I think all, if not most of us, have at one time or another played a grand strategy game depicting planet earth at some point in its history.
You know, games like Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, or a scenario in any given Civilization by Sid Meier game.
My question for you all is:
Do you find it absolutely absurd and mood killing to be able to play as an insignificant tiny country no greater than the size of several large cities strung together and take that country to victory through supreme military dominance of the globe? Usually this involves using juvenile game trickery or hacking to achieve that victory.
Or do you find enjoyment in taking that same country to end game finishing at the bottom of the list of winners?
I understand all games have rules, and rules were meant to be broken but I'm not that kind of guy and find it quite childish.
I dunno. Maybe silly. Maybe not. Fun, though. And all empires started as a single city or tribe. Look at Rome..
Game mechanics being off is another subject entirely. Choosing to abuse a faulty system is, well, a choice. Just resist! Be strong!
The tiny fief growing to rule the world doesn't bother me as much as cavemen with flamethrowers or slingers downing ICBMs :grumpy:
I don't mind the implicit silliness that comes out of abstractions. For example, the idea of a group of cavemen "leveling up" into medieval knights and then World War I soldiers, all while retaining their experience and veterancy from some battles they fought in 1500 BC or whatever. It's goofy as hell when you really think it through, but it works for the game mechanics and makes basic sense on an abstract level (e.g. it's the unit itself that retains experience and veterancy, not the individual soldiers).
On the other hand, it does bother me when game mechanics are unnecessarily punishing in a way that makes no sense. My go-to example is the original X-Com: UFO Defense, where if all your soldiers are killed on a mission, you lose the transport that brought them there. This raises the question, who exactly is driving the transport? It's gotta be someone other than your squad, because you can take off the ship when nobody on-board is conscious, let alone anywhere near the controls. Does the pilot just kill himself out of grief when the mission is lost?
That's the kind of thing that bugs me more than the absurdity of stuff that happens in Paradox games, like a tiny city-state conquering the world, or a crippled blind paraplegic killing a knight in a duel because of a rare dice roll.
Quote from: al_infierno on November 16, 2023, 06:16:37 PM....
On the other hand, it does bother me when game mechanics are unnecessarily punishing in a way that makes no sense. My go-to example is the original X-Com: UFO Defense, where if all your soldiers are killed on a mission, you lose the transport that brought them there. This raises the question, who exactly is driving the transport? It's gotta be someone other than your squad, because you can take off the ship when nobody on-board is conscious, let alone anywhere near the controls. Does the pilot just kill himself out of grief when the mission is lost?
....
The pixel pilots are embracing their inner John Belushi ...
[Edit: for some reason, Youtube is not letting me refer to the point in the video that is funny. It is this video https://youtu.be/T7wTvnX_ke4 at the 5:31 mark.]
I don't know, most games with a sufficiently large and dedicated player base always let you find some unintended and ridiculous way to play the game that totally unbalances and breaks it. I just choose not to play that way. The question is whether you can "unsee" that way to play once you know about it. I kind of see it like cheating. You can cheat in most games. That doesn't for me detract from the fun of playing it in the intended way, or make me feel compelled to cheat.
Quote from: W8taminute on November 16, 2023, 03:48:46 PMDo you find it absolutely absurd and mood killing to be able to play as an insignificant tiny country no greater than the size of several large cities strung together and take that country to victory through supreme military dominance of the globe?
The Romans managed fairly well from one city, although not dominating the globe. You could argue the British Empire dominated the globe starting from one small island. The Mongol Empire, which was the largest contiguous Empire and stretched from China to Eastern Europe and the Middle East, started as a single tribe.
While game mechanics can be abused, one small nation becoming dominant on a global scale has happened a few times.
Yeah. I think using in-game exploits is a different problem than starting small and getting big. Like the Amazon River or the United States of America, all big things start out small somewhere somewhen and get bigger.
History tends to be written by the winner, or at least history lionizes the winner. But I think that there's a lot more room for random outcomes than readers of history tend to acknowledge.
Macedonia started as a city-state; Persia (whom they beat) started as a city-state. Both of those empired up within a typical strategy game time period. Rome already mentioned.
After the 100 years war, France was practically a desolated hellscape overrun by werewolves, and I'm not sure the royal capital (wherever that was) was even the chief city for administration. Within game-time, Nappy was working on taking over Europe and then the world.
Burkina Faso is coming for all of us.
Quote from: Gusington on November 21, 2023, 05:16:13 PMBurkina Faso is coming for all of us.
Better than Grand Fenwick!
I still don't understand the concept of playing a grand strategy game to completion. I think I've only done that in Civ.
Hahaha Burkina Faso Stormtroopers of Death!! :ninjameditate:
I have to admit you all raise good points regarding a single city state rising to world dominance in real life. You've caused me to rethink how and what I said regarding taking a little country to greatness.
Wouldn't bother me in Europa Universalis or Crusader Kings, but would certainly in Hearts of Iron.