[NFP] History Simulator or Game: Civ's precarious balancing act

[Hellenism Salesman]

Grab some snacks and find somewhere comfortable to sit because this is a long post

Upon reading various discussions across this forum, I've come across a very interesting design struggle that is unique to Civ's niche genre of historical 4X.

From my perspective, it seems as though developing a Civ game (or any historical 4X, for that matter) is about striking a balance between four powers: immersion, historical accuracy, strategic depth, and fun/entertainment value.

With Civ's unique challenge of incorporating history into its progression, it means that it must consider these four elements in every decision. Every single choice, no matter how small, will either satisfy one or harm another.

Civs starting in anachronistic eras? A fun alternate history scenario and immersive to those who want to roleplay that fantasy, yet historically inaccurate and challenging for the designers to envision what cities, music, and bonuses would fit for these time periods where the civilization in question never existed.

A uniform tech/civic tree that applies to every Civ? Historically accurate (for certain, mostly European powers) while fulfilling a mechanical need in the game, yet immersion breaking depending on how its handled (skipping otherwise necessary techs, contradictory civic discoveries ex. "Ethiopia has finished research on Colonialism").

And there are plenty more examples. The struggle of creating a "perfect" historical 4X is that a historically accurate game does not always equal an immersive game. Or, an immersive game does not always equal a strategically deep game. Or, a strategically deep game does not always equal an entertaining game. Depending on what design decisions are made and what aspects are prioritized, other aspects falter and the game shifts its appeal to different audiences. History buffs and scholars will appreciate the historical accuracy, roleplayers will love the immersive world, multiplayer competitors will excel in mastering the games nuanced strategy, and casual gamers will enjoy the simple fun in launching nukes as Gandhi.

And so when this consideration must be taken into account for every single design choice, a worrying question comes to mind. Is it even possible to create a historical 4X that appeals to each of these four aspects? Is there such a thing as the perfect 4X?

And truthfully, I don't know. I don't have enough experience with the genre to really pinpoint an example that I would call "perfect." I know many have there own favorites, whether it be a Civ game or something else. But is that enjoyment just because the direction of said game appealed to what they value in the medium? Maybe someone adores Civ 5 because it valued the things it looks for in a game. Does that make it a perfect 4X game? Who knows.

So the questions I want to end with are these: how do we go about creating the perfect 4X game? What does that even mean? How do we create a historically accurate game without making that game unfun, simple, or immersion breaking?

Have any games struck that balance for you? Have I just spent the past half hour rambling on and on about questions that aren't that important? Actually, wait, don't answer that one. The answer is yes.

But anyway, I want to hear your answers! This is a topic ripe for discussion and I'm eagerly awaiting what complex dialogue all you fanatics can drum up. So please, if you have any comments, questions, or answers of your own, let's hear them

 

[Menocchio]

Civilisation 6 is in almost every way a computerised board game. This is not a criticism; it is a large part of what makes it so fun and replayable - but not necessarily for everyone. If you go into this game looking for a historical strategy type experience, you will be left wanting. If you want to replicate a strategy board game experience with more complexity and in an electronic format, then this is for you.

 

[vorlon_mi]

My preferences are more towards immersive and entertaining, so I'm willing to compromise on the historical accuracy portion. I find it fun -- whimsical, entertaining, amusing, choose your favorite adjective -- to have Sumeria or Scythia build tanks, nuclear weapons, or spaceship parts. It's fun to imagine America or Canada researching Iron Working. I've only had a few opportunities across all the games of the franchise to actually rewrite history: have Germany defeat Russia, have the Aztecs defeat the Spanish or Americans. Neither the Apostolic Palace (Civ 4) nor the World Congress (Civ 5 & 6) is historically accurate, but adds some entertainment value and strategic elements.

Strategic depth is something that different games in the Civ franchise have experimented with. Civ 2 (where I started) was simple on the surface, with some quirky, exploitable mechanics; only two victory conditions. Civ 3 added some complexity and strategic depth, and it remains one of my favorites. Civ 4 added even more complexity and depth, allowing the player to twiddle knobs on the management of their empire. Less historical accuracy (suicide catapults, anyone?) but more immersive and more focused on warmaking. Civ 5 stepped back from complexity and stepped into different techniques for moving units. Firaxis used each of Civ 5's expansion packs to tweak certain mechanics to increase entertainment value and immersion.

I agree that a fixed tech tree needs to apply to all the Civs, as a game mechanic. Knowing that actually prompted me to ask some questions of history, especially w.r.t. the development of Civs on the North American continent. Having a fixed civics tree that applies to all Civs is also a necessary mechanic, even though it diminishes historical accuracy. I like the "switching policy cards" mechanic in Civ 6 and the "changing civics" mechanic in Civ 4 much more than the "adopt it once, keep it forever" mechanic in Civ 5 or the "switch out of despotism once" mechanic in Civ 3. That aspect of complexity is, for me, entertaining. It gives an opportunity for immersion / role playing, say, to *not* adopt a particular government type because an individual leader would never do that.

 

[Alaindor]

My take on this interesting, essential, almost philosophical question, would be:

• Immersion: could include the fact that you can't quit the game ("#OneMoreTurn"), that you think about your next moves during your real life, that you enjoy the atmosphere, music and graphics of the game... On all these accounts, for me Civ6 works, although one could debate about the cartoonish nature of the graphics - but since I'm happy to play a simulated board-game - a genre which I have always enjoyed since I was a kid - it works well for me.
  
• Historical accuracy: this one is difficult to achieve if you want replayability and not predictability - because history is what it is, and victories are accounted for by the winners. But I can imagine this kind of accuracy is what people "playing" (sorry for the lack of a better word) with lead soldiers and recreating the Battle of Waterloo, or whichever, are enjoying. The only thing I can relate to here with Civ6 are the cultural variations of units, buildings, cities... There are some limitations here, obviously.
• Strategic depth: if you think about it, Civ6 is just a set of counters you try and manage: food, gold, faith, tourism, etc. so strategy is based on the number and the complexity of the interactions between these counters - rapidly building a large number of combinations which give the illusion of unpredictability and complexity. As opposed to Chess, we also have here the RNG factor which will add to replayability and make every game, potentially, a different experience. I'm not sure depth is the right word here to describe the strategy you pursue, since from the very start: the civ/leader you choose, your close neighbours and your starting location, your strategy will probably be defined (take advantage of your uniques and your starting location). Then it is more about tactics, how you pursue your victory to the end to achieve your goal.
  
• Fun / entertainment value: well, given the amount of time I spend on the game (which is however far less than some of you all!), it is obvious for me that Civ6 is providing fun and value. There are some healthy frustrating moments: these Barbs wiping one of my cities out for instance. My main gripe is the AI inconsistency (I use this word rather than incompetence, because sometimes and especially in early game, they perform well), and the general lack of challenge once the early eras are past; these are for me the missing link to the perfecty entertaining game.

Okay, I'm rambling on and probably not answering the OP question, but you've probably figured out I'm quite satisfied with my experience: Civ6 gives me immersion, a flavour of strategies since I don't master all the mechanics perfectly yet (let's call it 'replayability' and 'need to think a bit some of my moves') and fun / entertainment (except for the weak AI). Historical accuracy I can live without, in fact I don't really see how I could enjoy a predictable ending (but that's probably because I'm not history-litterate enough) and I seek here more of an atmosphere (boys, this music!), which by the way gives me the will to search about the real history of played civs in real life.

 

[vorlon_mi]

@Alaindor I love your definition of "Immersion," especially that part where I think about my next moves in real life. That happens for me in Civ6, BERT, Civ5, and all the other games in the franchise.

 

[pokiehl]

The civ games have never been or attempted to be history simulators so I think the premise of this topic is flawed. That said I hope to see less of the gamey, minmaxing style for the next game.

 

[Bactrian]

What I'm about to say is influenced by the fact that IRL I'm a professional academic historian (as in, I'm paid to research and publish history as well as teach university students):

Civ cannot ever be historically accurate and shouldn't try in any real sense. Anachronistic, ahistorical, and just plain wrong concepts (primordial, unified, and stable national identities appearing ex natura that must live or die with nothing in between; history as the story of "progress," particularly as expressed through fixed tech/civics trees; passive subjects always willing to do as ordered; etc.) are so deeply baked in the series's DNA that I don't think it's possible to change them without fundamentally changing what Civ is. Let Gandhi have a fondness for nukes, it's no less historically inaccurate than the idea that social media is an inevitable outgrowth of political philosophy or that the ability to build big fancy houses is an integral part of Frenchness and not any other culture.**

What Civ can do, I think, is try to capture the feeling of guiding a culture through the rough seas of time, of bearing witness to the story of a people. In the OP's terms, I believe that would fall under "immersion." I said this in another thread, but in my opinion Civ has erred in not embracing chaos as a design philosophy. The series has become increasingly min-max-y in its design philosophies while also staying true to Sid Meier's idea that players cannot handle speedbumps let alone negative outcomes. What's resulted is a game with no sense of danger, no sense of struggle, and no sense of accomplishment. I would absolutely stay away from "historical accuracy" in the sense of historical determinism (the Aztecs can't conquer Spain because in real life they didn't) but I would embrace "historical realism" in the sense of "things don't always go as planned."

**I've long mused about what a game that didn't rely on these concepts would look like. I have various ideas, but none of them are Civ.

 

[Elhoim]

I would absolutely stay away from "historical accuracy" in the sense of historical determinism (the Aztecs can't conquer Spain because in real life they didn't) but I would embrace "historical realism" in the sense of "things don't always go as planned."

That's a very good point. Personally, I'd like them to steer a bit more towards reducing the numbers of yield types, "mana" buckets and yields appearing out of thin air. Basically, a bit more closer to the reality they are trying to mimic with the abstractions.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Every civ starts in 4000 BC with almost the same set of units. So it's meant to be a strategy game. If it wanted to be a simulator, we would get new factions developed over time. But those ideas aren't very popular. The closest we got were colonies in Civ 4, and they were mostly a meme.

The other problem is while many complain about the runaway effect, few also like to be punished for doing well, so as a result there are very few negative effects that have stuck to this series. It's one of those things that sound cool on paper, but are terrible in practice.I admit I tend to be very skeptical of the "realism" element, and think that the grand majority of these suggestions would be terrible in practice. But then again I think there is too much micromanagement in this game to begin with. A lot of people simply don't understand the concepts of this game, so it is pretty dull to read walls of text based on these flawed premises.You can recognize this by seeing that there's tons of buzzwords like "depth" and "complexity" but nothing concrete.

There are some custom scenarios that touch upon it though. The closest you can get is probably TSL.

However, maybe I'm old fashioned, but even in so called role playing games, you have to do much more than just click buttons to get your desired result. With 8 difficulty settings, there really aren't any excuses.

 

[vorlon_mi]

What Civ can do, I think, is try to capture the feeling of guiding a culture through the rough seas of time, of bearing witness to the story of a people. In the OP's terms, I believe that would fall under "immersion." I said this in another thread, but in my opinion Civ has erred in not embracing chaos as a design philosophy. The series has become increasingly min-max-y in its design philosophies while also staying true to Sid Meier's idea that players cannot handle speedbumps let alone negative outcomes. What's resulted is a game with no sense of danger, no sense of struggle, and no sense of accomplishment. I would absolutely stay away from "historical accuracy" in the sense of historical determinism (the Aztecs can't conquer Spain because in real life they didn't) but I would embrace "historical realism" in the sense of "things don't always go as planned."

First, thank you for a great post. I've read it three times, just to appreciate the thoughtfulness and language. The first sentence in the paragraph I quoted captures, both succinctly and accurately, my emotional connection to the franchise. That feeling has kept me coming back, over the years, for #OneMoreTurn.

I'm curious about your note that Sid Meier believed players cannot handle speedbumps or negative outcomes. I don't remember reading that, but then again, I haven't read his "Memoir!". As far back as Civ 2, he included game mechanics which could definitely penalize the player: losing an entire stack if one unit is defeated, for example. Civ 3 included the ability of recently conquered cities to flip back to their original owners. Civ 4 had an option for events that could ****** the player's progress; I concur that the disasters in Civ 6 are comparatively tame. I remember Sid saying -- and several of his lead designers quoting -- that he wanted the player to have interesting decisions. Decisions that have both a better and worse outcome, I believe, is part of making them interesting. Part of the player's enjoyment of a strategy game is an element of determinism and likely outcomes. Other games, e.g., Pandemic, are designed to have nasty surprises that frustrate the player(s) intent.

 

[Bactrian]

I'm curious about your note that Sid Meier believed players cannot handle speedbumps or negative outcomes. I don't remember reading that, but then again, I haven't read his "Memoir!"t.

Over the years Meier has talked about his experiences as a game designer and his exploration of psychology of gaming. Succinctly, he believes that at heart players want to feel like the star and be given a smooth gameplay experience that leads towards an inevitable victory. Honestly I'm not sure he's wrong, and many games are basically power fantasies. I just think that Civ 6 made the experience too smooth and the victory too inevitable.

Here's an old Gamasutra article talking about Meier's views.

The key quote is: "While real civilizations rise and fall throughout the course of history, injecting that realism into a game like Civilization would be a mistake, although it was considered by Meier at one point. Players don't want peaks and valleys, they want constant progress -- that's what the Civilization franchise is about. 'You cannot reward and reflect progress too much in a game,' Meier said."

 

[Alaindor]

Over the years Meier has talked about his experiences as a game designer and his exploration of psychology of gaming. Succinctly, he believes that at heart players want to feel like the star and be given a smooth gameplay experience that leads towards an inevitable victory. Honestly I'm not sure he's wrong, and many games are basically power fantasies. I just think that Civ 6 made the experience too smooth and the victory too inevitable.

Could be... However, I believe this quote from Corneille portrays my feelings: To conquer without risk is to triumph without glory.
... and in fact, one of the Civ6 games I remember most is the one I lost to the AI after roughly 700 turns and many hours. So, predictable, unthreatened victory goes against what I seek, which is a true challenge.
In fact, we're probably saying the same thing.

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

nice thread and good posts. i truly enjoyed reading it. thank you all for contributing.

I dont believe historical accuracy can or should be achieved. they use it for their civ/cultural trees ( in what order what is researched ) and in the leader civ abilities to some degrees which is more than enough. otherwise how can you play as americans at 4000 BC or as ancient middle east civs are you doomed to be eliminated before the endgame even is in sight?
immersion is in my opinion what shines for this series. i want to play one more turn since civ1 , i guess i cannot make a better compliment to the game and all who worked for it than that one sentence.
strategic depth is what brings me back to the game time and again. to try out different styles and civs. obviously min/max is inevitable but with forgiving difficuty levels you can enjoy every civ and leader with any play style you choose.
fun is for me the combination of these elements all together and not some seperate entity. if i canot get away from the real world (immerse ) in the game i dont think i would have fun at it , and i like strategy games this is after all why i choose to play a turnbased strategy game so if there is no depth to the game i would not have fun. also i am interested in history , i try to read a lot about how we arrived at where we are and i like the fact that if we find similar situations you can see how things will turn out in the future.

 

[Leucarum]

I'd say that historical settings are where civ's competitors found their niche. Paradox games (and total war somewhat) have much more on the historical simulation angle than civ does. And it's a major way that these games have managed to avoid being labelled as just a civ clone... Not that there's anything wrong with being a civ-derivative.

Regardless, I think that's had the effect of making civ's niche more defined. It isn't the historically accurate 4X game. Others do that better, because civ does other things better...

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Just as a note for those in this thread: most of these extremes that Civ can be are for the sake of discussion! I don't think that Civ should be a history simulator or just a board game.

 

[PiR]

Terrific thread, thanks @Hellenism Salesman

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Terrific thread, thanks @Hellenism Salesman

No problem! I figured it would make for good discussion.

 

[Futumch]

That was a good read.

I think it is interesting to see how Civ has evolved over its six iterations. Once civ-specific items (units / buildings / abilities) entered the gameplay mix, it became a lot more complicated to juggle the facets of the game you mentioned. These complexities make the game a lot richer, but I can't help but feel that sometimes the "balance" problems are self-inflicted.

Aside - the first game I saw referred to as "4X" was the old space strategy game called "Reach for the Stars" which was released on 8-bit systems in the early 80's. Damn fun game, even on a Commodore 64. The PC remake of this game some time later (2005) was quite dreadful. I think the point is that once you start adding veneers of stuff over the core of the game, it detracts from the essential fun and balance.

I'm gonna find some cheese and crackers and read your post again.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

These are things that I think about a lot. My role here is to be the "historical authenticity" person, but recognizing that Civ is its own genre and comes with its own assumptions ("timeless nations/cultures") that are going to at their core be ahistorical. I push for more historicity, but recognizing that the game that results has to be readable, has to still be "civ", has to be balanced, and importantly has to still be fun. I don't think Aztec nukes are a problem at all - even a historical simulation has the possibility for the New World repelling the Europeans and going down its own path. And Civ shakes all this up by having extremely simplified political/economic systems (there is only one actor in your empire, and it's you), a (usually) random world map, and no actors outside of these main timeless players (barbarians and city-states aside). I would love to see alternative tech trees, a more dynamic internal political system (bear in mind that so many "decisions" in history had to do with regular people taking actions that their leaders did not plan for or want, and certainly didn't decide), etc., but these would make the game even more ahistorical, remove a lot of player control, and, most dauntingly, introduce a whole lot more complexity. The Maya and Greece were not unified polities in the same way as Frederick's HRE, and that wasn't the same as the USA. So there's always a tension, but this tension can be productive. Personally, I like how Civ uses language, music, art, etc., to reach towards immersion even as mechanics and assumptions behind balance, gameplay, etc., lean towards the "game" side of things.

Other games do these things differently. Paradox retains some ahistorical assumptions, but moves decisively down the simulation path (throwing the idea of balance, for instance, out of the window - if I start as Ottomans and you start as Brittany...). Humankind makes cultures just a set of buffs and buildings that are chosen each age for their strategic value within the game. (In case you're wondering, yes, Firaxis allows us and encourages us to play and enjoy all the games out there. I absolutely love a lot of the 'competition').

I'm really interested in how you all play, though, and what's important to you all, not just because I work here, but also because I am, like Bactrian, a teacher. I want you to find out a little about history or at least spark some curiosity via the game. Basil talks a lot about Rome in order to get people who aren't familiar with the Byzantines (and further claims to Rome's legacy by people who called themselves Keyser, Kaiser, Tsar, First Consul, etc). Trieu shines a focus on Vietnam in the 2000 years before the American War (for people who assume Vietnam = a genre of American war movie). Ultimately, that opening towards curiosity and learning is what's most important to me, personally. I am going to have a fit about city names or leader outfits and do not care at all about district yields and adjacency bonuses, but I recognize that the latter are really important for the balance and fun parts of things. In that way, Civ isn't going to be able to simulate history, but what history that's there I want to be correct, informative, and, most of all, thought- and question-provoking.

 

[vorlon_mi]

You asked, "I'm really interested in how you all play", so here goes. I approach each of the Civ games, including BERT, as empire management games, multi-faceted systems that I can work through towards a goal, having fun along the way. Both Civ2 and Civ3 had simple governments; each successive game has given me a different set of knobs and levers to manipulate as I manage my empire "to stand the test of time." Each game has adopted a different way of modeling how economies work, an abstract system for making stuff, trading stuff, destroying stuff, and setting priorities.
I play the traits more than I play the people or heritage of the civ. Having both Shaka and Mansa Musa in Civ4 is a way of representing that people in Africa are three dimensional, fully realized tribes. Adding Ethiopia in Civ5, and even more in Civ6, serves that goal. I'm not trying to emulate Mao (Civ3) or Stalin (Civ4), either Roosevelt (Civ4 or Civ6), but I do pay attention to the traits that the games have given to them. That's why the synthetic leaders of BERT were not a barrier to me; I play their traits rather than their personalities.
Yes, the curiosity helps. I don't know much about Dido or Gorgo or Lady Six Sky; having them in the game encourages me to read about them. But if I'm honest, I would have the same amount of fun running an empire as Lena Ebner, Frederick Barbarossa, or Bismarck. I will sometimes rename my cities "IronTown" or "IvoryVille" to remind me what resource they are near. I want Iron Working to come before Steel, Gunpowder before Rifling, Monarchy before Fascism. But the focus of the game is empire management: feeding, growing, exploring, expanding, and the other two X's, using the traits / unique buildings / unique units along the way.