Things I Learned About The World Through CivV

274. Catapults were an effective way to attack armies in open terrain
275. Ranged combat was only effective until the Medieval Era
276. A sling has a longer effective range than a rifle
277. Reconnaissance (scouts) became obsolete somewhere around 2000 BC
278. If a major project is not finished on time it is always converted into cash
279. The Porcelain Tower was the greatest achievement in scientific history
280. The Aztecs could produce amazing amounts of food unrivaled by other civilizations
281. Alexander was of Greece and not Macedon (actually learned this from earlier versions of the game too)
282. Culture through artistic expression leads to more effective forms of government
283. Naval power is optional (or maybe even unnecessary) for a world power
284. The Dutch were not an important civilization (probably because of #283 above)
285. Meiji and Hirohito were not as important of Emperors as Oda Nobunaga
 
280. America is hated becaused it declared war on more than three rivals.
281. Not gifting Russia 400gp will make them hate you and not renew friendships.
282. Declaring war on a small city state makes countries hate you more than if you DOWed them.
283. Small countries like Dublin or Warsaw (lol) will refuse to grow past two cities.
284. Workers can take more ranged damage than trained military units.
 
Mesix said:
274. Catapults were an effective way to attack armies in open terrain
275. Ranged combat was only effective until the Medieval Era
276. A sling has a longer effective range than a rifle
277. Reconnaissance (scouts) became obsolete somewhere around 2000 BC
278. If a major project is not finished on time it is always converted into cash
279. The Porcelain Tower was the greatest achievement in scientific history
280. The Aztecs could produce amazing amounts of food unrivaled by other civilizations
281. Alexander was of Greece and not Macedon (actually learned this from earlier versions of the game too)
282. Culture through artistic expression leads to more effective forms of government
283. Naval power is optional (or maybe even unnecessary) for a world power
284. The Dutch were not an important civilization (probably because of #283 above)
285. Meiji and Hirohito were not as important of Emperors as Oda Nobunaga
Click to expand...

apocalypse105 said:
286 If you have 1 soldier more then you're neigbhour its a good diplomatic decission to declare war.
Click to expand...

Pisskop said:
287. America is hated becaused it declared war on more than three rivals.
288. Not gifting Russia 400gp will make them hate you and not renew friendships.
289. Declaring war on a small city state makes countries hate you more than if you DOWed them.
290. Small countries like Dublin or Warsaw (lol) will refuse to grow past two cities.
291. Workers can take more ranged damage than trained military units.
Click to expand...

I numbered them the right way.
 
292. Gandhi's office is by the Ganges river
293. Nobunaga likes standing in green fields
294. Montezuma, Kamehameha, Hiawatha, and Ramkhamhaeng are ripped
 
You know, 294 was probably true (at least for Monty and Hiawatha, and probably Kamehameha's earlier years)
 
296. Rome was apparently not an ancient super-power (otherwise they would have won already!)
297. Most civ5 players name their savegames alphabetically to make them easier to find (a -> aa -> aaa -> aaaa), whereas when playing any other game on the planet they would just load the most recent save first.
298. The "Thirteenth Legion" (in the Rome series) was a creation of Holywood, as no one has ever bothered to give any sort of distinguishing name to a military unit.
299. Heavy bombers are effective submarine killers
300. There are no civil wars.
301. The world runs much smoother with 4 cores.
 
CivOasis said:
24. All nations that ever existed, were founded at exactly the same time.
Click to expand...

24a. Except for city-states, which appear to have come first.
24b. And despite this ancient stone ruins are lying all around the landscape in 3,000 AD, often containing the secrets of advanced technologies.
24c. However these ruins are very fragile, as they collapse the moment a scout enters them.

27. There are no such things as towns, and cities have to be several hundred miles apart, unless a strait is in between them.
Click to expand...

27a. Roads only exist to connect cities, and only within the same nation.

X (wherever we are in the numbering): Every member of the population is a scientist. The best scientists in the world, other than science specialists, are Korean merchants and artists.

And its corollary, "Things I learned from earlier Civilization games":

1. Primitive societies devote a larger portion of their resources to research and development than more advanced ones. In the ancient era, some societies spent 100% of their income on science.
Click to expand...
 
302. We'd be up to a thousand now if CiV had some depth to it like CiIV had!
 
303. Every city automaticly generates a profit.
304. Cities regenerate themselves.
305. Farms can be built on ice, but only if it is by the not frozen river. (earth map Alaska)
306. Religion never influenced the descisions of nations.
307. Maps? What are those?
308. The Second World War was not a violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Peace treaties are exactly 10 turns, or 10 years.
309. Better graphics and grid systems are no basis for a game.
310. Archers on Chariots had to stay still to fire.
 
nokmirt said:
302. We'd be up to a thousand now if CiV had some depth to it like CiIV had!
Click to expand...

You mean Civ IV had far more illogical mechanics to make fun of? Yes, I'd probably agree with that... I learned, for example, that:

Having Priesthood doesn't let you build temples unless you're the first to found a religion

The Oracle was a great centre for scientific advancement.

Upon building the Pyramids, the ancient Egyptians suddenly developed an interest in democracy and free trade

We all know that there exist remote, uncontacted tribes even in the 21st Century. What I learned from earlier versions of Civ is that contacting these tribes at this point will allow your society to gain their more advanced insight into nuclear fusion.
 
PhilBowles said:
You mean Civ IV had far more illogical mechanics to make fun of? Yes, I'd probably agree with that... I learned, for example, that:

Having Priesthood doesn't let you build temples unless you're the first to found a religion

The Oracle was a great centre for scientific advancement.

Upon building the Pyramids, the ancient Egyptians suddenly developed an interest in democracy and free trade

We all know that there exist remote, uncontacted tribes even in the 21st Century. What I learned from earlier versions of Civ is that contacting these tribes at this point will allow your society to gain their more advanced insight into nuclear fusion.
Click to expand...

:lol: Good point, but I did not design the damn thing. (They need a historical advisor to help them understand aspects of civilizations and the PRIMES of of those civilizations.) So, in CiV they could have added in some more elements and make sure those changes are practical and more logical than they were in CiIV. In other words evolve the game with logical correctness. Instead what did they do? Dumb it down. Perhaps I see why, because of all the idiocy in CiIV, they felt they should stick to the absolute basics, so they don't look foolish! :)

If you do not know what I mean about PRIMES, it is simply this. How a civilization is broken down in six parts which help to describe its makeup and goals. This is a very useful tool for historians for cataloging civilizations. P=Political R=Religion I=Ideology M=Military E=Economic S=Social
 
nokmirt said:
:lol: Good point, but I did not design the damn thing. (They need a historical advisor to help them understand aspects of civilizations and the PRIMES of of those civilizations.) So, in CiV they could have added in some more elements and make sure those changes are practical and more logical than they were in CiIV. In other words evolve the game with logical correctness. Instead what did they do? Dumb it down. Perhaps I see why, because of all the idiocy in CiIV, they felt they should stick to the absolute basics, so they don't look foolish! :)

If you do not know what I mean about PRIMES, it is simply this. How a civilization is broken down in six parts which help to describe its makeup and goals. This is a very useful tool for historians for cataloging civilizations. P=Political R=Religion I=Ideology M=Military E=Economic S=Social
Click to expand...

I think this is the wrong way to look at it. Civ IV wasn't illogical because it was a bad simulation - it was illogical because it wasn't intended to be a simulation, it was intended to be a playable game. Europa Universalis is a simulation, and that doesn't even have a victory condition as such - that's at the opposite extreme where it's not really a game at all.

Such things as Wonders that have magical abilities date back to Civ I (and in the case of the Oracle it's always had a myth-inspired ability rather than a factually plausible one ... except in Civ V of all games. And when have the various abilities assigned to the Pyramids ever made any sense? Arguably Civ V comes the closest - completing the Pyramids results in a well-trained workforce that can be assigned to other tasks once they're finished). So do tribes with strangely advanced technologies (although in one of the earlier Civ games, I believe techs from tribes were disabled past a certain game stage).

Civ V if anything seems to be trying to shed the Civ identity crisis - deciding once and for all that it's an abstract strategy game with little effort to be a real simulation. So we have nuclear subs without Nuclear Fission, granaries that produce rather than store food (and, um, aqueducts that store food) - all of which makes less sense generally, but which are often better for playability (tell me an early-game food-granting resource is less useful early on than a storehouse). Any improved simulation (calendar being available earlier, above improvements to some wonders, among others - such as Stonehenge simply reflecting culture where it's built rather than somehow being split into four pieces and spread around your cities) are more or less incidental. I could still do without Fountains of Youth or El Dorado, though...

EDIT: Think about historically-themed board games as an analogy, such as Tigris & Euphrates or the original Civilization board game the first computer game was largely inspired by. None of these have much in the way of historical accuracy, and have a 'bare bones' approach to their mechanics, but they are exactly what they should be in order to provide an enjoyable and strategically interesting gaming experience. I recognise the very same approach in Civ V. As I've said before (another analogy), chess and Company of Heroes are both wargames. One is very detailed and closely tied to a historical context, with complex mechanics covering resource and unit production as well as combat. The other is universally regarded as the better game - not because of any flaws in Company of Heroes, critically regarded as the best RTS ever made, but simply because the best games are generally the simpler ones ruleswise (the cliche being simple to learn, hard to master). More complex games tend to be harder to master, but once you've mastered the mechanics and the best build orders, strategically limited - and from discussions here this is generally true of Civ games at higher difficulties, not just Civ V (even though I've played Civ games for two decades, I rarely played higher difficulties than Prince, back when that was equivalent to King or Emperor in Civ V).

Phil
 
PhilBowles said:
I think this is the wrong way to look at it. Civ IV wasn't illogical because it was a bad simulation - it was illogical because it wasn't intended to be a simulation, it was intended to be a playable game. Europa Universalis is a simulation, and that doesn't even have a victory condition as such - that's at the opposite extreme where it's not really a game at all.

Such things as Wonders that have magical abilities date back to Civ I (and in the case of the Oracle it's always had a myth-inspired ability rather than a factually plausible one ... except in Civ V of all games. And when have the various abilities assigned to the Pyramids ever made any sense? Arguably Civ V comes the closest - completing the Pyramids results in a well-trained workforce that can be assigned to other tasks once they're finished). So do tribes with strangely advanced technologies (although in one of the earlier Civ games, I believe techs from tribes were disabled past a certain game stage).

Civ V if anything seems to be trying to shed the Civ identity crisis - deciding once and for all that it's an abstract strategy game with little effort to be a real simulation. So we have nuclear subs without Nuclear Fission, granaries that produce rather than store food (and, um, aqueducts that store food) - all of which makes less sense generally, but which are often better for playability (tell me an early-game food-granting resource is less useful early on than a storehouse). Any improved simulation (calendar being available earlier, above improvements to some wonders, among others - such as Stonehenge simply reflecting culture where it's built rather than somehow being split into four pieces and spread around your cities) are more or less incidental. I could still do without Fountains of Youth or El Dorado, though...

EDIT: Think about historically-themed board games as an analogy, such as Tigris & Euphrates or the original Civilization board game the first computer game was largely inspired by. None of these have much in the way of historical accuracy, and have a 'bare bones' approach to their mechanics, but they are exactly what they should be in order to provide an enjoyable and strategically interesting gaming experience. I recognise the very same approach in Civ V. As I've said before (another analogy), chess and Company of Heroes are both wargames. One is very detailed and closely tied to a historical context, with complex mechanics covering resource and unit production as well as combat. The other is universally regarded as the better game - not because of any flaws in Company of Heroes, critically regarded as the best RTS ever made, but simply because the best games are generally the simpler ones ruleswise (the cliche being simple to learn, hard to master). More complex games tend to be harder to master, but once you've mastered the mechanics and the best build orders, strategically limited - and from discussions here this is generally true of Civ games at higher difficulties, not just Civ V (even though I've played Civ games for two decades, I rarely played higher difficulties than Prince, back when that was equivalent to King or Emperor in Civ V).

Phil
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying. I was kind of being smart guy for a better choice of words which will keep me out of trouble, do you know what I mean? I realize a game cannot be completely realistic and have infinite exactness to real life. However saying that there are things they could have picked up on and changed.

Let me give you an example. I am playing Empire Total War and in that game you can attach an army of 16 units to a brig or 1 ship fleet and land them in one turn near London. This would be equivalent to a checkmate in chess. Great Britain has a very good chance of losing its capital, which pretty much takes it out of the game, for the simple reason it will not be able to move enough troops from elsewhwere to protect Edinburgh and Dublin from being taken over as well. And in most cases all three cities are attacked in the same turn anyway. To me this is completely unrealistic and ETW is a simulation game, at least the battle portion of the game, which is done in real time.

The thing is that games do not have to be completely illogical simulation or not. There are always improvements that can be made, but these changes do have to be applied in regards to improved gameplay. Your not going to change something if it works to improve gameplay whether illogical or not, such as the granary in CiV. I suppose there would have to be a balance between playability and logic, which is what we see from most games. In ETW though Great Britain should be a much tougher nut to crack as it was in real life. Other things like the fountain of youth you mention add a fun factor to the game. So things like that add a bit of excitement and of course advantage to the player at the expense of logic or reality. Simply like you said in so many words, as did I, ITS NOT ABOUT LOGIC, ITS NOT ABOUT REALITY, ITS A GAME!!! AND A GAME ALLOWS US TO STEP OUT OF THE REAL WORLD FOR A TIME. Thats what makes them great! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
[BNW] Wonders of the Ancient World
Replies
3
Views
539
Tharkon
T
H
What am i not getting about connections/hub towns ?
Replies
13
Views
3K
beezany
beezany
The_J
  • Sticky
Old World update #135
Replies
7
Views
2K
PiR
PiR
thecrazyscot
Civilization Legacies through the Ages
Replies
3
Views
1K
thecrazyscot
thecrazyscot
F
Civ ability design outlines that shake up gameplay systems: Tang China + Great Liao
Replies
3
Views
466
moondog385
moondog385
Back
Top Bottom