21-06-2001 06:50									#1
	Literalism versus Realism Support Apolyton

Most Civers want the greatest realism possible without sacrificing gameplay and fun. In fact most of the ideas for increasing realism would in fact increase gameplay and fun. However, it is important to distinguish between "literalism" and "realism" and many forumites seem to be unaware of the difference.

For the purposes of this thread, let me make the following definititions:

"Literalism" is when you want details to be accurate, word for word, without the need of abstractions. It is basically the dictionary definition.

"Realism", for me however, is not "literal realism" but "overall historic realism". In other words, what makes sense realistically from a big picture point of view.

It is important to realize that "literalism" sometimes is opposed to "realism" and vice versa but that in that case, we should always favor "realism" (in the overall historic sense) over "literalism".

For example, it is true that the timescale makes movement rates of units "unrealistic" in the literal sense. I mean does it really take centuries to move units in the ancient age or years to move units in the modern age?

However, the point is that the timescale makes sense for overall historic realism. It models technological progress realistically. It also measures Civ expansion and growth realistically. Thus the timescale makes a good trade-off between overall historic realism and literalism. And you must trade-off, lest the game requires a lifetime to play.

Another example is the infinite movement railroads. The literalists would say that since 1 turn=1 year, then infininite movement rates make sense. But the problem is that this is in opposition to overall historic realism.

With infinite RRs, you can do things that simply make no sense. I mean, if I am the USSR, I could deploy my troops all over the place then if I am attacked simultaneously by Japan and Germany, I could active all my troops all over the vast expanse of the country, move them west to attack German troops, then move them all to the other side of the country to attack Japanese troops using infinite movement RRs, then return them to the cities in one turn!

So by arguing that infinite RRs makes sense using "literalism" arguments, you have made the overall game much less "realistic" overall!

What matter to me is overall, big-picture, historical realism. And in a game that spans 6000 years, certain abstractions and compromises need to made so that it doesn't take a lifetime to play. This means that literal realism must be sacrificed. And in call cases where literal realism is not achieved, you simply must interpret the event in an abstract or figurative sense. For example, the leader should be understood as the symbolic embodiment of a nation and not a literal person that lives for 6000 years! Similarly, other abstractions could be used for movement rates.

The point is that "literalism" and "realism" are NOT the same thing! I consider myself an "overall realist" however, many so-called "realists" in this forum are not really "realists" at all but are merely "literalists".

	21-06-2001 09:51									#2
	Got spare money?

boy.

all you do is try to stir up trouble.

and your not even that good at it

	21-06-2001 10:51									#3
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I think it's fun that some people crave for realism and it ends up in discussions in the stategy forum about one-population-city challenges and reaching AC before AD.

	21-06-2001 10:53									#4
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Well, a weird sort of fun that is.

	21-06-2001 14:49									#5
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

A geeky sort of fun you mean

I think that we have to remember that gameplay is the most important issue, and a game that although complicated, isn't impossible to keep track of. Keep it simple, keep it clean. Just develop it further.

	21-06-2001 15:02									#6
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

much ado about nothing.

	21-06-2001 15:24									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I don't think anyone here is intentionally being literal. It is just that everyone has different ideas on what would introduce more realism without ruining their gameplay. People are also starting from different places. Those who played SMAC and/or CtP have absorbed certain ideas as part of the Civ game style. To not put those ideas in Civ III is seen by them as being backward, while the indiluted Civ2 fan will herald any that do make it as amazing new improvements.

Firaxis are changing the population model to include culture and tying borders into cultural growth rather than numerical growth of the cities. We could nit-pick about that if we wanted to but everyone seems to be saying "cool" rather than trying to find fault. Colonies have been a hotter topic where the concept of a far flung trading post/supply crawler has been taken a step further. Again, most comments have been fairly positive even though the vanishing population point bugs some people.

For one example, if the same people managed to come up with a simple but effective way of adjusting the movement system without multiplying the turn count up into the stratosphere then I like to think we could also be positive about giving it a try. Ideas suggested like higher movement rates but maximum ranges from a base could work if thought out properly. Options to lightly colour all reachable tiles on the map when you select a unit could make it just as easy and intuitive as the basic "x Mp/s a turn" currently used. Just one of many possibilities that arent literalism vs realism but more about thinking imaginatively and not being constrained by how everything was done 8 years ago.