Talk:Civilization (1980 board game)

Untitled

Can we include images of the board since it is out of print? Or are they still a no-no? -Frecklefoot

Whether a work remains in print has no legal bearing on its copyright status. - Stellmach 14:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Author

I think there is a problem with the author's name link ! 82.122.183.173 16:51, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Heh, must be more than one person with the same name... Stan 17:27, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

POV

"Civilization's history is a bit twisted and ironic" seems blatantly POV to me. If you disagree please revert my deletion. 216.59.243.54 21:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Damnit, wasn't logged in. That comment and the change by the same IP addresses were me: HarrisX 21:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sid Meier's Computer Game

The section titled history contains a significant amount of information about Sid Meier's computer game to warrant it's own article (if it doesn't already exist). I will create it or move it there if nobody objects. I realize that the computer game was far more popular than the board game it was based on, but, as a loyal fan of the original game, I can honestly say that seeing the history of the computer game in this article is a slap in the face to the board wargame crowd. Anyone else feel the same way? MiracleMat 21:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Jcbutler 16:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The article states that Sid Meier was a fan of the board game - in fact he developed the computer game entirely independently from the board game, with the name evolving out as development continued. This section ought to be rewritten to reflect the true connection between the two Civs. See History of Civilization

Incunabula Computer Game

Interestingly this article doesn't reference Incunabula at all, even though that game is the original computer version of Avalon Hill's Civilization. Right down to the trading rounds.XC0000005 10:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't have an article on it. It should be mentioned even if it creates a broken link. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Done (and I see you've edited it already. :)). Playing through Incunabula again it's clear that while it's closer than Civilization, it's not the "perfect" reproduction of the board game. The concepts, movement rules, cities, ships, combat, trading and alliances are pretty much the same. The choices of rule are somewhat different. The technology aspect is completely missing. The game is won on trade. Still it clearly bears the influence of the civ board game and attempts to replicate much of it.XC0000005 19:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

FreeCiv

Why include a link to FreeCiv in this article?

Because it's based of of SidCiv, which isn't what this article is about?

Hmm. I note that this article claims that that Meyer's game is based off of Tresham's game. I could believe that it inspired SidCiv, but given the vast differences between them, I wouldn't believe anything more without, say, a quote from Sid Meyer. Can anyone provide a source for that assertion? --Rindis 20:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, just realized you might have meant 'why are we', instead of 'why don't we'. So: Good question, why do we include a link to FreeCiv? --Rindis 20:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Editions

It should be pointed out that there are two versions existing: the original Hartland Trefoil/Avalon Hill version, on which Advanced Civilization is based, and the Gibson Games license product, which has simplified rules and is identical to many versions in different languages.

What rules are 'simplified' in the Gibson version?

As far as i am aware, they are the same game

chrisboote 12:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Hartland Trefoil and the two Avalon Hill editions (1st cover with temple, 2nd heads over pyramids) are identical, apart from the making of the map - Hartland and 1st edition Avalon Hill use a one-piece terrible to fold/unfold map, whereas 2nd Avalon Hill has the board in two separate pieces. The rules and other pieces are the same.

The Gibson Games/Welt der Spiele/Piatnik edition has a map in a simple color scheme, there is a difference in tokens (Trefoil/AH: people/treasure tokens are square, cities are round and ships are rectangle - Gibson Games etc. people/treasure tokens are round, cities are square and ships are shield-shaped). The Gibson Games version gives every people an definite starting area (Hartland/AH most peoples have a choice of two or three starting areas - and depending of participating peoples in the game this may make a great difference).

The western extension for Hartland/AH does not sport the whole of the Iberian peninsula, while in the Gibson Games does. Some areas are different in the two editions of the extension. The Gibson Games version western extension comes in a box and also has some extra trading cards.

I have to check for further differences ^^

Ciao

Pentaclebreaker —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentaclebreaker (talk • contribs) 10:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a French version "Civilisation" by Descartes that seem to use a version of the original Hartland map but is said to use a translation of the rules from the Gibson Games version.

Anyone out there, who owns the thing?

Ciao Pentaclebreaker Pentaclebreaker (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Civilization & Civilization

I just read the Sid Meier interview on Gamasutra.

I deleted the entire history section and added a paragraph onto the Legacy section noting the connection between the two Civs.

I also deleted the wikilink to Freeciv since that isn't based on the board game.

Also, should there a separate article for computer game adaptation? How about leaving any info about it in the computer game series article? The references to the adaptation should be separate from the original Civilization board game.--CRiyl 10:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The article initially states "this claim is somewhat dubious" in regards to Sid Meier's claim of not being heavily influenced by the board game, and implies that his co-programmer suggests otherwise. However, if you read the source for this section, the Gamasutra article itself is inconclusive on this point and his co-programmer merely stated that Sid owned a copy of the game and looked at the pieces. I have re-written the line to reflect these facts more objectively rather than making implicit insinuations. Geenfietsen (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sid Meier's Civilization (computer & board games)

These games are distantly inspired by this game, but no more. They can be mentioned in the Legacy setting, but I'm cleaning out any other references, particularly links to the Sid Meier Civ board game, which is a completely different game with no bearing at all upon the game discussed in this article. CapnZapp (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does Sid Meier's Civilization board game redirect to THIS page? Information on this page pertaining to Sid Meier's Civ Boardgame has been understandably removed, but this page is still being linked to (via redirection) as the place to go for information on the Sid Meier game rather than a separate unique article. Did a separate article ever exist at some point, or was the information for both games just concentrated into this single page? --Hans Lemurson (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a short note and changed the link. Tell me if you find these changes clarifying enough. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Civ Exp project

This should not feature in the expansions section. I've retained the link, but that's enough attention we should give a completely unofficial fan-based project. CapnZapp (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Tech Tree

I hate edit wars almost as much as I hate disputing things with people who don't know what they're talking about, so I'll post here before I change it again.

Original Civilization did not in any way have a technology tree. To my knowledge (since nobody plays the basic game anymore), the only Civ cards requiring a pre-req were Democracy and Philosophy, that being Law. All other advances could be purchased in any order. The absolutely ridiculous and completely mind-boggling incorrect technology tree that the world is in love with since Sid Meier created his horrible version of the game should never be attributed to Avalon Hill's Civilization.

Yes, I am passionate about this topic; of the 23 original articles I have penned for Wikipedia, I am most knowledgeable about this board game.MiracleMat (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As well as the hard pre-reqs there are of course the credits they provide towards other cards. To my knowledge, but that's just based on taking the rulebook out of the box and reading it.Pinkbeast (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

For example, here (9 min and 27 min) you can see getting of advantages through moving AST, and "tree dependency" (I would say, it's a vague prototype of tech tree) when you can take Philosophy only after Law. Bsivko (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@MiracleMat: You should probably stop pouring hate on a beloved classic like Sid Meier's Civilization if you want people to take you seriously. Biased ranting people are less likely to be trustworthy scholars, after all. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

As for the subject at hand, yes I can find people attributing the tech tree to the computer game and I can find people claiming that attribution is false and that this board game is the original source. What I cannot find is any sources to back that up. I cannot find a single good source that truly discusses the issue in more than passing. No discussion of possible other origins. No further sources from the actual time period in question. No insight in how the author reached his or her conclusions. Honestly, there is nothing that conclusively suggests this isn't just an urban legend (quite possibly starting here on Wikipedia!), so we should probably be careful in how we phrase this. CapnZapp (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I've recently added a cite. Of course it is possible that the author of the article got it straight from Wikipedia.

That said, I'm quite comfortable with the claim. Does Civilisation have a proto-tech-tree? Yes, it does. It certainly can't be the case that the computer game (or anything else after 1980) was first. Was the boardgame first? Probably; I'm not aware of any earlier version of the concept and no-one else seems to be either. Sure, this is OR, but all I'm saying is I'm not losing any sleep over something that seems to be true appearing with weak cites. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey captain crunch, I don't give a crap what people think of me. I only care if the article is correct. Arguing with morons is the worst part of wikipedia and why I left for the most part. But if a third party refutes my claim and found a source (that is wrong) and wants to give Original Civ credit for 'INVENTING' the tech tree, fine. It actually gives more credit to the game, which deserves far more than Sid gives it, anyway. Yes I'm a passionate board gamer and ALL serious gamers consider Sid's game trash and a rip-off. MiracleMat (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Link to the russian article

Guys, the link (Languages, русский) is incorrect (it connects to another game - civ board 2002). And it disallows me to fix it (the remove doesn't work). In addition, I can't add a link from Civilization: The Boardgame. Could you repair it? Bsivko (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

We have no special privileges on ru.wikipedia, I fear. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If we consider the russian article it links to 2002year game (which is correct). However, only the link from here is incorrect. I suppose that the link (русский) from this article should be deleted, and restored on the page of 2002year game. Bsivko (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. I think I have fixed this. Thanks. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And it is fixed now. Thank you! Bsivko (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed. Civilization (board game) should then redirect to Civilization (disambiguation) per WP:PARTIALDAB.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

---

• Civilization (board game) → Civilization (1980 board game)
• Civilization: The Board Game → Civilization (2010 board game)
• Civilization: The Boardgame → Civilization (2002 board game)

– There are now articles about three different board games on Wikipedia, with so similar names it's confusing. Really, the differences are superficial to the point of insignificance. One differs from the other two by the omission of "the", and the other two differ only by spacing! Before I looked at the articles I thought they were duplicates of the same board game. No wonder it's confusing. My proposed names at least show that they're different board games. JIP | Talk 20:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support – fix incomplete disambiguation. Dicklyon (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support – I understand WP:NATURAL and WP:SMALLDETAILS, but the current scheme is confusing. SSTflyer 05:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support all - as per nom In ictu oculi (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment after the rename all the current three names should point to the disambiguaiton page Civilization (disambiguation) -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  Comment I don't agree with that. Never break a URL; all three current names should point to the three new names, as is normal with a page move. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

  • The current article at this page "Civilization (board game)" fails WP:PRECISE so it should not ever have that redirect point to this article afterwards. The other two are minor variations of each other. Pointing to the dab page does not break URLs, since the target is still not a 404'd page. Instead it indicates that there are three board games. -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
  • If you mean Wikilinks instead of URLs, then those are replaced as part of the retargetting process same as any other time that is done through a move request (which isn't rare) -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

    If what you want is to repurpose this specific page, "Civilization (board game)", as opposed to the article currently housed here, as a disambiguation landing, feel free to discuss that after the request for move discussion is over and after the move has taken place. What Pinkbeast means (I think) is that what the move will result in is an automatic redirect from here Civilization (board game) to Civilization (1980 board game). Now, 70.51.200.96, are you for or against the matter at hand, the proposed move(s)? Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

  • That is frequently and commonly discussed as part of move requests, so why do it separately in this case? -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Then I would agree to the first case but disagree in the two specific cases. That is:

• Civilization (board game) turned into a disambiguation page (the page's content is moved as per request), since that title can be interpreted ambigously, but
• Civilization: The Board Game redirects to Civilization (2010 board game)
• Civilization: The Boardgame redirects to Civilization (2002 board game) since those two titles are pretty specific and can only mean one thing each. CapnZapp (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Cool, cool, cool CapnZapp (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support for move along with CapnZapp's 14:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC) suggestion that Civilization (board game) is then turned into a disambiguation pageWaerloeg (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Waerloeg's post gave me reason to carefully read the suggestion again, and I should point out that I actually do not support even the first third of 70.51.200.96's proposal. He or she suggests Civilization (board game) should point to Civilization (disambiguation), a page which includes many more areas than board games. I, on the other hand, suggest Civilization (board game) should become a new disambiguation page for Civilization board games. There is a difference, one that I initially overlooked.

To be clear, all of this can be sorted out after the move, so let none of this interfere with the request for move. CapnZapp (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.