Tweet
Since this thread was closed after one reply, I have to repost the header to be able to respond.
I suppose I am a "newbie". I was enough of a know-nothing that I bought CtP FIRST. I bought CivII SECOND. To this day, I am willing to assert that anyone who plays CtP before playing CivII will not have the virulent anti-CtP hatred that is the dominant spirit on these boards...They'll concede that CivII is better, but they'll have a fond memory of the first, innocent days with CtP. How's that for a newbie sentiment? And. besides, I haven't posted a lot. It doesn't really matter how much you play the game, or how well you play it, because the only way to raise your title here is to post a lot. And I certainly haven't done that. So I guess those two things pretty much make me a "newbie"...
But you know what? At root, the Civ games are wargames. It's as simple as that. And not very advanced ones. There's a research cycle and a production cycle - true. They're pretty primitive compared to the production cycles in some of the old counter games like "War in the West" or even "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", though. OK, SMAC had unit customization - but you don't have anywhere near the overall force flexibility there that you do if you want to sit down and whip out a scenario for "Operational Art of War". You've got something that passes for diplomacy - but "Diplomacy" had more advanced diplomacy. CivIII FINALLY has resource requirements, which I guess constitute a rudimentary supply system [of course, I can still send my units deep into the AI's territory and have them feed themselves for hundreds of years, but why nitpick?]; still, virtually every other wargame ever designed has a better supply system. I was once fortunate enough to get to view [not even participate; it was a privelege just to view this] a full-blown "deployment" of "Campaign for North Africa", which is probably the only truly realistic wargame ever produced, since the single most important unit in it - dwarfing all others - is the truck. Now that was a game with a true appreciation for supply. The Civ series of games are fairly primitive when you get right down to it in just about every area. They COMBINE a lot of different areas, and do so ambitiously, but they don't do it rigorously.
I am not saying these things to disparage Civ. Because Civ is FUN - easily more fun that any of the other games I've described. I've spent more time playing CivII, CtP, and CivIII then I've spent on any other games - actually, more time than all of the others put together, probably. Quite often, the fact that the Civ games take less complex and less detailed approaches to these issues make the gamplay more elegant. I'm merely talking about these other games to make the point that enjoying Civ is not about KNOWLEDGE. It's not about historical knowledge - since there have been much more accurate and detailed simulation games made. It's not about military knowledge - for the same reason. It's not about gameplay skill - since there are more challenging wargames out there to learn and to master. Civ is about fun.
The entire concept of a "newbie" is therefore, frankly, sort of meaningless. This has to be the case, pretty much by definition, in instances where knowledge is secondary to enjoyment. Anyone who is out of the stage where they ask questions about what to do to get their cities out of disorder, or where they ask what the little slider-things are with the percentages on them, has arrived at the level of knowledge necessary to comment on the game mechanics. It's not rocket science - if it were, the series would not have sold as many copies as it has. If someone makes a stupid point in an argument here, they've made a stupid point - but it probably will have nothing to do with the fact that they haven't played enough to get enough "experience" to see the hidden truth. It's more likely that something about your subjective perspective makes their opinions seem poorly formed - and that's it. Or that they're just DUMB - that happens once in a while too, you know.
I suppose I am a "newbie". I was enough of a know-nothing that I bought CtP FIRST. I bought CivII SECOND. To this day, I am willing to assert that anyone who plays CtP before playing CivII will not have the virulent anti-CtP hatred that is the dominant spirit on these boards...They'll concede that CivII is better, but they'll have a fond memory of the first, innocent days with CtP. How's that for a newbie sentiment? And. besides, I haven't posted a lot. It doesn't really matter how much you play the game, or how well you play it, because the only way to raise your title here is to post a lot. And I certainly haven't done that. So I guess those two things pretty much make me a "newbie"...
But you know what? At root, the Civ games are wargames. It's as simple as that. And not very advanced ones. There's a research cycle and a production cycle - true. They're pretty primitive compared to the production cycles in some of the old counter games like "War in the West" or even "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", though. OK, SMAC had unit customization - but you don't have anywhere near the overall force flexibility there that you do if you want to sit down and whip out a scenario for "Operational Art of War". You've got something that passes for diplomacy - but "Diplomacy" had more advanced diplomacy. CivIII FINALLY has resource requirements, which I guess constitute a rudimentary supply system [of course, I can still send my units deep into the AI's territory and have them feed themselves for hundreds of years, but why nitpick?]; still, virtually every other wargame ever designed has a better supply system. I was once fortunate enough to get to view [not even participate; it was a privelege just to view this] a full-blown "deployment" of "Campaign for North Africa", which is probably the only truly realistic wargame ever produced, since the single most important unit in it - dwarfing all others - is the truck. Now that was a game with a true appreciation for supply. The Civ series of games are fairly primitive when you get right down to it in just about every area. They COMBINE a lot of different areas, and do so ambitiously, but they don't do it rigorously.
I am not saying these things to disparage Civ. Because Civ is FUN - easily more fun that any of the other games I've described. I've spent more time playing CivII, CtP, and CivIII then I've spent on any other games - actually, more time than all of the others put together, probably. Quite often, the fact that the Civ games take less complex and less detailed approaches to these issues make the gamplay more elegant. I'm merely talking about these other games to make the point that enjoying Civ is not about KNOWLEDGE. It's not about historical knowledge - since there have been much more accurate and detailed simulation games made. It's not about military knowledge - for the same reason. It's not about gameplay skill - since there are more challenging wargames out there to learn and to master. Civ is about fun.
The entire concept of a "newbie" is therefore, frankly, sort of meaningless. This has to be the case, pretty much by definition, in instances where knowledge is secondary to enjoyment. Anyone who is out of the stage where they ask questions about what to do to get their cities out of disorder, or where they ask what the little slider-things are with the percentages on them, has arrived at the level of knowledge necessary to comment on the game mechanics. It's not rocket science - if it were, the series would not have sold as many copies as it has. If someone makes a stupid point in an argument here, they've made a stupid point - but it probably will have nothing to do with the fact that they haven't played enough to get enough "experience" to see the hidden truth. It's more likely that something about your subjective perspective makes their opinions seem poorly formed - and that's it. Or that they're just DUMB - that happens once in a while too, you know.
Comment