Is Civ 3 A Realistic Game Or Not???

[Exile_Ian]

And leaving aside any reality aspects, Battleships on a lake in your own territory are sometimes a very excellent defense. You can bombad advancing units and weaken them before they do too much damage.

 

[Exile_Ian]

P.S. I would like to contribute $1 to Zouave as part of his 'money back' gripe. If another 49 people join in, maybe we can buy him off?

 

[d3dash]

Originally posted by Zouave
Civ 3 is "just a game" that fails miserably to SIMULATE reality, in Diplomacy, warfare, and in trading. The reasons and examples have been discussed endlessly here for months.

Civ 2 did a much better job at giving the appearance of realism; the system worked better,

And everyone who played both games KNOWS this.

hmmmm......let me think for a moment.......So I wasn't playing Civ2 all that time????? I wonder what game I was playing???? I guess I must have been playing cards then. I have played Both, and I will grant that Civ2 had it's moments, but in the whole Civ3 is gives more of an impression of reality.

Shall I give some examples...I think I shall...
1) in Civ2 you had no borders, your would be borders were only the terrain that your city could work, so you would have huge gaps in your empire. Do you call that realistic?

2) In the end game of Civ2, all you had to do to win was build Howies and you would conqure all of the world.

ok, back to the real subject, is civ3 realistic?
To an extent it simulates reality well for the game, they have improved a lot over civ2, but has also lost some from Civ2. Overall I think Civ3 is a great game, and has it's own reality.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

I think that if many of the things going on in the world right now were put into a game, people would say they were "unrealistic" since they make no sense.

If I want realism, I'll go for a walk in the city. Most days, I prefer to play Civ III.

 

[Selous]

oh please .... quit with the "go out into the real world for a dose of realism" bollocks .... civilization is supposed to be a game that simulates the rise and fall of nations with u as the controlling body .... off corse they have to throw out a bit of the "realism" but the game IS based on some historical premices ... it IS supposed to be a game of dimplomacy but has very poor diplomatic models ... its not supposed to be a game of military conquest and it also does this poorly (but good enough for what is needed)

some of u complain that in civ2 all u needed was howitizers ... but all that has changed now and all u now need is modern armour ... gee ... big difference there ... in the real world ... we need combined arms to win any conflict but not in civ3

i do think that the author of the tread did mean does civ3 represent the real world rise and fall of nations and peoples somewhat accuratly .... not if it is like being a countries ruler .... but then perhaps i just missunderstood the original post?? and he was asking if civ3 is just like real life ... but i REALLY dont think so

 

[Lt.Col. Kilgore]

Originally posted by Selous
oh please .... quit with the "go out into the real world for a dose of realism" bollocks .... civilization is supposed to be a game that simulates the rise and fall of nations with u as the controlling body ....

Exactly. I guess what there sayin is Zuove should quit complaining and go out and take over the Babylonians and then expand his borders well past Lybia...

I believe the game should be a bit more realistic. At least as realistic as possible. That would take an incredible amount of time to implement so we can write off Civ 3 becoming terribly realistic.
But as others have said, we have the technology to make some incredibly involving games and those who want a "fun and lighthearted game": Risk is a lot of fun and probably cheaper than Civ 3.

I personally want Civ to be a close-as-possible to reality simulation of civ building and so on. I think theres nothing wrong with more realism and complexities. Hopefully Civ 4 will be for the fans and not a wider audience, but I guess we can't expect them to make economic scuicide what with all the pro-simplicity/anti-complaining sentiment I see on this thread alone.

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by Zouave

As for chess, it was designed as an abstraction - not a simulation.

I don't recall any of the Civ games being marketed as "simulations."

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Probably a good question would be : is CIV3 playable enough or not?

Regards,

P.S. : My answer was "unrealistic" ...

 

[Lt.Col. Kilgore]

Originally posted by Dralix


I don't recall any of the Civ games being marketed as "simulations."

Now this discussion is degrading into semantics...

 

[Park Ranger]

Originally posted by Dralix


I don't recall any of the Civ games being marketed as "simulations."

But it's not marketed as fantasy, either.

I think it's fair, whatever the packaging, to assume that a game calling itself "civilization" and claiming to be steeped in history should have an element of realism.

On the other hand, it will NEVER be that good at simulating real issues in resource management, economic planning, or terrrain/climate modelling. Why not? Because any programmer who develops a realistic simulation will end up working for a think tank or research facility, workng on REAL problems, on computers that can eat PC's for breakfast.

Nonetheless I expect a lot of historical accuracy from civ3, and that the problems a player encounters in playing a game of civ will at least superficially resemble real ones. It's when the problem is one like "I have to start building a palace now so I can have a head start on the Sistine Chapel before i get the tech" that we (in this case willingly) sacrifice realism for an enjoyable game.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by Lt.Col. Kilgore


Now this discussion is degrading into semantics...

Someone asks "Is Civ3 realistic" and we're only now degrading into semantics?

I thought we did that somewhere around the first reply.