I disagree. That's what civ /is/ - many subgames within the larger scope, and part of the challenge is ballancing one's focus between them. Developing that dynamic of the game - switching between different abstraction layers - is completely key to keeping the spirit of Civ, imho, and when the subgames are overly simplified, the game as a whole loses.
Maybe they could build in an Espionage Governor (Director of CIA, perhaps, since the game appears to be completely US-centric) to simplify the game for people who tend to get overwhelmed managing the finer complexities of the game? That's how they solved that problem in other domains.
P.S. Please don't criticize The List when you clearly have failed to perceive its purpose.
Maybe they could build in an Espionage Governor (Director of CIA, perhaps, since the game appears to be completely US-centric) to simplify the game for people who tend to get overwhelmed managing the finer complexities of the game? That's how they solved that problem in other domains.
P.S. Please don't criticize The List when you clearly have failed to perceive its purpose.
Originally posted by Steve Clark
As usual, well said, Ralf. I believe the root of much of the pessimism, at least coming from yin, is that Civ3 is not "revolutionary" enough. They want to have 20 games-within-a-game, as evidence by their too-complex List. I think, as you imply, that such things would cause everyone to get bogged down in managing details that take away from abstractly managing a global civ through 6000 years.
As usual, well said, Ralf. I believe the root of much of the pessimism, at least coming from yin, is that Civ3 is not "revolutionary" enough. They want to have 20 games-within-a-game, as evidence by their too-complex List. I think, as you imply, that such things would cause everyone to get bogged down in managing details that take away from abstractly managing a global civ through 6000 years.
Comment