Civilization a War Game or Historical Simulation?

[LordGrey]

MisterHungry's great column of last month about whether or not Civilization is really a simulation of all history and if such a thing is possible really got me thinking. You see I had thought about this to, and the above column helped me to clarify some of those thoughts. This brings me to raise a question touched upon by MH.

Is Civilization a historical simulation or is it a war game, such as Risk, with the added element of time marching on?

Me, I am somewhat torn. Ancient wonders, technological advance and interaction between civilizations are evidence of a simulation. But all of those things can seem part of the conflict as they give advantages in the struggle, so maybe it is a war game, albeit a very nuanced one with the trappings of world history.

If anyone finds this a thought provoking question, the abovementioned column on this site delves into similar problems to much greater effect.

[Smash]

I think its kinda of a combo of the 2 plus more.

Risk takes planning but the actual battles are a roll of the dice.In civ you have more military influence thru technology.You can research better quality units which will be decisive in battle.

The fact that you can win without ever firing a shot,or form alliances,or engage in peaceful trade and negotiations brings the simulation part into it.Although this is far from perfect as far as the AI is concerned.

And the fact that these 2 "sides" of the game go hand in hand along with other "sides" make a truly great game.Civ2 and MGE are the only games I have that have made it past 6 months of play.

not to mention the exploration side

[Steve Clark]

IMO, neither. It's a unique civilization-building game. Other games do city-building, warfare, historical simulating, trading, diplomacy, exploring, etc. better, but when combined, no game does all of these as well as Civ2.