Sid Meir's Civilization IV was a great game to play throughout the semester. It really had a good approach of teaching you how to build a civilization starting out with one city and building it into a dynasty. The accumulation of wealth, resources, land, and power seemed to be the primary aspects of the game that would really determine ones fate. However the way that you could actually win the game was very interesting. There were so many ways that one could win the game, that I really found it to be very difficult at times. The one type of victory that I thought was unfair and was the diplomatic victory. It was really annoying because it caused the game to be over as soon a solution was made. This was a unfair advantage to the leading team.
Diplomatic Victory was stated in the game to be a victory where any civilization can build the United Nations, but any leader in the game can become its Secretary-General, which means they can call for votes on various resolutions. One of those resolutions declares a diplomatic victory for them. If one civilization built the United Nations and than a higher scoring civilization became the Secretary- General you might as well say game over. There was no way around it to win when you are in that scenario. Its like a dead lock essentially. No matter what you do, what ties you break, or if you declare war, the end result is failure. I don't think that it is reasonable for a civilization to be able to be awarded the position of Secretary-General, but voting is fair I guess because its the only way to really be sure a decision is made right. Ethics were a key player in this particular setup because while trading you could be unethical to sway the vote by offering resources for votes. The game didn't actually let you do it in that manner, but I saw that trade agreements could effect the outcome. Relationships made a significant impact as well. The only resolution that I saw to make this problem not last was to create the United Nations and than break ties with all trade, but even that didn't work. There was no way out. Utilizing a vote system doesn't prove justice it just expresses favoritism. There is no one way to make it right. There were many other ways to win and the only way to avoid the dead lock was to not build a United Nations and prevent anyone else from doing so.
My claim to fame was Time Victory. I ran the turns time after time till the clock reached zero. lol, or should I say 2050 A.D. At this point in the game everything is over. No matter what progress is made the leading team in the game with the highest score is declared the winner. I felt this was the best way to win. To make it happen I did like the saying goes; "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer". There was no use crying over spilled milk when I broke a friend's heart because I was able to counteract my decision by declaring war and gaining support to destroy them one by one. This method is what I like to call, process of elimination. If you build a stable trading relationship and have open routes with the opponents; you have area to work with and places to house warriors and other artillery. By placing them where they need to go than you can judge when to strike. It takes a lot of planning, but when done the right way I always came out victorious.
Costs are factored into everything and are the key contributors to global economy's'. This game was a very good learning experience and if there is one thing that I learned about victory, it was that victory always comes with a price; it's just to what point are you willing to pay the price and not only who, but what are you willing to put on the line.
My claim to fame was Time Victory. I ran the turns time after time till the clock reached zero. lol, or should I say 2050 A.D. At this point in the game everything is over. No matter what progress is made the leading team in the game with the highest score is declared the winner. I felt this was the best way to win. To make it happen I did like the saying goes; "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer". There was no use crying over spilled milk when I broke a friend's heart because I was able to counteract my decision by declaring war and gaining support to destroy them one by one. This method is what I like to call, process of elimination. If you build a stable trading relationship and have open routes with the opponents; you have area to work with and places to house warriors and other artillery. By placing them where they need to go than you can judge when to strike. It takes a lot of planning, but when done the right way I always came out victorious.
Costs are factored into everything and are the key contributors to global economy's'. This game was a very good learning experience and if there is one thing that I learned about victory, it was that victory always comes with a price; it's just to what point are you willing to pay the price and not only who, but what are you willing to put on the line.
No comments:
Post a Comment