Tweet
There have been numerous threads on this forum that refer to some potential imbalance in civ3. Reading through some of these threads I find myself wondering what the concept of balance should mean, since several different interpretations are in evidence.
For example some people have used arguments about balance/imbalance in the ongoing debate about the annoyingly
unpredictable single combat results. Proponents from both the 'realist' and the 'pragmatist' camps have argued that the current system or proposed remedies flout the elusive criterion of balance.
Taking this debate as an example I feel that balance must be a more global concept. Either the entire game is in balance, or the entire game is not. The reason this is mportant in comparing the combat system with that in civ2 is that there are clearly other large differences between this game and earlier civ games. Having spent countless hours playing civ2 and smac I feel the balance there is a reasonable one in that it is rare for one strategy to always dominate irrespective
of situation. The combat model there is an integral part of that balance as defined above. However, that is not in itself a good argument for civ3 combat to to be that way, since it ignores interactions with the tech system, support system, diplomacy system, and unit abilities that differ from that observed in previous games. Given that balance should be by necessity a global concept, I feel quite strongly that we will not understand the game balance for a while yet; I know from civ2 and smac
it was many games before I appreciated how finely the elements interacted to constitute overall balance. Initially I was
annoyed along with everyone else about the corruption and unpredictable combat, but the more I play the more I see the need for a paradigm shift. It is easy to apply civ2 intuition to the game and come to the quick conclusion that one element
is unbalanced. It is soooo frustrating to lose your battleship to a caveman armed with a peashooter, but my opinion thus
far is that the increased importance of combined arms is a great move, and that this game provides interesting new strategic tests.
Elements that seemed unbalanced a week ago become far less so as I learn more about this very different game.
For example some people have used arguments about balance/imbalance in the ongoing debate about the annoyingly
unpredictable single combat results. Proponents from both the 'realist' and the 'pragmatist' camps have argued that the current system or proposed remedies flout the elusive criterion of balance.
Taking this debate as an example I feel that balance must be a more global concept. Either the entire game is in balance, or the entire game is not. The reason this is mportant in comparing the combat system with that in civ2 is that there are clearly other large differences between this game and earlier civ games. Having spent countless hours playing civ2 and smac I feel the balance there is a reasonable one in that it is rare for one strategy to always dominate irrespective
of situation. The combat model there is an integral part of that balance as defined above. However, that is not in itself a good argument for civ3 combat to to be that way, since it ignores interactions with the tech system, support system, diplomacy system, and unit abilities that differ from that observed in previous games. Given that balance should be by necessity a global concept, I feel quite strongly that we will not understand the game balance for a while yet; I know from civ2 and smac
it was many games before I appreciated how finely the elements interacted to constitute overall balance. Initially I was
annoyed along with everyone else about the corruption and unpredictable combat, but the more I play the more I see the need for a paradigm shift. It is easy to apply civ2 intuition to the game and come to the quick conclusion that one element
is unbalanced. It is soooo frustrating to lose your battleship to a caveman armed with a peashooter, but my opinion thus
far is that the increased importance of combined arms is a great move, and that this game provides interesting new strategic tests.
Elements that seemed unbalanced a week ago become far less so as I learn more about this very different game.