The Unofficial "Bad Realism" Thread

[dh_epic]

I like realism. I definitely use it as "inspiration" for some of my Civ ideas. I also think that Civ, being a turn based game, should compete with other RTSes not in military-action, but by drawing on some other historical concepts.

But I figure I'd open up a thread to vent about bad ideas about realism, or ideas that are good in nature but often don't make that connection between "adding more detail" and "what does the player get to do about it?"

Timeline Realism

Civ starts with 20-year turns and ends with 1-year turns. You'd be surprised the number of people who focus on this as the key area of improvement for the next Civilization game. Often these suggestions come at the expense of gameplay, because it either makes time too much of an obstacle, or makes time irrelevent as a challenge.

Some of my "favorites":

• Infinite movement roads
• Temples built in a single turn
• Units that die of old age

Hardwired Failure Realism

These ideas might be more interesting if they weren't hardwired. They sometimes have hope, if they can be turned into meaningful decisions for the player that aren't overly complicated.

As you can see, the ones in this category are seldom hopeless, but can be improved to mechanize the busy work:

• a "civil war" trait, with civilizations prone to civil war
• civilizations that start 3000 years later than others

Random Bad Luck Realism

These ideas usually reflect the unfortunate conclusion about a lot of history -- that success often owes a lot to blind, dumb luck. This realism seldom makes for good game play, although there is always a minor hope of tweaking it into decisions that actually empower the player.

• Random Earthquakes
• Harsher Desert / Jungle (effictively screwing people by starting location)

Feel free to add new examples, new categories, or vent and philosophize about the virtues and pitfalls of realism. This is as open as a thread could be.

 

[Babbler]

Random Bad Luck Realism

These ideas usually reflect the unfortunate conclusion about a lot of history -- that success often owes a lot to blind, dumb luck. This realism seldom makes for good game play, although there is always a minor hope of tweaking it into decisions that actually empower the player.

• Random Earthquakes
• Harsher Desert / Jungle (effictively screwing people by starting location)

Feel free to add new examples, new categories, or vent and philosophize about the virtues and pitfalls of realism. This is as open as a thread could be.

I think they sound fine, even interesting to me. Having radom eventa allow for the game to be less predictable, and would require that you would be able to prepare for it.

Of course, the random events shouldn't be powerful to the point where the game becomes a game of chance. I like to see some moderately power random events.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The issue here is that NO event-be it random or non-random-should be a game maker/game breaker, in and of itself (lets face it, even combat is somewhat random, and wouldn't it suck if one bad battle meant the end of the game?)
Another factor is balance-if you have BAD 'random events', then there should be an equal number of GOOD 'random events'. That said, though, no event in the game should ever be TRULY random, but derive to a greater or lesser degree from player actions-which can influence the strength or the duration of an event.
Which brings me to the next issue, which is that a strong negative event should have a short duration, and vice versa.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I totally agree that too much realism can be bad for the gameplay and even though some timeline realism ideas are good in theory, most aren't worth the effort. Random or semirandom events however can be nice if implemented right, even if they bring bad luck.

Hardwired Failure Realism

These ideas might be more interesting if they weren't hardwired. They sometimes have hope, if they can be turned into meaningful decisions for the player that aren't overly complicated.

As you can see, the ones in this category are seldom hopeless, but can be improved to mechanize the busy work:

a "civil war" trait, with civilizations prone to civil war

I wouldn't mind seeing this either. If it suits better the 'trait' could make civs 'less prone to civil-war' instead, to not make it hard-wired failure realism, just like the other traits. But I believe it's the hard-wiring of traits you mostly object to. Anyway noone likes 'hardwired failure realism' and since I suggested this idea before I better show the old post instead of derailing this thread - http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=99170 .

If one don't consider the editing possibilities that civ4 will come with, the real issue is how much hardwired historical realism there should be in civ4. Should the traits evolve naturally or have a historical connection to the civ? should each civ have an aggressionlevel? should every civ be at equal risk of breaking up? should the UU:s be connected to certain civs? should the wonders have any connections to the realworld-building civs? should the techtree be the same for all civs? should the religions be connected to the 'right' cultural groups? should the civs have different basis for their identity?

I don't think there's any risk that Firaxis implement features so focused on realism that it makes the gameplay suffer, but it's probably harder to know where to draw the 'historical accuracy'-line. Open gameplay or Diverse gameplay?

 

[dh_epic]

Like I said, some of these features aren't destined for absolute failure, but often look at things the wrong way. It's a question of how much you empower the player and how it fits into the rest of the game.

A "unified" or "loyal" trait is probably a better implementation than a trait that destines you for civil war.

Or, on semi-random or random disasters, finding a logical set of actions that can minimize the damage of said disasters. If, statistically speaking, everyone will get hit by a few disasters in the early game, it's the players who are "prepared" who get a big advantage, instead of the players who recklessly expand.

Of course, then you have to ask "what is earthquake prevention?"

This thread isn't for absolutes but merely to pinpoint the often blurry line between good and bad realism.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The Earthquake protection would be somewhat like Volcano protection-namely avoiding areas where an earthquake is likely to be.
In later eras, protection comes in the form of specific infrastructure in your cities which make you more resistant to earthquakes-in the same way you can defend from aerial bombardment.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

But what if you are cursed with being "spawned" in an earthquake vulnerable continent? It's not much different from being spawned next to a volcano, let alone trapped on a tiny island.

If there were to be earthquake recovery, the recovery would have to be unrealistically easy (if planned properly). For example, a "reinforced buildings" improvement that makes your buildings invincible to earthquakes. Without reinforced buildings, you'd see random buildings destroyed and your population fall significantly. But with reinforced buildings, your main structures would be preserved, and your population would fall slightly.

To some degree, adapting "random dumb bad luck" as a part of realism would mean that you'd have to embellish slightly, and come up with slightly idealistic solutions.

 

[Vael]

I agree with dh once again.

He has explained this situation well already, prior to my arrival so I don't believe I need to elaborate.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

It would be pretty funny if you ended up on a tiny, earthquake-prone island filled with volcanos at least the first time.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, DH_Epic, I think that once again my strength vs duration solution provides a possible answer. The thing is that MAJOR quakes-ones which devastate your cities, would actually be INCREDIBLY rare (much like volcanoes are in the game at the moment). You may, however, suffer much more frequent MINOR quakes, which simply cause minor damage/destruction within a city-at least until you build a 'reinforced structure' improvement. This would prevent damage from minor quakes, but also significantly reduce the damage from major quakes. The other issue is how FAR you are from a fault line-the player empowerment is in allowing the player to decide how close to a known fault he wants to build his cities, and whether he is prepared to 'fork out' for improved structures when the time comes, or simply risk it.
As I said though, such disasters should either be INCREDIBLY RARE, or semi-frequent but merely annoying-or a decent balance between the two !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Vael]

What would such natural disasters add to the gameplay? I'm not seeing what the benefits are. Sounds to me like something that would do little more than annoy players into reloading or provide a quick laugh when it happens to the AI.

 

[dh_epic]

That's the fun part about this thread, and what I hoped would come out. The fine line between good realism and bad realism is the degree to which the player is empowered with an interesting choice. Some are more black and white, but even disasters is in those shades of gray.

Even though I'm pessimistic, let me argue for disasters for a second, and work backwards...

Disasters should weed the seperate players into three categories -- those who are prepared, and those who are unprepared.

• Bad players are unprepared.
• The perfectionist is prepared, in order to minimize the damage and bounce back quickly.
• And the expansionist is willingly unprepared -- willing to accept the risk of disaster, and focused enough on land-grabbing that he doesn't mind if a city gets slowed down here or there.

The question becomes how you prepare.

You should be allowed to reinforce your structures pretty early on in the game (no later than construction. maybe even with mathematics.) If you can't reinforce your structures early on in the game, then those three types of players get lumped in together indiscriminantly. Meaning that it doesn't matter if you're a good player or not, a disaster can cost you BIG TIME right at the beginning of the game when it matters the most.

The question then becomes... is this worth it to the player?

 

[Idylwyld]

Natural disasters should play some small part. Why can't coastal cities be struck by Tsunamis or Hurricanes? Why can't Earthquakes of varying magnitude occur at random locations? Why can't Global Warming cause local or even global sea level rise? Plains and Grassland cities could be struck by Tornadoes. The disease issue that currently occurs with flood plain and jungle would be the functional basis. Attach the disaster type as a flag to the appropriate terrain and make it configurable in the editor.

As for the temporal shifts, the "One Turn Temple" already occurs. As the game progresses and turns cover fewer years your shield production rises. Currently I think the rate of production growth over time matches the curve of years per turn fairly well. With the introduction of shield carry-over that was debated in a previous thread where multiple improvement/unit per turn production would be possible I think you would have a quite realistic rate of production to match the decreasing number of years per turn.

Finally, movement will always be screwed when viewed from a years per turn perspective. Yes, twenty years to move a notional 100 miles, depending on map size, is bogus but I haven't seen a better idea yet. The railroad movement arguments have gone all over and the idea of multiple road upgrades seems smart but you'll never cure the distance per year problem in the current scheme of the game.

As for harsher jungle/desert conditions, you can still live there (IRL) but a community won't thrive without significant external support. Although 0 food production in some tiles would be interesting. I can just imagine watching noobs plant cities in the middle of the desert that are doomed to fail 3 turns later.

 

[Idylwyld]

What would such natural disasters add to the gameplay?

Replacement for Barbs? Or replacement for Barb Hordes. Make disasters settable in the world creation/new game screens just like barb activity level is.

 

[dh_epic]

The comparison is a good one. Barbarian invasions can be prevented. In fact, the most prepared players will never so much as lose a hitpoint to a barbarian if they're smart. And crusading conquesters gain a few gold pieces for invading each barbarian camps.

But disasters, there's no profit to those who "crusade against disasters". And even the most prepared player still has to accept some losses, even in terms of population. That's where the debate is right now.

If disasters are included, how can it help good players and weed out bad ones? How is it not blind luck? What does the player do? The answers to these questions are clear for barbarians, but require some creativity (and "outside the box of reality" type thinking) for disasters.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think that the test of whether a Disaster is included should be based on a few key points:

1) Can it be avoided/minimized by player choices or, if not, is it a GAME-BREAKING event?

2) To what extent can the player avoid/minimize the disaster?

3) Can you link severity to duration?

Obviously, a GOOD disaster is one which either allows the player to avoid/minimize it through their actions, or one in which the more powerful versions occur rarely and for only short duration. The best ones are those which combine BOTH elements. Plus, you already know my feelings regarding barbarians !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Idylwyld]

DH_Epic, how do you prepare for the Horde spawns? Normal Barbarian incursions are easy to fight off but the Horde, with that many units showing up at once, will knock most expansion plans completely off their tracks.
The damage from natural disasters should be reduceable by techs that provide better building strengths or through other means. They should not be gamebreakers, I agree. But bad things happen, your plans don't always go right. The straight through programmed linearity of most Civ games needs to be shaken up a little. That said, the same risks and dangers applied to the player should be applied to all the AI opponents.

 

[dh_epic]

A lot of players can deal with those huge stacks. At least in theory, there IS a way to defeat every single one of them and minimize or cut out any kind of damage whatsoever. Stritcly using it as an example, barbarians work because the player has complete control over how to address them, and has the potential to win.

Disasters have guaranteed damage -- that's how they work, realistically. The only way they would be fair is if you could build something in the ancient age (with mathematics, or construction) that makes your city disaster-proof... if you build this protection, your main buildings will always survive, and your population won't be hit too much. This might be unrealistic, but it's strategic -- it empowers the player, and they have a chance to "beat" the disaster.

The straight through programmed linearity of most Civ games needs to be shaken up by offering the player more CHOICE, not CHANCE. Random game play is still linear -- it's just a line that's defined by random luck. Choice offers people genuine branching game play.

 

[Arvedui]

Well, one thing that I always found unrealistic AND unfun was how those exploring units are able, very early in the game, to reach the farther corners of the world. I think there should be implemented something like a radius from your cities in which you are able to explore, but if you go too far, there should be a warning saying that your soldiers are losing morale from being homesick, thus there being an increasing chance of your unit disbanding, which should inevitably occur, should Portugal try to reach Japan at 3000 BC. With the progress of technology, this should be amelliorated. What do you think? Is this bad realism?

 

[dh_epic]

Truthfully, I'm not sure how realistic it is. I'm sure that in theory, you could make the case that it's possible to load up an explorer with enough food and make it his personal mission to "go as far east as you possibly can". But this never really happened in history, not in the ancient age.

Looking at how the exploration phase of the game is so short (and exciting), extending it would be a good thing though -- realistic or not. I think a radius is a good thing and offers more strategy. People can start to even make research choices that promote exploration over construction or military. And your navy becomes more important. In other words, unit radiuses would offer more balance between strategies in the game.

But this is one of those gray areas. It's certainly just my opinion.