![]() (Gotta build this colony ship to take that juicy world gotta build military ships to clear the joice world of those blasted space amoeba, and so on.)ĤX games have had things to discourage "wide" for a long time, with various degrees of success. 4X infuses all your decision-making with meaning it serves as a constant source of self-set objectives. If there's something in the way, you exterminate that something, whether by means of diplomacy or warfare - or you figure that it's worth keeping the other players in place for the time being and focus on expanding elsewhere. You explore not just to see what's out there you explore to find resources to exploit. At best, the game will be about something else entirely (maybe a tactical wargame?), at worst, it will be about nothing. ![]() When the drive to expand ceases, it won't take long until you can't exploit either (because you'll simply maximize what your territory has) and then there's no longer any reason to compete with opponents for space, or explore what's left unexplored, and you end up with a 0X. I think the absolute last thing a 4X game should end up doing is making players think "There is no point in expanding any further" without that also being the moment the game ends at the same time. (Civ V is as bad as this as well, and even more damningly, it doesn't even WORK on the lower difficulty levels - I didn't play it a lot, but on my second playthrough, I ended up with about a hundred cities or something and still wasn't having problems.) If "tall" is a thing that needs to be done, then it ought to be done by setting up the right boundary conditions, not by a blanket (and frequently nonsensical) game balance implementation. Trying to generalise anti-expansion rules to support "tall" strikes me a basically doing the same thing. (As I always say, if in a tabletop wargame (or RPG), if the chance is less than 5%, don't bother modelling it - even more so if you aren't even using D20s or percentiles.) People want the chance to model that one event that happened that one time in one battle in WW2 as something that could happen in their regular games - as opposed to something that has and probably will only have occurred once in history. You see this sort of problem with wargaming rules all the time - trying to model the outliers at the expense of the mode. If you look at all the OTHER small countries and places that DIDN'T achieve great things ala UK or Japan, they far out-strip the former ones. (Things that would be better modelled by racial traits and set-up conditions, actually, come to think of it). The notable historical exceptions are just that - exceptions, where, as I said before there were way more factors than just size of country at play - things you can't simply generalise as a sweeping rule. I think a constant always been Football Manager but I chew a lot of paradox games.Ħ- Real-Time Strategy ( I prefer Turn-Based) and FPS (unless it's Arma III).ħ- Sure I look forward to Aurora C# but I wish to get my hands on KSP 2.The principle problem with wide verses tall is that in the majority, the concept of tall doesn't really work in the first place. I'll fill mine and looking forward to more stories!ģ- It was a post from that got me here.Ĥ- 1 year and a half, but I write a lot.I mean really a lot but the AAR's are for my personal enjoyment only.ĥ- It really depends as I don't get that much free time like before. As I have been enjoying my time with this amazing community and also glad to have seen a growth thanks to some youtube videos I would like to ask you a few questions:ġ-How long have you been on the forum from?ĥ-What do you play if you don't play Aurora?Ħ-What do you NOT play if you don't play Aurora?ħ-What is that you are looking for in this 2020? This Friday I am celebrating 10 years on Aurora and on this forum.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |