Production: Social vs. Military

[Sarcastic]

Originally posted by tetley
It's a game. I like the 100% flip strategies, and don't see how forcing a gradual slider change improves the game. I like the strategy of going 100% research till you unlock a Trade Good and then going 100% social.

The problem is, it is pretty much always more efficient to play the game that way. If it is always best to do something a certain way in a game, it is not really a strategy, more like a puzzle to figure out. If a mechanic introduces a case in which the player should always do something a certain way, it isn't strategy, and unless it is really fun and thematic, which I personally don't think adjusting sliders is, the mechanic needs to be altered or removed.

[EternalSpark]

Sorry, I didn't realize Civ type games were only for micromanagers.

Civ types aren't only for micromanagers - as Shadowlord notes, you can ignore a lot of micromanagement in Civ4 just fine.

Civ type games, however, are designed primarilly for people who like to squeeze out the most effective Bang For Their Buck, and if that doesn't interest you, you're not likely to have as much fun from playing a Civ game as someone who does.

This is especially true for GC2, because the game mechanics are so obtuse that you can't hope to do decently without squeezing everything out.

[oldstatesman]

ES, my apologies for my snarkiness, but I had a bad day yesterday.

But I totally disagree with you - modern Civ type games are not designed just for for people who like to 'squeeze' them. In my view they attempt to target gamers who buy them because they give enjoyment - for a variety of reasons, yours just one among them.

The problem with the genre in the past is that it has been percieved as one where a player must deal with overly complicated mechanisms and must be a micromanager to enjoy it - the general gaming audience has thus shunned it. And to some extent they have been right - but recent additions to the genre such as Civ4 (not my favorite but for different reasons I won't go into here - not the place) and GalCiv 2 have made huge strides to overcome this prejudice. They are accesable to the general gamer in ways past titiles have not been IMHO.

And this is a good thing.

I don't find GalCiv mechanics to be obtuse (the op's example being one to try and kep this post somewhat on topic ) - but then again I have not spent time under the hood.

I am not a mechanic - I am a driver. And as long as the driving experience is good, and gives enjoyment, I could care less what is under the hood. And so far GalCiv 2 is one hell of a good driving experience for me; I am enjoying it as much as I did other classic titiles in the genre such as the older Civ versions.

Will that thrill of grinding it's gears around cosmic corners and racing down the starways last for years? Who knows, but if it lasts for 6 - 12 months then it is one heck of a great gaming value for the average gamer.

Guess we will have to agree to disagree - we are obviously different types of gamers - both who are critical to the future health and success of the TBS genre.

[Hansolo88]

I'd be really curious to know what Brad thinks about the 100% flip strategies, if he uses them and endorses them or if they go against his vision for the game.