Tweet
More on econ, and diplomacy, less on warfare
While most of the Civ games that proceeds their predessesors show signs of improving the economic and diplomatic features of the game, Civ games in general are designed ultimately for the purpose of warfare. There's no denying that.
Wafare in fact is a huge part, much too huge part, of the game. One reason that this is so is that the way AI in Civ games are designed is such that AI are always too willing to go into war with players even if the AI control a civilization that are still throwing spears while the players' civilizations already acquired nuclear bombs. Warfare is further encouraged on the AI's part by the fact that, as the game level gets harder and harder, the AI's chance of winning by poking player's armor tanks with AI's pikemen is greater and greater.
In short, given all the advantages that AI have, it is not suprising that warfare is such a major part of the game.
Another reason that warfare is such an important part of the game is that it is the most obvious "challenge". Games aren't games at all if it isn't challenging. No offense to the designers, but it seems to me that the only challenge that designers think can come out of an empire building game is constant warfare. The only challenge that designers seem to think can come out of a empire building game is giving the AI unrealistic advantages and make us players try to deal with those unrealistic advantages.
In real life, however, warfare, though indeed a very challenging problem to rulers of empire through the ages, isn't the only challenge that any ruler must face in governing the empire. True challenge lies in building their empires to the point where they can use other means of maintainig their empire, their territories, their wealth annd more without resorting to war. How is that possible? The answer lies in economic and diplomacy. Wise rulers understand the importance of diplomatic manuvers. They understand the importance of turning the enemies against each other. They understand the importance of building up an important economy so that foriegn powers dare not destroy their prosperous trading empire, the destruction of which may very well endanger the foriegn empire's own wealth. Manipulation of other factors in governing an empire is important to success of survival of an empire.
Yet, again as I've said, the diplomatic and economic features in Civ games are too simple for all these strategies to be employed. Civ games are designed in such a way that economy, and diplomacy, though important, is not important enough to the point that warfare should be avoided if possible. Very often in games, I find myself being able to maintain a stable economy without having to trade. It is this lack of importance of economy and diplomacy that encourages war.
The best way to cure this is to assign much MUCH more importance to diplomacy and economic and reduce the inclination on AI's part for war. For example, trade should be so important that AI and human players will do anything to avoid war. War, in fact, should be the last resort when all other options fail. This is a concept that should be programed into the AI. AI should be programed to understand that development of a firm economy, colonization of distant continent, keeping good relationship with neighboring empire are important.
The second, and an absolute must, way to cure this is to design the Civ games in ways that warfare, economy and diplomacy are all interrelated. Changes in one variable will have immediate impact on the other. If these mutually influencial features are implemented into the Civ games, then no longer will both human and AI players wage war brainlessly without thinking about hte repercussion it will have on other aspect of their empire management.
Wafare in fact is a huge part, much too huge part, of the game. One reason that this is so is that the way AI in Civ games are designed is such that AI are always too willing to go into war with players even if the AI control a civilization that are still throwing spears while the players' civilizations already acquired nuclear bombs. Warfare is further encouraged on the AI's part by the fact that, as the game level gets harder and harder, the AI's chance of winning by poking player's armor tanks with AI's pikemen is greater and greater.
In short, given all the advantages that AI have, it is not suprising that warfare is such a major part of the game.
Another reason that warfare is such an important part of the game is that it is the most obvious "challenge". Games aren't games at all if it isn't challenging. No offense to the designers, but it seems to me that the only challenge that designers think can come out of an empire building game is constant warfare. The only challenge that designers seem to think can come out of a empire building game is giving the AI unrealistic advantages and make us players try to deal with those unrealistic advantages.
In real life, however, warfare, though indeed a very challenging problem to rulers of empire through the ages, isn't the only challenge that any ruler must face in governing the empire. True challenge lies in building their empires to the point where they can use other means of maintainig their empire, their territories, their wealth annd more without resorting to war. How is that possible? The answer lies in economic and diplomacy. Wise rulers understand the importance of diplomatic manuvers. They understand the importance of turning the enemies against each other. They understand the importance of building up an important economy so that foriegn powers dare not destroy their prosperous trading empire, the destruction of which may very well endanger the foriegn empire's own wealth. Manipulation of other factors in governing an empire is important to success of survival of an empire.
Yet, again as I've said, the diplomatic and economic features in Civ games are too simple for all these strategies to be employed. Civ games are designed in such a way that economy, and diplomacy, though important, is not important enough to the point that warfare should be avoided if possible. Very often in games, I find myself being able to maintain a stable economy without having to trade. It is this lack of importance of economy and diplomacy that encourages war.
The best way to cure this is to assign much MUCH more importance to diplomacy and economic and reduce the inclination on AI's part for war. For example, trade should be so important that AI and human players will do anything to avoid war. War, in fact, should be the last resort when all other options fail. This is a concept that should be programed into the AI. AI should be programed to understand that development of a firm economy, colonization of distant continent, keeping good relationship with neighboring empire are important.
The second, and an absolute must, way to cure this is to design the Civ games in ways that warfare, economy and diplomacy are all interrelated. Changes in one variable will have immediate impact on the other. If these mutually influencial features are implemented into the Civ games, then no longer will both human and AI players wage war brainlessly without thinking about hte repercussion it will have on other aspect of their empire management.
Comment