Realistic Approach Institute

[Baldyr]

Sure, but any expedition of exploration sets out from somewhere - that would be the city that builds (equips) the hardware needed. But I can of course see your point and I don't particularly care for the Great Wall wonder myself.

My own idea for exploration would be based on the presumption that units can't move into unknown territory - or move too far beyond domestic borders. The tile needs to be mapped before it can be entered. So you'd have to build explorer units/expeditions in order to reveal the map, bit by bit. There could also be a new class of Great People - Great Explorers. These units could be used to make the grand voyages of exploration that the regular variety exploration units wouldn't be able to do. (Like move farther away from friendly borders, traverse unknown ocean tiles, cross deeper into desert areas, et cetera.)

 

[G-Max]

Yes, I think that GW bonus should be triggered by an event as in the case of The Magellans Expedition in Civ4. As you certainly remember, ME was a constructable wonder in previous versions, too. Which made even less sense than GW.

Don't forget Darwin's Voyage

My own idea for exploration would be based on the presumption that units can't move into unknown territory - or move too far beyond domestic borders. The tile needs to be mapped before it can be entered. So you'd have to build explorer units/expeditions in order to reveal the map, bit by bit.

That's an interesting idea, but it really has nothing to do with realism... quite the opposite, in fact. There's no logical reason why you shouldn't be able to equip one guy in a platoon of twenty with binoculars, a compass, a pencil, and a few pieces of paper in addition to the regular combat gear.

The idea behind dedicated explorer units is basically "we need you to go check out this area. We're too cheap to supply you with weapons and armor, but hey, that just means that you'll be able to walk farther without getting tired, right?"

 

[Baldyr]

I'm not talking about military units operating under in field conditions. But never mind.

 

[Kriku]

I think that we have three issues here.

1st, exploration. This is connected to the overall Civ rule that all units are visible. In the real world, units wandered into unknown and returned with imprecise maps after a number of years (if they returned at all). In that sense, Civ style exploration is most unrealistic. But I can live with that because exploration is so much fun and we do not want to make Civ a game where you just have to give orders to a bunch of more or less incompetent, greedy, horny and corrupt people and wait to see what happens next.

2nd, terrain. In the real world, only certain units are able to move in completely rough terrain. Romans could not move their legions through wild forests (remember the battle of the Teutoborg Forest), not speaking of chariots. I am completely happy with warriors and archers stalking in forests, but even swordsmen are already so-so.

3rd, food. Can you imagine a legion-sized unit (roughly equals to a modern brigade, ~5000 men) exploring an uncharted forest and sustaining on hunting, fishing and gathering for decades or even centuries?

BTW, Baldyr, I like your new avatar.

 

[Baldyr]

@Kriku

Spoiler :

BTW, Baldyr, I like your new avatar.

Just don't get used to it.

 

[G-Max]

a bunch of more or less incompetent, greedy, horny and corrupt people

Congress?

3rd, food. Can you imagine a legion-sized unit (roughly equals to a modern brigade, ~5000 men) exploring an uncharted forest and sustaining on hunting, fishing and gathering for decades or even centuries?

If there is a Civ game in which units do not require support, please let me know.

 

[Padjur]

Dear All
People who feel that historical realism is an important part of the Civ game are hereby invited to join the new Realistic Approach Institute social group. Modders are especially welcome. The purpose of the group is to discuss the ways to make gameplay more realistic and possibilities to model historical events in Civ.

Interesting project, I have a similar interest in Historical realism in Civ. I working on my own version of a Historical realism mod, which is still in the testing phase at present but hopefully will be worthy of posting fairly soon. So I hope you don't mind if I share some philosophical thoughts with you on the matter.


The big question for me is how do you propose to approach this, will you begin by deciding to create a specific event, as it happened or just a series of similar events that realistically could have happened.
I'm not sure about a game that follows specific historical events, such as in Germany say, where Hitler becomes a dictator and invades everybody. Most historians agree, that this was just a link in a chain of events stemming from the first world war, an event created by certain conditions, for example Declining Empires vs Expanding Empires, Industrialisation, etc. It was not an event uniquely attached to to a Civ called Germany but rather to a Civ to whom these conditions applied.

So in other words, historical realism would be to recreate these general conditions, rather than specifics, to work from the bottom up, rather than the other way round. Everything that has happened in history is always as a result of a previous set of events and as a result of certain conditions, so it is pure chance really. Every time you play a game of civ, even if you start with the same initial save; each time it will be different because of small, random, different outcomes and so it should be. I would argue, as modders we don't write history, we create certain conditions and allow it to grow accordingly, in order to remain true to the game and history.

For example, America was a colony that rebelled, I can't see them as a civ that founds itself independently from the beginning but rather as an overseas colony that breaks away from its parent Civ. The game chooses any Civ that has a suitable colony, the cities in that colony evolve into a vassal Civ, Which as it develops begins to gain its independence, by various means, over a period of time, if at all.
But then how do you recreate that scenario if the game starts in the Ancient Era? After all, England, France, Spain etc were created from the ruins of the Western Roman Empire (which is a game all on its own). Maybe in this instance it would be better to start the leaders of those Civs, around the 10th Century.

Perhaps a series of mods for different eras, each with their own leaders and Civs, a big project though. I can't get my head around Stalin starting in the Ancient Era alongside Alexander, that's all. I like them to start Era specific....
But enough of my talk, I shall follow with interest.

 

[Baldyr]

Padjur, you don't play RFC?

 

[Kriku]

If there is a Civ game in which units do not require support, please let me know.

And how does the gold piece paid by the treasury reach the exploring unit in the form of food on the other side of the continent (or planet)?

 

[Kriku]

Padjur, I am looking forward to see your mod. The first things I tweaked in Civ4 were time pace (made it slower), unit cost (made it cheaper), usage of enemy roads (added commando to almost everything) and ranged units (added 100% retreat chance). This created some interesting effects: you had to attack and slaughter Barbarian archers at your walls for example. They no longer banged their heads against the gate and died after running out of arrows.

It is interesting what we shall do with Civ5 after getting our clean little hands on it.

 

[Kriku]

We have 6 members so far.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/group.php?groupid=293

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I agree that the food surplus model is ridiculous.

But historically accurate, just look at the agricultural revolution that made the industrial revolution possible because of all the people freed up (kicked of the land) from the production of food.

For some reason or another, modern Western states have negative pop. growth in spite of unprecedented food surplus.

The simplistic answer is that in wealthy societies you don't need as many children to look after you when you are old and that the more children you have leads to an "apparent" reduction in life style, which is measured in goods and leasure times.

 

[Kriku]

But historically accurate

I meant that food surplus != population growth. That allegation is ridiculous.

 

[Padjur]

I meant that food surplus != population growth. That allegation is ridiculous.

The Agricultural revolution in Britain brought about population growth due to the migration of workers from the land into the cities. This migration was caused by machinery that reduced the labour requirements while increasing output and was reproduced across Western Europe. The result was a labour surplus in the cities at a time when Industrial Technologies were developing and new industries growing which required cheap, unskilled labour, the Industrial Revolution begins.

Civ4 misses out the Agricultural Revolution and waits for Biology, to create population growth in the cities, which implies food surplus = population growth. It did not happen like that, it was the development of machines like Jethro Tull's seed drill (1701), which most importantly reduced the necessary labour required to produce food. The steady increase in food production at that time was due to increased demand, in other words population growth drove the increase in production, the machine technology made it possible. The population continues to grow as food yields, life expectancy, etc improves.

My approach to create this within the game, would be to give extra food to the cities so as to stimulate growth, to represent the movement from the land into the cities but at a different point in the tech tree; so Replaceable Parts, leads to Agricultural Revolution which gives 1 extra food, followed by Industrial Revolution; all of which happens at the end of the renaissance era between 1700 ish - 1800's.

 

[Kriku]

The rope has two ends, that's true. There would have been no massive migration into the cities without the need for cheap labour force, food surplus or not. The trouble is that Civ does not make difference between country and city population. The city workers could be represented by the specialists ("engineers" of civ4?), but there are too few of them. The food surplus is perhaps too small to simulate reality? In the modern world, only 5% of people feed the other 95%. That means that a city with 16 agricultural tiles should be able to grow to 320 without food trade and even more with food trade.

 

[G-Max]

And how does the gold piece paid by the treasury reach the exploring unit in the form of food on the other side of the continent (or planet)?

Supply lines, of course!

 

[Padjur]

The rope has two ends, that's true. There would have been no massive migration into the cities without the need for cheap labour force, food surplus or not. The trouble is that Civ does not make difference between country and city population. The city workers could be represented by the specialists ("engineers" of civ4?), but there are too few of them. The food surplus is perhaps too small to simulate reality?

I am feeling cautious here, as I know American History is different in this respect than European but the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions took place in Britain at the start of the 18th century before the USA existed, therefore American population growth was different in this respect than European. The Agricultural Revolution was the transition from a feudal society to an Industrial one, a process of land enclosure, greater food production and mechanisation which brought about homelessness, unemployment and mass starvation in rural areas. This caused the migration into the cities and created a labour force needed to start the process of Industrialisation. It also kick started the mass emigration to America (the Highland Clearances and the Irish Famine for example) but it was not until the begining of the 20th Century that the USA caught up with the European Powers, in the second phase of the Industrial Revolution.

But these are very complex histories and can only be dealt with in general terms and so it is with the game I think. What is important is that in general terms, in game we see city growth, using the game mechanics of increased food production from farms. I add to this by increasing the food from the workshop and watermill improvements as industrialisation progresses, furthermore adding new improved watermills (textile mills) and workshops (factories) which boost food and production in cities, creating growth and a food surplus that allows a lot more specialist citizens in cities. The effect is the same as world history, bigger cities, greater production and greater wealth etc.

The Tech tree is where the problem begins I think.
In civ4 increased food production comes with biology in the mid to late industrial era and not in the renaissance era with an Agricultural Revolution Tech. This is not realistic in a World History sense but is more in line with American History, which I would argue is not relevant in any realistic approach to the game because all our civ's were founded in the "mists of time" and not founded by colonial revolution.

 

[Kriku]

Supply lines, of course!

I fail to imagine how the supplies could be delivered to the brigade in the other side of the world through a centuries old zigzag route.

 

[Kriku]

The Agricultural Revolution was the transition from a feudal society to an Industrial one, a process of land enclosure, greater food production and mechanisation which brought about homelessness, unemployment and mass starvation in rural areas. This caused the migration into the cities and created a labour force needed to start the process of Industrialisation.

Padjur, there are considerable differences between the Great Britain and Continental Europe as well in that matter. You were speaking about the GB, weren't you?

The Irish famine had several other reasons - failure of potato crops, carelessness of the central government and so on. To my best knowledge, it was not a direct result of agriculture mechanization.

What do you think about the idea that by far the largest portion of the present people should be specialists? I feel that we need to increase the food production massively, not just add 1 or 2 points. The increase of agricultural productivity has been massive in the last centuries.

 

[Padjur]

What do you think about the idea that by far the largest portion of the present people should be specialists?

Well yes that is what I'm looking for in my mod, what Marx referred to as the petty bourgeoisie . But certainly these revolutions saw huge change in society and the growth of the middle classes.

I have given workshop and watermills more food as well as hammers and kept farms at +1 food, I wanted to push production output up as well as growth. I find that this gives you plenty of surplus food for specialists.