Democracy Game: Red vs Blue variant.

[A_Bashkuev]

A_Bashkuev wrote on Aug 14, 2002 11:26 PM:
Dear Smash!

I have some idea about new variant of Democracy Game. I've already described it in GOTM19 tread. This is short & abridged version: usual Democracy Game with 2 factions: Red & Blue.

Goal of Game - to be better then your "human" opponent by conquest, spaceflight or score - any method is valid. Any participitant of Game can take part in any discussions, voting or else in BOTH factions. One little catch: Blue faction will be English speaking & Red faction will be - Russian. Language barrier is main reason for abstaining from this Forum activity for great majority of Russian-speaking players here - in Russia.

If any English speaking player can understand discussion in Russian - he is welcome for Red. If any Russian is proficient in English - he is member of Blue. As Result - Blue faction will be more vulnerable for some "scouting" & "malign advicing" from "Reds" & Red will be more tight-knitted & "xenophobic" community. For overcoming this disbalance we can demand: "Red" had to have Democratic Government not longer then 4 turns around (i.e. Oedo's cycle), Blue can't be Communistic at all. What do you think about it?

We mustn't have this strict definitions of this Game. What about some "English-speaking" vs "Deutsch-sprache" variant? Or - "Engish" vs "Francais" or "Espanol"? (Ali Ardavan idea.)

Starlifter advised me for beginning new tread about it, but I'm not sure - where it must be placed for discussion. You are moderator for most appropriate parts of Forums, then it is your choice. Pls, decide it.

Sincerely yours, Alex.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hello,

Civ2 General I guess to see how much interest there is..

Smash

 

[A_Bashkuev]

This is initial my message:

Dear starlifter!

I'm not sure that - this question must be here, but one of your question created some flow of ideas, meetings & discussions with my Russian friends. That is some summary of this & that.

Main problem remains - any who is interested don't know English enough for normal circulation here. But...

Do you wonder - what is Fate of Game of Democracy in the Future? I know & you know that AI just can' cope with human mind at all. What do you think about some possibility of... something named as: "Game of Democracy: Red vs Blue"?

It will be the same Game of Democracy where we have 2 factions: Blue & Red. Main point of the Game - to conquer enemy, - i.e. 5 AI opps & 1 "human", or reach stars earlier then "human" rival, or - have more points then "human" opponent to the end of the Game.
OK. I know, - we can do it now, but what is my point? My point is - "Blue" faction will be English-speaking faction. "Red" faction will be Russian-speaking. In one forum.
Any of English, or Russian speaking gamers can take part in any elections in any factions. (Of course - if they understand Russian or English enough .) (Situation resembled something, that take place in some primeries in America.)
It will create some athmosphere resembling some aerial combat situation in World War II, when Soviet & German air-fighters intentionally spoke on the same frequency in time of "dog-fight". (We can take promise from any participitant of "Red vs Blue" game don't transfer their activity out of boundaries of their part of Forum.)
Another idea is - Red faction can't be Democratic more then 4 turns around (i.e. between pair of Oedo's years). It can't be Fundy in no case. Result of it will be - "Red" will be Communistic faction as minimum in half-time of Modern time.
Blue faction can't be Communistic in any case, but it can convert itself to Fundamentalism for warring purpose.
Main question is - can Democracy survive any challenge from "Red world", or it needs to go "Binny way" from time to time, eh?
Another interesting way of thought - need we ban Red faction going to Republic government? (Modern Russia never has any "Republican government" in her History.) Need we nudge Blue faction to convert to Republic in first possible moment?

Result of it will be very interesting - Blue will get very big & developed cities with good luxury & science, but Red will get more territory with very many little cities with good shield output. Do you like to make disput between "enlightened" Europe & "dark & Holy", but very numerous Russia?
We can't begin this game immediately, because we need some Rules clarification & else, & we need to have more effective mirror server into Russia (www.ag.ru come to mind as most reasonable choice, but their server is placed in St.Peterburg & I don't know their guys personally, but it can be steps in this direction). I think - middle-end of September is most early time for beginning.

Oh, we need some agreement for game setting, or special game chart for this. I know & you know that any "special events" is big temptation for weak souls, then it's advisable - don't have any huts, or barbarians. Continents of both factions must be as equal as possible & Purple opponents must be placed in some Eden...
As possible format I see: both factions placed in 2 small islands that is enough far from only continent for reaching it by Trireme. Continent has some "Garden of Eden" with very favorable terrain & Purple civ in midst of it. It has four "rivers going to ocean" & four another AI civs in delta of each river. Is it equal enough?
We can take some Rule: no "human" military ground force can land to enemy "Vaterland" till 1000AD or later. (Diplomat/Spy, Caravan/Freight & Explorers can & will do it. Any Bombers are welcome!) Big continent is "play ground" for any form of activity in any times .

What do you think about it?

Thnks & brgds, Alex.

 

[A_Bashkuev]

This is starlifter answer on it:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think about it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wow, some very interesting ideas, Alex! I had not thought about the language barrier before, at least in Civilization gameplay.

It sounds like this might be a good idea for a separate thread, and all Civ 2 players can discuss it. Most people probably will not notice it in the GOTM thread. What you are proposing is an adaptation (or extension) of the Democracy game concept, which was developed last winter.

It looks like you are recommending a scenario-type game, with humans controlling two factions, Red and Blue. Part of the scenario would be restrictions on things like forms of Government. People would be free to make input to the game, like in the Democracy games, with primarily Russian speaking people (who have limited internet access and/or limited English ability) moving the Red civilization (which would actually have to be a different game color, like white, since barbarians are red in Civ 2).

Maybe you would like to begin a thread in the Civ 2 General Discussion Forum?

 

[A_Bashkuev]

Ali Ardavan comments on it:

Very interesting idea indeed. Why limit it to 2 human players though? Why not have more? There can be as many human players as there are volunteers who would like to represent any of the civ2 civilizations.

 

[duke o' york]

The trouble I can foresee with this game is that Demo games require a lot of discussion and therefore don't suit the MP style of play unless you just play one turn at a time and then break after each one. What if both teams are exploring and the Red team discover a hut but the Blue team can't see anything? Does the game stop for the Red to discuss whether to pop it or not and the Blues just have to sit around and wait? I can't see that as being very popular. Furthermore, when would you want to play the turns? You're going to have to hope for someone who is very rich indeed if you want to play. Someone who is loaded in the US could possibly play while the Russian phone lines are on cheap, or someone very rich in Russia can play in the American evening when the phone calls are cheap.
If you want to play this way then I'd suggest a PBEM game but with no cross-forum spying. That seems like a pretty dumb idea because you are obviously very good at English but I'd be surprised if starlifter knows as much Russian or anyone else for that matter.
If you want a Demo game contest then feel free to download the game that we are currently playing at CFC and use the same map but with Communism. [Don't tell anyone, but we're heading straight for democracy and not abandoning it ] You can then reveal how the Russian team did when we've finished ours. Mind you, you'd then have to ignore our Demo game forum as it'd be cheating to know the map from our exploration. Could try it though!

 

[A_Bashkuev]

starlifter wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had not thought about the language barrier before, at least in Civilization gameplay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no any language barrier in Civilization gameplay. Barriers is appearing in discussion about your gameplay merits, preferences & experience. I think any good Russian player in Civilization can READ about Civilization gameplay, but I'm sure that lion share of Russian players can't SPEAK OUT their ideas or playing experience in English. It is the main problem.

One little reason - it seems that big part of utilities programs & crack files & other things are written by Russian authors, but any comments or discussion from Russians on any aspect of gameplay in Civilization or any other games are scarce & seldom. Do you wonder about of reason of it? Answer is - there is language barrier somewhere.

Ali Ardavan wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why limit it to 2 human players though? Why not have more? There can be as many human players as there are volunteers who would like to represent any of the civ2 civilizations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we take one human for any factions (there are 7 players possible), we will speak about some version of PBEM game. But it is not point of my message. Goal of Forum of Civfanatics & Game of Democracy is - to widen Civilization community as far as possible & any public discussion helps in reaching this goal.
OK, I'm glad to join any PBEM game for this purpose, but this tread is risen from GOTM19 game idea & some old discussion in Civ II tread about "Communism government - pro & cons". My own experience shows that "Communistic government" is very popular among Russian Civilization players. It is significantly more popular then in any English-speaking sites.
Then, - I think it can be good idea to compare Civ II Communism & Democracy in one "Democracy Game". I suggest to limit Red faction "Democracy periods" by 4 turns around. Well...
I want to reveal some sad truth about this game. If we will play not in Huge world with tiny islands, Red faction - never will be Democratic at all! By the way - from some moment of game Blue faction will be Fundamentalistic - strictly.
Reason is: "Power Democracy" is very powerful thing if it isn't opposed "Power Communism" methods. Core of these methods - kill any enemy caravans in sight, attack any distant enemy city in any possible moments & tug Democratic rival into war as hard as possible. Bring him in Fundy state & beat him in tech race after that! If he would be Fundy - it would be simple.
Do you think you can overcome this very cruel & straightforward strategy? I think not. I can prove it in Game: PBEM or not.

One moment, please - I'm not speaking about highest possible score in this Game or "Spaceflight" path of victory. I'm talking only about having slightly more higher score in the end of Game then my Democracy rival. You can name this as "destructive approach to Game", but this method works. You are not sure? Let's play & prove or disprove it.

I think creators of this marvelous game have already realised this problem & in Civ III "Communism" is made more weak then in Civ II. But we will play in Civ II variant - then you would see every benefits & flaws of Democracy, Communism & Fundamentalism in one Game.

Do you prefer to make this Game threesome or foursome? OK. No problem. Let's clarify any rules & give all participitants of this Game rights to make any decision, or voting on any aspect of this Game in any faction. If it will help to bring more participitants here or create more "Civ-addicts" any idea is welcome!

Well, that is that. Thnks & brgds, Alex.

 

[duke o' york]

Do you think you can overcome this very cruel & straightforward strategy? I think not. I can prove it in Game: PBEM or not.

Well I suppose I could just buy all of your units and then leave you wondering what happened to your huge army. All paid for with internal caravan deliveries. Democracies don't have senate problems when they are attacked - only when they do the attacking so your hope of war unhappiness wouldn't really work either.

In fact, your best chance of victory would be to build Mike's Chapel and Bach's. That would make a democracy very inefficient.

 

[A_Bashkuev]

Dear Duke of York!

You wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if both teams are exploring and the Red team discover a hut but the Blue team can't see anything? Does the game stop for the Red to discuss whether to pop it or not and the Blues just have to sit around and wait? I can't see that as being very popular.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I know. But in my initial message I wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, we need some agreement for game setting, or special game chart for this. I know & you know that any "special events" is big temptation for weak souls, then it's advisable - don't have any huts, or barbarians. Continents of both factions must be as equal as possible & Purple opponents must be placed in some Eden...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't explain any possible aspects of problem there, because it was some "raw & rough" idea. In some sense it will be some PBEM game, where any factions will create "the tree of events" for any "Game master" for playing. I suggest to show all world map to any player from start of the Game. In this case we will have some "chains of our deeds" for 20-30 turns around.
Just imagine: You are closed up is some island & your first move "outside" is possible only after Navigation discovery. No huts. No barbarians. No AI opponents. Are you sure that your community will have some very heated discussion on every turn of your Game? No way. You will have some big polling before actual beginning, because you need to clarify "chain of discoveries" & "chain of city improvements" or city placements. But after your choices is done, any Game master can make 60-80 turns around without any significant events. (In some sense we let to develop your Civilisation as nice as possible & will contest it long after that.)
Very important things would begin after your first contact with any opponent & you must have discussion after each turn of it. (Check your Democracy Game archive & you will see that some disput arose every time after any contacts with your opponents.) We must provide this feature for our members of team. Then...

You wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, when would you want to play the turns? You're going to have to hope for someone who is very rich indeed if you want to play. Someone who is loaded in the US could possibly play while the Russian phone lines are on cheap, or someone very rich in Russia can play in the American evening when the phone calls are cheap.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I know. But we need some disput over each turn then it must be not more then one turn in a day. starlifter has already suggested that "Red faction" would be in some sense - "White". I can predict that "Blue faction" would be in some sense "Light Blue" or "Orange". (Any proponents of "Dark Blue" or "Yellow" factions - you are welcome!)
Just imagine: White (i.e. Russians) made their move. I'm not sure that we would have enough participitants for "Green", then "Green" is AI. Next move belong to "Dark Blue". Cheapest hours moved from "Russia region" to "Europen region" where participitans or supporters of "Dark Blue" are resided. Next move is Yellow. If we would have "Espanol faction" there are their move & their cheapest hours. (It's true for Espana herself & Latin America as well!) Next move is "Light Blue" & it'll be most cheap hours for North Americans players. Do you see?
(Oh, It seems that "Orange" & "Purple" must be AI as well. Sorry. But - are you sure that we can bring enough members for FIVE warring factions??? But... If we can got enough Australians - then they can create some "Orange" community.)

You wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to play this way then I'd suggest a PBEM game but with no cross-forum spying. That seems like a pretty dumb idea because you are obviously very good at English but I'd be surprised if starlifter knows as much Russian or anyone else for that matter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you remember Alpha Centaury Game? Or - Master of Orion I & II? It's standart method to equalizing opportunity - any Democratic community MUST suffer from its internal openness. Any "Totalitarian" community must suffer from low scientific research & trade deficiency. OK. "Red faction" will be Communistic & will suffer from that - sure thing. "Blue faction" will be Democratic" & must suffer from it's openness as well as any democratic factions in "Alpha Centauri", or "Master of Orion I & II". Some very good game designers installed this feature in these awesome games for game balance & you think that it'll disbalancing Game? Game of DEMOCRACY?
Come on - let's speak about this: any Democracy knows about some "outsiding elements" in it's midst &... doing nothing. Do you know - why?
Because, if any Democracy begins some "cleansing" inside itself by any method, it becomes some funny state from "Handmaid Tale" story, or Orwellian "1984". Do you want to be Democrat? Then you must fight your enemies, staying on Democratic grounds & principles. Your society is open & it must stay open by no means. Do you see?

Another point is - Communist Government Spies are Veteran from the start. Yes, I understand that any Russian player must know English better then any English player - Russian. Then - all of us are "Veteran Spies" in proposed variant of the Game. It completely compared "soul & letter" of Civ II game & game's athmosphere. Do you see?

Excuse me for another very long letter. Thnks & brgds, Alex.

 

[duke o' york]

Vet spies!
Nice idea, but the fact that in Civ you can't steal maps from your opponents by dips or spies renders your idea a bit optimistic to say the least. I wouldn't want to have the opposite team aware of the positions of all my cities and which have or are constructing wonders straight off. It would make tactical warfare far too easy. The possibility of secret beachhead cities to launch an attack from is zero. Sneak attacks are impossible. you are taking away all the fun from the game. It's like playing PBEM but then saving after you move and looking at all your opponents' details every time you get a turn. Cheating.

 

[A_Bashkuev]

Duke of York wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I suppose I could just buy all of your units and then leave you wondering what happened to your huge army. All paid for with internal caravan deliveries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure thing. One little point - are you sure that you can deliver any Spy or Diplomat in vicinity of any of my forces ?
I realise (as Stalin before me) that my forces are weak for any bribery. Then Stalin's receipt: shoot down any "possible spies" in sight. Then I will shoot down any possible Diplomat, Spy or my own possible defector with a reason - immediately. By the way - in war Russian armors usually went ahead in packs - very mighty packs indeed. Are you sure that you can bribe "pack" from any 2 units in one square? If your answer is "yes", then - you never fight with "protein opponent" in multiplayer before. Do you know - what method of taking heavy-defenced city from human "Democracy" opponent? You bring some stack of spies (ignore ZOC & in railroaded country their power is just silly)(detach 5-8 for sure effect) & try to sabotage local SAM site or SDI defence. If you can do it, then you strafe city with couple of cruise missile & couple of Bombers. And only after that you'll bring in couple Marines with Armor support. Are you sure that you can bribe any Bomber or cruise (nuclear) missile?
Yes, sure thing - you are wealthy. And what? I'll try don't give you any possinle aim for any bribing. Communistic armies usually very cheap for developing & usage. Imagine yourself in Korea War, when in daytime US Airforce bombed "chinese supporter" in the ground & in night "couple of millions of naked chinks" shoveled up themself from the dirt & continued their psychotic march on the South. OK. Bribe them. Bribe them all. Your own cities will go crazy from unhappiness.
Well... I don't want to get to some weird disput over some imaginative situation - then any questions will be decided in some real Game.
Let's come in to barriers, gentlemen. We have some disput in our hands!

Thnks & brgds, Alex.

 

[duke o' york]

Well I suppose as the Democracy that we shouldn't worry because all the Communist scientists will defect anyway.

Civ has nothing to do with real life though. You are proposing a situation in which your Communist civ will defeat a democratic civ, and I'm sure that it would. However, there are many other situations in which the reverse would happen, and even those in which a despotism can eliminate a fundamentalism. If you really want to prove your points about the communist government in Civ 2 then drop all of the conditions and enter the MP forum to challenge someone with no strings attached. I have never played MP and doubt that I ever will. I do accept though, that it is a different game from SP Civ and so different techniques will work there. But for SP, democracy is best for me!

 

[funxus]

This was a lot to read, I might have missed something, but...

Instead of playing MP, why not play a SP game and have a moderator change the human player and play the AI in between. Of course the score will be with CHEATING, but that way the game doesn't have to be played at the same time by both sides. I'm not really in to MP/PBEM and don't know how it works, maybe there is a feature like this?
The moderator would also in this case be able to add extra features, like "radar" or sattelites, stealing maps by just uncover some map with cheats.

 

[A_Bashkuev]

Duke of York wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't want to have the opposite team aware of the positions of all my cities and which have or are constructing wonders straight off. It would make tactical warfare far too easy. The possibility of secret beachhead cities to launch an attack from is zero. Sneak attacks are impossible. you are taking away all the fun from the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you like to play chess? It's my favorite game. I think that in some sense we haven't any "secret beachhead" in chess, but in some sense - we have them? What do you know about "two-pronged" attack in "Panzer General" or "Steel Panthers" Series? What do you think of "sacrificial lamb" attack? Would you like to play any chess "gambit" in Civ Game? I'm not sure that we met some special conditions for any real "gambetto" in the Game, but if any conditions will met - then I would be glad to present you any "gift from Danaians" in this Game.

By the way, I'm not sure that this Game is Game of "secret beachheads" or "internal Caravans". It's game of "placement" & "territory requirement" from my point of view. It is - not checkers, or chess, by the way. In some sense it resembled in most aspects - Game of Go.
(I've tried to play Go in competitive level in last 80's, but wasn't qualified for pro-tournaments in Russia & haven't any significant time for that after. Then I abandoned this marvelous game.
By the way - I had some minor success in chess in that time .
By the way - it was in Russia in Moscow where I played in "First Desk" four years around in command of course (1980-1985) on Chemistry Faculty of Moscow State Univercity. Our command came out not very well - as result, but "old school of chess-playing" gives me some help in my Civilization, HoMM, MoO & all their brethren games .
I'm not sure that "completely open" chart make the Game more dull, or takes out any fun from it. I think that main point in this game & in Game of Democracy in particular is - birthing of any vital decision as result of discussion of many different peoples. Then main part of it - isn't getting spectacular score, or "beating your opponent in the pulp". Main reason is - strenghtening of our community.
I won't open any big secret by saying that turn-based strategy games aren't very popular in whole gaming world. You know - why. Then it's good thing to "widen sightseeing" of any Civ player by showing him any "secret features" of this very complex game.

By the way - in my view Civ II is more complex then Civ III, then I'm here, but not - there. I can't find any viable alternative to rushbuilding of miriads of small-cities in beginning of Civ III & it just killed any "mystery spell" from this game. This "mystery spell" remains for me in Civ II - then I continue playing in it.

Thnks & brgds, Alex.

By the way, I like to play some really weird game - for example variant where you play bridge from one common stack. First player take any card from 52-cards & keep it. Second player take another card from 51 remaining knowing what card was taken by first player. Third player take other card from 50 knowing - what 2 cards took two players, but don't know - what was taken by whom. etc... This game has most funny bridge trade in my knowing! But most funny bridge play - when you got 13 cards & choose only 1 of them, giving 12 remaining clockwise to neighbour. Etc. You generally know - what colours missing from pack receiving by you from your "feeder" opponent & what colours get your "feeding" opponent... It's really big fun.
Excuse me for another flame...

 

[A_Bashkuev]

Dear all!

Well, I think there is some wisdom in Duke of York attitude.
Let's make some changes: in header of "Blue vs Red" we can make some polling: what fraction do you belong? While you don't answer on this question, you can browse all tread. If you give your answer, you in "Red" or "Blue" part of this tread & can't change your decision. You are "Red" or "Blue" now.

Game Masters/Moderators can see both parts of this tread & show current chart location for "Blue" or "Red" gamers. This condition means that we can't bring Russian players due to very big time-rate between Civfanatics server & Russians hosts. By the way - Russian mirror wouldn't know about "Blue or Red" preferences Civfanatic Forum users, then - it means that game must be played on the only server.

It means that "language barrier" feature went out as well.

If we sacrifice "language barrier" feature, there is no point to insist on "feature Government links" to named factions.

Then - Red & Blue can be some multiplayer variant of common Democracy game. Well...

I prefer my initial idea & conditions, but if you like to play in more common ways, let's do it.

In "War Academy" in Civfanatics Center in "Civ II" block there are many articles discussing some differencies between "single-player" & "multi-player" modes. I think - it's interesting to try some MP-mode game in "Democracy Game" conditions. Any "Government links" can or can't be specially attached to named factions by your own choice.

Well, this is a proposition to play Game in "Democracy Game" terms, but in "multiplayer" mode.

Cause is: I'm not sure that "Power Democracy" is vital, or just survival strategy in real Multiplayer.

Let's check - I can buy Rifleman in my city at price of 240 gold immediately (lesser in Communism condition, because Commi in Civ II have not any problems with really big shield output) & you would bribe him at 350 gold as minimum with extra of some shield loss (shield loss is big problem under Civ Democracy!) & real big & ugly hemoroids due to your own cities unhappiness! Big deal... (I think you will disband this Rifleman in next turn of multiplayer . It was my main fault in GotM18 where I never try to bribe anybody - I know that in MP it is very stupid thing:
Enemy wasted 240 gold (or less) on blasted unit, or some insignificant for him shields.
You bribe blasted unit for 300 gold as minimum, & must bleed out very expensive for you shields plus battle risen unhappiness in your state, - or disband it immediately.

It means - net loss of 60 shields as minimum. Real war in Multiplayer is WAR of ATTRITION. 60 gold wasted in this long & ardulous process is - great loss. Most rich country can't win War of Attrition by wasting any money in each turn - then no bribing in real multiplayer war!

You are sure that you can win in a Blitzkrieg? You are sure that you can win in a Blitzkrieg from RUSSIA? Um-m-m... Frederick the Great, Napoleon & Hitler had the same illusion long before you. War of Attrition in Civilization Game can be won only by numerous cities with big shield output - not by any "Caravan rushing" strategy. Well...

It seems to me that existing Democracy Game is made for "single-player" usage exclusively, but real fun exists only in multiplayer. By the way, I think that Civilization III is created with multiplayer in mind, but without its multiplayer part. What is main reason - unknown, but I can think only about two possibilities:
Civ III multiplayer is "golden bullet" (with very ugly bugs indeed) & publishers have a dream to sell this game second time (very sensible business idea) with "powered up multiplayer part";
Civ III multiplayer is "dead-born" child of Firaxis (due to main bane of all turn-based strategies - big timelag between your moves) & we will get some ugly decisions as some Battle.net variant where saved multiplayer games will be stored in some dedicated server.
In any case - Civ III is multiplayer game in its core. Civ II is created as single player game. But if you begin play it as multiplayer game you will find very curious things...

Do you have any interest?
Let's play Democracy Game: Red vs Blue variant!

Thnks & brgds, Alex.


PS: I'm sure that in next future "Civilization" will become multiplayer game (in most part), or simply die. Your own interest in Democracy Game & Game of the Month feature shows this trend very well. Then - "who is warned, is prepared". Are you sure that in future you will need all wisdom of single-player variant of Civilization game? Eh?