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

[Zegangani]

Think about it. To make the game historical, you would need to merge Old World, Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Victoria, and Hearts of Iron, and you still would not have quite covered the whole period. Can you imagine that working?

Yes, but only for Marathon Games or even slower Speeds. And I would love it!

It doesn't have to be as complex and detailed as the Paradox Games, but with some simplification/abstraction (not too much, otherwise it will be bland, and we already have Civ V) here and there, designing the Mechanics to make them more important in certain Eras and less so in others, and have them more connected to other Mechanics and more engaging for the Player, and you would have a rich Game that never gets boring (assuming the Mechanics are well designed and balanced). There would be a learning curve ofc, a long one, but I don't imagine it being more difficult to learn it than the PDX Games.

But that would take a Ton of work and Resources, and I'm not sure how the majority of Fans/Players would respond to such a Game, that is both deep and also forces slow play (or rather makes it a necessity to fully enjoy the Game). Though, I myself would certainly love to try such a Game (bc I'm already such kind of a Player).

Edit: Also what Boris Gudenuf said.

 

[pokiehl]

Think about it. To make the game historical, you would need to merge Old World, Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Victoria, and Hearts of Iron, and you still would not have quite covered the whole period. Can you imagine that working?

I'm not so sure that for a game to be "historical" it has to be an in-depth simulation at all levels. Seems like a false dichotomy.

 

[Abaxial]

Well, the title of this thread does use the words "history simulator". I think what is really at issue here is not historicity but realism. Quite obviously this does not exist in Civ. The scale of everything is wildly wrong for a start. Inevitably most complaints about this and that being unrealistic are cases of straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. The important thing is whether such-and-such a mechanic makes for good gameplay.

 

[Krajzen]

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.

I would adore a 4X historical game build around "things don't always go as planned, find joy in the struggle and meaning in failure" which made so many roguelike and Souls - like action games wildly succesful... 4X game not afraid to spectacularly blow up your empire if you do something really silly, overstretch your resources, become arrogant, don't pay attentiont to diplomacy or internal politics, or economic systems, or are avoiding difficult choices. And I also think this would be a way to make civ games more "historically realistic, immersive, educating" while also maintaining their core game identity which kinda requires 6000 years of desert French people ruled by Napoleon.

 

[TreVor_ish]

"things don't always go as planned, find joy in the struggle and meaning in failure"

You sound like a fellow Urist.

 

[pokiehl]

"things don't always go as planned, find joy in the struggle and meaning in failure"

I agree entirely that this would be wonderful for the game to embrace. Unfortunately, so many players seem to rage quit when things don’t go 100% according to plan. Just see how many angry posts about barbarians we have...

I think the excessive planning Civ 6 encourages the player to do really contributes to this. It's hard for a game to give us a sense of emergent storytelling when the player is rewarded for meticulously planning every detail of their city and research from turn 1.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

I see too many posters making the same false assumption: that there is a hard Historical Versus Game dichotomy.
Not So.
Whether a game is Historical or not depends on your sense of history. The more history you know, the more any game or recreation has to work to appear 'historically accurate' to you. The other side of that is the more 'history' you know that is inaccurate the less you will think an accurate historical rendering is Historical.
Everything, always, has to match your perceptions, and by the time anyone is old enough to play a computer game like this one, they carry with them a lot of pre-formed perceptions that have to be satisfied.

NO GAME or anything else will match all those perceptions.

But any opposition between Historical and Playable will be on a sliding scale with a distinct and different point on that scale for each and every one of us. I will put up with a lot of mediocre gameplay to satisfy my interest in history. You may have no interest in the history other than as background noise while interesting play is immersive to you.
To some extent, the game has to satisfy both of us - at least somewhat. It is that constant set of compromises that is Game Design at its most basic.

So, the better expression of your statement is that:
"To make the game more historically accurate, you would need to merge elements of Old World, Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Victoria, and Hearts of Iron - and Settlers 6, Pharaoh, Caesar, Rise of the Middle Kingdom, and every other game with a semi-historical background to it, and you would still, inevitably, leave something out that is of Utmost Importance to someone."

"Leave out the Defenestration of Prague and it will never sell in the Czech Republic!"

- Or something similar: we've all seen posts like that one on these Forums about almost every in-game or proposed in-game mechanic or device: all such decisions, of all kinds, are some form of compromise between All Inclusive Historical - which is both Impossible* and Unplayable, and Purely Fantasy/Imaginary, which is both Chaotic and also Impossible to Play.

- Not that there isn't someone out there who is willing to try.

* I Know Whereof I Speak: I have spent the past 8 years working on a book covering the main aspects of the Battle of Moscow in October 1941 - with unprecedented access to Soviet and German archives from both sides and memoir and other materials from both Germany and Russia, and there are still things that we don't know about what happened - and never will know short of Resurrecting the Dead from the battlefields and questioning them.

- And that's one incident in one fraction of the planet's surface for one month out of 6000 years. Completely Historical is as much Fantasy as History: the best any human construct can do is, like Diodorus of Sicily, present a Library of History that includes as much of the Neat Stuff as he could find, that he thought was important. And, in Game Terms, have enough people agree with him that they will buy it and want to play it!

Just to be clear, I’m not a believer in the false dichotomy. That was just a simplified title I used to spawn the discussion. I knew in the OP that the “perfect” place on the spectrum(s) is all subjective. So I’m with you.

The difficulty is in finding the balance where the most people are satisfied.

 

[Chefofrats]

I would adore a 4X historical game build around "things don't always go as planned, find joy in the struggle and meaning in failure" which made so many roguelike and Souls - like action games wildly succesful...

That sounds absolutely horrible. Why would I want to struggle and fail in an activity I engage in for fun? I've been a gamer for over 35 years, and I completely do not get the concept of games being fun because they are hard. I mean, sure, let somebody develop a 4X game for masochists, just please, don't let that game be Civ 7 - that would be the first Civ game I wouldn't buy.

 

[pokiehl]

Why would I want to struggle and fail in an activity I engage in for fun? I've been a gamer for over 35 years, and I completely do not get the concept of games being fun because they are hard. I mean, sure, let somebody develop a 4X game for masochists, just please, don't let that game be Civ 7 - that would be the first Civ game I wouldn't buy.

Because many players find challenge to be fun and mindless victories to be hollow?

 

[TreVor_ish]

Why would I want to struggle and fail in an activity I engage in for fun?

In a history of our race there were plenty of falls after rises.
I'm not saying this should be a predominant way of play. However having an option to make a game reasonably hard and not just bland bump in stats for AI would be received as improvement.

 

[Zegangani]

That sounds absolutely horrible. Why would I want to struggle and fail in an activity I engage in for fun? I've been a gamer for over 35 years, and I completely do not get the concept of games being fun because they are hard. I mean, sure, let somebody develop a 4X game for masochists, just please, don't let that game be Civ 7 - that would be the first Civ game I wouldn't buy.

I find a game where you can only go up (more yields, more cities, more influence...etc.) and never/rarely have to struggle quite boring if you're not new to the Game (or franchise/series). That said, the Civ Devs haven't made a good job at those Things IMO. In Civ 6, they tried things like Emergencies, Loyalty and Random Disasters, but all of them fail at that:

- The 1st can easily be countered, and even if you lose, the Penalty is too small (and there can only be 1 at a time IIRC).

- The 2nd is practically non-existent for Human Players who know the Game Mechanic a bit, you can easily prevent it completely even in Dramatic Ages Mode, but it's issue isn't just Balance, it's also the fact that it's un-immersive and unrealistic as a "Stability/Loyalty" or "Cultural Influence" Mechanic, it's just a good enough game mechanic, only present for a Gameplay purpose, which even comes with unwanted negative effects.

- The 3rd (Disasters) is too rewarding, too Random, and very unrealistic (Droughts and Tornadoes taking Years?!!). I would rather have them as 1 Turn Events instead of taking multiple Turns, and their Bonuses should come with a substantial penalty, like settling near a floodable river should give more food, but less production to the City, so there is always a cost opportunity.

There are so many Ideas out there (by Players as well as in other Games) on how to introduce Mechanics that could lead to downfalls, struggle, have negative outcomes...etc. And I really hope that the Civ7 Devs will try implement some of that. The Game already is easy to play against the AI, which I don't expect to get better in Civ 7, so if some difficulty and challenge doesn't come from the Game Mechanics themselves, the AI sure won't provide that.

 

[RandV]

In my opinion Historical accuracy doesn't mesh with the Civ series, if that's what you want you need a game targeted to a specific era. A game that runs from 5000BCE to 2050AD, will generate a completely random world to a variety of specifications, and you go into the game as Abraham Lincoln and quickly run into Cleopatra & Bismark & Gandhi & Montezuma, that's what Civ is all about. Using Humanity as a contrast, I think where the history aspect helps Civ is in the familiarity. You're not just a faceless leader playing against other faceless leaders, you're Julius Caesar of Rome. And the different abilities of different Civs/Leaders, both for yourself and your opponent, and the random nature of the maps, is why you keep coming back for another game.

For the discussion on challenge/difficulty, I take the opposite opinion that the AI needs to cheat more. 'Rogue' games have been mentioned but a Civ match can be way to long to have rogue-like mechanics. Rather where the current method of AI cheating is 'the AI isn't very good so lets give them some static advantages and hopefully it keeps up with the player', what I'm thinking is more like Mario Kart. Human player on this side of the world is running away in size and score, so pick an appropriate Civ on the other side of the world and drop him a hidden 'star power up' to catch up, keep pace, and give the player a legit rival through the late game. Or launch a blue shell at the runaway player. As a gameplay mechanic this is something that could easily be toggled on/off, as some people will like powering their way to the end while others will just hate the idea in general. And optional difficulties/challenges/mechanics are always best.

 

[PiR]

Whether a game is Historical or not depends on your sense of history. The more history you know, the more any game or recreation has to work to appear 'historically accurate' to you. The other side of that is the more 'history' you know that is inaccurate the less you will think an accurate historical rendering is Historical.
Everything, always, has to match your perceptions, and by the time anyone is old enough to play a computer game like this one, they carry with them a lot of pre-formed perceptions that have to be satisfied.

NO GAME or anything else will match all those perceptions.

Isn't that the same for movies?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Isn't that the same for movies?

movies, radio plays, novels, TV shows - any depiction of events or incidents that purports to be historically based runs the risk of being either factually inaccurate or inaccurate compared to what people think happened: people's personal view of "history" is more often what they are comfortable with than what actually happened (when that can be determined), which tends to be a lot messier and far, far less complimentary to our ancestors and self-image.

 

[Krajzen]

That sounds absolutely horrible. Why would I want to struggle and fail in an activity I engage in for fun? I've been a gamer for over 35 years, and I completely do not get the concept of games being fun because they are hard. I mean, sure, let somebody develop a 4X game for masochists, just please, don't let that game be Civ 7 - that would be the first Civ game I wouldn't buy.

That's very valid answer, and I know there is no way Civ series would become such "Souls - like" game due to the large amount of its fans who play it for that relaxing zen flow, which it generates very competently.

That being said, let me answer your 'why'. I suspect there are also many Civ players, like me, who are simply bored by the lack of challenge, which kills their motivation to play. For me the high difficulty in any game means adrenaline, emotions, the feeling of triumph and satisfaction. It makes all those mechanics and modifiers feel meaningful, as in, you need to exploit them cleverly to win - whereas low difficulty in all sorts of games makes me feel 'what's the point in accumulating all those bonuses, I can win anyway while not bothering with them'. It makes me feel more immersed in the game, as I need to pay more attention to it, sink in it more deeply and as I feel ups and downs. High difficulty makes for a better story than a relaxing sandbox in which I can forget half of mechanics and still win comfortably. It makes for a better adventure.

In the same time, Civ fails to make its approach to scalable high difficulty fun adventure, merely masochist and unfair. Deity slaps an absurd amount of AI bonuses on top of the same static game of exponential snowballing increase. That doesn't turn the game into a dramatic story of unexpected turns, where you can fall disastrously due to your hubris, or epically rise against odds. You just get extremely frustrating bottleneck of an early - to - mid game, where you have few few and very specific algorithms to hack it, and once you manage this hell you can cruise to the snowballing victory with the same boring certainty of the lower difficulty levels, just later. Thus, lower difficulty levels are too easy for my taste, while higher ones generate the most unpleasant, unimaginative kind of 'challenge'. Hence my dream of a 4X game which is challenging, gripping, dramatic fun adventure.

Paradox games can scratch that itch more easily, because they are chaotic simulations where you cannot predict everything. One of my fondest memories of EU4 is my Ottoman Empire having to suddenly deal with the simultaenous eruption of (late 18th century equivalent of) a world war and revolution. At one point half of my empire has fallen, and I had to desperately defend gates of Istanbul while bringing out every economic trick to avoid bankrupcy, and praying for Frech counteroffensive to take some German pressure away from Balkans. The war ended with miserable, hard - fought white peace (sort of like ww1), but God did it feel like epic history. Civ6 fails to recreate such moments because of its predictability, snowballing, combat system AI cannot grasp, purely bilateral diplomacy which cannot generate cascading wars of alliances, and complete lack of internal stability of empires.

 

[Abaxial]

That's very valid answer, and I know there is no way Civ series would become such "Souls - like" game due to the large amount of its fans who play it for that relaxing zen flow, which it generates very competently.

And that would be me. I understand you concerning the excitement of a difficult game, but for me, I take Civ more as a pastime than a game. I can play it more or less in my sleep. I don't need challenging decision making in my recreation time.

 

[pokiehl]

And that would be me. I understand you concerning the excitement of a difficult game, but for me, I take Civ more as a pastime than a game. I can play it more or less in my sleep. I don't need challenging decision making in my recreation time.

I think if the game becomes more engaging, folks like you can just lower the difficulty or tweak some other setting to get a simpler experience.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Coming back to the OP about what to value between immersion, historical accuracy, strategic depth and fun/entertainment, I think this could be summed up as those only two questions:

• Do I believe in what I'm doing?
• Is it interesting?

Believing in what we are doing is certainly what people have in mind when they consider immersion. Immersion can mean "realism", but not necessarily, as our brain is totally ready to accept simplified or even unrealistic premises, as long as they make sense in their context. Hence why, rather than historical "accuracy", I believe what's at the core of any civ game is rather the historical "modeling" it proposes. If it makes sense that for our civilization to thrive, we need food to grow our population, production to build stuff and science to discover technologies, we're ready to believe in that model, and as such to get into it.

Now believing in the model isn't enough, it also has to be interesting, as that's what makes it fun and engaging. And in the civ context, it relies mostly about how interesting are the decisions I'm confronted to make. For decisions to be interesting, we need to understand game mechanisms, to grasp what is at stake, and to consider the choice legitimate enough to engage ourselves into thinking about it. If there is a too obvious "good choice", then it can end up feeling like work, which is the opposite of fun. If the choice I'm confronted to doesn't feel legitimate, then it will be considered an unnecessary distraction. An interesting choice would be "where should I build my next city?", a tedious one is "how can I redeploy my clogged units".

I believe the strength of the Civ series comes from both its powerful historical modeling that we're ready to accept, and the fact we are confronted to interesting choices, between options that all make sense. If the game is turn-based, it's precisely to give to the player all the needed time to decide wisely. If the game is made out of tiles, it's to divide information in entities which are easy to understand. Therefore the intention of the game has never been to "feel like a board game". And I believe the mistake from younger civ lead designers was to consider the fun was all about board game features, therefore emphasizing that aspect even more.

 

[Abaxial]

I think if the game becomes more engaging, folks like you can just lower the difficulty or tweak some other setting to get a simpler experience.

One simply finds a comfortable zone where one is not overwhelmed - for me that is Prince level, which I prefer anyway since the boosts the AI gets at higher levels strike me as cheating. Or like playing chess at odds (as white you start a piece down).

 

[RandV]

That's very valid answer, and I know there is no way Civ series would become such "Souls - like" game due to the large amount of its fans who play it for that relaxing zen flow, which it generates very competently.

That being said, let me answer your 'why'. I suspect there are also many Civ players, like me, who are simply bored by the lack of challenge, which kills their motivation to play. For me the high difficulty in any game means adrenaline, emotions, the feeling of triumph and satisfaction. It makes all those mechanics and modifiers feel meaningful, as in, you need to exploit them cleverly to win - whereas low difficulty in all sorts of games makes me feel 'what's the point in accumulating all those bonuses, I can win anyway while not bothering with them'. It makes me feel more immersed in the game, as I need to pay more attention to it, sink in it more deeply and as I feel ups and downs. High difficulty makes for a better story than a relaxing sandbox in which I can forget half of mechanics and still win comfortably. It makes for a better adventure.

Personally, I get really invested in the early/mid game of Civ, but tend to get frustrated and lose interest in the late game when victory is obvious but there's still a very long clock to run out. In Civ VI usually by about the time you hit the industrial era the snowball has started, and for Civ VII I hope there's two issues that can be addressed:

1. Keep competitive engagement going longer
2. If you can't always achieve that, how about a way to conclude the game early?

Like for #2 if you're playing an online match of Starcraft technically to achieve victory you have to destroy every last structure your opponent has built, but well before you get there when one side sees they've lost they type gg and tap out. Civ lacks this ability in single player, and when it's obvious you're going to win there can still be hours of playtime left to actually achieve a victory condition.