Civ vs. Civilization

[Bibor]

Maybe the title is confusing, but it will all be explained.

++ The greatest mistakes of the Civ series ++

1. CIV vs. Civilization.
As the name of the games series suggests, we are talking about a civilization game. Now, civilization is a term defining major cultural/traditional/artistic movements on Earth. Western (modern pan-American, Europe) and Eastern (the rest of the old continent + Oceania) on our world. No such thing as French Civilization or Zulu civilization. States (per se) are insignificant when compared to the power of civilization. States incine toward them, yes, and attribute them, yes, but only to a certain point.
CIV is a game where you play one nation and conquer the world. Get the difference?

2. Nation vs leader
Leaders govern the nation for a brief time in history. To have the same leader through the history of a nation is not only perverse (Orwell's "1984") but innacurate and hampering. Nations had scientific leaders, military genius-leaders, even cultural leaders (like modern Check Republic - Vaclav Havel).

3. No single leader in history survived by the force of arms.
You might notice that i didn't even use the word won. Leaders make wars, yes, but only as an extreme measure when everything else fails. Napoleon made war because he liked wars *and* because he was the only republican leader in all-Monarchy Europe. All leaders who used the war too extensively finally abdicated, were murdered in their own cities (Iulius Caesar), poisoned (Attila the Hun), killed (Caucescu), prosecuted (Joan of Arc), commited suicide (Hitler) or got captured (Napoleon on Elba). Even worse, most military leaders (i.e. Churchill) were replaced as soon as the war was over. The survival of a nation depends on its national integrity, coherent religion, common language, and sense of own history.

4. Resources dont make nations happy, great or rich.
Hungary has the most fertile lands in Europe. Its not the greatest power nor has the largest population/sqare mile.
The Mesoamerican civilizations had gold and silver, yet they were not rich. They thought of gold as a weak and stupid (too soft) metal so they didn't use it much. Until the Spaniards came with eyes wide open noone knew the value of gold.
Southafrican Republic has huge amounts of diamonds. They are not a very happy nation at all (we white men...) and are not very rich either.
Russia is the only country in the world that has Titanium. Anyone noticed that? Other countries are struggling hard to hide that fact. We avoid making items from Titanium.
What I want to say is that not the resource or the amout of land is that is important to a country to be prosperous, but what you make with those resources is important. If you have excess iron, sell it. Make money. Buy coal. If you can export (sea)food, do it. It helps other people survive and you make money. If you don't have a resource, you will find a way to avoid the backfalls of it. Former USSR had it all! Even meteorite metal! Still didn't build wonders of technology, happiness or something. Ok they did tech but

5. Victory conditions vs. Real Victory
UN, Domination, Conquest are all nonsense. They are okay as scenario victories, but as a matter of fact, its impossible to win these ways. The only way a "Civilized world" can actually win is Space race (from Civ 1), cultural victory (from CIV3) and Cornering the Global Market (from SMAC). the US didn't win because they built the UN. That's brainwashing. Conquest and domination are impossible, since it need to be done with war (see no.3). As the World Earth stands today, the Eastern block (China, Japan, India, Korea etc.) stand closest to the Cornering the Global market, and the US seems it forgot about the Space Race... The first one that colonizes Alpha Centauri, Moon or Mars *is* the real winner after all... just as the one who controls the "value maker" on Earth - Money.
Back on topic: Victory for a nation in a civilization game can be won only by building something that "will stand the test of time". And if the nation survives (see above) with the help of it virtues, it can claim Cultural Victory.
Example: Today World's Top nations that *can *still* win a cult. victory
- Greek - Left philosophy, mathematics, you name it. Today modern Greece.
- Romans - left art, literature, language, buildings. Built on Greece Today Italy.
- Egyptians - wonders of the world, arts, artefacts. Today Egypt.
- China - you name it. Printing press, culture, religion. Still China.
- India - religion, philosophy, science, etc. Still India.
- Ottomans - modern mathematics, modern medicine, arts, literature. Modern Turkey
- English - Language, literature, culture, science, thru all the Commonwealth. today Great Britain. Built on Roman.
etc.
How do we in Croatia remember the Roman Empire? Not from slaughtering the ancient natives of these lands but by the Colloseum they built in Pula and other numerous buildings of art, religion and war, by their literature, art, language and relics. The Roman empire is gone, 90% of the cities they found is still here (Aquileia=Budapest, Lutetia=Paris, Londonium=London, Singidunum=Belgrade and a myriad others). So who won?


I think you get the point

Kirby

I won several time all Sid Meier's games till the highest level except Civ 3 (CIV 1, 2, SMAC, SMACX, Railroad Tycoon, Colonization, RR2 Platinum), so I might be competent to speak...

 

[Dr. Broom]

It isn't realistic at all we know that but I don't think Firaxis wants to make it that realistic. People like to win by conquest but it should be made harder so that it isn't the best path to victory. Resources don't make a nation rich and the best way to simulate that is to get rid of the ridiculous concept of producing trade and production on terrain tiles. Production is made inside of a city, factories open up, people will go work there and produce production. Not only that but any building will open up jobs boosting the economy and increasing the amount of trade occuring which would provide wealth for the nation and its people.

 

[warpstorm]

You left out Genghis Kahn who died of old age.

 

[Myzenium]

Bibor, you made some valid points. However, I fail to understand how finding "the greatest mistakes" in the design of Civ without offering remedies can improve the game.

Humanity has complained and whined through its history. Few have taken action to improve the lives of others. I don't think only claiming that Civ has flaws can help Firaxis improve their Civ franchise. Perhaps if you tried posting some ideas to assist, Firaxis might try them in Civ4.

Your argument would be much more convincing with fixes in addition to the diagnosis.

 

[Red Ant]

Resources don't make a nation rich and the best way to simulate that is to get rid of the ridiculous concept of producing trade and production on terrain tiles.

I totally agree with this! I think some parts of the game (namely the whole working the terrain tiles stuff) should be abstracted a bit.

 

[judgement]

++ The greatest mistakes of Bibor ++

1. Thinking that it was a "mistake" that CIV is unrealistic.
No offense, Bibor, but I don't see the point of your rant. CIV is a game, and quite a sucessful one. I've thoroughly enjoyed all three versions, and that's the entire point of a game: to enjoy yourself. None of the "mistakes" you listed have made CIV unenjoyable, and in fact, it is my opinion that, for several of the points you made, if the game was changed to fix the "mistake" then it would actually be less fun (even if it was more realistic). As I see it, the "mistakes" that have been made in the civ series are anything that makes it less fun, not the things that make it less realistic.

2. Thinking that having won all Sid's games at the highest level makes one competent to speak.
The vast majority of Civ players have never accomplished this impressive feat. Anyone who has done it, therefore, must be quite a different sort of person that the "average" consumer of the game. Thus, from my point of view, having won all these games at the highest difficult actually could make one less competent to speak, since it probably means that one has lost touch with what the "average" player enjoys. Civ is not made and marketed solely for people like Bibor... if it was, it would not sell many copies, since there aren't many people like Bibor (at least, not many compared to the total number of potential customers). Because the majority of the people posting at this site are very serious players of civ games (it is "Civfanatics" after all), we tend to get a warped impression of what the "majority" wants. We must always strive to remind ourselves that what would improve the game from the perspective of us "fanatics" is not necessarily the same as what would improve the game from the perspective of more casual players who probably make up a greater percentage of the people who buy the game (or might buy a sequel).

 

[Denarr]

Yes, your post makes for very good reading.

What exactly were you trying to say? Or was ranting the point of your post?

I'd like to comment on a few of the things you've said, but not really knowing what direction this topic is supposed to head, I must wait for clarification.

There is no clear demarcation for defining the winner in the game of dominating Earth.

The winner of the game is different, depending on what one considers the definition of control to be. That is why there are different settings for winning.

The only clear definition in the win/lose game is the Civ/nation/city/race that is exterminated from the planet is the loser.

Luxuries increase happiness in a city that has access to them. Not everyone appreciates these luxuries, so they only make a limited amount of people happy.

As a few people have already suggested, it would be a good idea to suggest some solutions, because the games you've played are the results of someone's solutions to the problems you mentioned. If you don't like them, then you should make suggestions of your own.

 

[Evie]

"1. CIV vs. Civilization.
As the name of the games series suggests, we are talking about a civilization game. Now, civilization is a term defining major cultural/traditional/artistic movements on Earth. Western (modern pan-American, Europe) and Eastern (the rest of the old continent + Oceania) on our world."

I'm sorry, but you are WAY oversimplifying things - simply lumping things together in a "them and us" deal that makes no sense whatsoever. Or are you arguing that arab countries, china (not to mention Japan, which though influenced by China has long since developed its own separate civilization identity) and india (not to mention polynesia and subsaharan africas) all share the same civilization when they have entirely different culture, form of art and so forth?

That's blind non-sense.

"No such thing as French Civilization or Zulu civilization."

French civilization, arguably you could be said to be right (historians do have a tendency to lump much of western catholic Europe together there (Germany, France, England). But it could be argued just as well that the three parts of this western europe are markedly different (different language, they eventually each got in a separate position via religion, etc), and each have had their separate, own impact on the history of mankind.

The Zulu are not arguable, though. One could at best make the case that they should be named the Bantu, but that the Bantu tribes had their own separate civilizations from the rest of the world, their own culture, their own believes, their own form of art - it is not a case open to debate.

 

[keiselhorn]

I'm against extreme realism for Civ, reality is far more complex than fantasy. And I believe very few would enjoy playing an extremely complex game. Civ is a success because it's like chess: able to be basically simple but at the same time complex, it suits every kind of interested player in a empire-building game.

Civ the way it is today is already not a very easy game to learn how to play, if you are a total newbie. Imagine if they create all this complexity then... many would feel disencouraged to keep trying.

But I would like new victory conditions, such as economic domination.