Historical Immersion Factor

[Mikkow]

I definitely like realism, historical accuracy and so on. Reading the civilopedia and finding out about the real world through Civ has always been an awesome thing. Going from the dawn of civilization to the future era is a major point of the fun.

Assuming we are talking about historical accuracy & realism, I voted 'not very important'. As in, it is not the be/end all. I like Hearts of Iron 3 for its historical accuracy and hardcore realism but it comes with a hefty price - it is a pain in the ass to learn properly and to get friends to start playing it. Civ games tend to be relaxing and enjoyable.

C5 is in some ways less realistic than 4 and more in other ways. The techs, buildings and units are still things that only vaguely connect to their real world counterparts so I see little difference there.

Regarding the 'science based on population' concept. Less realistic than Civ4 but not that all that different. There's more to science than just population in C5. Specialists, Great scientists, national wonders, science buildings, bulbing, turning gold into technology through research agreements, specializing cities, social policies. I think it is an improvement.

C5 is a bit more like "R.U.S.E."; an excellent new RTS that is very streamlined and not difficult to understand and play. But (and this is not easy to pull off) it has great depth too.

 

[Thormodr]

Not just that: They don't have personality. Beforehand, I always knew Monty was a back-stabbing psycho (and oh how I loved playing on the same maps as him). Mansa Musa was always looking to make a deal, even if he disliked you. Isabella's mood toward you depended almost entirely on whether or not you were the same religion as her- she could be a best friend or a worst nightmare. Gandhi was Gandhi. They all had distinct, noticeable personas and ways to interact with you.

Now? They basically all work the same: autistic sociopathic AI with little distinction between them. For all the talk about how they all have different traits on different scales, that's barely noticeable. Gandhi acts the same as Bismark acts the same as Monty acts the same as Washington. It doesn't feel like they're different people with differing values and approaches to governance. It feels like they are AI, and incomprehensible bad ones at that.

That sounds about right. All the AI want to win so they act accordingly.
The AI should help the player enjoy the game more and add to the immersion.

I don't feel ciV does that. Maybe JS thought that the AI would have hurt feelings or something if it wasn't programmed to win.

The cIV AI wasn't perfect but like you said in your examples, they had distinct personalities which made the game more fun to play.

Perhaps they can fix this down the road but I'm not so sure that will happen without considerable effort.

 

[serikas]

This is exactly what I want to say!

Civ 5 designers forgot the very reason civ got successful.

 

[polypheus]

@zonk

Civ is never going to be historically immersive in very detailed terms. That's more Paradox game territory as you say. All that can be expected is that it be "historically immersive" in an overall, broad sense. Does the overall history of my Civ game somewhat mirror in an overall and very broad sense the feel of historical development? Does it model, at least very roughly, major historical "mechanics" or forces?

For example, in terms of "major" historical "mechanics" is the idea of revolutions and nations being born from other nations/empires. It is a huge one. Unmodded Civ4 never had it. But mods like "Legends of Revolution" or "Rhyes and Fall" does.

So in a Civ series, historical immersion has to be about how the big picture alternative history plays out in a given game vs real life history. At least that's what historical immersion means to me. So for me, its not about nitpicking little details here or there, it is about the overall big picture.

It is of course unfair to compare vanilla Civ5 to Civ4 with historically immersive mods. But I feel that a game of Civ4 even vanilla has a overall more historically immersive feel to it compared to Civ5. To understand my point, consider if one were to write up an AAR of a Civ4 game vs a Civ5 game. It would be much easier in general for a Civ4 AAR to feel more historically "real" than one of present Civ5.

That's just my opinion though.

 

[Thormodr]

Somewhat important.

Don't get me wrong - history buff and I love EU, HOI, and Vicky is growing on me... but in a Civilization game, historical immersion is just awfully tough.

I recall Soren saying about IV, in discussing the concept of alternate tech paths, how it's interesting to think of "history" playing out differently on a grand scale, with the given example of projectiles over (birds? I think?) influencing early thoughts on human flight and humanity ending up with a completely different evolution of concepts we now take for granted.

I guess for that reason - I have hard time expecting too much historical immersion in civilization.... I mean - when you span 6000 years, a lot can change... Imagine humanity without the dark ages. Imagine if Zheng He hadn't died, the Chinese burned their fleet, etc.

The beauty of Civilization is (was.. sorry... couldn't resist) that you can/could do that -- but with radically different seeds, you end up with radically different outcomes - and that makes historical immersion difficult. It necessarily becomes very abstract... A few changes here and there and maybe we're all flying hover cars today - or conversely - still a bunch of squabbling tribes living in caves.

Paradox's titles intentionally limit the timeline so that they can keep historical guardrails in place -- but still allow you the fun of France never uniting, Byzantium never falling, the Ottomans hanging onto the Balkans, or what have you. That's extremely difficult to model when you get so expansive.

I'd love to see a game try to combine the historical majesty of EU/Hoi/Vicky with the sandox of Civilization -- but I just don't see how it could work. You're inevitably going to go off the rails.

Good post. I love historical what ifs myself. It certainly is easier for Paradox to introduce more immersion and what ifs in their games because of their limited scope. It's fun trying to conquer SE Asia with Siam or reuniting Italy with Naples, colonizing Greenland and Newfoundland as Norway or whatever challenge you put on yourself.

It is harder to do that in Civ in some ways, I agree. I do think they came closest with cIV BTS. The world seemed a lot more believable to me at least and you could see history unfold in some ways and interact with that. It was a lot of fun.

Anyway, that grand game of EU Rome/Crusader Kings/EU/Vicky/HOI would be amazing when you add in all that Civ has to offer.

I did hear though that the 4th expansion for EU3 called Divine Wind is adding in Wonders that can be built if I recall correctly. Hmmm...

 

[Captain Queeg]

Yes, immersion is very important to me too.

Maybe that's why I find the ability to tech beeline so annoying - you can discover microelectronics before dynamite - WTH?

 

[jjkrause84]

I'm a historian and Civ is part of the reason I chose that path in life so YOU BET historical immersion is important for me!

 

[JudgeDeath]

At first I though that anyone ticking the first response was just kidding themselves - no Civ has had any real level of historical realism, it's just a bit of Hollywood-style window dressing. But then I read the OP, and realised that this was just another paean to Civ IV, and the same bunch of people would be confirming to each other that Civ V wasn't the same and should be sent to the seventh level of hell.

So being able to immediately adjust your entire civilization's efforts in terms of science or wealth is historically immersive? Come on guys. Are you really serious?

 

[Peregrine]

Oh, I don't think it should be sent anywhere but to the remainder bins. And the quicker this whole sorry episode is over and we get a good civ game (civ6?), the better.

Once again, WHY should it bother anyone if a sizeable percentage of civplayers don't like the current version and make their dissatisfaction public via posting in a forum specifically for civplayers? I'm looking for other alternatives here, honestly.

If we have greivances, complaints, criticisms, what, then is one supposed to do?

A.) Shut up and deal with being lied to and exploited? I suppose if you're an uncritical, brainless monkey, that might seem the way to go. Not calling anyone in particular uncritical, brainless monkeys, btw. Just my opinion.

B.) Mindlessly join in the chorus of omg-we-all-love-CiV-so-darn-much crowd? (who, not coincidentally, don't really provide much irrefutable basis for doing so.)

C.) Join in the equally obnoxious chorus of if-you-don't like CiV, then you're 1.) afraid of change 2.) to go back to CIV 3.) shut-up-about-it-because-we-all-paid-money-for-this-ridiculous-excuse-for-a-civ-game-and-we-don't-like-to-be-reminded-of-it-because-it's-a-minor-personal-humiliation

Thor (et al,) has every right to do exactly what he's doing and this is precisely the right place to do it.

Once again, if you're happy with it, then go play it. No one is twisting your arm to make you hit that post button. I'm still trying to figure out WHY anyone (not on the firaxis/2K/etc. staff) should feel the NEED to defend the thing. If someone is unhappy with the game, WHY should that matter to those who are?

Honestly, I do think that some of these people defending the thing are firaxis/2k people now--it doesn't seem to make much sense otherwise. Personal psychopathologies could explain some of it, but I'm reluctant to assign such based on simple I-net postings.

 

[Thormodr]

Oh, I don't think it should be sent anywhere but to the remainder bins. And the quicker this whole sorry episode is over and we get a good civ game (civ6?), the better.

Once again, WHY should it bother anyone if a sizeable percentage of civplayers don't like the current version and make their dissatisfaction public via posting in a forum specifically for civplayers? I'm looking for other alternatives here, honestly.

If we have greivances, complaints, criticisms, what, then is one supposed to do?

A.) Shut up and deal with being lied to and exploited? I suppose if you're an uncritical, brainless monkey, that might seem the way to go. Not calling anyone in particular uncritical, brainless monkeys, btw. Just my opinion.

B.) Mindlessly join in the chorus of omg-we-all-love-CiV-so-darn-much crowd? (who, not coincidentally, don't really provide much irrefutable basis for doing so.)

C.) Join in the equally obnoxious chorus of if-you-don't like CiV, then you're 1.) afraid of change 2.) to go back to CIV 3.) shut-up-about-it-because-we-all-paid-money-for-this-ridiculous-excuse-for-a-civ-game-and-we-don't-like-to-be-reminded-of-it-because-it's-a-minor-personal-humiliation

Thor (et al,) has every right to do exactly what he's doing and this is precisely the right place to do it.

Once again, if you're happy with it, then go play it. No one is twisting your arm to make you hit that post button. I'm still trying to figure out WHY anyone (not on the firaxis/2K/etc. staff) should feel the NEED to defend the thing. If someone is unhappy with the game, WHY should that matter to those who are?

Honestly, I do think that some of these people defending the thing are firaxis/2k people now--it doesn't seem to make much sense otherwise. Personal psychopathologies could explain some of it, but I'm reluctant to assign such based on simple I-net postings.

Agreed. The only problem is, is that if people keep buying the expansions and DLC, the game might sell very well and then we'll get more of the same in Civ VI because making Civ more accessible to the mass market will seem to have been the correct decision. Firaxis and 2K Games will only look at $$$. They could care less if loyal Civ buyers like the game or not.

If we truly love Civ and want it to be a complex, entertaining and immersive game then we need to fight for it. That means boycotting any future Civ products until they start to listen. (Start feeling the $$$ pinch)

We are in real danger of losing the Civ series we all know and love. Let there be no naivete here.

 

[viberider]

Honestly, I do think that some of these people defending the thing are firaxis/2k people now--it doesn't seem to make much sense otherwise.

Hmmmm...I do wonder how these people who like CiV so much find the time (or inclination) to post here.... I mean with all their spare time going to playing this "great game" an' all...... Just sayin'.

 

[katipunero]

I found ciV to be more historically immersive for me.

Well, obviously the hex tiles make the world as well as my empire look much more realistic.

The fact that most of the land is not occupied by civilization during early ages and that there's much vacant space even during 1600AD or so seem more historically correct.

The fact that militaristic conflict or at least enough force to expel one is unavoidable is also more historically immersive. I don't expect an empire full of science, culture and all that juice with no defense to be untouched by warmongering neighbors.

I also think city-states are there to help the world feel more realistic. It was over simplification to have 8 countries and babarian cities to defict the history of the world. Now that we have 8 civs along with 12 city-states the world feels more organic for me.

for your information: http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html

 

[Roxlimn]

polypheus:

I think historical immersion is somewhat important. I also think that Civ V is more historically immersive than the Civs before it, including Civ IV. Why?

1. Religion. Religion has traditionally played a backdrop role in history. The French and the English sharing the same religion did not stop them from merrily butchering each other. For that matter, it didn't stop the Sunni and the Shiites from doing the same. When the Mongols came over Central Asia to crush everything in their path, it wasn't because they were pissed that everyone had a different religion.

In Civ IV, religion played a central part of diplomacy and to determine which allied blocs were allied with each other. This is as much as modern political statement as it is anything else. It certainly isn't historically immersive.

2. Civics. Many Westerners have this strange notion that European civilization and culture is the only thing that exists on the planet. Certainly, Civ has always been extremely Euro-centric and that's always hurt its historical perspective, IMO. Chinese history doesn't have a Medieval Period, and they've had Crossbows since, like, forever.

This carries over into the Civics. I like Civics, but I don't have any illusions that it's global. It is most definitely not. How a government functions depends on the culture of the people that spawn it, not because you unlock some tech and now you can rule like the more "advanced" people on the other side of the world!

Japanese and Singaporean democratic (or republic, if you prefer) practice is not like American democracy. Chinese communism is not like Russian communism, and it will never be the same as Russian communism. This is because the Chinese have underlying social structures and mores that modify any subsequent social structures that are implemented going forward.

You cannot change this. You cannot tell the Chinese people, en masse, to embrace the totality of Western historical perspective and start thinking like Frenchmen. It won't happen.

Thus, the Social Policy model makes more sense to me than the Civics model. It may seem strange to some that you can be Monarchial and Democratic at the same time, but England seems to be pulling it off in some senses.

It creates a major historical break in my view when every Civ I play generally is predisposed to the types of governments and ruling styles that modern Westerners prefer and deem superior. Were the Ancient Egyptians ready for Representation? Would it even have worked given their social mores? Sure they were. They built the Pyramids, right?

3. BFC. It has always seemed strange to me that cities could only benefit from and work the areas that are closest to them, especially in the modern eras. SMAC tried to address the issue by allowing cities to transfer food, but it was somewhat clunky.

I don't know that the Civ V model is perfect, but it is somewhat more organic-looking. In Civ V, you can grow the controlled borders of a city in any way you prefer outside of the natural Cultural preferences, and it is able to reach far. Thus, a new city that is near enough can still benefit from the bread baskets of your empire that usually supply the core cities. I would have liked the reach of cities to actually be farther, but I suppose that's for later titles.

It makes perfect sense to me that a City would extend its range of control to all along the banks of a river, and not care so much about all the desert to the north of it.

4. Normal tiles. In this Civ V was more like Civs 1-3. There are no megatiles. In the modern era, we don't have Iran dominating the food industry because it has Wheat Tiles! Most cultivated areas give about the same amount of food per square area depending on how much the people of the locale have adapted the tech to their locale. One patch of wheat is about the same as another patch of wheat. We don't have super-wheat that makes Japan healthier than Vegas.

In Civ IV, Super Tiles meant that a city was founded mainly on the special resources it could harvest, and this advantage carried forward into modern eras. Persepolis grows faster (or whatever) because it has Cows!!!! (or whatever). Well, cows can be moved. They can be housed in other parts of the world. Coal-mining cities are not generally known for being centers of military training or for having progressive Universities and Banks and whatnot.

5. 1UPT Again, this might surprise some, but I consider 1UPT to be more reminiscent of historical events than SoDs. It comes down to Thermopylae, really. Small armies can hold off larger ones if the terrain is right. Thermopylae can never happen in Civ IV or Civ III, because you can stack an infinite number of units on one tile.

 

[jjkrause84]

polypheus:

I think historical immersion is somewhat important. I also think that Civ V is more historically immersive than the Civs before it, including Civ IV. Why?

1. Religion. Religion has traditionally played a backdrop role in history. The French and the English sharing the same religion did not stop them from merrily butchering each other. For that matter, it didn't stop the Sunni and the Shiites from doing the same. When the Mongols came over Central Asia to crush everything in their path, it wasn't because they were pissed that everyone had a different religion.

Ha! Go back 400 years and tell people in the Wars of Reilgion that, it's all good....they have the same religion after all!

I don't think you'd get a great reaction.

True, Civ4 didn't model sects within a religion at all....but Civ5 could have!

Chinese history doesn't have a Medieval Period, and they've had Crossbows since, like, forever.

True, although you can kinda, sorta (kinda...) see the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods as being 'Medieval'. Plus, crossbows were invented in China and the West at about the same time (500 - 400BC)....the Chinese just developed the technology more quickly and effectively.

4. Normal tiles. In this Civ V was more like Civs 1-3. There are no megatiles. In the modern era, we don't have Iran dominating the food industry because it has Wheat Tiles! Most cultivated areas give about the same amount of food per square area depending on how much the people of the locale have adapted the tech to their locale. One patch of wheat is about the same as another patch of wheat.

Most square acres do not give about the same amount of food for a wide variety of reasons (soil, climate, crop, farming techniques) but I get your point. At least in Civ4, though, we could trade food (i.e. an important part of international trade)....now we can't. Heck, there's no international trade AT ALL! Talk about a nice step up for immersiveness....

In Civ IV, Super Tiles meant that a city was founded mainly on the special resources it could harvest, and this advantage carried forward into modern eras. Persepolis grows faster (or whatever) because it has Cows!!!! (or whatever). Well, cows can be moved. They can be housed in other parts of the world.

You[re right about the modern age (because the nature of farming has changed so radically) but for the rest of human history (or most of it...) cities were founded on rivers and most early civilizations were based around important grain crops (wheat in the Middle East, rice in South China, millett in N. China, etc.)


On the whole I totally get your points and think they are valid but histoical immersion is not the same as historical accuracy as far as Civ is concerned. As long as we FEEL like we're taking part in history it's ok (Civ has always been fast and loose with historical facts anyways). Getting rid of international trade, religion, role-playing AI, and other oversights has greatly reduced (for me) the feeling of leading a nation through history as these are thigns I've come to expect from Civ.

 

[JudgeDeath]

Not just Thermopylae, think about Rorke's Drift. 150 Riflemen holding off 4000 Spearmen. THat's much more likely to happen in Civ V than SOD versions.

 

[JudgeDeath]

Ha! Go back 400 years and tell people in the Wars of Reilgion that, it's all good....they have the same religion after all!

I don't think you'd get a great reaction.

True, Civ4 didn't model sects within a religion at all....but Civ5 could have!

Not really, if you have all the sects as well then no-one would have had the same religion so it would be just another reason for the AI to declare war. And indeed AFAICS Religion has always been a good excuse for someone to go to war, when the real reasons were about power (sometimes just staying in it) or wealth.

The AI this time is generally more RL about declaring war. It's not just a game mechanic.

 

[Jediron]

Just like the britisch regiments, that were crushed in India, that's exactly the opposite. Such actions did goes both ways. Aldo, yes. Normally a rifle is superiour.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

polypheus:

I think historical immersion is somewhat important. I also think that Civ V is more historically immersive than the Civs before it, including Civ IV. Why?

1. Religion. Religion has traditionally played a backdrop role in history. The French and the English sharing the same religion did not stop them from merrily butchering each other. For that matter, it didn't stop the Sunni and the Shiites from doing the same. When the Mongols came over Central Asia to crush everything in their path, it wasn't because they were pissed that everyone had a different religion.

In Civ IV, religion played a central part of diplomacy and to determine which allied blocs were allied with each other. This is as much as modern political statement as it is anything else. It certainly isn't historically immersive.

Again, please read some books, religion is a major factor in many wars, Saying otherwise is a childish way to counter the argument of absence of it in Civ V.
I have to make the same and now so long annoying list of war, diputes and other things involving religious matters? Please refrain from that statement, It is totally useless and harmful to people that can think those mistakes be serious and true...

 

[jjkrause84]

Not really, if you have all the sects as well then no-one would have had the same religion so it would be just another reason for the AI to declare war. And indeed AFAICS Religion has always been a good excuse for someone to go to war, when the real reasons were about power (sometimes just staying in it) or wealth.

I think you greatly underestimate the religiosity of mankind (especially Europeans during and after the Reformation) and also suffer somewhat from "presentism"....the idea that people have always thought as people think today. This is a very poor way of looking at history, in my opinion.

You're right that they coudn't factor in "every" sect but it might be interesting if they had a dynamic whereby religions could split under certain circumstances. Maybe they were seperated by an ocean or maybe by random event or maybe as a result of a war, etc. etc.

You gotta admit it could be interesting, to say the least!

 

[Roxlimn]

JLoZeppeli:

If you could name me a premodern religious war where the participants had to embark on a long intercontinental water route to reach their enemies, I would be much obliged.

I have yet to read about a religious war between people from East Asia and people from Northwestern Europe prior to the 1800s, let alone in the ancient eras.