, I'm not efficient or have an exact account of every tile, I don't use a calculator to play, I just play and enjoy my time playing.

Both are worlds you can enjoy playing Civ, and I love getting the best from both worlds. (go, go cliche phrases!)

 

[Olson]

I'm just the opposite with history. It bores me to death. I don't play Civ for the historical recreation or immersion factor, I play to explore tactics and strategies, and to keep my mind sharp. There's nothing that I enjoy more than getting a good empire up and running, with a healthy tech rate and economy, and some warfare in there, too. All of the other women that I know think I'm crazy for playing this game, but I love it for its complexity. In many games, I just wing it. Not going for a victory condition until about half way. Those, I think, are the most fun.

By any measure, I'm a truly "bad" player. I don't use a spreadsheet to optimize city yields, etc. I just play badly, ignore history, and win at my level about half of the time. As someone mentioned, I pay for this, I want to enjoy it my way.

While playing, I've started listening to old Polycasts made pre-CivV. The Season One- Christmas Special 2007: Girls Playing Civ (all female co-hosts) was both hilarious for their in-game silliness but interesting because they were forthcoming about their silliness in a way I think most *guys* wouldn't admit. Also, the women seem to play a serious (competitive) game but not in a serious ("I have to win in my first 100 turns"...and brag about it on CFC) way.