View Single Post

Default 

July 15th, 2013, 21:48
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
While I severely disagree that Civ 5 BNW is "arcade" in any way whatsoever - I do think I understand where you're coming from.
I went back and forth with myself on whether or not to use the term "arcade" or not, as it is a term usually used as an insult. In this case, however, I don't mean it that way at all. It's more of a compliment to Civ's timeless design, really - it's very easy to completely lose track of time immediately upon starting a new game, thanks to the fluid rhythm of the gameplay. Civ is a great example of "easy to pick up, hard to put down." So I should have used a different term, as "Arcade" has been associated with negative insinuations, and that wasn't the intention here.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
As for myself - I think the two games are largely dealing with the same concepts and they both try to fill the same needs - but in very different ways.
I can agree with that, and that's really a great one-sentence summary of what I was trying to explain - they have very different approaches to grand strategy.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
I don't think EU is more complex at all - but we just see these things differently.
I still feel that EU/CK are far more complex than Civ, but to play devil's advocate against myself, that could be due to over a decade of following and playing Civ - I'm so familiar with the mechanics of Civ at this point that it might appear to be simpler than it actually is. Whatever the case, I still feel that there is more complexity in EU, but that's just me.


Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
I simply prefer the tangible and more hands-on approach of Civ - and I find the EU slider/abstraction approach profoundly unsatisfying.
I can completely understand that. In fact, it took me several attempts to get into either EU3 or CK2 because of this. I wanted to like the games, but it was just so foreign to what I was used to in strategy games in terms of pacing and how military-driven most games in the genre are. Finally, after enough patience, CK2 just "clicked" for me all of a sudden. I think it was due to my first successful execution of a complex political plot - the satisfaction of planning and executing a multi-step "Game of Thrones" maneuver was very high. It was the same thing with EU - it just clicked with me eventually, and I grew to appreciate the "abstract" aspects of the games and what it allowed the player to accomplish with enough planning. This approach is definitely not for everyone though, and I understand that.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Again, it sounds like you're not up to date. Military engagement in Civ 5 BNW is not trivial anymore - and you really need to have a solid economy and especially in the later stages of the game, diplomacy is a HUGE part of warfare.

I think you should consider looking into Civ again.
The most "up-to-date" I am with Civ is Civ 5 itself, not the expansions. If the non-military aspects have been improved and expanded in scope, then you're right, I do need to look into it again .
Nerevarine is offline

Nerevarine

Nerevarine's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#32

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 845