I guess for me, I enjoy playing the game even if and especially if, I am not a superpower. This is because I try to play Civ2 (although it wasn't really designed for this) as a kind of role playing history simulation where I am but one of many medium size nations (which is way more realistic and interesting than being the one sole mega-superpower dwarfing all others.)

My best and most memorable games are rarely those in which I conquer the world because in order to accomplish this in Civ1 and Civ2 it means I already laid the foundation for doing this. Once I have enough cities and enough economic and productive power, it is merely a manner of mass producing units and overwhelming the AIs before time runs out. Most of the time I don't even bother because I KNOW that I can do it if I am willing to endure the tedium of doing this.

I hope that in Civ3, it is possible to become the USA but this should be very difficult to achieve and very rare (In Civ2, it is VERY EASY, you just needed to built and expand your cities like locusts, build the right wonders and inevitably you would in time overtake the computer AIs in production and techs).

Nevertheless, I think I understand what you mean. I seldomly expanded my civ-empires beyond 15-25 cities. I think it was/is much more fun spending time on cultivating the existing empire, and later make a run for the space-race, then desperatly try to found/conquer hundreds of cities covering the whole map.

quote: Maybe I'm the only one but for myself, "winning" is not that important.

Well, I assure you there is one more person in the world who has the same attitude as you have.

I agree with Ralf that civ is not a historical simulation. Just one example: Would it be possible in civ game to go all the way from the colony to the world's only super power in, say 200 years, like USA did? That would mean, in game terms, that you have a civil war and that a rebelion faction in 150 turns became mightiest civilization, while, at the same time, very strong civilization at high technology level exists and are somewhat hostile to you.

Civ is history simulator but that doesn't mean it follows exact path of human history. However, the variables such as civ, tech, wonder etc should be faithful to history otherwise it's not a history simulator at all.

"In simulation, the process and the result vary(almost infinite possibility)"

quote: If you never got real results, it's not simulation at all.

If someone ask for little bit more realism, does it mean 100% realism? You never know unless you've been in that person's brain. So how do we draw the line? The answer will be as long as

1.it doesn't hurt the game play,
2.it provides fun.

and a simulator doesn't have to represent 100% realism. Do you think a flight simulator or driving simulator are faithful to realism in 100%? Hell no!

depends on your budget and time, you build various simulators ranging from somewhat mediocre to excellent in varing degree of realism.

Enhanced diplomacy, better trade and modified combat system are all part of the attempts to help the game one more step closer to complex reality to be a better simulator than the previous one. There is no perfect simulator compared to real life so far. Is there any? so it's all down to how much the simulator is close to the reality not it represents 100% reality.

You just keep bringing "America's rise" as an example and we all know the game doesn't handle the matter as the history does. Why? because it contradicts the aspect of game play ,as far as the developers are concerned.

quote: Originally posted by Nenad on 05-04-2001 01:55 AM It's not winning that's interesting, that's ok with me. I play for fun, too. However: "In simulation, the process and the result vary(almost infinite possibility)" Well, yes. Almost infinite. Everything is possible, with one exception. You can't start rebelion in XVIII century end became world's top nation by the mid of XX century, and that was the exact course of events in history. I thing that Stuff2 has the point. What we need is more dynamic world (Only in game, of course. As for me, I would like real world to be much, much, much less dynamic). On the other hand, if I start the game in 4000 BC, I don't see how to win ever, if the winner is (as it seems), somebody who does not exist in the beginning of the game. I know that winning is not everything, but to play and to know that you are never going to win, it's frustrating. So, from that point of view, it would be stupid to expect the game to be 100% realistic (and probably from any point of view). I'm not advocating the position that the game should be 100% real history simulation, I'm just saying that it isn't and it shouldn't be. If you never got real results, it's not simulation at all. In short, I would like the game to be more dynamic, and I still don't think that it's history simulation.

Well if someone conquered London, its at least possible the English civ would split, and Americans would emerge and win. Not very likely, but not impossible. OF course AMerican rev, like most splits, didnt happen that way. So other basis for civ splitting would be required.

Still i agree with youngsam. You can have an inaccurate, but fun simulation. It can still be a simulation.

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 05-02-2001 06:19 PM Civ isnt really a "historic simulator". Its more a great game for the earth-empire megalomaniacs amongst us - with some nice real life historic flavour. If you want to play a more exact historic simulator; check out http://www.europa-universalis.com/. A swedish historian said that EU was historically accurate by factor 10:1 comparing with Civilization-2. Nevertheless, I think I understand what you mean. I seldomly expanded my civ-empires beyond 15-25 cities. I think it was/is much more fun spending time on cultivating the existing empire, and later make a run for the space-race, then desperatly try to found/conquer hundreds of cities covering the whole map. I have seldomly, however constricted myself to only build/maintain less the 15 cities empires. Perhaps an idea. To give the surrounding AI-civs a good leadstart on a relatively small map, by deliberately constricting oneself in each areas - just in order to see how long one can hold out... [This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 03, 2001).]

The more i hear this stuff, the more convinced I become to get EU, and forget about Civ3. Still I think a civ type game can be a unique history simulator in a way an EU cannot be. The long time span makes it possibleto ask what if questions that cant be asked of a shorter time span game. EU can ask - what would have happened if Phillip2 had given up war in Flanders. Civ can ask what would have happpened if Roman empire had survived, or what if iron working wasnt developed till 1000 years later.

Of course existing civ2 cant answer those with its accuracy issues. And no civ type game can be completely accurate and remain playable as a game, due to scale problems. (IE realistic movement means either units move to fast for interesting turn based wars,etc or there are too many turns to make game playable in realistic amount of time.) So civ can never be a fully realistic simulator. nonetheless it is already close enough to one, to tempt many of us to want more realism, and to oppose any changes that reduce realism. And of course those reductions in realism are most hateful when they contradict the basic principles of civ (IE unique civs)
Civ2 may not teach exactly what would have happened if iron working came later, but it does teach important principle of historic causality. IE that the nature of the modern world is shaped by sequences of past events, by strategy and geography and society, and that the forces of competition among states create a force for "rationality" - certain strategies just wont survive, especially ones that freeze research and lead to stagnation.

Read Paul Johnsons "Rise of the Great Powers" or Jared Diamonds "Guns, Germs and Steel" and then come back and tell me that Civ2 isnt perhaps the best guide to understanding macrohistory of any game commercially available. It is an open question now whether civ3 will be better or worse in this regard. If it is worse, it will be a missed opportunity.

LOTM

quote: Someone said about realism in civ: Play 2 turns, and die of old age.

haha now, that was funny!

quote: I still don't think that it's history simulation, but rather some sort of chief-of-state simulation (for a very long period of time, of course).

That's why, man. very long period of time..... different ages, prehistoric to modern....you are shaping your civilisation's history throughout the whole game. and ONLY civ allows you to do this(well, ctp too..)

Games like AOK, Cossacks and EU are NOT history simulations since their purpose has nothing to do with shaping your civ's history. They fit more into your definition of "chief-of-state simulation".