How to make your game more historicly acurate

[FlowKey]

I'm not really upset about historical accuracy at all ... I just like the mind game of it.

In fact, I think Sid did an amazing job at it to begin with. The real historical accuracy in Civ does not lie in the small technicalities of which tech or wonder should have which effect, but in the fact that all these step-by-step developments during a game of Civ (as is) does mimic history on a large scale.

A few examples:
- the game starts just after the agricultural revolution (i.e.) irrigation and slowly leads to small scale wars with other civs as a result of overpopulation and technological development.
- as the middle ages progress and commerce develops, money starts playing a larger role: you gain larger amounts of it per turn and is becomes an instrument of power, both towards other civs as towards your own population.
- In the industrial age, the introduction of railways and factories leads to a huge take-off in industrial production, which - combined with technical development - often leads to a bloody world war.

I know I am not saying anything new here, but I just want to point out that all this is a slow step-by-step development that was very well thought through, already in the original Civ from 1991.

 

[Turner]

@Matto - I agree with what you've said. But the rules as they are are good enough for me. But then, you've got the editor and can change to your hearts content. Well, mostly. These tweaks and what not are not ones that would make the game fun for me. But more power to those that would enjoy it. It's why we have an editor.

But I just don't understand the whole "America shouldn't be in the game because they didn't exist in 4000b.c." Okay, that point wasn't brought up in this thread, but it's a common one that does when people start saying "Civ should be more historically accurate." If you think about it, there weren't many civs around at 4000bc... I'm not saying Sumeria is the mother of all Civilizations, but it did start there, for the most part. And setting it up to be historically accurate would me that you'd have to start out as them, and perhaps later on move on to a different civ. If you wanted to be, say, Modern France or the US, you'd start way behind... But it would always be the same.

Anyways... that's just how I see it. As I said before, YMMV.

@Flow - good points!

 

[Matto the Hun]

@Matto - I agree with what you've said. But the rules as they are are good enough for me. But then, you've got the editor and can change to your hearts content. Well, mostly. These tweaks and what not are not ones that would make the game fun for me. But more power to those that would enjoy it. It's why we have an editor.

Indeed. I don't even have enough time to play; so I haven't even had the chance to enjoy all Vanilla has to offer nevermind C3C or any of this editor stuff. In fact I don't really see myself ever bothering with the editor, seems like work.

I've seen that arguement about "America shouldn't be in the game", or "would Ghandi build nukes". Those are non-arguements really. If people wanted to go down that road I guess India would never fight anybody EVER and if the were attacked they would automatically go on a hunger strike or something. Weeee, what fun!

You are absolutely right on with what you're saying there, at that point why even play... if someone is gonna be THAT "histerically accurate" just reead a history book for Pete's Sakes!

I see the abstraction of game playmuch like an abstract painting, like a Picaso. Sure, the figure is at striking weird angles and has both its eyes on one side of the face, but it expresses so much more that a realistically painted figure can. Likewise with the game, I'd say 99% of the abstractions make it playable and enjoyable... other wise it would just be a real drag.

Though, when we think on it, "making the game more realistic anyway" brings up the question; who's view of realistic would that be?

On that front. I'd venture to say the game is pretty much politically and socially neutral... which also makes it a great gameto play (of course).

... and now that i think on it, flowkey pretty much encapsulated 95%of what i just typed.

 

[Turner]

Not only "Who's view of realistic would that be" but "How much realism do I need, really?"

I agree with Padma and the Firaxis team with the "Gameplay trumps realism every time". For the most part, the standard rules are good enough for me. Oh, I've tweaked this, and modded that. And I'm a big fan of DyP/RnR, which is a major rules change... But I do admit, sometimes DyP/RnR is a bit too much for me.

 

[Matto the Hun]

Not only "Who's view of realistic would that be" but "How much realism do I need, really?"

That's true... living in the real world is a pain-in-the-rear-enough; I don't need to pay forty-five bucks to get that kind of abuse from a computer game.

 

[FascistRepublic]

Guys, please don't change the subject. If you have complaints pm me.
Now on to business.

Where in the world did they get that the Byzintines were scientific? Not sure what to replace it with, any suggestions?

Also, as time goes on, beef up units. A Legionary just beat my infantry, and frankly that's stupid. So usin gthe sparma line as an ex.
make musketmen 3/5/1 and musketers 4/5/1, rilfelmen 6/8/1 infantry
10/12/1 and mech inf. 15/20/2. Make all lines go like that.

I didn't edit spearmen or pikemen because there good as is.

 

[thefusilier]

I'll be honest, I've changed alot in my games, (while I understand and respect those who say its good as it is).

One thing I did, was change archers/longbowmen etc to defense units... thats how they were used primarily in real life (in Europe at least). Now offensive units are swordsman and horsemounted units with a spearmen as a multirole unit with an average cost.

 

[FlowKey]

Where in the world did they get that the Byzintines were scientific?

In the period following the fall of the Western Roman Empire (4th century AD), the Byzantine empire was by far the most advanced society for hundreds of years. A lot of knowledge, on for instance astronomy and construction, was preserved here while it was lost to Western Europe ... only to be regained from the Arabs with the crusades of the Middle Ages. Guess where they got their techs from ....

re: infantry vs. legion
Infantry has an attack value of 6, legion a defense value of 2. On equal terrain and with equal experience, this means the legion wins 1 out of 3 times when the infantry attacks. This does not sound unreasonable to me if I imagine a platoon of 17 year old WWI infantry were actually up against a legion of Roman swordsmen.

 

[FascistRepublic]

In the period following the fall of the Western Roman Empire (4th century AD), the Byzantine empire was by far the most advanced society for hundreds of years. A lot of knowledge, on for instance astronomy and construction, was preserved here while it was lost to Western Europe ... only to be regained from the Arabs with the crusades of the Middle Ages. Guess where they got their techs from ....

re: infantry vs. legion
Infantry has an attack value of 6, legion a defense value of 2. On equal terrain and with equal experience, this means the legion wins 1 out of 3 times when the infantry attacks. This does not sound unreasonable to me if I imagine a platoon of 17 year old WWI infantry were actually up against a legion of Roman swordsmen.

Thanks for brushing me up on my Byzantine history, but keep in mind legionarys have to get up close to attack. Infanty doesn't. Thats one of the strengths of civ 4, being able to recognise that.

 

[Turner]

re: infantry vs. legion
Infantry has an attack value of 6, legion a defense value of 2. On equal terrain and with equal experience, this means the legion wins 1 out of 3 times when the infantry attacks. This does not sound unreasonable to me if I imagine a platoon of 17 year old WWI infantry were actually up against a legion of Roman swordsmen.

Indeed. There is no 'sure thing', even in real life modern warfare. Look at how the Afgans were able to keep the Soviet Union from taking them over.

One thing you can do, and the DyP/RnR mod does this, is give newer, more modern units bonus hitpoints. For instance, if your Infantry had a +1 bonus to hit points, then the 3/4/5 Legions would have to go against the 4/5/6 infantry. Does it make it 'more realistic'? Well, that's debatable. But it does give an edge to the more modern units, which I do think is more realistic.

 

[Matto the Hun]

Indeed. There is no 'sure thing', even in real life modern warfare. Look at how the Afgans were able to keep the Soviet Union from taking them over.

I usually imagine that same scenario (or fuzzy ewoks vs. imperial stormtroopers - type situationn ) when those instances occur with me. Or some wicked crazy spearman veteran came up with verrrrrrrry clever plan/trap for that tank batallion.

Of course, when it happens too often, my imagination starts to think its a bit absurd, but I haven't yet had these situations be a deal breaker in my strategy... set back perhaps,

 

[Turner]

Yeah, but those 'fuzzy' ewoks had Han Solo and Chewbacca helping them! Of course they were going to win!

Seriously, there could be all kinds of things. You can also look at today, and how the roadside bombings in Iraq are taking out US tanks and troopers. I'm sure there's tons of other examples that work as well.

 

[FascistRepublic]

Perhaps i'm missing somthing...

Gun Sword
:suicide:

 

[Turner]

Well, why don't you ask some of the US military, armed with rocket launchers, tanks, missiles, machine guns, and a lot of other stuff, just how much respect they have for the people laying down the roadside bombs? What's the death toll from that alone? But I digress, I'm not trying to turn this into an OT thread. Just making a point.

 

[FlowKey]

Perhaps i'm missing somthing...

Gun Sword
:suicide:

you are indeed. The 'gun' also has a history: they have come a long way technologically speaking since the musketmen and in how to use them effectively. A lot of blood streamed through the rivers before we had light weight hand carried killing machines like the modern mac10.

A musket, for instance, can hardly be considered a lethal weapon, except when fired at close range by an experienced user. In colonial America, European soldiers were often hacked to death by the natives when they were in the process of reloading. The gun simply didn't go off or blew up in the users face some 1 out of 5 times.

As for infantry: the bajonets used in the WWI were still pretty heavy to walk around with, reloading was a time consuming activity and they often jammed. It was no luxury a soldier could attach his knife to the gun so it could be used as a more effective old-fashioned weapon in hand-to-hand combat.

Apart from teaching a little military history to the world, my point is: it is historically accurate for an early gun-unit to sometimes lose to a sword or legion. Now if your TOW infantry or Modern armoured tank loses to a sword, that's just a case of very, very, very bad luck.

 

[FascistRepublic]

! I call for a drop in the subject so we can move too greener pastures. Any other suggestions?

 

[FlowKey]

! I call for a drop in the subject so we can move too greener pastures. Any other suggestions?

Good idea.

Anyways, I don't mind anyone modding their CIV to reflect their preferences however these came about.

I would however like to stress once more that it is my personal view that Sid did an amazing job in recreating history as accurately as possible in a turn based game and that every follow-up made his genial work only better.
(which is probably the main reason I've been playing this game on and off for 15 years now)

 

[seanos08]

I am happy with archers being a 2/1/1 and longbowmen a 4/1/1 unit. Archers gave an ancient or medievel army the ability to strike at a distance. However anybody who has played Medieval Total War would know archers are very weak on defence against swordsmen or especially cavalry. Archers need support from defensive infantry.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=161020

Check out the above link for my story the Egytpt Iroquois War a Modern Age technothriller.

 

[FascistRepublic]

I am happy with archers being a 2/1/1 and longbowmen a 4/1/1 unit. Archers gave an ancient or medievel army the ability to strike at a distance. However anybody who has played Medieval Total War would know archers are very weak on defence against swordsmen or especially cavalry. Archers need support from defensive infantry.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=161020

Check out the above link for my story the Egytpt Iroquois War a Modern Age technothriller.

Well said, i always thought there should be continuatons to that line up the ally of Crossbows, longrange rifles, and snipers. Any1 up for the chalange?

 

[FascistRepublic]

List on First page has been updated