In the Avault thread, we got off on a tangent when I brought the concern that Civ3 will force me research all/most? techs before I can "go" to the next age. I had thought with fewer techs, the decision of which one to research next would become more critical, thus affecting strategic gameplay. But it now sounds like that I got to research all/most? of the techs in the ancient age (for example) before I can get the ones that I want in the middle age. I mean, I don't care about historical accuracy of having an advance tech before I have an ancient one because it is all an abstract element anyway.
Remember the Warrior-Feudalism-Chivalry-Leadership line in Civ2? That was a strategic decision based on whether you were persuing a bloodlust or AC win. Now it seems it doesn't matter what you have to research next or what path to aim for because you have to get them all. Do you think that's a wise design decision? I love the idea of skipping or ignoring a tech (or several of them) because such a gameplay decision can have its advantages and disadvantages. Now it appears they are taking that element of risk out of our hands. Does this make sense at all?
Remember the Warrior-Feudalism-Chivalry-Leadership line in Civ2? That was a strategic decision based on whether you were persuing a bloodlust or AC win. Now it seems it doesn't matter what you have to research next or what path to aim for because you have to get them all. Do you think that's a wise design decision? I love the idea of skipping or ignoring a tech (or several of them) because such a gameplay decision can have its advantages and disadvantages. Now it appears they are taking that element of risk out of our hands. Does this make sense at all?
Comment