Civ V a step backward?

[Shurdus]

But it was only designed that way to ensure that one religious faction retained power over the other.

Maybe, I can't really claim to be an expert on the subject. Still I think that this whole religion issue is blown way out of proportion. If there will be a system in the game that does the exact same thing - that is, a system where there will be groups of nations allied with each other and more hostile towards others - then I see not why religion needs to be implemented in Civ V again.

 

[Willem]

If there will be a system in the game that does the exact same thing - that is, a system where there will be groups of nations allied with each other and more hostile towards others - then I see not why religion needs to be implemented in Civ V again.

Well the improved diplomacy is supposed to do just that so let's keep our fingers crossed that's it's as good as they claim. As for religion, I feel it should have a place in the game, though not necessarily in the way that Civ 4 did it. Overall I thought it was a nice addition to the franchise and I'm disappointed it won't be back. Though one of the devs did mention they haven't scrapped the idea totally. They just need to rework it. We'll probably see it again in another form in an expansion pack. Same with espionage.

 

[Ahriman]

In Ireland, the gerrymandering was an effect of the Us vs Them religious conflict, not the cause.

that is, a system where there will be groups of nations allied with each other and more hostile towards others

I think this is exactly the feature of Civ4 that they're trying to avoid. They want diplomatic relationships to depend more on in-game actions and logic (eg border tension) rather than on arbitrary states like religion.

Think of Europe. Alliances in Europe have changed many times over the last 3000 years. Sometimes Italy and German were allied, sometimes Rome and Germanic tribes were at war. Sometimes Russia and France were alllied, sometimes they were enemies. England and France, France and Spain, Germany and Austria, Germany and Russia, all have been allies at one time and enemies at another.

So I think they're trying to move away from a concept where XYZ are allied forever against ABC, or at least that such alliances are based on endogenous effects like behavior, rather than on religion alone.

 

[Shurdus]

In Ireland, the gerrymandering was an effect of the Us vs Them religious conflict, not the cause.



I think this is exactly the feature of Civ4 that they're trying to avoid. They want diplomatic relationships to depend more on in-game actions and logic (eg border tension) rather than on arbitrary states like religion.

Think of Europe. Alliances in Europe have changed many times over the last 3000 years. Sometimes Italy and German were allied, sometimes Rome and Germanic tribes were at war. Sometimes Russia and France were alllied, sometimes they were enemies. England and France, France and Spain, Germany and Austria, Germany and Russia, all have been allies at one time and enemies at another.

So I think they're trying to move away from a concept where XYZ are allied forever against ABC, or at least that such alliances are based on endogenous effects like behavior, rather than on religion alone.

True, but by the very nature of the game it is very unlikely that you will shift allies too often in the game. At first you want to suck up to the AI for peace sake, but once you change allies it means the doom of the AI. Any system changing back and forth will be very very hard to implement given the fact that a game on normal speed only lasts about 250 to 300 turns. This is far too short for alliances constantly shifting.

Also without hearing what alternatives they planned for religion I am unsure if I like the removal of religion. I can see the logic behind it, but for the game to be more action driven and less religion driven it would have sufficed to diminish the religion modifiers somewhat while boosting other modifiers. Removal of religion altogether is very drastic to say the least.

But whatever, it still may very well be so that the new system will work just as fine without feeling too predictable.

 

[Crazy George]

i dislike that civ is turning into a wargame

While C5 is going to look more like a wargame than C4, what with its hexagon map and all. I've got high hopes that its going to be more than just a wargame. But truthfully, that's all Civilization has ever been. Oh, one can go for a Cultural or Diplomatic win, but a Conquest win is easier and will yield a higher score.

 

[frekk]

Please explain to me how winning by space, culture or diplomatically is a simulation of principles and patterns that shaped history.

I'm surprised you'd even ask, but since these are the goals of various nations throughout history - to achieve a high level of diplomatic or cultural influence, conquest, and so forth - it's natural they ought to be the goals of the nations in the game.

If you insist on calling it a simulation then please explain what a simulation is to you.

A historical simulation game to me would be something you pretty much defined already - "a game with rules derived from and based on historic events."

A simulation is not the same thing as a replica.

Or, more to the point, it is a game taking place on a large board.

And on that basis, it isn't a simulation? I think you're thinking of "simulation" and trying to match it with a notion of simulation based on things like flight sims rather than the actual definition of a simulation, and not surprisingly, coming up with round peg, square hole.

But simulation of course has a much broader defition. A simulation is the imitation of a process or thing, but it is not a replica.

For example, there is a scientific simulation called "Daisy World" which was used to try to simulate hypothesized homeostatic processes of a planet's biosphere. Daisy World had just two lifeforms, black daisies and white daisies. Lots of things were absent - soil erosion, evolution of species, and so forth. The system was pretty simple as only one factor determined the growth of the two populations, planetary albedo. Obviously, the planet doesn't have just two species, daisies do not have much impact on albedo, and albedo is not the most important factor in determining the growth of daisy species. Nonetheless it is an attempt to simulate a real-world process despite the fact it is not a replica of real-world processes.

 

[deanej]

given the fact that a game on normal speed only lasts about 250 to 300 turns.

I think you're thinking of quick speed. It's 400-500 turns from 4000 BC to 2050 AD.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The other thing is that, for me, Religion was always more than *just* about diplomacy-its also the internal factors of religion that were important. That said, it always bugged me how pretty much *everything* about religion in CivIV was positive, when we know that this hasn't been the case before. Thats one reason why I'm such a fan of the concept of having not just the separate religions, but a broad array of religious doctrines too-from Fundamentalist to Liberal; from Puritan to Hedonist; from Sacrificial to Ecumenical-& have these doctrines alter the effects of your State Religion in your cities-as well as altering the effects of any non-State Religions in your cities.

Aussie.

 

[Ahriman]

that said, it always bugged me how pretty much *everything* about religion in CivIV was positive

Yeah, one of the biggest failings for Civ4 religion is how you are if anything *encouraged* to have as many religions as possible in each city.

 

[Shurdus]

I think you're thinking of quick speed. It's 400-500 turns from 4000 BC to 2050 AD.

500 on normal speed, but the typical game is won by turn 250 or 300 or so.

@frekk:
Think of it what you will, to me Civ will always be just a game that has rules based on history. A Simulation should at the very least have a goal to see what would happen if like the daisy sim, or is should try to replicate some experience like flight sims, but CIv does neither. The goal is performing some task to win the game, it is not made to see what would happen if, nor is it made to replicate the conditions of history. It is not complex enough to mimic history, and it is not made with the goal to see what would happen. It is a complex board game and no simulation, just like Risk is no war simulator. Axis and Allies is no WW2 simulator, it is a highly abstracted board game. Civ is no history simulator, it is a highly abstracted game loosely based on history.

 

[Quothz]

I don't think "simulation" is the right word to be using; simulation has connotations of flight-sims or driving sims and the like, where accurate realistic replication is a major goal, sometimes even above and beyond gameplay.

I think the phrase y'all're looking for is "simulation game", a term which has enjoyed a long history of describing activities ranging from tabletop war games a century ago to play-by-mail Diplomacy twenty years ago to... well, Civilization today.

If you find that too ambiguous because it seems to indicate that Civ must, therefore, simulate some aspect of reality, then I'd suggest you look at the forest and ignore the trees: The words each mean one thing; the phrase as a whole, however, has a unique and nuanced meaning.

If it -still- keeps you up at night, just stick with "computer game", but you'll feel guilty because it isn't a game about computers--so there's some ambiguity still.

 

[PieceOfMind]

If civ is a simulation game, then there must necessarily be parts of the game that attempt to accurately model reality. I honestly can't think of many features that I could describe in that way.

It seems to me that the game of Minesweeper is just as much, if not more, a simulation game than civ is. There is such a thing as broadening a definition too far and slipping civ games into the simulation game category is one such example.

Of course, it all comes down to opinion and where you want to draw the line and you're spot on that it's something not worth losing sleep over.

Come to think of it, one of the most convincing ways to argue civ is a simulation game must be that Sid Meier's original focus in game development/design (back in the day they were the same thing ) was in simulation games.

 

[Ahriman]

It seems to me that the game of Minesweeper is just as much, if not more, a simulation game than civ is.

Nah. Minesweeper would only be a simulation if you could only select adjacent tiles, and you had to start on the edge of the board. That boat can't just leap around the water IRL.

 

[ThunderGod]

hmmmm..was excited when I heard the news about Civ5...then I started reading more about it, and my excitement died.

The Same old tired civs are being used, even ones that have I have never read a proper explanation on being in the game about ANCIENT civilization..ie America. Use Native Ameicans/American Indians instead.

England was originaly called Briton (as Rome invaded Briton..read History Books)

Religion was realistically used as a way of likeing or not likeing a country upto about the 17 century

and being cynical...the new game will use expansion packs as money makers....so I'll probably not buy the game when it comes..but wait untill all the expansion packs are bunched together..or even wait until its in the budget bins.

So a quest for all those who will disagree with me, explain logically why certain things are included and why they keep them in what looks to become a worn out franchise

 

[deanej]

Civ isn't a game about ancient civilization, it's a game about ALL civilization.

 

[morss_4]

The Same old tired civs are being used, even ones that have I have never read a proper explanation on being in the game about ANCIENT civilization

I'm not really sure where you got this impression. Civ is not about ancient civilization. Why do you think they run the tech tree out to stealth and nukes and half the civs are modern European nation states?

 

[ThunderGod]

I'm not really sure where you got this impression. Civ is not about ancient civilization. Why do you think they run the tech tree out to stealth and nukes and half the civs are modern European nation states?

Civ isn't a game about ancient civilization, it's a game about ALL civilization.

hmm..well in that case why don't they use ALL Civs?..and have the younger civs appear in the appropiate timeframe?

 

[Dale]

Civ isn't a game about ancient civilization, it's a game about ALL civilization.

hmm..well in that case why don't they use ALL Civs?..and have the younger civs appear in the appropiate timeframe?

Because it's a game founded on having fun, not a simulation of reality.

 

[ThunderGod]

Civ isn't a game about ancient civilization, it's a game about ALL civilization.

Because it's a game founded on having fun, not a simulation of reality.

well then rehashing the same old tired Civs is not fun....

 

[Dale]

well then rehashing the same old tired Civs is not fun....

Maybe not to you, but what is fun is how the Civ's have developed. In Civ4 we had a UU, UB and two leader traits. Using those within the game was fun.

To me, the Civs aren't "Spain", "England", "Russia", etc. They're "this UU, UB, traits", "that UU, UB, traits", etc. Once you select a Civ you don't even see or interact with the leaderhead anyways. The fun is how the operate within the game. The name and flag are not important. I could as easily play Civ1, Civ2, ...., Civ18 as I do Spain, England, Russia.