Talk:Civilization (1980 board game)

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)

You need to read up on WP:CIVIL. Please do not refer to editors by inaccurate names, like you just did with me. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Civilization (1980 board 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110306092629/http://www.civfanatics.com/sidlegacy/index2.php to http://www.civfanatics.com/sidlegacy/index2.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I could not check since since archive.org itself seems to be stuck. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Games professing relation to Civilization

Please do not add games to this page without a documented connection to Civilization. This article is not meant to advertise a game just because it shares its name or game play with Civilization.

For the Editions and Expansions sections, the game should verify as an official edition/expansion of the game, or it just ain't notable. For Similar Games, supply a source making a direct comparison to Civilization. For instance, a review by a general newspaper, a trade magazine or other WP:RS specifically verifying that yes, the game is similar to Civilization. Assuming the game lacks its own Wikipedia article, doing so will also help establishing notability.

CapnZapp (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

"Official" according to whom? Did you not read the referenced link to Boardgamegeek before deleting the piece on Mega Civilization? And you couldn't be bothered to say which item you were deleting? Boardgamegeek is the encyclopedia of board games, and is a massively reputable source in that industry.

The very first sentence of the game description is "Mega Civilization, a huge version of the legendary development game Civilization...." Note, that blurb was from the publisher, so it is their claim. But it is supported by all the other information on the site.

Additional info: The rules to Mega Civilization, besides crediting Francis Tresham as the original designer, also say "thanks Mayfair Inc. for licensing the rights to Civilization." It is also true that the licensing of the name appears to be at issue moving forwards. But this edition: has the same name, credits the original designer, and claims to be licensed. What more do you want?

(Don’t expect further discussion from me any time soon. I won’t be on Wikipedia again for a while.)

Thomas Phinney (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay so I'll ignore your comment then. (Talk pages are for discussions, not announcements. If you don't plan to engage, don't expect me to) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Legacy

User:BOZ, it appears we have come full circle. First there were claims that Meier had knowledge of the AH game when he created his game, with dubious sourcing. This was followed by tags. The we rewrote the article to claim there AREN'T any connections, and - as you can see in the editor window - asking wikipedians to not re-add back those claims without reliable sources:

<!--- regarding "did Sid Meier play the board-game prior to creating the computer game?", please do not insert any claims not reliably sourced. Of particular note, please do not readd back contradictory claims. Thank you -->

Now you're asking us for sources to verify there ISN'T any links. Ironic, huh?

The basic fact is that the connection or not is on people's minds, Meier himself denies any connection (but is proven to have known about the board game at the time of creating the computer game) and there is no objective third party to be had. However, just deleting the section will only bring us back to square one so I wouldn't recommend it. Now then, it is possible to argue that the first claim isn't OR and don't need any particular sourcing. It is nothing more than an obvious observation on the two games. The second statement is more meant to counter the visitor coming here to see what the connection is. NOT saying there's no proven connection would lessen the usefulness of the article.

That's the best defense of the current state I can give. CapnZapp (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that the legacy section is needed at all, but handle it however you think is best. BOZ (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

See also section

My addition of Dawn of the Ancients in a "See also" section was reverted. I do see discussions related to this topic. However, this is a reasonable addition as they are both tabletop games from the 1980s with a similar setting, and a reviewer in a 1985 gaming magazine specifically pointed out similarities between these two games (see gameplay section in Dawn). I invite comment from @Wham2001 and others. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure where I come into this – I don't know much about the history of tabletop gaming and I don't remember editing either article (well, OK, I just added a missing {{refend}} to Dawn of the Ancients, but that hardly matters). I don't have a strong view either way on whether this article would benefit from a "See also" section, but if it is to have one it probably should have a brief annotation explaining the connection between the two games as suggested in MOS:SEEALSO – that might reduce the risk of clutter from barely related articles. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Apologies @Wham2001, my mistake—was looking at the wrong article. I meant to request comment specifically from @‎CapnZapp. But since you mentioned it, a brief annotation makes sense. Airborne84 (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Since no objections, I re-added the article in a "See also" section with a brief annotation as suggested above. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)