 |
| |
|
|
Shogun Gunner
|
 |
Potomac Falls, Virginia
Oct 2000
time: 00:32
|
|
I think this game will be continued as long as a large enough base is willing to learn the rules and strategy of an increasingly complicated system.
I used to play board war games growing up. The first ones were very playable (Afrika Korps for example), but in the letters to the editor section of Avalon Hill and SPI - two leading magazines covering war games, players would complain that "the game was too simple, they wanted more control over the different factors of decision making in war"
Well, Afrika Korp was a game whose turn was month based and lasted a little over two years -- about 28 turns IIRC. There were about 100 units for both the Germans and the British.
Since people wanted more complexity the game makers made more and more complicated games. In the first games you didn't have to worry about supply, then every game had to track supply...then there were seperate units for it.
The same with airpower...the first games it was a pretty abstract application of the power. People wanted the units. Then they had to worry about the logistics of the planes (supply, basing, what types of missions).
The units started out with three factors using along the bottom the unit ATTACK-DEFEND-MOVEMENT. Just like Civ.
At the end of the complexity cycle, many units would have six or even eight numbers relating to combat. Range and morale were two common factors added. Examples: Sixth Fleet, Squad Leader, Panzer Blitz, Panzer Leader.
The game, in my mind, that epitomized the "enhanced complexity cycle" the wargaming industry went through was Squad Leader. This was a squad level game with every unit, weapon, tank, vehicle used in World War 2. The first box was just the Russian front. One unit was a squad or a (one) tank, or a (one) airplane. You had leaders...lots of them in fact, that had different capabilities. You had a multiple stage turn with phases like "opportunity fire"; "rally"; "movement"; "firing"
The bottom line is that the computer industry prempted the building of new games. Certainly the complexity was better suited for computers versus people. Additionally, fewer and fewer people were playing this games anymore. And that's what will happen with Civ. Eventually it will get too complex or too narrowly defined as to lose appeal to the mainstream. That will be the last version of the line.
Note:  I can't believe I typed this all from memory..it's been years since I've looked at the old games, magazines or books I have on this subject.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
As long as the developers are strong and Atari doesn't do much pushing out the door, then ??? My fear is the inevitable (?) MoO3 of the series.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
TimeTraveler
|
|
When a series of [anything] goes on longer than a trilogy, it's suddenly very difficult to stop. Civilizaion will most likely not be an exception, and if I had to guess, the company will be making a new one every 5 years for decades to come. Civ10 will probably come out around 2036.
By the way, if they ever came out with a Civ1024, it would most likely happen in 7106C.E. Unfortunately, by then, I think the chain will have been broken by an event more significant than all those civ games combined.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shogun Gunner
|
|
Potomac Falls, Virginia
Oct 2000
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by VetLegion
You are overlooking the fact that Civ III is in many important ways simpler than previous titles 
|
After thinking about this for a few moments, I'm not sure which way Civ is simpler. Can you provide a few examples?
In each new version of Civ, I count more techs, more units, more civs, more terrain, more city specialists, more trading possibilities, more luxuries, more resources, more scenarios, more mods.......
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
More scenarios and mods? It will take years to catch up with Civ II in that regard, if it ever does.
While admittedly Civ III brought us some new features, if you look at it in the context of the genre, you will see it is in many ways simpler than the games that immediately preceded it (Civ II, SMAC, Ctp II).
Basically most things that players could handle but AI couldn't had to go.
I didn't play Civ III in a long time, so these are off the top of my head:
Simplified trade model (remember caravans and cities with distinct supply and demand?), simplified tech tree with less options and age requirements (can't specialize), less government models (fundamentalism gone), simpler govt. model than SMAC, simplified combat model (hitpoints and firepower), simplified diplomatic combat (no diplomat unit), no river move bonuses (AI could not utilize them?), fewer options for warfare, less structures to build (don't ask me how, but in Civ III I actually ran out of buildings while waiting for "war window" to open), simpler zones of control (none for the most part, because of AI) ... and so on.
This did offer a more competitive AI, so the game actually became harder and more interesting, but not more complex.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
What do people think about an eventual "complete" game? I guess there have been civilizations/ tribes that are unknown, but what about including every one that's known? Every modern nation. Every Native American tribe. With internal cultural distinctiveness, every state, province and territory in North America, every county of England, etc. Maybe in 15 years?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
That was Civ3, wasn't it? |
You've apparently never played MoO3.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-12-2003 06:14
So I think we'll have Civ for some time.
(phew, for a title...!
)
|