CIv, it has rightly been pointed out is not a "history simulator". It is a fairly abstract game, that illustrates historical pronciple, while being highly innaccurate in the details.
As the discussion has taken place around certain issues, the forms of govt, the culture and religious models, and the issue of unique civs, it has often been pointed out that this is just a game and that too much focus on historical accuracy may burden gameplay, and is untrue to what civ is.
Fundamentally, i agree. I do beleive that a "history simulator" could be a great game. while i have not yet played EU, i am very excited by it. I realize that there are issues with a 6000 year history simulator, but even if those can be resolved, the civ franchise is almost certainly not the place to do it.
It is in that context that i must look at issues relating to infinite RR movement and the like. I do NOT want to see an effort to make relative movement by road, rail, ship and air accurate. It is the innaccuracies of civs military and movement model that make it clear to anyone playing this that its "just a game" In that context even unique civs are not dangerous.
If, OTOH, the combat and movement systems were to be improved to such degree that it became a more "grognard" accurate game, with less need for suspension of disbelief, the game would then be seriously out of balance. That is the social-political-cultural model would be out of balance with the military model - we would have an accurate war game with a cartoonish "history game" - which unfortunately might lead some to give excessive weight to the worst features of the "history game" (like unique civs)
Hail to thee howie-railroad rush - you protect us from racialism
LOTM
As the discussion has taken place around certain issues, the forms of govt, the culture and religious models, and the issue of unique civs, it has often been pointed out that this is just a game and that too much focus on historical accuracy may burden gameplay, and is untrue to what civ is.
Fundamentally, i agree. I do beleive that a "history simulator" could be a great game. while i have not yet played EU, i am very excited by it. I realize that there are issues with a 6000 year history simulator, but even if those can be resolved, the civ franchise is almost certainly not the place to do it.
It is in that context that i must look at issues relating to infinite RR movement and the like. I do NOT want to see an effort to make relative movement by road, rail, ship and air accurate. It is the innaccuracies of civs military and movement model that make it clear to anyone playing this that its "just a game" In that context even unique civs are not dangerous.
If, OTOH, the combat and movement systems were to be improved to such degree that it became a more "grognard" accurate game, with less need for suspension of disbelief, the game would then be seriously out of balance. That is the social-political-cultural model would be out of balance with the military model - we would have an accurate war game with a cartoonish "history game" - which unfortunately might lead some to give excessive weight to the worst features of the "history game" (like unique civs)
Hail to thee howie-railroad rush - you protect us from racialism
LOTM
Comment