Which paradigm do you prefer for Civ?

[polypheus]

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

Not really. The two paradigms are diametrically opposed. Either the focus is to make a primarily a 4x wargame or a historic simulation game where the focus is more on empire building/management and decision-making.

Earlier you said that there is the *craft approach. What did you mean by that and how is *craft approach different than 4x approach?

 

[warpstorm]

First off, I almost never play Civ3 as a wargame (with the exception of a few of the Conquests where that is the point). I think I tried for a domination a few times and never bothered with full conquest as a victory condition. I almost exclusively play it going for the cultural victory. Do I go to war? Of course, but that is just an means to an end, not the point.

I also hate EU. It was a totally boring sim to me. Why? I think because it tried too hard to be a historic sim and not a game. I bought it and nearly every one of Paradox's "games" hoping that they eventually click with me, but I kept throwing good money after bad. Sorry, that's my opinion and it won't be swayed (unless they finally make a game I think is fun). I'd vote twice against this model if I could.

A *craft game model is one where resource gathering and unit production is paramount because the outcome will be decided by combat. The 4x model (of which I am a big fan (and incidentally so are Firaxis) and I feel Civ should remain - just so you know my agenda) has exploration. *craft players know the maps (or have a good idea of the map). It also has expansion, the *craft model does, but to a much lesser degree as you are more interested getting ready for the battles than actually developing your nation. The *craft also has a real time component.

A good example of the *craft would be any of the Age of... or Rise of Nations or, of course, any game whose name ends in Craft.

 

[Dr. Broom]

So craft is basically RTS then?

 

[warpstorm]

Not always. EU is RTS, but not in that mold.

 

[polypheus]

I can definitely understand why many people might not like EU. While a great game, especially for people who love to study history and appreciate the accurate details modelled in the game, it also plays very much like a boardgame and is very abstract as well. There are a bunch of sliders and generic "tech levels" and board-game RISK style maps with all sorts of NASDAQ-like charts showing progress and details of nations. IMHO, for what it was trying to do (that is model real-life history), it's approach was perfect.

But one must distinguish between "EU-paradigm" vs "EU-specific implementations of that paradigm". It is possible to make a Civ 4 using the EU-paradigm of overall historic and common-sense realism (to the extent possible due to playability and such) without making it overly complex or overwhelming or unfun or making Civ 4 look like EU 3, It can use the EU-paradigm without making the game "feel like EU3".

Consider the very simple change of Civ 3:C3C: Map trading and Communications Trading moved to requiring Navigation. From a pure 4x "Empire"-paradigm wargame perspective, it seems pointless, unnecessary and even annoying. Now instead of knowing the map of the whole world and all other civs you have to painstakingly explore the land and seek out other civs yourself in the early ages. But from an overall historic realism flow of the game, it makes great sense and feels much more "historically realistic" than the way it was before.

There are of course many many examples of this kind of thing. Some of them are perhaps moddable while others would require actual changes to game mechanics.

So by "EU-paradigm", I am simply saying that game mechanics and tweaks and adjustments be made to broadly reflect overall realistic historic flow in a more realistic manner.

 

[dojoboy]

Civ4 will also keep the "conquer the world" aspect of game-play.

People are able to conquer the world in EU2, but it is extremely difficult and one must suffer "annoying" consequences, such as rebels/revolts, etc. These of course are appropriate. In fact, people who play EU2 have encouraged the developers, in patches, to make it more realistic in this sense.

For me, an important part of the EU paradigm implemented in Civ4 would be just this. If you intend on taking over the world, then get ready for some unpleasant, perhaps nasty, events. Don't cry about it. If its a problem, play on chieftain so you can easily roll over the world. In Civ3, governments do not fall nearly enough from WW, and its not because the player is doing the right things to avoid it as much as its the code that prevents it. IMHO.

 

[polypheus]

Now Civ3:C3C change from map/tech trading to navigation was a move in the right direction but I think that there are other changes that can be made that would NOT require additional complicated game mechanics or concepts but just some real minor changes.

1. Settler Rush, Overexpansion, Claimed every square race early game
There are many ways to fix this but perhaps the easiest might be to generate occasional barbarian SoD that can actually conquer cities (not all of them and not all the time). So pump out settlers and each guarded by one warrior/spearmen? Risk it being overrun by barbarian SoD if you're not careful. Perhaps a minor tweak of attrition to prevent going too far would also help.

2. Cheap Military
I dunno but I think that the cost of military and war/occupation is way too cheap. If the cost of military/war vs economic development were balanced then real strategic choices need to be made. Building massive army and having wars of conquest all the time should come at the cost of economic development. This would be easily modelled by just making unit costs and also occupation cost higher. Why did Spain fail as a "civ" IRL? Because of over-emphasis of spending money on military, conquest and wars while neglecting internal economic growth and development.

(EDIT: A further yet real real simple change would be not only to increase cost of military units but have the cost variable so that units further away or in hostile terrain cost additional.)

Anyway the point is large military, wars and occupation of hostile lands tend to be financially draining, ruinous and ****** economic growth so should be reflected if using the EU-paradigm.)

3. Unrealistic Assimilation
I dunno but I don't recall new citizens of India being "British" despite centuries of being completely wiped out and conquered as an independent Civ in real life. This could be easily changed to be much more realistic.

I'm sure I and others can come up with more. But the point is that just like the C3C moving map/communications trading to Nav is in line with "EU-paradigm" so are the suggestions above. And none of them required making the game overly onerous, tedious, overly complicated or unplayable.

 

[VetLegion]

Hi Politpheus (and others). Interesting discussion and interesting approach.

I've tried to quantify the differences between various games in the genre, perhaps it can be interesting to you.

 

[judgement]

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

Not really. The two paradigms are diametrically opposed. Either the focus is to make a primarily a 4x wargame or a historic simulation game where the focus is more on empire building/management and decision-making.

I disagree. To me one strength of the civ series is that the games work both as "wargames" and and "historic sims". Either one without the other would be less.

If we discuss a bowl of vanilla ice cream covered in hot fudge sauce, you could ask "Which do people prefer, the ice cream or the fudge?" You could even state "the ice cream and the fudge are diametically opposed. One is cold, the other hot, one is light, the other dark." But I don't see any need to "focus" on one or the other, since its the combination of the two that makes it better than either one alone. If you posted a poll where the only options were "vanilla ice cream" and "hot fudge," you would undoubtedly find out that more people like to eat plain vanilla ice cream than like to drink hot fudge by itself, but that would tell you nothing about the relative merits of ice cream with hot fudge on it. It just isn't an either/or sort of thing, and neither is the "paradigm" that Civ 4 should be in.

Like warpstorm said a few pages back, Civ 4 should be like Civ 1-3, only better. It shouldn't try to be like any other game, or try to fit itself into the paradigm of any other game. In fact, Civ is a paradigm in and of itself, with many other game copying it. I can't vote in this poll, because neither of the offered options is what I agree with.

 

[polypheus]

I disagree. To me one strength of the civ series is that the games work both as "wargames" and and "historic sims". Either one without the other would be less.

There is a big difference between a wargame as a pure 4x war & conquest game such as "Empire" and a game such as EU2 where war is a critical element of gameplay but only one of many elements to consider.

So I don't see how it can be both. Either it is a pure wargame or it is attempting to better model many of the elements of historical development as it can (diplomacy, economy, demographics, etc) and moving away from a pure wargame.

So the point of the poll is whether people favor the move away from pure wargame a-la "Empire" or not. It is not about whether to remove war as an element.

 

[dojoboy]

If we discuss a bowl of vanilla ice cream covered in hot fudge sauce, you could ask "Which do people prefer, the ice cream or the fudge?" You could even state "the ice cream and the fudge are diametically opposed. One is cold, the other hot, one is light, the other dark." But I don't see any need to "focus" on one or the other, since its the combination of the two that makes it better than either one alone. If you posted a poll where the only options were "vanilla ice cream" and "hot fudge," you would undoubtedly find out that more people like to eat plain vanilla ice cream than like to drink hot fudge by itself, but that would tell you nothing about the relative merits of ice cream with hot fudge on it. It just isn't an either/or sort of thing, and neither is the "paradigm" that Civ 4 should be in.

Is anyone else here hungry?

Again, I don't believe people here, who voted for the EU Paradigm, want Civ4 to become EU2. Rather, they want to see the inclusion of empire simulation as much as 4x conquer the world approach.

Here is a short AAR (After Action Report) I posted on an EU2 game I played as Austria.

Austrian Hegemony - AAR

It may give some insight to the empire management aspect along w/ military conquest. FWIW.