Historical Immersion Factor

[anti_strunt]

Historical immersion is no worse in V than any previous incarnation of the game, once you understand how previous incarnations worked. Threads like this distract from the game's real problems.

"Immersion" is often equated with "lots of stuff", and by most metrics there is less "stuff" in 5 than in 4 BTS...
Quantity is easier to measure than quality, after all.

If you feel that Civ5 diplomacy is sensible and "realistic" than really I don't know what to say any further. I understand the point that perhaps Civ4 was a bit too transparent but still the point stands that real-life nations would never behave the way Civ5 AIs. Even multiplayer all-human games where everyone is trying to win don't behave nonsensically like the AIs do. I mean, play a MP game where you try to behave just like a Civ5 AI and see how that goes...

True that real-life diplomacy is somewhat more opaque than Civ4's transparent model (but take care that mods fix this and also some AIs will attack you even when pleased or friendly). But IRL you're not going to have allies like Japan and Canada sudden turn on you or US suddenly deciding that it needs to backstab Canada because suddenly it is a weak neighboring Civ riped for conquest. That is because there are true costs and drawbacks to such actions.

What does the intricate and legalistic diplomatic network of post-Westphalian modern nation states have to do with what passed for diplomatic relations for most of human history? People waging war every other generation for any reason or no real reason seems a fair approximation of the vast bulk of the period 4000BC-2000AD...

To continue your metaphor, if Canada invaded Mexico today, should America still be "Pleased" because "We're brothers and sisters of the faith", and because Canada sold America some Furs back in the year 1500 or whenever? How much sense does that make?

 

[eric_]

One of the things I liked about Civ IV is having a solid "block" of territory that I would define as my nation. In Civ V it's more like a collection of city-states. Say what you will about the historicity of that.

I can see that being a game preference (and nothing prevents playing that way in ciV), but a collection of city-states is probably more strictly “realistic” in terms of how spheres of influence looked early in the rise of human civilizations. It even holds true today: look at Waziristan and other parts of NW Pakistan, or really the ME and much of Central Asia post-Ottomans and post-USSR, respectively.

If you feel that Civ5 diplomacy is sensible and "realistic" than really I don't know what to say any further.

I said I think it’s more sensible and realistic than Civ4 diplo; I didn’t say it’s as sensible and realistic as real life (not that real life diplo strikes me as "sensible", and certainly unrealistic demands arise at every turn).

In Civ you have wars every 20 turns. The depicted time may be these 30 - 50 years, but for the player it is just "Wft, again????"
To give the feeling of immersion, the game has to feel "plausible".

I’m just not having this problem. My last game featured one very short war, which I started to grab a city Askia planted in the heart of my territory.

If you don't put cities really close together you will find that there are "holes" in the covered area. You have a circle of five or six cities, and in the middle there is an area of ... nothing? You cannot send your peasants there to chop some wood or do some mining?

I think this is absolutely realistic. It’s still quite difficult to harvest resources located deep in large swaths of forest in one's own territory, for example, and we have machinery that makes it exponentially easier than it was 3000 years ago or even 150 years ago. Add the threat of wild animals, "barbarians," etc, and I think you have a much more realistic analog with the patchy early civs that are viable in ciV. Again, though, you can build a tight-knit empire from the get-go in ciV if that's your preference.

To continue your metaphor, if Canada invaded Mexico today, should America still be "Pleased" because "We're brothers and sisters of the faith", and because Canada sold America some Furs back in the year 1500 or whenever? How much sense does that make?

 

[eric_]

By the way, I'm finding I understand and can successfully navigate diplomacy in V more and more effectively with each game. You definitely have to read between the lines, though.

If you want to trade with someone against whom you have a Pact of Secrecy, make a Pact of Secrecy with them against your other partner, or, accept that your trading will anger your original partner. Just one example.

 

[Paradigne]

I think that this game has more potential to have historical immersion that any of the earlier versions. I mean how realistic is the stack of doom? With 1upt I at least feel more like Napoleon, sitting on the hilltop directing his men here and there, holding of his cavalry, protecting his cannon, etc...

 

[kaltorak]

I think that this game has more potential to have historical immersion that any of the earlier versions. I mean how realistic is the stack of doom? With 1upt I at least feel more like Napoleon, sitting on the hilltop directing his men here and there, holding of his cavalry, protecting his cannon, etc...

I don't think the players complaining about civ5 immersion are talking about 1upt. 1up raises many problems, but I don't think you can say it's less immersive than stacks. And I think its much cooler.

But everything else is totally unimmersive (if that word doesnt exist you know what I mean )

 

[eric_]

But everything else is totally unimmersive

It's amazing how fans of the same game series can have such diametrically opposed reactions to its various installations. I find this iteration to be deeply immersing, partly in terms of actual history, but especially when it comes to the unique "history" of each game that I play (which is far more important for me...if I want to become immersed in real history, I read books).

 

[ShuShu62]

I guess for you if things were renamed Faction1, Tech1, etc, that you don't care much.

Thank heavens Master of Orion called the shield levels I-XV, the historical immersion would have been totally ruined if they had called the shield levels 1-15.

Historical immersion is in the mind of the beholder, not in a name.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

We can point out all sorts of flaws of Civ4 vanilla vs Civ5 vanilla but the issues I have is that in many areas where Civ5 made changes from Civ4, it made the game feel more gamey and abstract and artificial vs what I had from Civ4.

I pointed out BTS 3.19 flaws, not vanilla. If you don't think civ IV was gamey, you simply didn't know how to play it at a high level.

First as far as Civ5 "diplomacy" is concerned being "realistic", that's just really bizarre to say the least. There's already been many threads on this but suffice it to say that nations in real life history do not deal with each other like AI nations in Civ5. This is because IRL war is a lot more costly and has drawbacks in terms of the costs of waging war but also war weariness and also in terms of damaging and disrupting trade relations, its effect on world opinion and dealing with rebellions and such etc. Civ4 vanilla is flawed for sure but if you compare the two, it definitely feels a lot more "real" to me than nonsense Civ5 "diplomacy".

You are making yourself look very, very bad. If you're going to argue about the merits of previous games vs this one, do try to actually understand the mechanics of those games which have been DOCUMENTED ON THIS FORUM. IV's AI behaved no more realistically than any other in the series. Hell, in IV the AI didn't care if you killed people off one after the other as long as they didn't like them actively. In V, they care, so you're already behind. You lose trade relations/etc in both games.

Civ BTS 3.19 still has AIs that implode, don't try, and act 100% on dice rolls without any attempt to win at all outside of a culturemonger or two. You don't think PERMANENTLY locking the AI out of war is "gamey", but that some tricks in V are? That gifting nukes to both sides as a neutral nation with NO PENALTY is fine? Really? Are you REALLY going to try to go this route? How can you possibly expect us to believe you know what you're talking about when you ignore points like that?

If Civ5 diplomacy is true, the the US should be marching on Canada and conquering it right now as it is weak Civ compared to the US.

Can the BS arguments. Half the civs or more in IV would be marching all over canada. There are limitations of reality in-game.

As for other examples, take "global happiness" mechanic vs the Civ4 mechanics. As already pointed out, it just doesn't makes sense as something called happiness based on its overall effects and only makes sense if you just give up and consider it an abstract game mechanics and call it "Shafer Rating".

Oh, you mean like that GLOBAL science and gold slider, which were DEPENDENT on each other? Or that...ahem...CULTURE slider which also had a global impact on happiness? Not all mechanics make real sense, the are there for balance, and you've gone far away from "immersive" as a topic focus in your fail arguments, BTW.

I could go on and on. Yes Civ4 is far from realistic or totally historical immersive. But Civ5's changes for me and others make feel even less so. And comparing Civ5 to highly immersive mods like RoM/AND, it is no comparison at all.

So basically your argument for civ V being less immersive than other titles in the series is that:

1. You don't understand the mechanics in any of them (which you have clearly demonstrated) and happen to like the not-understood mechanics for V least.
2. You like to know that an AI you meet will do exactly the same thing every time because that is "immersive" and somehow "more realistic"
3. None of the games are realistic so that makes earlier ones more immersive
4. You are fine with some nonsense global mechanics, but not others.
5. You like mods done by competent people, who have not yet had time to make them for a newly released game.

I'm afraid that you're not standing on solid grounds, as far as arguments go.

"Immersion" is often equated with "lots of stuff", and by most metrics there is less "stuff" in 5 than in 4 BTS...
Quantity is easier to measure than quality, after all.

Are you going to give us an unbiased line-item analysis of the two releases, or are you just making something up to blow hot air?

Look, I know a LOT of things suck about civ V, but that doesn't mean people get to ignore previous flaws or make up flaws that detract from the real issue without being called on it.

 

[eric_]

MeInTeam, I'm pretty sure this was intended as a criticism of what many consider to be "immersion," and in turn use as a basis to argue that ciV is less immersing:

"Immersion" is often equated with "lots of stuff", and by most metrics there is less "stuff" in 5 than in 4 BTS...
Quantity is easier to measure than quality, after all.

 

[ShuShu62]

...to spreading in all directions at an equal pace outward from where they first settled.

Although, anthropological/archeological evidence appears to indicate humanity did exactly that.

I think a more accurate view of expansion from historical perspective comes from physics. People are a gas that expands evenly to fill all available space.

Hubs and spokes then arise around transportation hubs (either rare commodity proximity, or easier transportation) similar to the introduction of condensors. The gas is still distributed across the entire space, but denser near the condensors.

 

[eric_]

Although, anthropological/archeological evidence appears to indicate humanity did exactly that.

How so, and/or, on what scale?

I mean, over time, yes, humanity has spread...everywhere.

But early on, when populations were much, much smaller, I don't see it as a reliable model that a given culture would radiate out from a core in a uniformly concentric fashion.

 

[polypheus]

@TheMeInTeam

You are still missing the point. The changes in Civ5 for many feel more gamey and less immersive. As has been said many times, it feels more like a pure "board-game" and less like a "god-game" or whatever. This is subjective but many people feel it. Now perhaps you are one of those super high level Civ4:BTS players that have seen through the games and therefore you see through the flaws and gameyness of both. But that is perhaps the problem here . I am NOT actually a high level player in the sense of trying to look at all sorts of loopholes and such to try to beat the game. I don't play like that. (But for those that do and see Civ as more of a "challenge-game" to beat I can see where you are coming from.) So for you if you looked very deeply you feel some flaws are equal, they are not if you look a bit further away if that makes sense to you.

You can say that Civ4 or even Civ4BTS was flawed but the changes that Civ5 made it even more so in the opinion of others. But it is all opinion and I can't convince you and you won't convince me either. For you, you sees lots of flaws of Civ4 and also admit flaws exist in Civ5 and feel they are both equally immersive to you. Again you are welcomed to that opinion but again many people disagree.

For example lots of people have already commented well on the strange effects of global happiness such as building circuses and colosseums in podunk towns have empire-wide effects and winning a war and annexing cities makes your empire less happy, etc that don't really make sense compared to Civ4 system. So here for many, global happiness is a step backwards in immersiveness. Many people actually agree and want some form of local happiness back. But if you insist that global happiness system of Civ5 is no less immersive than Civ5's system, then really there is nothing more to say. I can't convince you nor do I care to.

As for other aspects, again it is still all opinion so its pointless. I never claimed that the historical immersion factor can be "objectively determined". So there's no reason to give line by line account on them because your response is already going to be predicable. You are going to point out all the flaws of Civ4 without considering that not all flaws are equal in the opinion of many in whether it is more or less historically immersive or not.

I mean to take an extreme example, most people would say that Civ4:BTS/RAND is far and away much more historically immersive than Civ1. Yet I would see that you would be the type that would nitpick to death all the flaws even of Civ4:BTS/RAND and say it is no more historically immersive than Civ1 in the end. But that is missing the "big picture". If I have ASCII art or high resolution art, at the end of the day it is just pixels if you look "deeply enough". But if you step back, then one looks a lot more "real" than the other.

 

[eric_]

building circuses and colosseums in podunk towns have empire-wide effects

Sounds like domestic tourism to me. What the hell did Orlando have to offer prior to 1971?

and winning a war and annexing cities makes your empire less happy, etc that don't really make sense compared to Civ4 system.

Americans just *love* it when our government occupies and nation builds!

 

[Lone Wolf]

Think of "global happiness" as more of an "empire stability".

 

[ShuShu62]

How so, and/or, on what scale?

I mean, over time, yes, humanity has spread...everywhere.

But early on, when populations were much, much smaller, I don't see it as a reliable model that a given culture would radiate out from a core in a uniformly concentric fashion.

I saw a lot of folks dissing Guns Germs and Steel earlier, but just read the first chapter.

Look at US history for another example in modern times.

I think the Mongols and the Russians also exhibited that pattern.

 

[eric_]

I saw a lot of folks dissing Guns Germs and Steel earlier, but just read the first chapter.

I've read the whole book, as well as Collapse. I also hold an anthro/sociology degree, which involved reading a lot about cultures and their development. I've never seen anything suggesting that human cultures spread concentrically with any reliability. I mean, sure, take America: you're telling me that culture spread out of Jamestown or Plymouth or St. Mary's equally quickly in all directions?

And, what about Jared Diamond's book supports this?

 

[ShuShu62]

I've read the whole book, as well as Collapse. I also hold an anthro/sociology degree, which involved reading a lot about cultures and their development. I've never seen anything suggesting that human cultures spread concentrically with any reliability. I mean, sure, take America: you're telling me that culture spread out of Jamestown or Plymouth or St. Mary's equally quickly in all directions?

And, what about Jared Diamond's book supports this?

GGS...
Extinction dates of large animals does radiate out from cultural centers

US
You don't think a time lapse view would show expansion radiating out of Jamestown and Plymouth. New england is an easy example as it clearly radiated from plymoth to Connecticut and Rhode Island for religious reasons.

I would even view the US, Canada, Australia, and India as an example of england's culture radiating out.

 

[eric_]

Extinction dates of large animals does radiate out from cultural centers

First, the issue isn't whether or not culture radiates out from cultural centers (it does), but rather, what patterns it follows (if any) as it does. Second, just because a group goes on hunting expeditions in an area doesn't mean their culture has spread to that area. Third, it's a theory of Diamond's that human actions led to mas extinctions in North America, not a fact. Fourth, even if Diamond is right about those extinctions, a) all cultures present in North America are cited by Diamond as the root cause, not a single culture that radiated out uniformly in all directions and b) any hypothetical culture that has led to mass extinction on that scale all by itself has *far* surpassed the scale implied by a single city that has just established itself and started spreading its fledgling culture.

I would even view the US, Canada, Australia, and India as an example of england's culture radiating out.

First, again, this is way out of scale with the beginning of a game of civ where you have one city's culture spreading. Second, culture spreading from England to US, Canada, Australia, and India hardly gives the impression of a concentric circle.

 

[polypheus]

Sounds like domestic tourism to me. What the hell did Orlando have to offer prior to 1971?

I see, so all those circuses and colosseums in podunk towns are supposed to represent Disneylands etc that have empire-wide effects. Doesn't work for me. And furthermore, you are forgetting the second aspect which is that the game encourages you to keep those podunk towns small as lots of podunk towns are much more powerful than a NYC. Again doesn't work for me in terms of historical immersion. But whatever.

Americans just *love* it when our government occupies and nation builds!

Only when the US is actually losing the war and suffering lots of losses. Not usually when it is actually winning the war. Anyway Civ4's war weariness as well as local resistors in occupied lands already model this. The point is that Civ4, IMHO, models it "better". Civ5 is not actually modeling that at all, it is simply more population means more unhappiness and therefore it encourages one to raze a ton of cities.

 

[eric_]

I see, so all those circuses and colosseums in podunk towns are supposed to represent Disneylands etc that have empire-wide effects.

In DC, for a looooooooooooong time, we didn't have a baseball team, so a lot of people were Orioles fans and traveled to another city to see a game.

Granted, this has mostly been a net unhappiness for the empire, because the Os suck, hon!

Seriously, though I don't know what it's "supposed" to represent, but a very small amount of imaginative thinking brings many real-life analogs to mind.

Only when the US is actually losing the war and suffering lots of losses. Not usually when it is actually winning the war.

Er, not really. Iraq always induced a lot of anger, even during the early phase were we completely overwhelmed them. Also, Clinton caught tons of flack for nation-building in the Balkans.

The point is that Civ4, IMHO, models it "better".

I don't think either really deals with it realistically. When has citizen unrest ever actually stopped a war or otherwise caused a tangible change in military policy?

I do agree it's odd that razing a city induces less anger than puppeting; however, it's not your only option: you could also just not conquer a bunch of cities and go a more peaceful route.

It makes sense that annexing would cause more anger on average in your empire, because all the people in the new city are gonna be pissed. Interestingly, in that situation, unhappiness is more localized, or at least, it is addressed in a more localized fashion.

Actually, though, following that logic, you're not absorbing the localized unhappiness when you raze. I do think it would make sense if your baseline happiness drops when you raze a city, though. If we'd burned Baghdad to the ground, it would've gotten ugly in the streets here, imo.