Jump to content

Talk:Civilization (video game)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.69.149 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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.

In the original MS-DOS version of Civilization I the barbarians do, indeed, have a leader. The name is only visible when editing the game code or under very special circumstances -- such as spying on a city occupied by barbarians -- and it is none other than Attila. Should this be mentioned in the article? --Tirolion 11:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should. Unless you cheat, you would never know, and we don't need "random trivia" to clutter the article 69.61.225.57 (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I don't think that combat system in Civ4 is better than in other Civs. Twice enemy lonbowmen shot down my gunships, and once enemy spearman defeated my tank. I don't think that any human armed with bronze or iron spear can pierce thru tank armor, even if the machinegun at tank's top is not firing. I gonna improve the article KarolS (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

No, Civ1 had Fredric as the German leader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.51.71 (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Because Hitler caused WWII and Stalin was a product of Nazi and then U.S. propaganda. Go read a book.

-G

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. FrozenPurpleCube 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)

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)

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

I think the caption for the amiga screenshot is intended to be a reference to the graphics capabilities of the amiga - not read to mean that the amiga version had superior graphics. If that makes sense.87.102.4.153 12:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

References

Why is there a Civilization II manual as a reference? This article is about the first game. --Mika1h 19:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

civ new ports

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070628005472&newsLang=en

The game will be ported to consoles/handhelds (described above) - I'm guessing I've posted on the wrong page - hopefully someone will read it and know what to do.87.102.4.153 11:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Complete list of nations

Could somebody add the complete list of nations that are available in the game?Dimts 09:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Utopia

The video game for the old Intellivision System called Utopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_%28video_game%29) seems to be a strong influence for Civ (or, at least, for fans of the series).

http://www.intellivisionlives.com/bluesky/games/credits/strategy.html#utopia is the closest source I can find, but I don't know how to word this into the article... 71.124.127.161 22:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Box art

The box art is a picture of the skyline of Charlotte, North Carolina circa 1991; One First Union, Charlotte Plaza, and Bank of America Plaza are easily visible, as is the old Charlotte Convention Center with its trademark pyramids on the roof (right of center, foreground). Is there any way y'all can think of to slip this factoid into the article? It seemed odd for them to pick Charlotte, since IIRC Microprose was based in Maryland. --Golbez (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

16 Nations?

That line about CGA and the 16 nations sounds highly suspicious. I suspect that there were only 14 nations, as the barbarians were black. And there were two nations PER color (romans and russians white, german and french blue, zulu and babylonians green, egyptians and inca(?) yellow, and so on. So it makes no sense at all to compare this to the 16 colors of the system. Even some of later Civ-olutions had only a limited number of colors for the nations, with several nations sharing a color. Only with CivIV has this number of colors risen significantly. Additionally, skimming over the cited article, I couldn't find any indication of this being implied, but the citation is badly done, linking to an insanely long article, without giving any kind of idea where to expect the comment. Someone better look into this and fix it. 130.75.184.112 (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Civilizationboxart.jpg

Image:Civilizationboxart.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Move/rename article

I suggest renaming the article to Sid Meier's Civilization since that's the game's full title. SharkD (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a longer discussion going on here. SharkD (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
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).
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)

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)

"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)

The Amiga can only draw 16 colors plus half brightness versions of those colors. That is not true. The Amiga OCS/ECS chipset can draw 32 colours plus half brightness versions of those colours. The AGA chipset can draw 256 colours. 194.100.223.164 (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.143.134 (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and the reference given makes no comparisons at all to other games. I think the parenthetical remark should be removed. I think actually removing the whole sentence is the way to go. Pretty much any strategy game, whether real time or turn based, is going to involve some degree of micromanagement. Without a reference to suggest that Civ is exceptional in this regard, it seems a bit pointless. It could perhaps be rewritten though (at least in my own experience I'd call Civ fairly macro heavy, but less so than Business simulation games). Winston365 (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Influences 2

"Meier admits to "borrowing" many of the technology tree ideas from a board game also called Civilization, published in the United Kingdom in 1980 by Hartland Trefoil (later by Gibson Games), and in the United States in 1981 by Avalon Hill."


I don't see anything that indicates that Sid Meier borrowed from the board game in the linked article, where does this sentence come from then? As a reference:


"One of the most repeated and touted inspirations for Sid Meier's Civilization is the earlier Avalon Hill board game of the same name, designed by Francis Tresham for Hartland Trefoil in Britain. While Meier had no doubt heard of the game prior to 1990 through his connections with Bruce Shelley, he insists that the influence is not as strong as some claim. "I had not played that before I did Civilization," says Meier. "I played it later. I remember there were some cards and trading. It was more ancient; it didn't really come into any sort of modern or medieval times."" (Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1523/the_history_of_civilization.php?page=2) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.179.226.30 (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There's no evidence Meier's was influenced by AH Civilization. The gameplay is also extremely different, being first and foremost a trading game fueled by several other mechanisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.153.109.128 (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Box art? (repost)

The box art is a picture of the skyline of Charlotte, North Carolina circa 1991; One First Union, Charlotte Plaza, and Bank of America Plaza are easily visible, as is the old Charlotte Convention Center with its trademark pyramids on the roof (right of center, foreground). Is there any way y'all can think of to slip this factoid into the article? It seemed odd for them to pick Charlotte, since IIRC Microprose was based in Maryland. --Golbez (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Persia

Just out of interest in the "Civilizations in Civilization I" section Persia is listed as one of the civs, but I can't remember Persia being in Civ I, only Civ II and onwards. Can anyone clarify this for me? Jenks24 (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

# of civs vs. colors in EGA

You quote Sid: “The decision to limit the number of different civilizations to 16 was made to make Civilization compatible with both display standards: 16 civilizations for the 16 colors available to EGA.” Which is not quite accurate because civ uses only 8 colors of the available 16 (256), with pairs of civilizations sharing the same color (like Russians and Romans which afair both were assigned white), thus allowing only one of them to be present at one time in the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.104.155.175 (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing Civ Tables/Trivial Lists

This is being discussed in the Civ:V article and likely to have ramifications for this previous incarnation's article too. Rather than tread the same ground over please join the debate; Talk:Civilization_V#Removal_of_tables_of_Civilizations to see if we can't reach a consensus.Flygongengar (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

2012

See: Talk:Civilization_V#2012
This is kicking off again, and maybe we can resolve it this time, this series of high-importance to the video gaming project but its articles are languishing in the lower ratings. This (I believe) is one of the reasons. Please join the discussion. -Oosh (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Old ref for December 1991 release date

It takes to a Civ 3: Conquests page but clicking previous takes to other Civ titles but I can't seem to find the Dec 91 date. I archive this here if someone else finds it.

"United States Copyright Record TX0003273971 / 1992-03-11". --Mika1h (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect quote for Computer Gaming World

I'm new here, so sorry if I'm not doing this right. The quote from Computer Gaming World of November 1996 is not correct. It should be "just one more game"--and not "just one more turn". I do, however, think that the CGW journalist actually did mean "just one more turn", so how should we handle this? Can we write "just one more [turn]" in the quote? The magazine can be downloaded here: http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1996&pub=2&id=148, and the quote is from page 64.

Jan Aagaard (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Starting Bonuses and Civilization choice

I don't know how to cite a video game, but in Civilization 1(and 2) your starting technologies don't depend on your civilization, neither do your units. This is the third time(since 2007) that I've taken these claims out of this article. Don't believe me? Start a game as any civ you like twice in a row - assuming you're not playing in Chieftain at least one of those times you will start Irrigation, Mining and Roads and nothing else. At least one of those times you will start with only one settler and no other units. You will never start with any units other than a settler(though you might start with two). Jethro 82 (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Were there any non-cosmetic differences between the tribes?

I have added a clarification tag in the following sentence: In contrast to later games in the Civilization series, this is largely a cosmetic choice (...). Were there any non-cosmetic differences between the tribes? Please clarify. 2A02:C7D:C86:7300:5517:F399:B680:F743 (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There were; for example, the infamous "Gandhi glitch". --Golbez (talk) 04:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the IP is discussing that you as the human player, were their any distinct units or the like if you played one civ or another, and for Civ I, I don't think that was the case, but a initial cursury source search hasn't confirmed that. The AI leaders did have unique stats but all otherwise had the same tribe units. --MASEM (t) 06:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, okay, yes: Which civilization the player chooses is entirely cosmetic, except in the metagaming idea of "if I pick India, they won't go full Gandhi on me" but that's so minor as to be discarded. (I mean, I always played Greece because I liked their music.) --Golbez (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Civilization (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Civilization_(video_game)/Archive_1&oldid=1136615016"