Simulation or Reduction of features for better gameplay?!

[oddeyes]

I think that a bit more complexity isn't bad as long as it doesn't harm gameplay. Complexity brings the variety of gameplay. At least, I never want Firaxis to simplify civ5 than civ4, though I know that streamlining gameplay is important than historical realism.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

So in short, in a game like Civilization, gameplay and realism are very much tied to one another and need to be incorporated together as a whole and not regarded as stark "either, or" decisions.

I agree and have made an effort to explain that the question isn't gameplay vs realism. But...

There's nothing wrong with adding layers of complexity to the game, so long as the mechanisms added serve a purpose for the player and are accessible.

- This could be argued. Adding layers of complexity that serves a purpose and are accessible doesn't always lead to better gameplay. It might increase the level of historical accuracy, but it may also make the game more cumbersome.

I've already mentioned religion in civ4, so take Medieval: Total War and M2:TW for another example. Those games came out with a number of years in between and there were significant differences between them. One difference was on the strategic map - In M:TW you could only move your units in different provinces while in M2:TW the units could walk more freely over the map, leading to new features such as ambushes, set walking distances and strategic bottlenecks. Most of them good features, realistic and interesting by themselves, but combined - did they make the gaming experience more fun as a whole?

To be honest, I've played M2:TW a bit too little to be absolutely certain, but my impression was that M:TW was the better game. It was easier to play, more focused and streamlined for the fun aspects of the game.