... 5 years time?
because i'm bored already. when you played IV, you were paying consideration to the immediate, the mid game, the long game, your potential victory conditions, what would be your prod., economic, science city. how you would develop and choose those cities (eg. economic: religion, tile output, buildings, trade routes, how diplomacy would affect them, etc.) who you should develop as long term friends and who could buffer you against who. when you should expand to another continent and could you afford to keep the colonies or would you have to vassal them, if you were going to vassal them, how long would you have to support them for. if you vassalised the ai, could you give them all your techs or could they escape being vassals by expanding. who were your competitors and how could you alienate them from their friends if they were going for religious or diplo, could you get to their main culture city in time if they were going for culture. was it worth switching civics to placate a dangerous enemy. could you outculture an enemy city and swamp it to take their crucial tiles and starve them. literally dozens of competing layers of aspects that you had to balance to play the game successfully.
now it's wait for the ai to attack (which they will but you won't know why), soak it up knowing they have no reserve, then walk in take their main cities and raze the rest when they quit and give you them. but that sounds like i'm blaming the AI for the game's inadequacies which i'm not.
having given this game a really good go over the last few weeks i'm running out of enthusiasm. i really worried that this game would keep me in the house for 3months solid and that i'd be playing it for years obsessively.
the depth has gone. the depth has GONE. this isn't far away from civrev. WHO are they chasing after with this game? what demographic or group of gamers? even The Settlers is more "immersive" and complex than this.
because i'm bored already. when you played IV, you were paying consideration to the immediate, the mid game, the long game, your potential victory conditions, what would be your prod., economic, science city. how you would develop and choose those cities (eg. economic: religion, tile output, buildings, trade routes, how diplomacy would affect them, etc.) who you should develop as long term friends and who could buffer you against who. when you should expand to another continent and could you afford to keep the colonies or would you have to vassal them, if you were going to vassal them, how long would you have to support them for. if you vassalised the ai, could you give them all your techs or could they escape being vassals by expanding. who were your competitors and how could you alienate them from their friends if they were going for religious or diplo, could you get to their main culture city in time if they were going for culture. was it worth switching civics to placate a dangerous enemy. could you outculture an enemy city and swamp it to take their crucial tiles and starve them. literally dozens of competing layers of aspects that you had to balance to play the game successfully.
now it's wait for the ai to attack (which they will but you won't know why), soak it up knowing they have no reserve, then walk in take their main cities and raze the rest when they quit and give you them. but that sounds like i'm blaming the AI for the game's inadequacies which i'm not.
having given this game a really good go over the last few weeks i'm running out of enthusiasm. i really worried that this game would keep me in the house for 3months solid and that i'd be playing it for years obsessively.
the depth has gone. the depth has GONE. this isn't far away from civrev. WHO are they chasing after with this game? what demographic or group of gamers? even The Settlers is more "immersive" and complex than this.
.
