Jump to content

Talk:Civilization (video game)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.70.143.134 (talk) at 00:17, 17 April 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVideo games C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
CThis article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article was a past project collaboration.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Civilization III

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

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.

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)[reply]

It really wasn't addressed even then. Mathmatically it is still possible for an unpromoted warrior to beat a highly experienced Modern Armor, it just is extremely unlikely. In civilization II Hp and firepower gave modern units a greater advantage over ancient units. In civilization III this was removed but the changes in a/d were increased, but it wasn't until Civilization IV that the designers actually made a system specifically to prevent a modern unit from losing to an ancient unit. 75.189.132.215 (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why couldn't units of old days defeat new ones? The step is not far from when in 1973, agricultural North Vietnam fought off industrial USA. Who could believe that in 1965 when the USA entered the Vietnam War? J 1982 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bad example, since agricultural North Vietnam got its tanks, trucks, guns and missiles from the industrial Communist nations -- they didn't shoot down that B-52 with a bow and arrow.
Still, it's a valid point that low-tech armies _can_ beat high-tech units with, e.g. stolen weapons, or by the high-tech side having poor leadership or bad planning. Would a list of such encounters in history be helpful in the article? 63.148.235.6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Not really. Drawing such conclusions would constitute original research. You would need a reliable source reporting on this to include it in the article. DP76764 (Talk) 21:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Style / Combat Controversy

"The problem ...was greatly mitigated in Civilization IV in 2006, despite claiming that the new combat system was developed to avoid such situations."

I fail to see any contradiction in the two parts of this sentence. --64.149.45.154 (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Amiga" screenshot

The screenshot labeled as an "Amiga version" screenshot is actually from the MS-DOS version. The Amiga can only draw 16 colors plus half brightness versions of those colors. The screenshot clearly contains more than 32 colors. Look on sites like Mobygames to see real Amiga Version screenshots.--Dwedit (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Micromanagement

The article includes the claim that Civ requires less micromanagement than "any of the simulation games". Saying "less than most" or "less than any at the time" might be okay, but just flat-out "less than any" seems hyperbolic.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Civilization_(video_game)&oldid=356494017"