So how realistic IS Civ?

[Crazy Dinosaur]

Keep in mind I'm not criticizing Civ4 or anything, it's just something I've been thinking about.

I like to play on Marathon speed, and it seems like it would never take so long to build one building or train one warrior in real life. Do you think they went a little overboard with the amount of time it takes to research or build things? Now obviously you're building a civilization from the ground up from the beginning of time, so maybe I'm just used to everything today being finished so quickly. It just takes a little bit of believability out of the game when it takes like ninety years to build a library.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

It's NON-realistic. It's only a game

If everyone could build a library real quick it would be pointless

It's called game-balance...

 

[digitCruncher]

Also, 1 warrior DOESN'T represent 1 warrior, it actually represents a hoard of poorly trained melee units, with crude weapons (Stone axes, etc.). Simarly to swordsmen, tanks, spearmen, and gunships.

And production isn't total production, it is production left over after the populace has used it, for maintanance, etc.

Of course, there is the thing of game balance. No civ can take over half the world, at least, not before the advent of radio, and railroad. The control over the citizenry would be pathetic, and revolutions would sprout EVERYWHERE.

Ultimatly, however, Civ IV takes real life, and makes it fun. If it was hyper-realistic, then it would be as boring as ANYTHING, especially early game. It is one of the more realistic games of its genre (Wide-spanning epochs, from Stone Age to the Future), however.

 

[Crazy Dinosaur]

It's NON-realistic. It's only a game

If everyone could build a library real quick it would be pointless

It's called game-balance...

Well I'm not expecting everything to be completely real of course. I just think the relationship between research and the amount of game time each turn takes seems a little unbalanced.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Well, don't play marathon It just makes it easy anyway

 

[phungus420]

Of course, there is the thing of game balance. No civ can take over half the world, at least, not before the advent of radio, and railroad. The control over the citizenry would be pathetic, and revolutions would sprout EVERYWHERE.

This is why the Revolution mod component by jdog is so cool. Civ changes alot when sprawling empires can spawn civil wars, and barbarians can organize and sprout new civilizations.

 

[Pluvo241]

Marathon stretches most everything 3x normal, right? That's sloooooow. But even on Quick the years fly by, don't they? It's never bothered me. I pay way more attention to the number of turns than I do the years. The years, I think, are to give us the feel of history being made. Whereas the turns are for strategy. And really, it's all about the strategy. Isn't it?

 

[Jerrymander]

I've never seen a cow the size of a stadium.

 

[azzaman333]

So how realistic IS Civ?

Civ is based on history, but bent to be more fun-friendly.

So, it isn't very realistic when you think about it.

 

[Willem]

It just takes a little bit of believability out of the game when it takes like ninety years to build a library.

It's a game, get over it. It's wasn't designed to be a historical simulator.

 

[Supr49er]

I've never seen a cow the size of a stadium.

Well, I did see a pretty gigantic cow at a Pink Floyd concert.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

LOL, but it wasn't bigger than the stadium I'll wager.

Pink Floyd lamed out after they decided to take their hairdressers on tour with them, Hawkwind/Ozrics FTW.

 

[Kip Beagle]

Probably the only realistic thing about civ is the stuff written in the civilopedia

 

[Cashew]

You can't use enemy roads, how realistic do you think it is?

Must be some magical toll booths at work.

 

[Willem]

Well how about you're the ruler of a civilization for over 6000 years?

 

[Lone Wolf]

You can't use enemy roads, how realistic do you think it is?

Resistance of local population...

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

Ahhh, realism vs gameplay: a debate as old as time itself.

 

[ace_3399]

Games aren't supposed to be realistic otherwise they wouldn't be fun.

 

[Bushface]

Realism in Civ4 ? Oh, be realistic !
In the real world, what happened to civilisations such as the Aztecs, Carthage, the Incas, Khmer, and Maya ? All destroyed. The Roman and Byzantine empires fell apart. Do you want such things implemented in a game ? Do you want to wait until about 1000AD for the English to appear, or the late 1700s for the Americans ? Do you expect your tanks to be immune to attack from even such relatively late units as Musketmen ?
Civ has always been a game, in all its incarnations, and a remarkably good one.

 

[Cheeze]

The Rhye's and Fall seems to do a very good job of realism. Stability is freaking annoying though, and as fun as it is to play for historical goals, when my pan-European Germany empire collapses due to 'instability' it's really not fun anymore.
That's when I go back to unmodded Civ.

Also, I prefer to think of 'building a library' as 'building a city-wide network of libraries' or somesuch. It is also representative of generally raising the standard of education/science.

Also as Bushface said, technology advantages should probably play a greater role - realistically, infantry need armor support to stand against armor, and a musket couldn't even damage a tank.

Realism is sacrificed for fun and game balance.