Which paradigm do you prefer for Civ?

[polypheus]

Before going further, I hope that people understand what I mean by "EU paradigm" and overall historic realism. Unlike EU, Civ spans 4000 years of history and in the standard epic games, takes place on a world map that is totally different than our own Earth map. So obviously lots of historic details and concepts that are appropriate for a game like EU would be totally inappropriate or irrelevant for Civ.

But having said that, there are still lots of broad general overall principles that can be modelled that we would expect even in a Civ-world modelling human (albeit alternate universe) world regardless of historic details. Ideas such as CIv 3's culture, nationality, borders, trade, resources/luxuries, more diplomacy depth, etc were clearly concepts to try to make Civ have an "overall" more historic and realistic feel without adding unnecessary detail that would not flow from an alternative Earth (but which EU implements since it IS a game about real Earth, at least from the starting point).

So when I speak of "EU paradigm", I am only speaking of broad, general concepts that we expect would apply to an alternative-Earth world not the little details that EU implements which tie the game to how history flowed in our real world.

Another way to look at this is to distinguish between "historic realism" and "historic accuracy". EU models both but in a world starting from scratch, there is no such thing as "historic accuracy" since you are creating this history yourself. Nevertheless, even though you are creating this history yourself, certain concepts and principles should apply so that the flow of this "alternative history" is still broadly "realistic" overall.

 

[dojoboy]

What about Civ4 offering both options, where the player can choose before each game which style he/she wishes to use?

(1) Adventure Mode

(2) Historical Mode

 

[Dr. Broom]

That might not be such a good idea because they will have to make 2 games in one.

 

[polypheus]

What about Civ4 offering both options, where the player can choose before each game which style he/she wishes to use?

(1) Adventure Mode

(2) Historical Mode

I don't see how this could really work. Either they add/remove concepts and features in Civ 4 to move towards 4X (a step backwards IMO) or else they add/remove concepts and features to move away from 4X and towards a game that is more of overall empire/civ management. To have two modes which are playable and balanced would probably require essentially almost developing two separate games so they really have to choose.

I recall though that Soren Johnson was alluding to possibly moving Civ 4 back to the pure 4X roots. Hopefully that is not the case and hopefully the results of this poll show that he should continue the Civ 3 evolution as the poll results here seem to support that.

 

[dojoboy]

Perhaps, it can be simplified:

(1) Event Mode (w/ events; general in historical context, not specific to any particular country in the world)

(2) Non-event Mode (no events)

But, maybe this is another branch of discussion.

 

[Lucius Sulla]

I think you are getting it the wrong side. I don't think nobody here wants Civ IV to be EU III, or civ IV to behave historically. I think the proposal was just about seeing some things from the EU II historical paradigm, just that... or to keep with the pure building abstract model.

For example I can notice about the thing of the terrains, settlers being able to go through mountains, jungle, dessert... every little corner of the world settled and occupied by big cities. A civ building approach would be to keep it like that (e.g.:'so what? if the terrain is poor the city will just not grow big'), or to take the historical approach and setting something like natural frontiers, as in BBW or Rhye's (e.g.:'By the XXth century, the Sahara is irrigated, and the amazon jungle chopped down...').

Historical and realistic vs pure abstract chess-type play. And, I must say, chess is a terrific game.

EDIT: I see now I missed there was a second page in this thread...

By the way, it's quite curious to see that hardcore old members prefer the pure build up scheme, while the rest more casual members prefer a more historical EU paradigm like approach .

 

[warpstorm]

There is another approach. I'll call it the *craft approach. Discuss.

 

[polypheus]

There is another approach. I'll call it the *craft approach. Discuss.

I do not know what the *craft approach is. It seems like that would be the same as moving Civ back to pure 4x gameplay, no?

 

[Tholish]

I think Civ 4 should allow the player to pick. More flexibility. We have that now. Some like scenarios that basically are empire games, stuck in one era more or less. Others prefer more fully developed panoramic mods. Not a mix, a slider.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Would the *craft approach mean RTS?

 

[MikeH]

I like EU2, but I wouldn't like Civ to become more lke it. Civ has never been about historical accuracy and to make it more like EU2 would be like forcing a round peg into square hole. Let's face it, if it was historically accurate you'd have a choice of 2 civilsations in 4000 BC, Sumeria and China.

 

[dojoboy]

I like EU2, but I wouldn't like Civ to become more lke it. Civ has never been about historical accuracy and to make it more like EU2 would be like forcing a round peg into square hole. Let's face it, if it was historically accurate you'd have a choice of 2 civilsations in 4000 BC, Sumeria and China.

I agree that Civ4 should remain an ahistorical game. But, I don't feel they have to make it historical to present the EU2 Paradigm. How to do it without making a MOO3 is the question and probably not worth the risk for Firaxis & Atari.

 

[Dr. Broom]

I like EU2, but I wouldn't like Civ to become more lke it. Civ has never been about historical accuracy and to make it more like EU2 would be like forcing a round peg into square hole. Let's face it, if it was historically accurate you'd have a choice of 2 civilsations in 4000 BC, Sumeria and China.

We aren't gunning so much for historical accuracy, we just want certain aspects to be more like EU. Make it so that, for example diplomacy is more important, you can't have a limitless empire and then there is already the introduction of religion and civics which is a good step.

 

[Denarr]

I like the direction Civ has been going.
I don't want it to be more like other games, except coincidentally, I just like the direction it has been moving.
Granted; some of the features that have disappeared along the way were features that I would have liked to keep, but then that probably applies to everyone, though not in the same way.

 

[one_man_assault]

EU was or is beautiful.... I think 4X is great but there should be a balance...EU did this nicely and overall it would help CIV more than hurt it by adding more non 4X features to the game...conquering is sweet...but crushing a far larger nation with a strong alliance and a nicely funded military is even far sweeter...

 

[qazxc]

Whichever paradigm accurately models the goings on, on this planet...

qazxc

 

[Dr. Broom]

Well that would be EU, no contest.

 

[polypheus]

I like EU2, but I wouldn't like Civ to become more lke it. Civ has never been about historical accuracy and to make it more like EU2 would be like forcing a round peg into square hole. Let's face it, if it was historically accurate you'd have a choice of 2 civilsations in 4000 BC, Sumeria and China.

The EU paradigm for Civ isn't about historic accuracy. Rather it is about historic (and just overall common-sense) realism. These are very different concepts. I posted an earlier article in this thread explaining the difference.

Sadly, I saw that Soren wrote in his slide "Still can take over the world". I wonder if this means that Civ IV will slide backwards to the Interstel Empire model of build, build, build, conquer, conquer conquer game which it seemed Civ 3 was moving away from (but which Civ 4 might be moving back towards?)

As for making Civ 4 more historically realistic means making it unplayable like MoO3, just consider that one does NOT imply the other. Here are examples:

Remember in Civ 1/2, units were "city supported" and died if the city was captured? Obviously totally unrealistic and crap. In Civ 3, it is nationally supported. Remember in Civ 2, you could terraform all lands at will to any other terrain? Obviously unrealistic. It is removed from Civ 3. Also in Civ 3: Conquests, map knowledge and contact trading were moved to navigation stage to slow it down and model it much more like real history would flow.

So from there simple examples, we see that the changes were made to make it much more historically realistic. Yet did these changes mean making it less fun and more complex and unplayable? Hardly. In fact some of these changes made it more realistic and at the time made it less complex (the home city crap for instance that was finally removed).

 

[polypheus]

Another way of phrasing this debate and poll is whether you enjoy and see Civ primarily as a:
1) Wargame
2) Historical Simulation Game

I know that lots of players, especially multiplayers, play it as a wargame and enjoy it primarily from the 4X "wargame" perspective.

OTOH, there are many players like myself who play really for the immersive historic simulation experience.

So the question really is where is the fan-base lie and what fan-base should Firaxis target?

 

[warpstorm]

Is it possible that the answer isn't either/or?