Simulazion - age progression

[luca 83]

Krikkit1​

Prince​

JoinedMay 7, 2013Messages421

• 30 minutes ago
• 
  
• Add bookmark
• #493

revolutions simulate non historical events but fictitious historical events that lead to a Fictitious simulation of events but still it is a SIMULATION!

No it is a game, a simulation has 0 players, you only have input at the beginning.

A Game is based on player input. Now Revolutions that break out as a means for the player to change governments
ie You are Government A
a (Government B) Revolution has broken out do you
-Adopt the new government (Transition costs to Gov B)
-Suppress the Revolution (Temporary happiness costs and chance of additional Revolution.. but you stay at Gov A)
-Change the government to deal with the Revolution (Transition costs to Gov C)
1 to simulate a change of epoch you need fictitious events revolutions, wars, dynasties, deaths that do not correspond to real history but simulate reality as in a gta a fictitious city is simulated 2 yes it is a problem that you are always the player who commands and decides, as emperor or president! historical events, fictitious events drive the game forward are the engine of history, events, not technologies, or some unlocking of civilisation simple events
That might be interesting as a way to change government
-

Like Quote Reply
Report

 

[moysturfurmer]

why are you quoting that other guy you’re disagreeing with in a brand new topic, lmao. Just make the topic without bringing any drama into it.

Anyway, you’re both right. Player agency is important, but there’s a charm to Government options being tied to gameplay events and mechanics. However, given the way the Government Narrative events happen in game now, I think you might be locked to one government and age.

Would it be cool if you can only unlock despotism if you surround your capital with infantry? Sure, but at the macro, abstracted scale on which the game operates, it’s hardly going to be immersion breaking if you don’t need to.

 

[bladex1200]

I think it's important to recognize that simulation is not the goal of Civ, Civ is not a historical sandbox but a long game with win conditions.

If simulation increases player fun, through verisimilitude and immersion or through engaging with rewarding or intuitive mechanics, then that's great! But if it doesn't contribute to any of that, you have to ask if it's appropriate for a Civ game.

 

[Zaarin]

Moderator Action: Please keep the discussion civil and about the subject, not other posters.

 

[luca 83]

I think it's important to recognize that simulation is not the goal of Civ, Civ is not a historical sandbox but a long game with win conditions.

If simulation increases player fun, through verisimilitude and immersion or through engaging with rewarding or intuitive mechanics, then that's great! But if it doesn't contribute to any of that, you have to ask if it's appropriate for a Civ game.

The simulation and the engine of historical events as in real history the events are not predictable: assasinio of Franz Ferdinand ,the death of Frederick III of Prussia are events that added together with other small and large elements led to the First World War, it was not decided by a program and a reaching of a goal

 

[bladex1200]

The simulation and the engine of historical events as in real history the events are not predictable: assasinio of Franz Ferdinand ,the death of Frederick III of Prussia are events that added together with other small and large elements led to the First World War, it was not decided by a program and a reaching of a goal

You're right, and maybe I didn't clarify when I said adding simulation for the purpose of increasing player fun is good, I meant adding elements of simulation, not turning the entire game into a simulation. I mean, we first have to recognize that the Civ franchise in and of itself has never been a historical simulation and never claimed to be. There's discrete victory conditions in Civ, whereas obviously actual history does not have victory conditions that simply stop the flow of time and declare a victor.

When I said adding simulation to the game is good if it increases verisimilitude I meant more along the lines of mechanical simulation. If adding in-depth event triggers based on happiness - like random assassinations that can upset diplomacy or strikes that stop production in a city or political intrigue that results in the death of a general - if stuff like that enhances the gameplay experience by simulating cause-and-effect for the player in a sensible way, I think it should be added. But I think some simulation to the player just appears like randomness, and while that might be welcome in historical simulations of the kind that Paradox produces and publishes, that probably would lend more frustration than fun to the Civ scene.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I think it's important to recognize that simulation is not the goal of Civ, Civ is not a historical sandbox but a long game with win conditions.

it is kind of both. It is a long game with win conditions that creates a historically themed/abstracted sandbox and simulation

 

[luca 83]

problem is leaders: every leader should be consistent with his era: so no democratic Stalin or communist Augustus, or. Churchill a fascist I still insist that politics and ideology and the solution the imposition one gives to a state and its results , political ,Another and economic

 

[luca 83]

Leaders are based on what? On the popularity of the leader? On representation of the most famous leaders? Should they be based on the various historical epochs and the political events of the countries in the various historical epochs what do you think?

 

[Siptah]

Leaders are based on what? On the popularity of the leader? On representation of the most famous leaders? Should they be based on the various historical epochs and the political events of the countries in the various historical epochs what do you think?

There probably are a number of factors, some of which are opposing each other. Popularity vs. highlighting lesser known persons. Previous representation vs. novelty. Stereotyping a civ vs. showing a civ as more diverse.

 

[AntSou]

Man, that post is me trying to use html. Everything looks broken. How do you even copy an entire post? You even copied the like button, which leads me to this screen if I click on it:

 

[AntSou]

I figured out how you did it.

@luca 83 When you click "+Quote" it saves not only for the current thread, but can also be used when creating a new thread. The "insert quote" button will be available if you have any quotes selected.

 

[luca 83]

There probably are a number of factors, some of which are opposing each other. Popularity vs. highlighting lesser known persons. Previous representation vs. novelty. Stereotyping a civ vs. showing a civ as more diverse.

Leaders cannot be predefined in nasen to popularity, or to the representation of nations alexander mango greece bismark germany but change according to ideology and era, do you have a militarist government? Do you have a military leader in power or a general a communist government ? Communist leader and collectivist ideology

 

[luca 83]

The linearity of nations makes no sense e.g. who are the descendants of the Romans? The Byzantines? The Holy Roman Empire? And the descendants of the Holy Roman Empire? The Austrians? And after the Romans, what comes next? The Lombards the Goths? No, it is not so linear. Then you don't take into account dynastic wars, where one country doesn't invade another and annex it, but governs it after a dynastic war, like the Bourbons in Spain after the War of the Spanish Succession, or Austria in Lombardy in the War of the Spanish Succession, or the Hanoverians in England, England didn't become German.

 

[King Jason]

The linearity of nations makes no sense e.g. who are the descendants of the Romans? The Byzantines? The Holy Roman Empire? And the descendants of the Holy Roman Empire? The Austrians? And after the Romans, what comes next? The Lombards the Goths? No, it is not so linear. Then you don't take into account dynastic wars, where one country doesn't invade another and annex it, but governs it after a dynastic war, like the Bourbons in Spain after the War of the Spanish Succession, or Austria in Lombardy in the War of the Spanish Succession, or the Hanoverians in England, England didn't become German.

It's not supposed to make sense. That is literally the entire point of this franchise. Greeks building the Pyramids - Persians discovering rocketry - the wars of Aztecs and China in the middle-ages.

It is historically themed. It is not history.

 

[luca 83]

It's not supposed to make sense. That is literally the entire point of this franchise. Greeks building the Pyramids - Persians discovering rocketry - the wars of Aztecs and China in the middle-ages.

It is historically themed. It is not history.

Certainly for this reason peoples as leaders cannot be predefined . and they must merge Greeks, Romans , Russians, they are just names . if in the game the Russians border on the Babylonians. . there need then, an ideological system, and dynasties to simulate dynastic wars, pecrche does not always work country a invades country b like Spain with the Aztec empire , but a series of territorial claims and thrones, so it makes the game more dynamic and realistic with dynamics. more realistic historical

 

[luca 83]

It's not supposed to make sense. That is literally the entire point of this franchise. Greeks building the Pyramids - Persians discovering rocketry - the wars of Aztecs and China in the middle-ages.

It is historically themed. It is not history.

Errors of humankind should be avoided instead of choosing civilisations after an age change there should be simulated events leading to a change of civilisation

 

[j51]

Errors of humankind should be avoided instead of choosing civilisations after an age change there should be simulated events leading to a change of civilisation

That’s what the crises are. They happen simultaneously to every civ in Civ 7 for gameplay balance reasons.

 

[luca 83]

That’s what the crises are. They happen simultaneously to every civ in Civ 7 for gameplay balance reasons.

No they cannot happen simultaneously because anti-historical dynastic crises, wars of succession, barbarian invasions do not happen simultaneously but for historical and political reasons

 

[luca 83]

The game does not even consider dynastic wars and events simulating the change of civilisations, nor ideologies. In the Middle Ages and the modern era, royal families were much more important than the civilised nation, whereas the game is all about civilisation and nationhood.