Official announcement: Hot off the presses. Next Civ game in development!!!!!!!

[Gedemon]

The older games were bases on a board game.

But there was layers on top of the core rules that gave the feeling of building an empire to stand the test of time, part of that coming from the AI behavior. With 5 and even more 6, those layers were removed, with AI players giving the impression of trying to be more like human playing that board game than leaders of Civilizations. My impression is also that now we are more cities builder than Empire builder.

 

[Gorbles]

But there was layers on top of the core rules that gave the feeling of building an empire to stand the test of time, part of that coming from the AI behavior.

At the risk of beating a dead horse with a stick, AI behaviour like the Gandhi nuclear integer overflow behaviour?

I know, it wasn't intended. But that's a good example of leaving something in because it made the character feel more human, than a leader of his civilisation.

 

[Thormodr]

The older games were bases on a board game.

Europa Universalis was based on a board game design. (Finally got published, too. ❤)

Before Civ came out, my friends used to love to play the Civilization boardgame. I don't doubt that Sid drew at least some inspiration from that.

 

[Thormodr]

But there was layers on top of the core rules that gave the feeling of building an empire to stand the test of time, part of that coming from the AI behavior. With 5 and even more 6, those layers were removed, with AI players giving the impression of trying to be more like human playing that board game than leaders of Civilizations. My impression is also that now we are more cities builder than Empire builder.

Certainly with Civilization 5, the AI was designed to play like a human and it was horrible. Anyone remember the AI rage quitting? *Ugh*

This was a huge departure from Civ IV and Soren Johnson's philosophy on AI. (Being there to facilitate your gameplay experience.)

 

[TempusFugit]

None of the civ games have felt particularly "simulation-like" to me...

Maybe that is because you were never interested in a simulation-like experience, or because you are thinking differently than me about what "simulation-like" would entail. The Civ series has always combined a lot of game concepts inspired by real world concepts and made rules about them inspired by real history. The main focus is of course to make a fun strategy game, but all the intertwining rules gives a lot of simulation-like outcomes, sometimes things which were probably never intended.

An example of that is the often misunderstood diplomacy system in Civ 5 (Brave New World) where you often end up with blocks of diplomatic successful and well connected nations who are on good terms with each others, and outsiders, who for a variety of reasons ends up getting excluded because of the power of denouncements. What often happens is that civilizations that didn't have much in common originally, or were a bit isolationist, ends up cooperating in the diplomatic stage, because there are several "friends of my enemies" and "friends of my friends" effects going on. What this mirrors is things like in the last few decades where various nations who doesn't have much in common, other than being on bad terms with the US and the "good" nations of the west in many cases ends up cooperating together out of common interest. Or to use a George Bush Jr. term, an "Axis of Evil" and an axis of do-gooders. This is a very modern situation, so it feels a little anachronistic when it happens before the modern age, like the religions block in Civ 4, which feels anachronistic in the ancient and modern age, but it is an interesting simulation aspect nonetheless.

I'm obviously not saying that the Civ series are simulation games, and most games belonging to the simulation genre are also first and foremost games before simulations. But there are simulation aspects to the series, which are important.

 

[TempusFugit]

At the risk of beating a dead horse with a stick, AI behaviour like the Gandhi nuclear integer overflow behaviour?

I know, it wasn't intended. But that's a good example of leaving something in because it made the character feel more human, than a leader of his civilisation.

The unintentional nuclear Gandhi was only a part of the first game. And a Gandhi with a nuclear inclination didn't appear again until Civ 5, which was also when the game got a stronger board-game feeling.

 

[TempusFugit]

The older games were bases on a board game.

That argument doesn't make much sense, if it was an argument. Whether something is inspired by a boardgame or not have no influence on how much simulation ideas, computer game ideas or board game ideas the finished product borrows. It only means that it will (usually) have some design borrowed from a board game. Getting ideas from board games can be a very good thing, also Jon Van Caneghem, who designed Heroes of Might and Magic, King's Bounty and the Might and Magic games borrowed ideas from two separate board games for the first King's Bounty.

 

[TempusFugit]

Certainly with Civilization 5, the AI was designed to play like a human and it was horrible. Anyone remember the AI rage quitting? *Ugh*

This was a huge departure from Civ IV and Soren Johnson's philosophy on AI. (Being there to facilitate your gameplay experience.)

I do think it sounds better to simulate another civilization or nation state than a player. As long as the game is able to offer up a challenge for veteran players of the game. But my experience with the AI and diplomacy in Civ 5 is mostly positive. I have only played a couple of game without the two expansions though, and I do suspect that the expanded state of the game is much better than the one that was released originally. Have you played much of Civ 5 with Brave New World?

 

[bbbt]

I feel like they had all the pieces for expansion limiting in 6 with free cities/loyalty/amenities but didn't quite put it together.

Like if you expand too fast, your newest/border cities rebel and become free cities.

Some form of 'colony' that's a step between free cities and your own cities could've come into play as well. As could some of the barbarian tribe mechanics and have some of those free cities turn into city states over time as well.

 

[Gorbles]

The unintentional nuclear Gandhi was only a part of the first game. And a Gandhi with a nuclear inclination didn't appear again until Civ 5, which was also when the game got a stronger board-game feeling.

Well, I am a lot more unfamiliar with II, III and IV It's hard to talk about the design there, so I'm just giving examples that I know. It's also hard, in my opinion, to discount the fundamental entry in the series when it comes to deciding what a boardgame feeling means for the franchise.

And that's an easy, obvious one. We could talk about the leader art in I, which, as fun as it was to see certain leaders grow into specific clothing stereotypes, set them quite apart from the civilisation they're supposed to be representing. It following choices the player made (or that the AI made), tech / government-wise, and I was fine with that.

 

[Thormodr]

I do think it sounds better to simulate another civilization or nation state than a player. As long as the game is able to offer up a challenge for veteran players of the game. But my experience with the AI and diplomacy in Civ 5 is mostly positive. I have only played a couple of game without the two expansions though, and I do suspect that the expanded state of the game is much better than the one that was released originally. Have you played much of Civ 5 with Brave New World?

Ed Beach changed the AI that Shafer made, it's true. Still was just polishing up a turd in the end, though. Ed did the best he could and literally saved the franchise.

Hopefully Civ VII is more like Civ IV.

 

[TempusFugit]

Well, I am a lot more unfamiliar with II, III and IV It's hard to talk about the design there, so I'm just giving examples that I know. It's also hard, in my opinion, to discount the fundamental entry in the series when it comes to deciding what a boardgame feeling means for the franchise.

And that's an easy, obvious one. We could talk about the leader art in I, which, as fun as it was to see certain leaders grow into specific clothing stereotypes, set them quite apart from the civilisation they're supposed to be representing. It following choices the player made (or that the AI made), tech / government-wise, and I was fine with that.

Civ 1 definitely had some board-game influence, but the influence from simulation games was stronger. Both from Microprose's own games and from Will Wright's Sim City. It is obviously created to give you an experience of traveling back into history, and take a part in influencing that history.

And when they were going to create a sequel to Civilization, it was Sim City 2000 they looked to for inspiration.

It is a bit strange to me that the simulation influences are not more apparent to some here. To me it is quite obvious.

 

[TempusFugit]

Ed Beach changed the AI that Shafer made, it's true.

That's interesting. I didn't know that.

Still was just polishing up a turd in the end, though.

I think your dislike of Civilization 5 is even stronger than my dislike for the art style in Civ 6
And probably by a magnitude or so.

 

[Thormodr]

Civ 1 definitely had some board-game influence, but the influence from simulation games was stronger. Both from Microprose's own games and from Will Wright's Sim City. It is obviously created to give you an experience of traveling back into history, and take a part in influencing that history.

And when they were going to create a sequel to Civilization, it was Sim City 2000 they looked to for inspiration.

It is a bit strange to me that the simulation influences are not more apparent to some here. To me it is quite obvious.

The idea of a tech tree which is now standard in pretty much every 4x game was borrowed from the Civiization board game. The tech tree is a huge part of the game. Also, diplomacy was borrowed from, you guessed it, the diplomacy board game. Sid Meier admitted he borrowed from RISK, the board game.

So, that's the tech tree, diplomacy and warfare/expansion all borrowed from board games. That's your game right there.

 

[Gorbles]

Civ 1 definitely had some board-game influence, but the influence from simulation games was stronger. Both from Microprose's own games and from Will Wright's Sim City. It is obviously created to give you an experience of traveling back into history, and take a part in influencing that history.

And when they were going to create a sequel to Civilization, it was Sim City 2000 they looked to for inspiration.

It is a bit strange to me that the simulation influences are not more apparent to some here. To me it is quite obvious.

To me, it's hard to tell what people mean here, by those phrases. Some likely mean it literally, whereas others have years of discussions on here to inform the context. I'm going to go with literal here just for simplicity (I have no idea if you're a new or returning account).

To me, as a developer, "simulation" is inherent to the model. But so is boardgame. They're layers. If we're defining it strictly as from the sim genre of video games, though, that's a bit of a weird situation to be in because Civ both does and doesn't play itself. But then (as far as I'm aware) it always has done. Even in a sim, the AI agents have to act at least reasonably as though the player was acting, otherwise the simulation won't be doing its job. Automation only works if that automation works as expected (SimCity 4 gets a lot of understandable flak, but it tried to do something pretty fascinating with the underlying model in terms of how the data is represented, and I wish the game wasn't what it was, so that idea could've been taken further).

I don't see any of that in Civ, at least only the barest aspects. What parts of II, III or IV were more simulation than AI-as-human personalities? Is this because of how they changed diplomacy in V and VI? Changes to governors / auto-governors between the games? Even SMAC was very player agenda driven in terms of its AI, and that spun directly out of Civ II.

I guess it's hard for me, having such a gap in the franchise (and also honestly having left sim-like games behind a long while ago), to really relate to the claim. What are we meaning by simulation, I guess is the question. It feels like a stupid one, but it might help.

 

[Thormodr]

That's interesting. I didn't know that.

I think your dislike of Civilization 5 is even stronger than my dislike for the art style in Civ 6
And probably by a magnitude or so.

Civilization 5 was an unmitigated disaster. So much so that the lead designer bailed after less than a year in disgrace.

Ed Beach came in and salvaged what he could with the game. God Bless him for that.

However, it was only the Civ community that brought the game up to a somewhat halfway decent level with Vox Populi.

The art style for Civilization 5 was drab and dreary. Just like the game.

Civ VI, while imperfect, is a breath of fresh air and light years better than 5. I have high hopes for Civ VII, especially if they return to a more Civ IV type of game. Civ IV is the best game in the series, by far.

 

[TempusFugit]

The idea of a tech tree which is now standard in pretty much every 4x game was borrowed from the Civiization board game. The tech tree is a huge part of the game. Also, diplomacy was borrowed from, you guessed it, the diplomacy board game. Sid Meier admitted he borrowed from RISK, the board game.

So, that's the tech tree, diplomacy and warfare/expansion all borrowed from board games. That's your game right there.

I do retract "that the influence from simulation games was stronger" then, but it is clear that providing a simulation-like experience was an important part of what they were doing.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

That argument doesn't make much sense, if it was an argument. Whether something is inspired by a boardgame or not have no influence on how much simulation ideas, computer game ideas or board game ideas the finished product borrows. It only means that it will (usually) have some design borrowed from a board game. Getting ideas from board games can be a very good thing, also Jon Van Caneghem, who designed Heroes of Might and Magic, King's Bounty and the Might and Magic games borrowed ideas from two separate board games for the first King's Bounty.

So they borrowed ideas and theme and mechanics from a board game, but weren't "boardgamelike?" Not that it matters much but that that on its face doesn't make much sense.

It's all a matter of opinion, but I don't think the newer games are any more or less that way than the old ones. Though it might matter on what someone considers "simulation." I never felt like it was a living breathing world in CivII or whatever either. You were leveraging the rules and the AI as much then as now. There are many more rules now, which shows in both good and bad ways.

edit--your last reply came up after I hit respond. Yeah, I do think they were influenced by sim games as well, of course. Which is fine by me, I love board game AND sim games.

 

[TempusFugit]

(I have no idea if you're a new or returning account).

I have used this site for almost two decades now, but I never registered before now.

To me, it's hard to tell what people mean here, by those phrases. Some likely mean it literally, whereas others have years of discussions on here to inform the context. I'm going to go with literal here just for simplicity (I have no idea if you're a new or returning account).

To me, as a developer, "simulation" is inherent to the model. But so is boardgame. They're layers. If we're defining it strictly as from the sim genre of video games, though, that's a bit of a weird situation to be in because Civ both does and doesn't play itself. But then (as far as I'm aware) it always has done. Even in a sim, the AI agents have to act at least reasonably as though the player was acting, otherwise the simulation won't be doing its job. Automation only works if that automation works as expected (SimCity 4 gets a lot of understandable flak, but it tried to do something pretty fascinating with the underlying model in terms of how the data is represented, and I wish the game wasn't what it was, so that idea could've been taken further).

I don't see any of that in Civ, at least only the barest aspects. What parts of II, III or IV were more simulation than AI-as-human personalities? Is this because of how they changed diplomacy in V and VI? Changes to governors / auto-governors between the games? Even SMAC was very player agenda driven in terms of its AI, and that spun directly out of Civ II.

I guess it's hard for me, having such a gap in the franchise (and also honestly having left sim-like games behind a long while ago), to really relate to the claim. What are we meaning by simulation, I guess is the question. It feels like a stupid one, but it might help.

My quarrel here was never with board games. "Gamify" could be interpreted to mean more like a board game and more like a computer game. Criticizing a computer game for becoming more computer game-like may seem a little strange, but I don't know if there are any better words for this and you probably understand what I mean with "gamifying".

Simulation could mean different things to people, especially in computer games, hence why I wrote it in brackets. The main aspect of the simulation or "simulation" in the Civ series is as you mention the other civilizations, how they interact with each other, with you and with the world. This interaction is also governed by rules, which change as their technological level increases. This interaction creates situations such as for example civilizations that were isolated on small geographical bodies lagging behind in technology, compared to those that were on larger continents and had a lot of contact. (In Civ 4 and earlier games, because of tech trading.)

This difference in technology based on geography isn't something that was hardcoded as a mechanic in the game, but instead something which developed naturally, and also mirrored developments in the real world. (Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs and Steel" is a strong argument in favor of how important the size and shape of continents have been to shape the destinies of the people living on them.) I would definitely call this a simulation aspect of the game series. And there are many of those, both intended and unintended.

 

[TempusFugit]

So they borrowed ideas and theme and mechanics from a board game, but weren't "boardgamelike?" Not that it matters much but that that on its face doesn't make much sense.

It's all a matter of opinion, but I don't think the newer games are any more or less that way than the old ones. Though it might matter on what someone considers "simulation." I never felt like it was a living breathing world in CivII or whatever either. You were leveraging the rules and the AI as much then as now. There are many more rules now, which shows in both good and bad ways.

edit--your last reply came up after I hit respond. Yeah, I do think they were influenced by sim games as well, of course. Which is fine by me, I love board game AND sim games.

I never had a quarrel with board games. What I wrote first was that I want the Civilization series to go forward in a less "gamified" direction. That term is obviosuly not a good one, and open to misinterpretation, but what I mean by that is that I would like to see a bigger percentage of the rules in the game be rules that makes sense when you pretend that the game world is a real world.

The civ series has always had a mix of rules that made some or a lot of sense and rules that made little sense at all in with such an interpretation. But with Civ 5 and Civ 6, the percentage of rules that makes little sense has increased. Some people thinks that only "gameplay" matters and that the historical setting shouldn't have any influence on how the game plays out, but to me, and to a lot of other people as well, the historical framing of the game and the pretense of simulation are important.