The value of recorded history in Civ strategy

[Divaythsarmour]

That latest Attacko thread has got me thinking about this. Obviously the game of civilization was inspired by real world history. And the developers have brought a lot from history into the game (i.e. leaders, traits, wonders, units etc.) and attempted to give them all a strategic value and significance. And it's up to us players to explore and make things happen within the framework.

I don't see anyone other than Attacko basing strategy on historical events. Often times people will allude to an event in history, but most people focus entirely on the rules of the game (i.e. the developer given values). Or at least that's been my observation as a fairly regular reader and poster on these forums.

But I find that it's hard for me to consider real events in history and not wonder what would have happened if a leader had done things differently. For instance, what if Hannibal had taken advantage of his early victories and laid siege to Rome? Or what if Hitler had better utilized the strength of his panzer division (supplying them by air drop as Heinz Guderian had suggested) in his invasion of the Soviet Union?

When playing civilization, we're constantly considering these kind of decisions. For instance I was playing an OCC game where I started building a series of forts in a row and employing longbowmen to defend them against an obvious attack that was coming from Monte. And let me tell you that my line of forts was formidable but failed just as miserably as the Maginot Line in 1941. I'm sure that others must have had similar experiences.

So how much strategic value does recorded history have in this game? Have you ever experienced something in Civilization that played out similar to history?

 

[CHEESE!]

Very little IMO. Babylon never had a happy cap. Rome never had a single awesome unit to overrun all. And (especially) not everyone had the same technologies and military.

 

[madscientist]

Not sure the game was meant to replay history, as there are too many differences. Hell, none of these leaders were Immortal (although I think Gilgamesh is questionable as he is really a legend!). I think this is a game of alternative history, you make it up!

Sometimes you can play for a leader or civilizations perspective, which I have done in some RPCs such as MAO (Communist, atheist, high population, espionage), Isabella (religious fanaticism), Saladin (religious tolerance), Julius (world wide vassalage).

Sometimes I try to do the exact opposite just for fun such as Land-lubbing Hannibal, Pollution Sitting Bull (cough, cough), or the Cultural Gentleman Shaka (well, after killing off two civilizations!).

Also, aren't some of the scenarios somewhat based on historical events such as the WWII one, orQin's unification of China, or Charmelagne???

 

[Patronus Potter]

So how much strategic value does recorded history have in this game? Have you ever experienced something in Civilization that played out similar to history?

I don't think it has much value aside from rules of thumb such as "have the strongest navy", etc. or aspects which have already been built into the game. Aside from differences from the real world such as size/scale and the absence of weather, seasons, and disease, warfare is much less complicated in Civ than in real life. There are very few surprises. When you go to war in Civ, you generally know whether or not you can win. The outcome depends on only your own and a few AI's decisions on production and strategy.

Here is a quote from a book about the war between the Persians and Greeks in 480 BC:

At Salamis, for the crucial naval battle in late September 480, [Themistocles] sent a false message to the Persian king with his children's tutor Sicinnus... [Sicinnus] persuaded the Persians to divide their fleet into four, two parts of which went off to block irrelevant exits in the Bay. He kept the Persian rowers at their oars all night, in case the Greeks tried a night-time escape; by dawn, they were exhausted. He also influenced the heavier Persian warships to move up into the narrowest entry to the Bay in the morning, expecting to find most of the Greeks gone. In fact, they were all there... Themistocles' trick was the ultimate cause of the Greek victory.

Or even the most famous military trick of all, the Trojan Horse... can't do anything like that in Civ. You just have to have more and better units than the AI.

 

[Divaythsarmour]

The differences between real life and the game are obvious. But some similarities are there. And we (the players) are always employing strategies and tactics that often parallel real events in history.

And even when some of the parallels might be less obvious, they often still take on a very real life quality.

Very little IMO. Babylon never had a happy cap.

It was considered fantastic and unbelievable in the time of Marco Polo that a Chinese city could have a population of a million people when the average European city's population was less than 100,000.

 

[Divaythsarmour]

Originally Posted by Robin Lane Fox
At Salamis, for the crucial naval battle in late September 480, [Themistocles] sent a false message to the Persian king with his children's tutor Sicinnus... [Sicinnus] persuaded the Persians to divide their fleet into four, two parts of which went off to block irrelevant exits in the Bay. He kept the Persian rowers at their oars all night, in case the Greeks tried a night-time escape; by dawn, they were exhausted. He also influenced the heavier Persian warships to move up into the narrowest entry to the Bay in the morning, expecting to find most of the Greeks gone. In fact, they were all there... Themistocles' trick was the ultimate cause of the Greek victory.

Yes there are many things that can't be replicated in Civ 4.

But I was once playing a game on a Highlands map where a much smaller force of mine held up a much much larger AI force on a hill top inbetween two lengths of mountain ranges. And I was able to keep reinforcing them and keep them alive through medic promotions etc. against all odds. I was astounded at what had happened and the parallels to one of the peers of Themistocles', Leonidas at Thermoplyae.

 

[budweiser]

I kinda think the real world history events are largely shaped by geography. Rome was in the right place at the right time to expand when it did. A jungle Rome in game will have trouble matching that same result. You will notice in game that compacted empires will often stop expansion and build wonders. Now take a look at all the wonders that were built by tiny greece (they had marble). This is just an example, there are others.

So, the land you draw will shape events moreso than the real world civ that you are playing. If you want a closer approximation to history, choose a starting location that favors your civ; coastal rome, river paris, land locked cathy, etc, etc.

 

[Padma]

Moderator Action: Thread moved to General Discussion.

 

[cardgame]

Playing the Earth 1000 AD scenario, as Russia I expanded as far as I could to the East, and once I met with the Mongolians I stopped and developed my cities and researched.

Once I hit Cossacks I built tons and tons of them and took over Europe. England was a problem until I had built up some transports

Then, by the Modern Age with Tanks, Infantry, Artillery and Gunships (but barely any airforce) I invaded Saladin and the ME. I don't think I finished the game; After I took over India and most of Mongolia I stopped to rebuild and regroup for the last civs; China and Japan.

Oh, and Mali is ALL OVER Africa and they have like no roads.. that will take a while

Invading the ME was kind of like a replay of history, and Europe was just fun. Imagine a USSR that had taken out Turkey and Europe... Yet only reached about halfway from Moscow to Vladivostok instead of owning that whole area.

 

[civverguy]

Military wise, Civ is not very realistic, because you can't employ tactics during battles. Ambushes can't really work in this game.