Talk:Civilization (computer game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Knight chess piece. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of Top priority within strategy games for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of High priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

When we have a Civilization III article, we should move the link to the Civ III website to it. Anyone want to take a stab at writing that one, along with all the changes between it and Civ I and Civ II? Also, we should come to a consensus on how to name the versions. Should we name them with arabic numbers (i.e. Civilization 1, 2 and 3) or with roman numerals (i.e. Civilization I, Civilization II, etc.) like the series does? Currently it's represented both ways in the article. I lean towards the roman numerals since that is the way the series depicts them. -Frecklefoot

The Civilization IV hardware transformation and lighting section needs some revision -EnerJen

I think using Roman numerals is better. The official web-site seems to prefer Civilization III but Civ3, but the article doesn't use the abbreviation. In any case, I have changed all the Arabic numerals to their Roman equivalents. Ambarish

Contents

[edit] Barbarians

Early in the game, the player's towns may be harassed periodically by "barbarians", units with no specific nationality or leader.

Is this really correct? I vaguely remember coming across some way in Civilization II of seeing them as being called names like "Goths" or "Vandals" or something like that. Crusadeonilliteracy 05:57, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Although the barbarians are given the name of a tribe, it's irrelevant, as you cannot conduct trade or diplomacy with them nor do they own cities. As such, the quote above is substantially correct, IMHO. --Ambarish 21:32, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In the original Civilization they are just barbarians, maybe it was changed in Civ II and III. They can own cities in Civ I, but only if they capture them from someone else (and then they start producing a lot more annoying barbarian units...) Adam Bishop 21:36, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Ah, I'm afraid I've never played Civ I. In Civ III, barbarians own camps, which spew units. AI/Human military can destroy the camps and gain some gold. As such, a barb camp is a barb camp, and it's lable (tribe name), which appears once it's destroyed, doesn't mean anything. --Ambarish 23:29, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In Civ2, barbarians can capture cities and make scientific advances plus produce units. They're not very good at it though. I suspect many things were only half-finished in that game, such as the horrible terrain graphics Crusadeonilliteracy 14:30, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
You could say that in the original game, Barbarians were their own national group. Indeed, by using modern cheat programs with the game, you can play as the Barbarians. Their leader is named Atilla. This is also true in Civ2 when playing as Barbarians. I'm not sure about Civ3 or 4 though. Theshibboleth 00:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that any of the Civ games had been released for Linux (Call to Power was not a Microprose/Firaxis game).

Civilization wasn't ported to Linux, so I removed it.

[edit] Civilization's introduction

What has happened to the intro's text? And is 'movie' really the correct term to describe it?

As I recall, it was axed because it may be considered copyvio and it is not essential to the article's text. I don't think it'd be considered a copyright violation, myself (it is almost certainly fair use), but I certainly don't feel the text was necessary, so I'm not inclined to restore it. I haven't seen the introduction for the PC version, only the SNES version, so I don't know if "movie" is the right term. I think it's doubtful, though. - furrykef (Talk at me) 11:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps a new article for the text or possibly a link to a source which has it? The PC intro was a "slide show" with some palette animation - I'd call it merely intro not intro movie. (for that matter...and completely irrelevant here...there's no article for intros, limited demos, here)

[edit] Civilization

One of my favorite pc games. This article should also mention some similar games that were/are not produced by Sid Meier (I remember at least one, but forgot the name). Alexander 007 07:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think similar games should only be listed in the context of having been influenced by Civilization. Theshibboleth 00:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The one I have in mind was definitely influenced by Civilization. Alexander 007 05:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


Perhaps you are talking about Railroad Tycoon which came before Civilization or Black and White which came after it.

Also, don't forget that some of the Civ games (and also games like Alpha Centauri) were designed or co-designed by Brian Reynolds, Bruce Shelley and others, even though the marketers sold them as Sid Meier games. Once his name became a brand you have to read the credits and research more carefully to see all the details of authorship. And hats off to him for becoming so recognized that the marketers could introduce such confusion! Coll7 00:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strategy Guide review

Why is there a glowing review (advertisement) for a civilization strategy guide on this page?

Good point. It should be NPOV'ed and moved to an article on the guide itself. It doesn't belong on the article about the game. Frecklefoot | Talk 17:48, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
I got sick of it, it is hopelessy POV, so I moved the content here:
==Books==
  • Rome on 640K a Day by Johnny Wilson and Alan Emrich, Prima Publishing ISBN 1-55958-191-3
By far the most useful and entertaining of all the strategy guides published, (even the title offers a taste of the humor the reader will enjoy throughout the book), it is a well researched guide and provides a wealth of information on actual formulae used by the software to perform various calculations. Knowing the EXACT method that the computer uses to perform a specific function or feature allows the player to optimize that particular area of their gameplay and produce more efficient results. The prolonged discussion with the development team and getting the "inside" information on the game practically guaranteed that the book would remain superior to all later competition.
In a game with thousands of details and decisions requiring constant reassessment in order to derive maximum benefit to the player in accomplishing both the player's personal goals as well as the supposed "point" of the game, such information is vital in making sensible choices and adds immeasurably to the player's skill and thus, their experience of enjoyment of the game. The game is a practical demonstration of the principles of "compound interest", in that all effects can potentially be magnified to several tmes their intitial size, giving the player that practices micromanagement skillfully an unbeatable advantage in dealing with any and all competition. No other strategy guide has so effectively provided as great a percentage of useful and directly implementable information as this one. If you were silly enough to limit yourself to purchasing only ONE such manual besides the one provided with the game, this one would be it!
Interestingly, the book is marred with several dozens, if not hundreds, of typographical errors. An early effort by Prima Publishing, this guide added so substantially to their revenues and reputation, that the company clearly modified the direction of their publishing efforts to focus more closely on the computer gaming industry. Though annoying, the errors do not seriously mar the work, as the information presented more than compensates for the lack of perfection.
This benefit has an interesting feedback effect, in that by allowing players to devise more efficient strategies, they then taught other players what they knew (perhaps only unintentionally by example at times), and this then caused an even greater popularity for the game, producing yet more revenues for the software publisher, inducing them to continue to produce even more features and versions of the game, which then continues the cycle. It is worth noting that the game itself offers unexpected benefits to the player, in terms of practical lessons applicable to dealing with society and other people in general.
While only covering version 1 of Civilization, this guide would nevertheless be useful and informative to players of ALL versions of Civ, if for nothing else, the history of the development of Civilization and general priciples of skillful gameplay.
Clearly a labor of love, these two game masters have provided an example of what goes into a successful strategy guide of a successful game.

Do with it what you like, but please don't put it back in the article. It could be a basis for an article on the book itself, but needs a lot of NPOVing. Frecklefoot | Talk 17:58, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Points of Controversy

  • This section still looks like a bitch-rant about things people don't like about the game rather than real controversy. More edits needed. Suggestions? Krupo 02:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I propose removing the following but want to make sure there is consensus for it:

  • There are some aspects of the chain of technology that might create controversy such as the fact that monotheism is presented as a more advanced type of religion than polytheism and mysticism, thus giving the impression that monotheism is better than the two others.

Monotheism has not been around as long as Polytheism so rightfully deserves to be discovered later. This is a historical fact and doesn't mean monotheism is more advanced. Please comment.--Will2k 19:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't imply it is better, just later. Frecklefoot | Talk 20:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe wait about a day or so for objection and we'll deal with it from there--Will2k 03:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I support removal of this polytheism/monotheism point of controversy. I've followed civfanatics.com and read countless forum and Usenet posts on Civ3 (and played countless hours of the game) and can't recall this ever being even a minor point of controversy. Any outside sources for this being controversial? And what about Fascism being discovered after Democracy (a whole age later)?! It's a video game tech tree, that's it, that's all. Dze27 06:34, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
User:KEJ initiated the section; I've requested him/her to participate in this. Let's wait for a day or two. And folks, I think it's a good idea if your sig contains your user name. Ambarish 18:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Whoops, one too many ~s before. Dze27 05:07, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Also, "Monotheism has not been around as long as Polytheism" is not true - at the very least, it's controversial. Whether this belong here is a different topic, but the above statement is not apparent to me. Ambarish 18:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
In all the comparetive religion courses I took in college, they always stated that polytheism came before monotheism. That's according to the written records we have, outside of religious texts.
If you go by the bible, Adam was monotheistic and who knows how polytheism developed. But the bible is a religious text, so it can't really be relied upong for objective facts. So, according to historical scholars, polytheism came first, and monotheism didn't arise until about the time of Abraham (historically).
But civilization is a game and doesn't claim to be anything more than that. Meier obviously inserted monotheism as it occured historically. I don't think it's a point of controversy. It's just a game. Frecklefoot | Talk 16:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with removing the section. It's only controversial if later is considered to mean better but that isn't the case. The Fascism/Democracy example is a good one to show why. In terms of the historical debate that has just sprung up, Adam may have been the first man in the bible but monotheistic religions were not the first to be adopted into human cultures. The point of the tech tree is to approximate the development of new concepts into societies and so monotheism arrives later than polytheism. MLA 16:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed the section on polytheism vs. monotheism entirely. There definately appears to be consensus here.--Will2k 17:43, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that many people share your interpretation of the implication. The implication that you draw is based on the assumption that the tech tree represents the development of better ideas. I do not agree with this assumption and instead stated that I believe that the tech tree represents the development of later ideas. It is the case that monotheism develops later in human history than polytheism so it is right that Civilisation does the same. If it did not do so then it's proxy for human development would not exist and would open up all sorts of controversy. MLA 16:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Objectively controversial is, by definition, an impossibility. It seems like VERY few would find it controversial and even so, this is the result of misinterpretation of the concept of the tech tree and therefore isn't a fault of the Civilization series but a fault of the user. Therefore this doesn't belong in this article. (And I guess someone else added the line "...better than the two...").--Will2k 15:46, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
I tend to agree with KEJ. The thing is that in the game, the benefits of monotheism are far greater than those of polytheism. I think it is also worth noting that in Civ3, the distinction between monotheism and polytheism has been removed. Theshibboleth 01:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move article

There is a seperate article for Civ2 and Civ3, but not for the first civ game. It seems to me that we should create a seperate article for the original as the article write now goes in and out of just the original game and talking generally about the series as a whole, or even about aspects of the game that did not even exist in the original. This article should probably be about the series as a whole, with the more orginal Civ specific content elsewhere. I think there's a lot of information about the original that's not included here, so I'll start working on the article Civilization I. We're going to have to decide on naming conventions too. Theshibboleth 01:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, but since this article primarily concerns (and was created to represent) civ 1, maybe the franchise history & info should be moved to Civilization (computer game series). Anetode 21:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
True this article was supposed to be about civ1, but it has come to be about the whole series. Most people coming to this article will likely not be coming here to find out information about civ1. I think we definitely need to salvage those aspects of this article that concern the original game and seperate that from the rest. I think part of the reason this article has diverged so much from its intended content is because the title is somewhat ambiguous, particularly to someone unfamiliar with civ1. In any case it's going to require a huge rewrite. Even if other obligations will often prevent me from doing this myself, anyone can ask me any questions they have about the game by posting to my talk page. I've been playing for quite some time, and though it's somewhat pretentious for me to say I'm an expert, I'm an expert. Wikipedia specializes in obscure trivia, and I know as much as I know you can know about this game. For example, though extremely rare, a form of cultural admiration resulting in the automatic gaining of a foreign city is possible. Theshibboleth 06:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Most people are probably searching for info about the concept of Civilization, those looking for the game are going to have to go through a disambiguation page anyway. Moving parts of the article to the series page is a trivial matter and would leave all entries intact in the transition. By the way, I'm in no way trying to criticize your civ knowledge. Anetode 03:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
"Wikipedia specializes in obscure trivia,", that seems to me to be a strange thing to say, since most articles i pay attention to always have their trivia sections trimmed often, the more obscure, the quicker it is to go. All the best with sorting out this article though. 61.68.169.15 07:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots

I've been taking screenshots of Civ1 by playing it through DOSbox. Hopefully I can start uploading these screenshots soon, although I'm finding myself increasingly occupied by schoolwork. I might even write a Wikibook on the game. I think we should mention that the game was originally to include the Turks instead of the Germans. I have the original manual although it's missing the technology chart, if anyone is interested. Theshibboleth 05:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fan-made versions

Perhaps something should be added about fan developments of this game, like FreeCiv or CEvo. I will try to add something about this but I am not truly an expert in that particular subject.

Volemak 07:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Talk

[edit] Library of Alexandria

The following details belong here somewhere: "The Great Library of Alexandria can be built as a World Wonder [in the Civilization series of turn-based strategy computer games]. Its effects are different in each game of the series, but the Wonder is arguably the most useful in the series. For instance, in Civ2 it allows the player to automatically gain any civilization advancement already discovered by at least two other competing civilizations, essential for advancing in the more difficult levels of play." Please edit it into the article as you see fit. --Wetman 09:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civilisation 4 screenshots

I saw some Civ. 1 and Civ. 3 screenshots, but i think we should replace one by one of the new-Civilisation IV screenshot, to show the evolution in graphics and gameplay. Ill go make one when sumone accepts this idea, since its a game that i have, but not that i really play :D paat 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalin

One thing that I've always wondered. If the Russians can have Stalin, why can't the Germans have Hitler? I know that Americans, who made the game in the first place, hate Hitler, but they also hate Stalin. What makes Stalin any safer than Hitler? If you look at the sheer, cold numbers, Stalin caused the death of more people than Hitler. Hitler may have been more genocidal, but Stalin is also reputed to have ordered many of his own people to be executed. Why couldn't the Russians have had czar Nicholas II, for example? JIP | Talk 19:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does China have Mao and not, say, Deng Xiaoping? Because they're the enemy. Germany is the friend. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 19:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

why Germany hadn't Hitler, you should read Wolfenstein_3D#Legal_issues

Now that you put it that way, I do recall that Nazism and Neo-Nazism is extremely illegal in Germany these days, and anything that might be remotely considered as imitating Hitler is prohibited, if not illegal, as well. However, I know German culture much better than I do Russian culture. Does Russia have such an attitude towards Stalin as well? JIP | Talk 20:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm inspired to pull out my original run Civ1 disk, which I would have sworn had Adolph. It was considered "amusing" at the time to be able to lead the germans to world conquest. We'll see. I could be wrong.XC0000005 04:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs to decide a direction - and stick to it

It is contradicting itself. The dab states "This article is about the 1991 game". Yet it is littered with references to the other games in the series. Given the importance of the original civ on the wider gaming industry it is certainly deserving of its own article - not being interlaced with a lot of "noise" related to the more recent editions. Either:

  1. This page needs to be turned into a "the series" page with piece on each game and bridging discussion on the evolution between the iterations - and the original gets its own page with content limited to it. Or,
  2. The excess related to the other games is culled from this page (if this is about the original then why do we need to know that Leonard Nimoy narrated the intro for Civ IV?).

I will let this comment float for a couple of weeks and see if anyone has any views - but some structure needs to be created here - the article currently reads like the worst type of WP article (namely the type that has a complete lack of direction and is a wandering collection of factoids – eg. a para on "Inspiration" telling us the origins of the game, then right below it a para on "Intellectual property status" !) SFC9394 00:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just reading the article, and thinking the same thing when I read it. Mister.Manticore 03:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a "Civilization Series" pages where the Civilization page would talk specifically about Civ I

I was going to say the same thing, a civ series article would be good, in the meantime, all the crap about the other games should be removed from this article. 61.68.169.15 06:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SNES version

On List of SNES games Sid Meier's Civilization is listed, however SNES is not listed as one of the platforms in the infobox. Is there a reason for this? Ornilnas 10:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influences

Is it ironic that there's now a computer version of the boardgame? As I understand it, irony is when what you don't expect to happen happens. Is "come full circle" a better phrase? Maybe if a board game edition of Sid Meier came out it would come full circle.

[edit] CivII / IV confusion?

The most contentious aspect of the game occurs in combat when a modern unit is fighting an obsolete or ancient unit. That ancient unit can sometimes win what most players consider to be an impossible battle. The most notorious of this is the infamous "spearman defeats tank" phenomena in which ancient combat units could deafeat modern ones(such as tanks, and amazingly enough, aircraft) due to status modifiers such as terrain, fortifications, and veteran status. However, in Civilization IV, the most recent iteration of the game, this has been made a lot less likely. "Veteran players of Civilization were occasionally disconcerted when a veteran phalanx unit fortified behind city walls on a mountain would defeat an attacking battleship. Mathematically it was possible but the image just didn't sit right. How could ancient spearmen destroy a modern steel warship?"

The quotation is from the CivII manual explaining changes made in CivII. The article gives the impression that this issue wasn't addressed until CivIV. Can someone who's played the later games rewrite this to clarify a little better? 213.249.135.36 17:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talking points

First - the screenshot, in German, that supposedly comes from an Amiga. I'm sorry, but I FIRST played Civ in Germany on an IBM compatible PC (386 that was later replaced by a 486) and the screen looked absolutely identical. Of note: The original game would require the player to eventually answer a question about technologies the answer to which was printed in the manual, as a method of preventing copyright (not that it worked if you copied the manual too)! The first Civ II CDs would let you play the game without the disc, but by the Gold Multi-player version, you HAVE to have the CD in the drive, or you can't get to the title screen (though probably having a virtual CD would work, can't say I've tried it)! Also of note, I'm surprised nobody mentioned the offshoot book: Civilization II: The Complete Guide to Scenario Building, which included MORE original scenarios and helped a user make his or her own. --JohnDBuell 04:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

the Graphics of the Amiga AGA Version are identical to the IBM PC Version

[edit] Why is Alpha Centauri listed after Call to Power?

Why is the related game Alpha Centauri listed after the unrelated game Call to Power? /213.226.72.40 17:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)