Tweet
Balance of Scale
I think a part of the differences in the Civ2.5 vs Civ3 debates center around the perception regarding the balance of scale in the game. What I mean by balance of scale is that most strategy games (and wargames) purposely are designed at a particular scale. By scale I mean what is the size of the world in relation to the unit you move and the cities you build. Also, scale is what size the cities represent as well as the size of the units. To some extent, strategy games that fail (ie, not playable or replayable) are the ones that mixes scales, forcing the user to micromanage on different levels.
In one respect, Civ2 is one of the most replayable strategy games of all time because it is designed at an easy-to-comprehend scale and the main game is at such a scale to make building a civilization fairly easy to do. Think of all of the elements of the main game: the cities, their improvements and wonders, exploring, trading, diplomacy, the worlds and of course, the units. They are all abstracted to a consistent scale. The settler or caravan unit is not 25 square miles in size and it is not a single person. It represents thousands of people spread over a wide area. The same thing for the cities. But that's obvious. The point is that all of these elements are, in my view, consistent with one another, not too generalized but not too detailed.
From a design and programming point of view, having a consistent scale is best because you can code 'cause and effect' elements easier, thus making the game more playable to the user. Using Civ2, what are the variables for the cities? Food, arrows and shields, that's it. The number of workers and their placements solely adjust those three variables upwards or downwards. As you add an improvement or a wonder (or the tax rate), you adjust those three variables. Let consider the unit. They all have the same attributes: A/D/M/HP/(and something else) plus some flags (like ZOC). Adding an improvement or wonder that affects units just adjust those variables upwards or downwards. Also, a unit can adjust the variables of the cities (food, arrows, shields) upwards or downwards (like caravans). See how it all simplistically ties together? There are some other influences too but those are the basics.
Here's the relevance to the Civ3 debates. There are some ideas (in my perception) that will disrupt this model by introducing too many details to the cities or to some units. Let's take an extreme example of an idea that you want to build each city in Civ3 like you would in Pharaoh or C3. That would be an impossibility from a design/coding standpoint because not only do the programmer and user have to manage all of the details of each city, but multiplying that by the number of cities and units that they affect, it becomes way too much to handle.
Let's take another extreme example; adding in the details of a wargame into Civ3. Each ground attack unit in Civ2 represents an army (or corps in the least). They all have the same A/D/M/HP… attributes that, through complex formulas, determines the outcomes of combat. Just by adding one more variable (say level of supplies from the nearest city), that would increase the computations not by 1/6 but from 5 squared to 6 squared using multivariate analysis. It would take longer to process and it would be harder for the user to plan strategies.
Conversely, if you were to generalize a unit by taking away its attributes (like taking away the caravans as the mechanism for trading), how would you know the cause and effect other elements (units/cities/etc.) would have on it or how that unit would effect those other elements? For eexample, people have complained about having to move caravans to trade. All units move the same way; you click on it and move it the appropriate number of spaces. If moving goods from one city to another is an appropriate thing to model in the game, why would you not have it move the same way you would move a diplomat or an army or whatever from one city to another?
Generally speaking, all of the elements in Civ2 interrelate through the adjustments of only a handful of variables. That makes it easier for us to play and replay the game. That is not to say that by adding other variables would be bad. As long as they are on the same scale level as the others, that would add to the game. But by introducing variables at a more detailed level, it would be very hard to play because your analytical reasonings would have to constantly make the translation between the detailed scale (micro-level) and the abstracted civilization scale (macro-level).
The point of this too long write-up, is that when you think of ideas for Civ3, keep in mind that the civilization-based games are balanced at a particular scale. They are not city-building games and they are not wargames, but civilization (or empire) building games. Perhaps some of the reactions have been centered around those who feel that some ideas would cause the disruption of that scale, thus throwing the game out of balance.
In one respect, Civ2 is one of the most replayable strategy games of all time because it is designed at an easy-to-comprehend scale and the main game is at such a scale to make building a civilization fairly easy to do. Think of all of the elements of the main game: the cities, their improvements and wonders, exploring, trading, diplomacy, the worlds and of course, the units. They are all abstracted to a consistent scale. The settler or caravan unit is not 25 square miles in size and it is not a single person. It represents thousands of people spread over a wide area. The same thing for the cities. But that's obvious. The point is that all of these elements are, in my view, consistent with one another, not too generalized but not too detailed.
From a design and programming point of view, having a consistent scale is best because you can code 'cause and effect' elements easier, thus making the game more playable to the user. Using Civ2, what are the variables for the cities? Food, arrows and shields, that's it. The number of workers and their placements solely adjust those three variables upwards or downwards. As you add an improvement or a wonder (or the tax rate), you adjust those three variables. Let consider the unit. They all have the same attributes: A/D/M/HP/(and something else) plus some flags (like ZOC). Adding an improvement or wonder that affects units just adjust those variables upwards or downwards. Also, a unit can adjust the variables of the cities (food, arrows, shields) upwards or downwards (like caravans). See how it all simplistically ties together? There are some other influences too but those are the basics.
Here's the relevance to the Civ3 debates. There are some ideas (in my perception) that will disrupt this model by introducing too many details to the cities or to some units. Let's take an extreme example of an idea that you want to build each city in Civ3 like you would in Pharaoh or C3. That would be an impossibility from a design/coding standpoint because not only do the programmer and user have to manage all of the details of each city, but multiplying that by the number of cities and units that they affect, it becomes way too much to handle.
Let's take another extreme example; adding in the details of a wargame into Civ3. Each ground attack unit in Civ2 represents an army (or corps in the least). They all have the same A/D/M/HP… attributes that, through complex formulas, determines the outcomes of combat. Just by adding one more variable (say level of supplies from the nearest city), that would increase the computations not by 1/6 but from 5 squared to 6 squared using multivariate analysis. It would take longer to process and it would be harder for the user to plan strategies.
Conversely, if you were to generalize a unit by taking away its attributes (like taking away the caravans as the mechanism for trading), how would you know the cause and effect other elements (units/cities/etc.) would have on it or how that unit would effect those other elements? For eexample, people have complained about having to move caravans to trade. All units move the same way; you click on it and move it the appropriate number of spaces. If moving goods from one city to another is an appropriate thing to model in the game, why would you not have it move the same way you would move a diplomat or an army or whatever from one city to another?
Generally speaking, all of the elements in Civ2 interrelate through the adjustments of only a handful of variables. That makes it easier for us to play and replay the game. That is not to say that by adding other variables would be bad. As long as they are on the same scale level as the others, that would add to the game. But by introducing variables at a more detailed level, it would be very hard to play because your analytical reasonings would have to constantly make the translation between the detailed scale (micro-level) and the abstracted civilization scale (macro-level).
The point of this too long write-up, is that when you think of ideas for Civ3, keep in mind that the civilization-based games are balanced at a particular scale. They are not city-building games and they are not wargames, but civilization (or empire) building games. Perhaps some of the reactions have been centered around those who feel that some ideas would cause the disruption of that scale, thus throwing the game out of balance.
Comment