How good a simulation of civilizations' development is the game Civ IV

[sanjay_111]

I am amazed at the similarities between the way Civ IV plays out and the way civilizations and nations have developed in real. Thought I will list those here and see what others think and also, what other similarities have been noticed.

Here are what I thought do happen between nations:

1. There is no such thing as purely peaceful development. If one country tries to develop "peacefully", some other leader / nation is bound to get jealous and will work to bring the peacenik down, even invade if necessary.

2. Developing more cities is hard work, requires focus and is expensive initially but if you remain focussed and manage to develop more cities / regions to a high level, you grow into a more powerful civ.

3. A more obvious one, there are some critical military technologies. If you fall behind on those, numbers won't save you.

4. If you have access to diverse resources, people lead healthier, happier and richer lives

5. The more the number of nations that share your religion, the stronger you are diplomatically.

6. I have personally experienced this where I come from - a significant change in "civics" leads to a period of disruption which is very disorienting for individuals and society. However, peace and balance does return after this period of disruption.

7. It takes a much bigger military to overpower another nation than to simply defend yours. If I have four units of lates military tech in each of my city, I am more or less safe. If I want to overpower Cyrus next door, I need 6 catapults / cannons / artillery + 12 attacking units before I can think of starting an attack. I am quite sure ratio is similar in real life too.

Do post more if you can think of.

 

[Tibur753]

8. There was a good reason that the Soviet Union (the largest country on earth) ran state property.

9. Religious differences can cause massive wars.

10. A one regiment of highly trained veteran solders can defeat an army of inexperienced drafted soldiers soldiers five times its size.

11. You must continually be seeking new methods of warfare or be destroyed by an opponent who has maybe one more tech then you. (such as industrialism or gunpowder or iron working)

 

[Commodore Nate]

The only thing I find that Civ can't accurately portray is civil war. It's obviously tied to periods of civic change (in many cases, but there are exceptions), but short of having half of your civ break away during anarchy, I can't see how to implement it.

 

[Wenla]

1. There is no such thing as purely peaceful development. If one country tries to develop "peacefully", some other leader / nation is bound to get jealous and will work to bring the peacenik down, even invade if necessary.

I can't agree with you with this one (at least in game context). I'm not a warmonger and I have won several times without being a single day at war with any other nation. In real life it is propably like you said...

Wenla

 

[sanjay_111]

I can't agree with you with this one (at least in game context). I'm not a warmonger and I have won several times without being a single day at war with any other nation. In real life it is propably like you said...

Wenla

I am surprised ! I wish I were as lucky as you are !

I always play Gandhi and always try to get culture victory. One of the following is sure to attack me by the time I have my third city up: Monty, Nap, Alex, Toku. Sometimes others attack too.

I face minimum three wars by the time the game is over. In later game, I try to get defensive pact usually with Hatty or Cyrus so I am a little safer.

It might have to do with levels too. Upto Prince level, I faced much less attacks. In monarch, I have to have a decent army or else I am gone by the time world comes to hear of christianity.

 

[Tibur753]

If you can keep your power rating really highthen the AIs wont attack you. Build walls, castles, barracks, stable, airport, etc. and have alot of units and the AI will be too scared of you to attack usually. When you go for a culture victory, have two cities that build lots of military units and spread those units among all of your cities. This way, you can focus on culture in your three cities and still keep up with/surpass the AI in military strength. The buildings that I mentioned above all increase your power rating, so if a city has nothing to do, then build one in it. Walls are pretty cheap, especially if you have stone. And castles give culture, so your probably building them anyway. Maybe you should switch civs if you keep getting attacked. Try Creative, Spiritual or Industrious/Protective. Protective gives free promotions to archers and gunpowder units and has double production speed for walls and castles. That will help you survive an attack.

 

[zebomba2]

I can't agree with you with this one (at least in game context). I'm not a warmonger and I have won several times without being a single day at war with any other nation. In real life it is propably like you said...

Wenla

Did you check the "always peace" option?
Depending on the level you play on, it's impossible to outproduce the AI, and as long as it has similar power, sometimes even when you have much more, warmongers like Monty, Shaka, Alex, Napoleon, Toku, Cathy, will declare war. That is just something consistent since Civ1. It's not a matter of if, merely a question of when. I like this aspect of Civ4. War never changes, it's just a question of what to do when it comes.

 

[Wenla]

Did you check the "always peace" option?

No, I keep all victory conditions open (= is possible to win). Mostly I win with space race or time. My favorite options are marathon/huge/panagea.

Wenla

 

[T.A JONES]

AI spams dem cities so you better grab em or they will. Thats the message IM gettin.
I can't see how playin a super huge with 20 civs would be good.
All the AI's would grab the land but you can't do the same to stay competive

 

[donovant22]

I play as European countries a lot and Germany and France ALWAYS go to war.

That is so realistic.

 

[JujuLautre]

I would consider more realistic that France and England always go to war with each other

 

[Kaenash]

Reasons where CIV does fall down:


1. It takes a full 200 years for an army to move even one "Space" representing a few hundred miles. Slow walkers.

2. If some one demands something from you and you give it to them, they go away for 10 "turns" at least. Typically, I've found giving something to someone just makes them want more (in reality).

3. For some reason Japan can start next to the Vikings have a totally different architecture that is copied on the other side of the world by Chinese who are next to the Celtic people.

4. I can build Ankor Wat even though I am the most warlike nation in the world.

5. The game fails to take into account the massive popularity and addictiveness of World of Warcraft in the later era which would result in massive loss of productivity.

6. There is no six, it bothers me that there would even be a six on this list.

7. Louis XIV in Caveman times still dresses like he lives in the napoleonic era. Oh CIV II with your ever-changing advisors and leaderheads..why have you forsaken me?

8. In the modern age, if I go to war with Iraq as America, the actual war would not have begun until I spent 4 years just building up enough troops, then about 12 turns for me to transport them to attack, then after one turn I'd station my troops there and control the entire region and since war is over, war weariness ends.

9. Two words: No Pie

10. The game fails to take into account the many technological advances and works of wonder created by women. All of the ones in the game are created by, every brick laid by, all planned for by a man. The game is missing the key technologys created by women such as....well, you know....um.....well, there is.....um.................well you know, like ....um, okay in that respect its spot on.


Please return to your fanboism.

 

[CossackProblem]

In an interesting game with a buddy one continent had every religion and the other had none.

The religion-less continent never went to war. The continent full of religions was never at peace.

(Unsurprisingly, the second two seperate religions were eventually introduced to the religion-less continent it was at war within a short amount of time)

 

[Yxklyx]

There is one thing the game does NOT model correctly. No civilization has lasted 6000 years and most of them lasted a much shorter time. The Roman civilization lasted about 1000 years (if you just count Republic and Empire) and I think that's the longest lasting - but maybe there's a Chinese civilization that lasted longer?

Has anyone here played History of the World or Vinci? In those (board) games you play a civilization for a period of time until it goes into decline at which point you play another civilization - your final score is a combination of all the civilizations you've played. It would be cool if Civ 5 would do something like that.

 

[donovant22]

That's what Rhye's and Fall in Beyond the Sword does. It's really, really good.

 

[Crowqueen]

There is one thing the game does NOT model correctly. No civilization has lasted 6000 years and most of them lasted a much shorter time. The Roman civilization lasted about 1000 years (if you just count Republic and Empire) and I think that's the longest lasting - but maybe there's a Chinese civilization that lasted longer?

Has anyone here played History of the World or Vinci? In those (board) games you play a civilization for a period of time until it goes into decline at which point you play another civilization - your final score is a combination of all the civilizations you've played. It would be cool if Civ 5 would do something like that.

I tried Rhye's once and found it irritating that I was being led through a game that mirrored real life rather than having a "what if" experience with ancient Babylon versus modern France (led by De Gaulle who is probably the latest leader in the game). If Civ V was like that I wouldn't play it.

I enjoy imagining how it looks on the ground. I've tried and failed to write an epic of my own - I'll just follow Sisutil's from now on - but perhaps less from the leadership point of view and more from the citizen's point of view. With my latest game - Mali on Continents-and-Islands (custom map script) with a decent spread of continent and islands this time rather than just Pangaea plus random archipelagos of one-tile islands (as opposed to Three Mile Island), for example the Malinese would talk about "the other world" - referring to their nascent colonies on uninhabited territory - rather than the "new world". A good kosher restaurant is not hard to find in Timbuktu, or this poor citizen might find themselves giving birth to two-headed children or something like that...

Spoiler :

However, the rate at which I just eat through other civs to achieve a domination win would probably earn me the badge of "rogue state" if I was in the real world, and Huyana Capac was just minding his own kosher restaurants when I decided to attack unprovoked a few centuries ago before starting in on Charlemagne. The game if anything needs to be balanced towards diplomacy or active trade (and even introducing an element perhaps of internal issues such as civil war or democracy like Civ2 had in it, forcing the leader to make peace unless e.g. they kept their happiness level constant, for instance? You would have to make Representation or Universal Suffrage good at production or finance, find some way of measuring democracy through periodic internal elections - possibly after the construction of a Houses of Parliament or Congress national wonder? or make that the function of the Forbidden Palace? - and thus maintaining a happy or healthy population would count more than just building jails to shut them up). I am only playing at Warlord but there is nothing stopping me wasting other civs; I suspect at higher levels there is more counterweight but this latest game is just obscene because of Fin/Spi's advantages. They should thus develop the random event system more than just to provide opportunities to spend money on bandit control etc.

 

[ignacz]

This is my first post here. I have played Civs II-III-IV, but have not played any of the expansions.

I was going to post something along the lines of the wishlist thread, but this seemed a somewhat relevant place.

I really enjoy the Greek World scenario in IV, where after struggling to amass empire and stabilizing it well enough, you have to withstand the final Barbarian onslaught. And I like the concept of major/minor civs.

One thing that I would love to see along those lines is neglected or distant cities and or area (such as farm and resource rich outlying towns or cities) generate into independent minor Civs, a la the American Colonies seceding from England, rather than joining French Canada, which would not likely happen. Perhaps that's an aspect that Colonization will address. Also, if a particular major government collapses or is beginning to unfold, you might see Balkanization and a flurry of minor Civs develop.

And I think the vassal state theme should be developed and incorporated into the above.

Also, the point mentioned above about warfare (mentioning US-Iraq), your power should allow you to facilitate warfare accordingly. For instance, when you go to war, you are offered a menu of what your military might can purchase at the money allocated to defense by your government for the purposes of war (your government type would play a role in amount of gold directly available).

Along those lines, I have never liked the aspect of the cottage-hamlet-town aspect of development. I feel that in real-life, many of these become major cities in their own right. This would facilitate production for the aforementioned defensive purposes as well. It would also add to the challenge of defense early in the game. Since I often play as an expansionist early on, this would offer a different game play style for me.

Maybe these things have been posted or discussed here before, and if they have I apologize.

 

[6-Star General]

What I want to know is: What's the deal with the Forbidden Palace? Take the U.S. IRL for example. One of the largest nations on earth, but no FP? Let's get on this already and get our corruption down! Really though, I feel that this should be more of a world wonder instead of a national wonder. I mean, there was only one Forbidden Palace, after all.

 

[pat4]

What I want to know is: What's the deal with the Forbidden Palace? Take the U.S. IRL for example. One of the largest nations on earth, but no FP? Let's get on this already and get our corruption down! Really though, I feel that this should be more of a world wonder instead of a national wonder. I mean, there was only one Forbidden Palace, after all.

It's just a concept for the game that they needed to give a name so they called it the forbidden palace. You shouldn't take everything so seriously.