murewa -good points in your reply: we read the post differently. We'll just have to wait for ticklesivory to come back and tell us his intent.
My only point of disagreement is the "wargame" aspect. First, I will admit I don't play computer wargames (by my definition
). I can't even give you the names of any. My wargaming days were back when it was all miniatures, and board-style games. To me, a wargame is a game with realistic (or at least internally consistant and balanced, for SF / Fantasy) stats for the units involved, detailed, realistic rules for things like Line-of-Sight, movement, firepower, etc., and in which the
object of the game is the military confrontation.
In Civ3, war is abstracted, almost to the point of being left out. There is very little reality left in it. "Warrior", "Swordsman", "Tank", are all little more than
symbols for the abstract forces we move around the map. The only link to reality they have is that you have to have certain technologies to build specific units. There are no real tactical decisions to make, other than the obvious, broad ones, such as "don't attack across a river".
War, in Civ3, is just an extension of Diplomacy. Of equal importance to the military actions of the troops are the effects felt "at home": the drain on the tresury, the war-weariness of the people, etc. In a true wargame, these are inconsequential; the best tactician (usually) wins.
That's why I don't consider Civ to be a wargame.