|
Gallagher
|
|
Tulsa, OK
Jan 1970
time: 05:15
|
|
Firaxis has been telling us all along that Civ3 was going to require different strategie than civ2. I think it's apparent that one of the design themes was forcing players to make decisions that would make sense in the real world. Now I hear everybody griping about how they can't use their civ2 strategies, because of the corruption rates.
Realistically, world domination doesn't mean 'owning' every city. It means exerting your influence over other nations. If the U.S. captured Bagdad (sp?) next week, we couldn't start producing armor units there the next month. And the reason we couldn't mirror in certain ways the corruption and unhappiness factors in the game. In fact, there would be no advantage in the U.S. keeping the city at all, other than to take the production potential away from Saddam, which in game terms could be done a couple of different ways (selling factories, pillaging, and giving the city to some other civ). The game, to some small extent, models the real world difficulty the US finds itself in now. Diplomacy, trade, and our military and cultural influence are more effective than military action.
In civ2, building the spaceship was an artificial choice. It was always faster and easier to just conquer the whole world. If you want to play a conquer-the-world kind of game (and there's no reason why you shouldn't), then play civ2. If you want a more realistic model, play civ3.
|
03-11-2001 22:07
|