Civilization gameplay: degrees of simulation

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I just want a game there I have to think before acting. I don't like games that focus on build orders and such because then it is no longer about strategy.

 

[Plus Ultra]

BAD thing. Civ games are about building an empire for me, not about winning a board game.

Don't worry, I'm sure Civ VI will be a empire building 4x computer game.

The fact that some mechanics seem to be influenced by board games is not something new, and certainly nothing to be afraid of, or inherently bad/good.

What matters is that the new mechanics/systems work, by making us have to take interesting decisions that make sense for an empire building game. Everything we know seems to go exactly in that direction.

 

[kaltorak]

Don't worry, I'm sure Civ VI will be a empire building 4x computer game.

The fact that some mechanics seem to be influenced by board games is not something new, and certainly nothing to be afraid of, or inherently bad/good.

What matters is that the new mechanics/systems work, by making us have to take interesting decisions that make sense for an empire building game. Everything we know seems to go exactly in that direction.

I know, for what I've read, it's pointing in the other direction. One thing about civ5 that went in the direction of a board game, was that they tried to make AI leaders only care about winning (while still playing bad). In civ6, we already have some nice info about leader personalities and agendas, which will make them act as leaders instead of as wannabe players.

 

[dexters]

It's a board game. Any version of Civ or indeed any turn based computer game, could be played on a board with cardboard playing pieces and a manual the size of my desk. All the boring bits are automated so that you can get on with playing rather than spend hours reading the minutiae of the rule book. It's not really a simulation either. It's just a good fun strategy game or should be unless you take it too seriously.

That's sort of what I was trying to say
It being a game and more specifically a board game doesn't preclude it from the interesting diplomacy bits I like or the feeling of giant tectonic empires colliding. That fist turn after I decide to go to war and scour my empire to assemble my grand armee is always satisfying be it a sod or a formation of units

The ' it must be 'empire biilder' not a board game ' type arguments aren't persuasive because we have a good idea of what a board game is, the Empire builder bit is a subjective mishmash of things with a moving goalposts depending on the person making the claim . That's of course is if we assume a board game can't parlay the feeling of running an empire. A point I also disagree with.

 

[Josephias]

In the discussion simulation vs board-game I would rather see it as positive the game is leaning to board-game.

Maybe from a non-hardcore perspective, but my underestanding would be that, if the game tends to a board game, rules are more clear (note this does not mean dumbed down, we are talking about a very complex board game here), and prepared to allow different gameplay options depending on initial onset and decisions by all players, therefore increasing repeatibility.

A more strict simulation, in my opinión, would close paths to variety, by providing as successful paths only the tested and tried ones (the "real world" ones). Of course, you could still play some what-ifs, but it would force you more to stick to what experience/history rules is the "right" way.

Maybe I'm mistaken in this appreciation, but I see it as an accuracy/fun balance, (with immersion being benefited by accuracy). In that sense, there is a sweet spot were you maximize the sum of immersion and fun, that might vary from person to person. For me, civilization tends to fit the equation pretty well, but it is not always easy to get it right.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

The whole point about games was that they could model far more complex rules and interactions than any boardgame ever could.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/4815/campaign-north-africa

 

[m15a]

However, quite a large number of people would agree that stuff like the option (!) to make the historical description of a tech advance appear upon discovery (Civ1), the use of footage from the real Pyramids (Civ2), the use of historical music by Palestrina, Bach and Beethoven (Civ4) help to create a sense of awe for civilisation.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I would disagree with all of those. At the time I played Civ I and II, those features were appreciated. But now, having the historical description pop up doesn't add anything to me. (The Civilopedia still does, but not the automatic pop up.) Videos were good at the time, but they're so removed from current videogame aesthetics that I don't think throwing them in Civ VI would contribute to immersion or awe. I've already heard a lot of Bach and Beethoven and a little Palestrina - definitely better than no music, but since it's familiar, it's not as immersive as generative/adaptive music composed for the video game for me.

 

[Biz_]

the important part of civ is the strategies, not the complex rules.

anyone who wants complex rules instead of complex strategy should probably play a different game, because they miss the point of civ
maybe they want it to be an accurate simulator of history, but that's not what the game is

 

[nyyfootball]

the important part of civ is the strategies, not the complex rules.

anyone who wants complex rules instead of complex strategy should probably play a different game, because they miss the point of civ
maybe they want it to be an accurate simulator of history, but that's not what the game is

The Civ V manual explicitly states that Civilization is a "world history computer simulation". Civilization most certainly is a simulation.

 

[dexters]

I'm not sure what the fixation with the manual is but the game you ate describing never existed and would not be Civ if it did exist.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

Civ VI is a board game, all Civ games are board games, hell every TBS (turn based strategy) game is a digital board game. For all its pretty animations playing Xcom is not that different than playing Decent or the like. You can recreate any of these types of games as a physical board game. All the computer adds is visualizations/animations and an easier implementation of AI mechanics (but many board games do include these as well).

The distinctions between a computer game and a board game (for ANY turn based game) are minimal at best.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's the matter of terms.

1. Civilization uses a lot of abstractions from board games, like tiles and units.

2. Being a computer game, it could process much more data than board game could have and much better graphics. Civilization uses this a lot.

3. Both board games and Civilization computer game try to look as empire-building, but due to point (2) computer game is much more successful in this. It would be silly and downgrade to make computer game feel like a board one - board games have their own strengths and trying to play on their field is a receipt to loose.

 

[CultureManiac]

In high school I played Avalon Hill board games with a group of buddies, and a supply of chips and pop. Ten years later when Civ1 came out, I thought 'How cool! A great board game on a computer.'

I've been hooked ever since.

Yes, it's based on board game concepts, but it's so much more.

POSTSCRIPT: So I dumped the friends and bought a PC. The chips and pop, however, have remained.

 

[Verrucosus]

While this discussion has probably run its course, those who participated might be interested in a presentation given by Mr Meier in 2010. It seems relevant to the discussion about degrees of simulation because his point of departure (coming up within the first few minutes) is that his original approach to make a game as "railroady" or "piratey" as possible was wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY7aRJE-oOY

 

[Josephias]

All the computer adds is visualizations/animations and an easier implementation of AI mechanics

And a way easier way to track all stats and counters, don't forget that

 

[dexters]

One of my favorite reviewers LGR reviewed Civ1 and not only does he give the history and context of the original game, I noted he did mention it played a bit more like a board game at the 4:25 mark

So I think it really is in the eye of the beholder.