Column #107; By Glak

[DanQ]

Alert from Glak: why he believes that the style of Civ games is not strategy at all.

This is the theme portrayed in his article entited "Strategy Or Simulation", and is the 107th installment of "The Column".

Comments/questions welcomed.

----------------
Dan; Apolyton CS

[KhanMan]

Sorry Glak, but I can't agree with your main point.

In my view, a purely simulation-styled game is doomed to die a quick death...anyone here like playing Sim Earth?

IMHO, you need simulation to give a game depth, but you also need strategy aspects to give it interesting goals. I mean, who would seriously spend half as much time on a stock-market sim, as they do on civ2? You have to have some goals, some objective, something to do, rather than watch a bunch of people breed.

I mean, how fun would populous be without an enemy? Any of you guys still play the first Sim City?

Just MHO, that is...

-KhanMan the Greek-Butchering Geek

[Slingshot]

It is very interesting that most of the suggestions on this forum seem to ask for more realism. I think that Glak has raised an interesting point.

To me, it is not the realism that makes Civ addictive. It is the fact that Civ appeals to our humanity, like ruling the world (ie. If I could do things my way, everybody would be happy!), or the relentless pursuit of knowledge (sometimes good, sometimes bad), and the desire for some sort of everlasting, immortalizing legacy to call our own.

[Glak]

Oh I didn't even know about this forum, or that the column was even posted. ha ha

KhanMan: I do agree that there is strategy in Civ2 and beyond but I think that the focus of the game is on the sim aspect. I think the original civ was about half and half. Pure sim wouldn't be fun for many people so they mix in a healthy dose of strategy. I guess it is just a matter of categorization. I was looking at some site with awards for the best roleplaying game of the year. The contenders: Everquest, System Shock 2, and Planescape: Torment. Those games have absolutely nothing in common. They all made it onto the same list because they are all called RPGs. I just think that if we had better definitions it would be easier to talk about games, and I like to talk about games.

Slingshot: yeah that sort of feeling is what I mean. Not all types of games give you that experience, that's what makes a sim a sim. So any game that focuses on that feeling, more than it focuses on some other type of feeling, is a sim. Sims also have the concept of doing well. Other games have that but in a strategy game you usually attempt to win and plan your actions accordingly, you don't play to earn the most points. (you can win in civ games of course, but the point thing seems to be emphasized at the end)

[Ming]

Against the AI, I almost have to agree. But I haven't really played against the AI much anymore because it is boring.

So I will disagree.
MP is where the action is at. And it is a game of direct conflict. I want to go one on one, or one against more people. It is a tactical war game. Strategy is key. It is no longer a simulation type game. You not only have to field an army, but you have to build it. Just like most good old tactical board games.

You will never convince me it isn't primarily a strategy game

Oh, and by the way... It was a well written piece and I enjoyed reading it.

[KhanMan]

Don't you love it when the moderator says you'll never convince him?



Ming-Remind me never to try taking you on without at least two good allies...

-KM

[The Mad Monk]

My playing style tends toward 'Sim Country'--the AI would be rational-civilized-expansionist. I tend to insert non-win related goals into these games, such as building transcontinental railroads just to see how big I could make one and keep it operational.

[DirkZelwis]

Hello!
Personally, I agree with Glak. I think, Civ2 is a sim-game, and strategy is a tool to reach some goals. "Strategy", like "Tactics", are miltary terms, and Civ2 deals with lots more than just the military. I think, some players would agree after buying out whole continents, maybe nations, without ever firing a shot, that Civ2 is more than just a military game.
The article was ... first try? I guess. The "line of thought" went up and down, left and right, had me a little bit confused. Good point, though.
Bye, Dirk
"Dirks and Daggers."

[J.C.]

Glak has some good points esp about the sim-type micromanagement, however I think he is trying to relate the present state of computer gaming to reality with the gaming defining that reality instead of the reverse.

In the main Strategy is about three things & roughly in this order of importance:
1) Diplomacy
2) Resources
3) Leverage ( applying the resources & Statesmanship at the point that maximises your position )