Civilization VI announced, will support Linux & SteamOS

Quoting: thelimeydragonCivilization II was still the best

Agree.

Quoting: wvstolzing

Quoting: KimyrielleI am however, genuinely curious what can still done to Civ to improve it.

It's hardly an immaculate concept -- from the ground up, there's so much to improve, to make it worthy of the name 'civilization', as it were. Sure, the core design has to 'gameify' a huge range of social-political dynamics; nevertheless it takes a bit too much for granted.

To begin with, you assume a godlike dictatorship of a nation-state back in 4000BC. Money pretty much has its 20th century significance from the start.

There's quite a bit of the designers' own political leanings informing the design -- in one of the past Civs, the stock exchange increased overall happiness in a city, for instance. And unless you're building an expansionist empire, you can't really aspire to any of the victory types.

You can argue for sure that the game glorifies both capitalism and imperialism with some of its designs. And yes, to make your civilization able to prosper you need to expand. But tbh, size DOES matter in real life international relations. The US is powerful, Switzerland isn't. For the simple reason that one country is large and the other isn't. Power in real life has nothing to do with how "great" a nation is. It's just a function of size. Translating this simple truth into a game where you compete against other nations to become the most powerful one, it makes sense that expansion is needed, no? They sure could relax the ultimate goal to be the "best" nation, but what would the new victory conditions be, then? What would be the goal in Civ for a nation like Switzerland?

I do agree with it being silly that the stock exchange creates happiness. It should create wealth and that's all.

Quoting: KimyrielleWhat would be the goal in Civ for a nation like Switzerland?

I dunno. The fattest secret bank accounts? Amount of Nazi gold?

Joking aside, you're right about size, of course. But size doesn't have to be a function of imperialism and unbridled resource-hogging. Civ V already makes use of the concept of international research agreements, and getting science bonuses through trade -- those kinds of things could be expanded. A small country like Switzerland can aspire to be the headquarters of an international research organization, for instance; or spearheading something like the 'open access' movement. Or you could aspire to be the most egalitarian society in the world; do the most for promoting peace, etc. etc. etc.

So *expansion* as such need not appear as the DESTINY of a TRULY GREAT nation. Either Civ IV or the 'vanilla' V even had 'culture bombs' that you could 'explode' at your borders to expand them. You'd take a 'great composer' to the border, for instance, and he'd sacrifice himself to claim some land for you. Pretty ridiculous, but in a way that betrays the underlying assumptions of the designers very well.

Maybe when they said "PC" they really meant PC!

Quoting: KimyrielleYou can argue for sure that the game glorifies both capitalism and imperialism with some of its designs. And yes, to make your civilization able to prosper you need to expand. But tbh, size DOES matter in real life international relations. The US is powerful, Switzerland isn't. For the simple reason that one country is large and the other isn't. Power in real life has nothing to do with how "great" a nation is. It's just a function of size. Translating this simple truth into a game where you compete against other nations to become the most powerful one, it makes sense that expansion is needed, no? They sure could relax the ultimate goal to be the "best" nation, but what would the new victory conditions be, then? What would be the goal in Civ for a nation like Switzerland?

Size = power isn't really true. Canada is the second largest country in the world, but we certainly aren't the second most powerful. I'd say it's more of a combination of size, population and perceived economic & military clout that defines power.

The goal of a nation like Switzerland would be to survive and prosper despite their geographical limitations.


Last edited by hummer010 on 11 May 2016 at 8:34 pm UTC

Will it come out on GOG? Most of 2K games aren't there, and only a few were just released recently.

Quoting: Kimyrielle

Quoting: wvstolzing

Quoting: KimyrielleI am however, genuinely curious what can still done to Civ to improve it.

It's hardly an immaculate concept -- from the ground up, there's so much to improve, to make it worthy of the name 'civilization', as it were. Sure, the core design has to 'gameify' a huge range of social-political dynamics; nevertheless it takes a bit too much for granted.

To begin with, you assume a godlike dictatorship of a nation-state back in 4000BC. Money pretty much has its 20th century significance from the start.

There's quite a bit of the designers' own political leanings informing the design -- in one of the past Civs, the stock exchange increased overall happiness in a city, for instance. And unless you're building an expansionist empire, you can't really aspire to any of the victory types.

You can argue for sure that the game glorifies both capitalism and imperialism with some of its designs. And yes, to make your civilization able to prosper you need to expand. But tbh, size DOES matter in real life international relations. The US is powerful, Switzerland isn't. For the simple reason that one country is large and the other isn't. Power in real life has nothing to do with how "great" a nation is. It's just a function of size. Translating this simple truth into a game where you compete against other nations to become the most powerful one, it makes sense that expansion is needed, no? They sure could relax the ultimate goal to be the "best" nation, but what would the new victory conditions be, then? What would be the goal in Civ for a nation like Switzerland?

I do agree with it being silly that the stock exchange creates happiness. It should create wealth and that's all.

That's why Civ games have things other than a simple conquest victory. One of my most interesting games of Civ 5 was as Japan. I was able to maintain a game-long alliance with a militarily powerful neighbor which allowed me to focus my resources elsewhere. I think by the end of the game, I had a small, 3 or 4 city empire but was a technological powerhouse and went on to secure the tech victory.

Quoting: Mountain ManI think by the end of the game, I had a small, 3 or 4 city empire but was a technological powerhouse and went on to secure the tech victory.

What was the difficulty level though? That kind of scenario is really possible only on Chieftain. Anything higher, and the 'AI' (?!) starts cheating like mad (not subject to any of your happiness etc. penalties, and enjoying a slew of bonuses); and their diplomacy is totally unpredictable. A thousand-year long alliance can be dissolved in a moment (only 'coinciding', of course, with your weakest moment).

Quoting: wvstolzingThere's quite a bit of the designers' own political leanings informing the design...

Yes, but which political leanings are those? I've heard gamers accuse Firaxis of using the Civilization series to promote both liberalism and conservatism.

Quoting: wvstolzing

Quoting: Mountain ManI think by the end of the game, I had a small, 3 or 4 city empire but was a technological powerhouse and went on to secure the tech victory.

What was the difficulty level though? That kind of scenario is really possible only on Chieftain. Anything higher, and the 'AI' (?!) starts cheating like mad (not subject to any of your happiness etc. penalties, and enjoying a slew of bonuses); and their diplomacy is totally unpredictable. A thousand-year long alliance can be dissolved in a moment (only 'coinciding', of course, with your weakest moment).

Good point. Now that you mention it, it was probably one of the lower difficulty levels, but I can't remember exactly which.