Ultraworld
Emperor
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 1,156
That is micro-management. I think it should be possible to make the game more realistic without more micro-managament
Less realism!
- Thread starter warpstorm
- Start date
That is micro-management. I think it should be possible to make the game more realistic without more micro-managament
Mewtarthio
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,930
You mean so that, at a certain date, Rome falls, America revolts, Germany and Austria sign MPP's, etc.?
Crazy Jerome
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2002
- Messages
- 210
IMO, what we want is more pseudo realistic systems to tweak with more realistic results, but less realism in all the stuff in between the user interface and the results. (Keeping in mind that playability always trumps realism when the two conflict.)
For example, modern armor stopped by spearman is unrealistic result. However, any math tweaks to combat odds will either be a hodgepodge of exceptions (bad, because hard to understand what is happening) or will give unrealistic results elsewhere. That's why the oft-proposed suggestion to simply change the name and unit icon across ages is a better solution. The playability is preserved, the system is kept simple, and tanks occasionally being stopped by the equivalent of partisans is realistic enough.
Another more realistic result would be an AI that did a better job with trade, diplomacy, and strategic planning for combat. That doesn't change the game user interface at all (though it would certainly lead to game play changes).
A potential area where this thought would lead to radically different changes would be the implementation of trade routes. Right now, they are unrealistically abstract (though probably about as good as we could get in Civ 3). Piracy doesn't interfere, for example. The end of trade is too abrupt. OTOH, the Call to Power model where one barbarian ship runs across the route and completely blocks it lead to some annoying micromanagement. The caravan unit in Civ1/2 was also too much micromanagement. A possible compromise would be a robust trade screen where the player made big deals (including reselling), set trade policy, set tarrif rates, allocated funds/military for local piracy/smuggling control, and handled accumulated inventory of trade goods. (I say possible, because it would also be easy to overdo it.) That way, the abstract game underneath can still represent a large amount of trade with the neighbors, but this is realistically reflected. (For example, you probably cannot stop your citizens from trading basic goods for cash, thus enriching your and your neighbors. But you can declare that the iron mines are off limits to those dastardly Romans.)
For example, modern armor stopped by spearman is unrealistic result. However, any math tweaks to combat odds will either be a hodgepodge of exceptions (bad, because hard to understand what is happening) or will give unrealistic results elsewhere. That's why the oft-proposed suggestion to simply change the name and unit icon across ages is a better solution. The playability is preserved, the system is kept simple, and tanks occasionally being stopped by the equivalent of partisans is realistic enough.
Another more realistic result would be an AI that did a better job with trade, diplomacy, and strategic planning for combat. That doesn't change the game user interface at all (though it would certainly lead to game play changes).
A potential area where this thought would lead to radically different changes would be the implementation of trade routes. Right now, they are unrealistically abstract (though probably about as good as we could get in Civ 3). Piracy doesn't interfere, for example. The end of trade is too abrupt. OTOH, the Call to Power model where one barbarian ship runs across the route and completely blocks it lead to some annoying micromanagement. The caravan unit in Civ1/2 was also too much micromanagement. A possible compromise would be a robust trade screen where the player made big deals (including reselling), set trade policy, set tarrif rates, allocated funds/military for local piracy/smuggling control, and handled accumulated inventory of trade goods. (I say possible, because it would also be easy to overdo it.) That way, the abstract game underneath can still represent a large amount of trade with the neighbors, but this is realistically reflected. (For example, you probably cannot stop your citizens from trading basic goods for cash, thus enriching your and your neighbors. But you can declare that the iron mines are off limits to those dastardly Romans.)
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Are you crazy? Obviously it'S the persians you need to make Iron off-limit too. Immortals are a lot scarrier than legions :-D.
As for spearman vs tanks, IMHO the best way to handle the problem without changing the rule of civ is simply to make the AI very upgrade-prone, perhaps appropriately cheapening the upgrades so that the AI doesn't bankrupt itself in the process.
As for spearman vs tanks, IMHO the best way to handle the problem without changing the rule of civ is simply to make the AI very upgrade-prone, perhaps appropriately cheapening the upgrades so that the AI doesn't bankrupt itself in the process.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
For my part, in spite of what Oda says 
, I feel that it is best to simulate realism without simulating all of the COMPLEXITY of realism-if you get my meaning.
My point is that, as the game currently stands I (the player) have WAY too much control over the fate of my empire! I still want to control most things but, at the same time, I want to occasionally feel that some things are totally out of my hands-even if it's just in the form of the old Civ2 senate.
I also want to see an end to the unrealistic switch from democracy to communism which players and AI alike currently indulge in.
I want some random events to exist in the game so that my modern age endgames don't come out the same almost everytime!
I want the ability for big, burgeoning empires to come crashing down under their own weight from time to time-not just because its realistic, but because its a great way for smaller, better managed nations to get into the lead!
Sorry, I realise I'm rambling, but I hope you see what my three points are:
1) That increasing 'realism' doesn't HAVE to increase complexity and micromanagement IF it is done right.
2) You should be able to have governers/advisors for almost every part of how your civ operates so that different players can choose their OWN degree of micromanagement.
3) Often, having more 'realism' in the game can make it MORE exiting and fun-not less!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
, I feel that it is best to simulate realism without simulating all of the COMPLEXITY of realism-if you get my meaning.My point is that, as the game currently stands I (the player) have WAY too much control over the fate of my empire! I still want to control most things but, at the same time, I want to occasionally feel that some things are totally out of my hands-even if it's just in the form of the old Civ2 senate.
I also want to see an end to the unrealistic switch from democracy to communism which players and AI alike currently indulge in.
I want some random events to exist in the game so that my modern age endgames don't come out the same almost everytime!
I want the ability for big, burgeoning empires to come crashing down under their own weight from time to time-not just because its realistic, but because its a great way for smaller, better managed nations to get into the lead!
Sorry, I realise I'm rambling, but I hope you see what my three points are:
1) That increasing 'realism' doesn't HAVE to increase complexity and micromanagement IF it is done right.
2) You should be able to have governers/advisors for almost every part of how your civ operates so that different players can choose their OWN degree of micromanagement.
3) Often, having more 'realism' in the game can make it MORE exiting and fun-not less!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Realism for realism's sake is a bad policy, IMO. However, if there are two good choices, approximately equal in terms of gameplay value, I see no reason not to go with the more realistic option.
Realism is fine, as long as it doesn't negatively affect gameplay, I guess is my point. [N.B. Large empires arbitrarily collapsing, game-altering random effects, etc. do negatively affect gameplay, at least in my opinion.]
Arathorn
Realism is fine, as long as it doesn't negatively affect gameplay, I guess is my point. [N.B. Large empires arbitrarily collapsing, game-altering random effects, etc. do negatively affect gameplay, at least in my opinion.]
Arathorn
Blasphemous
Graulich
Errrr... Longbowmen were used only by England because only England had what was needed to successfully produce Longbows and Longbowmen. If the Aztecs wanted to train a force of Longbowmen, too bad for them. They couldn't.
While England used Longbows, across the world most nations used the easier to operate (yet inferior) Crossbow.
I hope you can guess where I'm heading here...
Originally posted by Blasphemous
Errrr... Longbowmen were used only by England because only England had what was needed to successfully produce Longbows and Longbowmen. If the Aztecs wanted to train a force of Longbowmen, too bad for them. They couldn't.
While England used Longbows, across the world most nations used the easier to operate (yet inferior) Crossbow.
I hope you can guess where I'm heading here...
Actually, I think Oda makes a good point. Historically, only England had what was needed, but that's not to say that in an alternate history, the Aztecs might be the only ones who had what was needed, and if the English wanted to train a force of Longbowmen, too bad for them. I admit I do like the idea of making Longbowmen the English UU and replacing the generic unit with Crossbowmen, but at the same time, I can see Oda's point. The whole idea of UUs in a problematic one, because while it adds a lot of flavor to the game, it also confines us to more closely matching real history (to some extent). UUs that are essentially elite versions of existing units aren't as bad in that respect, compared to UUs which dictate that only one civ could ever develop a particular type of unit in the first place.
I agree with this point.Oda Nobunaga said:
I try to make a difference between realism and believability -- spearmen taking on armour is not realistic but if I think that it was a kind of a night-time guerilla action then I can believe this. Zulus building an Eiffel Tower? Unrealistic yet believable.
What I really liked about Civ2 was that it was a game of options. I could try to develop a nation strong in other respects than military; I could focus on economics (buy out others) or science (better units or govs); if nothing worked I could get great spies; I had OPTIONS.
Trying to imitate history of Earth IMHO is the biggest flaw of Civ3.
When I want realism I play a realistic scenario.
Before we go on we need to define "realism". There is "realism of details" and then there is "overall historic realism". They are not the same although most people define realism as "realism of detail" rather than "overall realism" as I do.
Contrary to common belief, increasing overall realism and making the game feel more historically realistic in a broad sense does NOT require adding more micro-management and more complexity. Consider C3C's moving map/contact trading to requiring Navigation. A trivial change and adding no additional detail or complexity whatsoever. But the overall effect of making one have to be more isolated and having to explore more and less known of the world is far more historically realistic. And this change also was overwhelmingly applauded.
So when considering realism, do not make the mistake it is having to add lots of complexity and micro-management and such. It is not necessarily the case. That minor change I wrote above is a great example of increasing realism with no increase in complexity and no decrease in fun and playability.
Contrary to common belief, increasing overall realism and making the game feel more historically realistic in a broad sense does NOT require adding more micro-management and more complexity. Consider C3C's moving map/contact trading to requiring Navigation. A trivial change and adding no additional detail or complexity whatsoever. But the overall effect of making one have to be more isolated and having to explore more and less known of the world is far more historically realistic. And this change also was overwhelmingly applauded.
So when considering realism, do not make the mistake it is having to add lots of complexity and micro-management and such. It is not necessarily the case. That minor change I wrote above is a great example of increasing realism with no increase in complexity and no decrease in fun and playability.
My apologies, but gefore beating this thing to death, let us keep in mind that increasing overall realism can actually be achieved:
1. ...without extra complication at all!!!
Examples:
- C3C requiring Navigation for map/communications trading
- Civ 3 limiting ability to terraform any tile to any tile
- Civ 3 getting rid of conquest = free steal any tech crap
- Civ 3 finally getting rid of attack one = kill whole stack
- Civ 3 no using enemy roads/RR
etc, etc, etc, etc
2. ...can actually increase simplicity and decrease micromanagement and tedium!!!!
- Civ 3 getting rid of "home city support" for units to national gold support - no more "rebasing" units from home city to home city to balance shields lost to unit support and losing whole stacks because city fell!
(there are others but this is the best example that comes to mind)
3. ...can increase depth with no increase in micro-management
- Civ 3's culture/border concept fits this. Yes you need to build temples, libraries, wonders, etc. for its cultural effect. But you were building all these before anyway! Did you have to do extra work and extra tedium because of "culture" concept being introduced? No!
And for the last time increased complexity and increased details DOES NOT EQUAL increased overall realism!
Let me say it again:
Increased complexity and increased details DOES NOT EQUAL increased overall realism!
We can add many many details to make it more "realistic" but if the overall effect isn't really much different then we should not add this concept or detail. It is certainly possible to add detail that upon final examination only added unnecessary tedium and complexity and I am opposed to that as well as anyone else.
Okay I think I've ranted on this topic long enough...
1. ...without extra complication at all!!!
Examples:
- C3C requiring Navigation for map/communications trading
- Civ 3 limiting ability to terraform any tile to any tile
- Civ 3 getting rid of conquest = free steal any tech crap
- Civ 3 finally getting rid of attack one = kill whole stack
- Civ 3 no using enemy roads/RR
etc, etc, etc, etc
2. ...can actually increase simplicity and decrease micromanagement and tedium!!!!
- Civ 3 getting rid of "home city support" for units to national gold support - no more "rebasing" units from home city to home city to balance shields lost to unit support and losing whole stacks because city fell!
(there are others but this is the best example that comes to mind)
3. ...can increase depth with no increase in micro-management
- Civ 3's culture/border concept fits this. Yes you need to build temples, libraries, wonders, etc. for its cultural effect. But you were building all these before anyway! Did you have to do extra work and extra tedium because of "culture" concept being introduced? No!
And for the last time increased complexity and increased details DOES NOT EQUAL increased overall realism!
Let me say it again:
Increased complexity and increased details DOES NOT EQUAL increased overall realism!
We can add many many details to make it more "realistic" but if the overall effect isn't really much different then we should not add this concept or detail. It is certainly possible to add detail that upon final examination only added unnecessary tedium and complexity and I am opposed to that as well as anyone else.
Okay I think I've ranted on this topic long enough...
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
I would actually like to see these back in the game (as well as double irrigation and many of the features added in the ToT expansion), but only as options available to modmakers through editor/scripting.polypheus said:
I have no problem with the vanilla version of Civ4 being made more user friendly or even less complex(though I doubt I would play an even simpler version of Civ than Civ3 much myself), but please leave the door open so that modmakers can make Civ4 mods that are even more complex(a LOT more actually) than what is currently possible with Civ3 if they see fit.
I could come up with several pages of things I would like to see included in Civ4 or changed/tweaked from Civ3 that would please both sides of the realism/complexity debate, but you would have to put me on a payroll to make me to post that much
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
UUs and traits aren't designed to mimic history - they're to give each civ flavor. It's just that the UUs and traits which give flavor are based off of realistic things.
What point is there to have different civs with different names if there's no real difference between them?
What point is there to have different civs with different names if there's no real difference between them?
ok to end this
whats the point of makeing a game based on reasltic thing (ie Civs,units,etc) and then when makeing the details of the game makeing it less realstic also if u like civ 1 then liked civ 2 even more (by means of gameplay) and then liked Civ3 more for the most part that means u like the game getting more realstic
whats the point of makeing a game based on reasltic thing (ie Civs,units,etc) and then when makeing the details of the game makeing it less realstic also if u like civ 1 then liked civ 2 even more (by means of gameplay) and then liked Civ3 more for the most part that means u like the game getting more realstic
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
The key is to add as much realism as possible while still making the game as fun as possible. A fine balance to maintain, but it pays off in the end. If you have too little realism, the game is watered down and generic. If there's too much then it won't be as much fun to play.
Milan's Warrior
Peacelord
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2004
- Messages
- 621
I don't care about realism, but I would like to play a game that is more about this last century.
if u want agame about the last century there are about a million
anyways i dont seem to mind games that go to far in realism as i dont mind realism in fact i would much rather have a game go to far in realism rather then have to little
anyways i dont seem to mind games that go to far in realism as i dont mind realism in fact i would much rather have a game go to far in realism rather then have to little
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
If you really feel that way, Colonel head on over to www.matrixgames.com. Their games tend to err on the side of realism. You might find something that strikes your fancy. There are a few that I find quite good (Korsun Pocket being my favorite of theirs, but Highway to the Reich is also good and the upcoming World at War seems like it'll be awesome).
Having said that, I don't think Civ should go that route.
Having said that, I don't think Civ should go that route.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
While I agree that realism is less important than fun (or perhaps even immersion), I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
I think they can draw on reality for great gameplay ideas, with scope being the determining factor.
E.g.: as the emperor, you need to eat and go to the washroom, and if you forget to eat every turn you die!!!
- scope too narrow
E.g.: no emperor lives 6000 years... who the heck are you, anyway? you should need to change bodies and embody new leaders...
- still too narrow for my liking
E.g.: a lot of nations aren't wiped out systematically, but are conquered and live peacefully under a new regime (sometimes temporarily) after a surrender, like France under Germany, or Greece under Rome.
- a broad enough scope for Civ, so I'd say it's at least worth considering.
I think they can draw on reality for great gameplay ideas, with scope being the determining factor.
E.g.: as the emperor, you need to eat and go to the washroom, and if you forget to eat every turn you die!!!
- scope too narrow
E.g.: no emperor lives 6000 years... who the heck are you, anyway? you should need to change bodies and embody new leaders...
- still too narrow for my liking
E.g.: a lot of nations aren't wiped out systematically, but are conquered and live peacefully under a new regime (sometimes temporarily) after a surrender, like France under Germany, or Greece under Rome.
- a broad enough scope for Civ, so I'd say it's at least worth considering.
Similar threads
