The Failure of Civ 4

[Deep_Blue]

Determinism: Civ 4 is going to see an increase in the greatest weakness of the series. Whichever player starts out winning will inevitably win in the end. The same factors that lead to military dominance also lead to cultural and religious dominance. How exactly you win isn't really important: if you have the highest number of the most productive cities, you can churn out military units, cultural buildings, wonders, or missionaries. There's no chance for a weaker civilization from coming back from the brink of destruction and getting to the point where it might win.

In Civ 3 I can always come back from a very weak position to win the game even at very hard level. This is about choices and how clever you play , for example:
I think it was Deity level + Huge Map + 16 oponents , I was surrounded from all sides by powerful civilizations and I was well behind in science and culture . Early in the game I relized that the way to win is to take as many luxuries and resources as possible to buy techs and alliance later . so I sent every settler I made from the beggining to a luxury or a resource location at the cost of my cities being spread and awufully positioned and some of them were even disconnected (useless cities ,but useful to prevent the AI from taking that resourse, and to force it to buy from me) . later in the game I was trading with every one giving them (furs , ivory , horses , iron .. etc) for (Gold , techs , and alliance) . And to avoid being erased I made sure that the surrounding civilzations are always in alliance or deal with me (an AI that take Iron or horses from you for 20 turns will never risk breaking the deal by declaring war on you). Then I forced all the nations to fight with each other by declaring a war on a nation on other continent , and then buying alliance with the surronding civilizations to do the war for me. This slowed down their development a lot , and later on I was able to catch with them and I even became ahead in the modern age . which made me able to construct Modern Armor first . with the advantage of modern armor I made a superiour Army , and I conqured all the nations that surrounded me. later with the help of ICBM I erased every nation on the map and I made a conquest victory. I came back from hopless situation where I was technoliogically an age behind , I didnt build any wonder, and I had only 10 kinghts all the game until I reached the modern age and came back to kick asses !!

My point here is to show you that there is always a way for weak civilzations to come back in Civ 3. This example and many other example show how superiour a human player is compared with the AI.
I thinks Civ IV will also be playable in terms of fighting back , considering that its main concepts are derived from Civ3 and may be even better. But the important point here is can they make the AI good enough so it can fight back and play as well as a human player that what I hope . I dont think the AI will be that advanced but I hope it will be better.
Finally, you cant really judge how the game will work , until you put your hands on it and start discovering stratigies , tactics ,and all different possibilities. you cant tell how good the game will be until you start playing it.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

However, that is a much superior player coming from behind. The point is a player who IS ahead should continually have to work even harder than a player who is behind. The problem is it is easier to stay ahead (and get farther ahead) if you are already ahead.

That would have a the additional sid effect of improving diplomacy by Preserving of multiple medium small powers (for some reason other than 'I just haven't gotten around to them yet.')

 

[Deep_Blue]

However, that is a much superior player coming from behind. The point is a player who IS ahead should continually have to work even harder than a player who is behind. The problem is it is easier to stay ahead (and get farther ahead) if you are already ahead.

That would have a the additional sid effect of improving diplomacy by Preserving of multiple medium small powers (for some reason other than 'I just haven't gotten around to them yet.')

I agree its easy to stay ahead if you arleady a head , actually its impossible to lose if you are ahead (if you are a good player).
You can exploit the AI weaknesses , you can make superiour tactics , you can fight back . WHat is needed here is that the AI can do some of that , I kow that a human like AI is far from reach but what I want to see is an AI that do some clever plans even if they are basic plans.
Strategical views of the AI can be improved, for example small/medium power nations can form an alliance with each other to destroy you if you are becoming very powerful, rather than fighting each other and make the win easier for you .

 

[apatheist]

However, that is a much superior player coming from behind. The point is a player who IS ahead should continually have to work even harder than a player who is behind. The problem is it is easier to stay ahead (and get farther ahead) if you are already ahead.

That's a good point. It's like the red queen; you should have to run faster and faster just to stay in the same place. Or like drafting in cycling and other sports, where the leader creates a wind shield for the followers. Or king of the hill, where being in front makes you more of a target. I believe Civ3 techs were cheaper the more civs knew it, but is there a factor for how long those techs have been known as well?

 

[TyranusBonehead]

I've only been playing Civ seriously since about January of this year, so I'll barely be up to speed when cIV comes out (I'm a slow learner I suppose). I can't see how cIV will possibly be a failure. If they build on what they did right with CivIII then add some of the new features, like improved graphics and religion (two I'm looking forward to), then I can only see success in cIV's future.

 

[modern armor]

When you play civilization only 1 time nothing will happen but if you play it a few times you are addicted. For that reason Civ 4 will sell.

 

[CivDestroyer]

I don't think civ4 will fall flat on its ar$e. Why? Because civ2 and civ3 attracted a huge fan base, of CASUAL players, who don't read forums like this, mod the game, or worry about or even NOTICE bugs that drive hardcore fans nuts. This game will sell many copies, to those casual game buyers with extra cash to spend and to the RTS crowd who may be curious about civ4 and its new features and graphics. Those who will not buy it because of their experience with civ3 are a VERY small minority. Will civ4 ship complete? Probably not. Will it have bugs? Yes. Will there be a lot of nagging gameplay issues that pop up that were undiscovered in beta testing? Yes. Will some people avoid buying the game based on trouble with civ3? Yes. Will some delay purchasing the game, in order to get a more stable, complete version later on? Yes. (I'm one of them) But these things make no difference. With the marketing drive behind the game, and its legacy as a great series, it will sell, period.

Actually CIV II attracted many fans, but that did not stop Microprose from going Chapter 11. Civ III (and MOO III as well) on the other hand has suffered because while Friaxis created some new ideas and concepts they didn't address old issues and actually took away some game options (like diplomats) without creating new ones. The end result for many Civ II players was that CIV III played worse than earlier versions.

The success of CIV IV will depend in part on how Friaxis has dealt with corruption, combat, land development, resources and movement. All of these things were mentioned as issues by people who bought Civ III played it and decided the game sucked and went back either to II or Alpha Centuri.

To me Civ III was V1.0 meaning that Firaxis is developing a new platform for Civ. How well IV does will depend on how much they have improved that platform. If they haven't you're going to be able to buy Civ IV at $10 a copy real quick.

Civdestroyer
Who besides being a avid CIV fan is also is a game designer.

 

[doronron]

Why'd you have to resurrect this thread? All it did was act like a running flame war...

 

[AKauhanen]

Why'd you have to resurrect this thread? All it did was act like a running flame war...

Oh, come on, this is a fun, important and interesting subject.

Bluemethod is right in his original post and I agree with his points, but the game will still probably be a success. Why ? Well, "Civilization" has a very strong fan base and popularity and so even if Civ4 would be complete s**t it would still sell well and also.. well, as a game developer you should know: there really isn't anything better on the market. If the next Total War (or a game similar to it) will finally have a tech tree, more unit types and buildings, "a generate new random map"-option and/or campaigns what could be played in multiplayer, then it will defeat Civ4, but as we all know game developers lack the intellect to combine the best sides of the Total War series and the Civilization series and so this won't happen in 11 years.

 

[Onza]

There are three main elements of Civ 4 that are going to make it an obscure, fans-only affair: linearity, determinism, and political correctness.

I've gone through most of the big problems of Civ 4, and the solutions aren't really that complicated. There needs to be a way for civilizations to split, so that smaller, less powerful civs can compete against huge empires. There also needs to be a way for completely conquered civilizations to exist, in order to allow them to assert themselves later (like real-world France, Germany, or Japan). Real history is ugly, and Firaxis needs to stop dodging it, or they'll just look like they're inconsiderate. Terrorism needs to be included. Religion needs to be handled with some dignity, instead of saying "yeah, this'll make the hardcore fans happy." As for other details, like overpopulation, concentration camps, and however they're bound to mishandle the expansion of slavery, I'm not yet conviced that, while they would enhance realism, they would enhance actual gameplay.

Bluemethod,
GREAT post!!! Completely agree in all respects!
Just i do hope there will be qualified modders (maybe even yourself?) who will be able to deal with the challenges you've described in your post. Because indeed the game will only be worth buying and spending time on if it mitigate all thoses weakness points. (and I would insist that the different religions DIFFERED substantially in game just as they do in reality. Otherwise they are not to be called "reiligion").

Respects!

 

[Bast]

I don't think Civ IV will fail because of the reasons but what you've raised are valid points that the makers should take on.

Determinism is really what bugs me too.

I've suggested this in the past and they should have natural disasters. Like volcanoes in Civ 3, but on a more widespread scale like hurricanes, earthquakes and floods that really destroy cities' economies and dwindles its populations, so that a powerful civilization may lose its control.

But you know what this makes the game? This makes the game become a game based on luck. But that's history and life isn't it? Everything that has happened has been a result of luck and chance.

 

[AKauhanen]

Everything that has happened has been a result of luck and chance.

No. Bad luck may decide, if Pompeii is destroyed by a Volcanic eruption. Decadence, division, naiveness and foolishness destroy Empires.

The main reason what made Rome weak and eventually fall was the growing level of decadence in it's elite, leadership and population. When the men of a nation ever increasingly want only a life of decadence and luxury and shy away from the harshness of reality, are diminishingly willing to join the armed forces of the nation or to self-sacrifice, when the level of decadence increases and the level of disloyalty and corruption in the bureaucrats and regional governors increases, when the mothers of the next generation care only for a life of decadent luxury, lust and satisfying every short term impulse and pleasure what is invented for them, when generation after generation the women lose interest for sacrificing for and caring for the next generation and teaching the next generation to be active, self-disciplined and vigorous, when generation after generation the problem makers of the society multiply faster than the problem solvers, when generation after generation self-sacrifice and loyalty to the whole diminish, when even wider and wider divisions start to appear in the nation either by religion, ethnicity or social classes the pressure of the nation dividing or going into civil war increases. These are the reasons why Great Empires fall, not bad luck.

Slowly hammer by hammer, turn by turn military units should start to become more expensive to build and slightly more and more expensive to maintain, the level of corruption should slowly grow higher, the borders weaker and the loyalty of the different units and factions in the nation smaller every turn when the nation is at the lead. This would make it ever harder for a Civilization to stay on top. This.. and the vigor of new civilizations and factions to get to the top.

 

[bshirt]

No. Bad luck may decide, if Pompeii is destroyed by a Volcanic eruption. Decadence, division, naiveness and foolishness destroy Empires.

The main reason what made Rome weak and eventually fall was the growing level of decadence in it's elite, leadership and population. When the men of a nation ever increasingly want only a life of decadence and luxury and shy away from the harshness of reality, are diminishingly willing to join the armed forces of the nation or to self-sacrifice, when the level of decadence increases and the level of disloyalty and corruption in the bureaucrats and regional governors increases, when the mothers of the next generation care only for a life of decadent luxury, lust and satisfying every short term impulse and pleasure what is invented for them, when generation after generation the women lose interest for sacrificing for and caring for the next generation and teaching the next generation to be active, self-disciplined and vigorous, when generation after generation the problem makers of the society multiply faster than the problem solvers, when generation after generation self-sacrifice and loyalty to the whole diminish, when even wider and wider divisions start to appear in the nation either by religion, ethnicity or social classes the pressure of the nation dividing or going into civil war increases. These are the reasons why Great Empires fall, not bad luck.

Ironically, that sounds amazingly similar to the USA. Maybe so many are right when they say the price of affluence is decadence.

 

[warpstorm]

I heard that Civ4 is selling like crazy (for a TBS game) and getting great reviews across the board. I guess it depends on your definition of failure.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Why'd you have to resurrect this thread? All it did was act like a running flame war...

This is a good thread with lots of intelligent points.

 

[Harrier]

As a game developer, I'm predicting that Civ 4 is not going to be successful as a game. It's designed to appeal to hardcore fans of the series,

By this do you mean it will be to difficult for first time buyers to play? If so it is strange how the ideas in the rest of your post would make the game even more difficult to the new player.

Some good ideas there though which I am sure some of our modders may take into account.

who on their own don't have a good view of what makes a game actually playable.

You should not make general statements like that - if you do not know the facts. Hands up all you players out there that work for games companies.

I hope that someday, Civ 4 will be a good game, that will be worthy of play.

You are right in hoping that - and that someday is today.

 

[neriana]

No. Bad luck may decide, if Pompeii is destroyed by a Volcanic eruption. Decadence, division, naiveness and foolishness destroy Empires.

The main reason what made Rome weak and eventually fall was the growing level of decadence in it's elite, leadership and population. When the men of a nation ever increasingly want only a life of decadence and luxury and shy away from the harshness of reality, are diminishingly willing to join the armed forces of the nation or to self-sacrifice, when the level of decadence increases and the level of disloyalty and corruption in the bureaucrats and regional governors increases, when the mothers of the next generation care only for a life of decadent luxury, lust and satisfying every short term impulse and pleasure what is invented for them, when generation after generation the women lose interest for sacrificing for and caring for the next generation and teaching the next generation to be active, self-disciplined and vigorous, when generation after generation the problem makers of the society multiply faster than the problem solvers, when generation after generation self-sacrifice and loyalty to the whole diminish, when even wider and wider divisions start to appear in the nation either by religion, ethnicity or social classes the pressure of the nation dividing or going into civil war increases. These are the reasons why Great Empires fall, not bad luck.

Slowly hammer by hammer, turn by turn military units should start to become more expensive to build and slightly more and more expensive to maintain, the level of corruption should slowly grow higher, the borders weaker and the loyalty of the different units and factions in the nation smaller every turn when the nation is at the lead. This would make it ever harder for a Civilization to stay on top. This.. and the vigor of new civilizations and factions to get to the top.

When the mothers of the next generation don't want to sacrifice themselves on the altar of patriarchy? Uh... yeah, no. Absolutely not.

Corruption hurts empires, no question there. But your view of what causes empires to fall is extremely narrow. Running into a stronger empire will do it. So will spreading your resources too thin. So will bad luck, revolutions, a lack of scientific progress, and stagnation into mindless nationalism.

The truth is, there is no one blueprint for a successful empire, and there is no one blueprint for what makes one fall. The only thing that comes close to guaranteeing the destruction of an empire is poor leadership, either for decades or during a particularly crucial time. The whole idea of the "decadence" of the people simply does not play in real life. Also, your definition of "decadence" seems to be the pursuit of happiness by the population. I'm getting the impression that your ideal state would be awfully close to fascism.

Which was the greater civilization, Athens or Sparta? Which influenced people through history more? Which was the greater civilization, Athens or Rome? Women in Rome had significantly more freedom, and were treated much more like human beings instead of baby-factories, than in Athens. The countries in modern times in which women are educated and pursue our own self-interest are doing much better than the countries in which women are expected to sacrifice everything for others. We're over half the population, and we will not become mere mommies again. This is a GOOD THING, it adds to a nation's productivity, decreases birth rates, increases longevity and wealth, and increases the happiness of citizens.

Fathers have to actually help us raise the next generation. What a tragedy. Haven't they been doing this forever, to greater or lesser degrees?

I absolutely refuse to sacrifice my own self-interest for the good of generations unborn. I will contribute to civilization in my own way, and it won't be as a baby factory. Nor will my husband or children sacrifice themselves on the narrow-minded altar of the militaristic state. Creativity and science drive human advancement, not the blood and freedom of the young fighting the wars of old men. Those old men, corrupt and unintelligent, are what hurt countries, not the "horrors" of people who want to live their own lives in peace and happiness.

 

[Wodan]

I absolutely refuse to sacrifice my own self-interest for the good of generations unborn. I will contribute to civilization in my own way, and it won't be as a baby factory. Nor will my husband or children sacrifice themselves on the narrow-minded altar of the militaristic state. Creativity and science drive human advancement, not the blood and freedom of the young fighting the wars of old men. Those old men, corrupt and unintelligent, are what hurt countries, not the "horrors" of people who want to live their own lives in peace and happiness.

Strange... I was getting increasingly distinterested with the bickering. The discussion of game theory is fascinating, but not when it devolves. Anyway, this quote from Neriana made me remember something, I don't remember from where. Some book I think.

The theory is the perspective of an individual warrior in an army. When that army faces another on the battlefield, it is in that individual warrior's own best interest to RUN. See, the rest of the army will be busy fighting, so the single person fleeing will have a much higher chance of surviving.

However, if a significant portion of the entire army follows this logic of self-interest, then the army will be quickly over-run by the enemy, and the fleeing people will be killed in vast numbers. What I remember reading said documented statistics indicate many more people are killed when an army is routed.

So, this means that INDIVIDUALLY your chance of living is increased if you run. But, as a GROUP, your chance of living is better if you stand and fight.

Call it counter-intuitive or call it narrow-minded and militaristic, but it's the reality of living in a society. There are times when it is to our best interest to suborn our own immediate self-interest, because plain and simple it is even more to our self-interest if our society as a whole supports an action.

To put it mildly back on topic, how does it reflect game theory of CivIV? Well, I'd say that it would be realistic, as well as good gameplay, for the more advanced / bigger civ to suffer military penalties, because the "enlightened self-interest" of individuals is empowered, which ultimately is to the detriment of that society.

I'd imagine the military is just an example. With some thought, I'd guess that this same principle applies in other areas. For example, it might be to my best interest to take out a loan, but frankly, if the majority of our society is living on personal debt, then our economy is going to collapse.

Sandy

 

[sir_schwick]

The theory is the perspective of an individual warrior in an army. When that army faces another on the battlefield, it is in that individual warrior's own best interest to RUN. See, the rest of the army will be busy fighting, so the single person fleeing will have a much higher chance of surviving.

However, if a significant portion of the entire army follows this logic of self-interest, then the army will be quickly over-run by the enemy, and the fleeing people will be killed in vast numbers. What I remember reading said documented statistics indicate many more people are killed when an army is routed.

So, this means that INDIVIDUALLY your chance of living is increased if you run. But, as a GROUP, your chance of living is better if you stand and fight.

Call it counter-intuitive or call it narrow-minded and militaristic, but it's the reality of living in a society. There are times when it is to our best interest to suborn our own immediate self-interest, because plain and simple it is even more to our self-interest if our society as a whole supports an action.

Woah! I agree with the idea that an organization has to act with common interests in mind. However that also assumes the organization has a function in mind. In the case of the army, their function is to fight on the battlefield. You managed to apply that logic that women's function are to make babies. At least that is how neriana and possibly many others saw your logical fallicy. It is an apples to orange comparison and makes you look like a chauvanist, which in general turns people off to any of your ideas.

To put it mildly back on topic, how does it reflect game theory of CivIV? Well, I'd say that it would be realistic, as well as good gameplay, for the more advanced / bigger civ to suffer military penalties, because the "enlightened self-interest" of individuals is empowered, which ultimately is to the detriment of that society.

That is a really simplified and often broken verison of how civilizations devolve. As a gameplay mechanic to help keep things interesting, sure.

 

[Wodan]

Woah! I agree with the idea that an organization has to act with common interests in mind. However that also assumes the organization has a function in mind. In the case of the army, their function is to fight on the battlefield. You managed to apply that logic that women's function are to make babies. At least that is how neriana and possibly many others saw your logical fallicy. It is an apples to orange comparison and makes you look like a chauvanist, which in general turns people off to any of your ideas.

Sorry if I gave that impression... It wasn't my intent to apply that logic to all of the points she made (there were several). In fact, I specifically didn't address most of them (such as the babies) because I agree with those points.

Aside... Not everyone would do the same: e.g., many people might say that other things drive human advancement. Religion, for example, rather than science and individual thought. Getting closer to God, discovering what God wants, and doing those things. To most of such people, individualism, creativity, and science are anathema and run counter to those goals.

There are other things that people might say drive human advancement. It's really a conceit of western civilization that democracy & technology are how to measure "progress". (Which I personally agree with, but I'm a product of my culture. Is it to my credit that I can recognize that? Hard to say.)

Anyway, all I meant to do was challenge the implied notion that total individualistic self-interest is something that is the best either for us individually or for a society. WHATEVER your society's culture and whatever you personally define as "progress".

And, as a corollary, that supporting or serving in the military of one's country is a bad thing. To forestall where this is going... if a country's military does things that one doesn't agree with, then there are avenues within that country to correct the situation. I personally think that refusing to support your country/culture is a cop-out. If you disagree with what your country is doing, militarily or otherwise, then take action (up to and including organizing with fellow citizens to sack the people who directed those things and/or to revise the laws/constitution of your country to redress the situation).

Sandy