Historical development

[unmerged(5487)]

EU and CIV

I'm happy about EU and look forward to EU 2.

I like the ability to conquer the world and choose my own path in history, and that's why CIV 3 will be an excellent game. I can do everything I want my way.

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Heyesey


Maybe it would. The point about "historical accuracy" is to model historical forces, not specific historical events. Maybe France would take over all of Germany, Fascism would come to power in England (since England was the losing power in the Great War), and the European Union would be based in Warsaw as a bastion against the Communist States of America. None of that is "historically inaccurate" given an early enough starting premise and following strictly historically-sensible trends.

As for the two-millenium game that models history as well as - or better than - EU does, we probably will get it one day but it's at least a couple of years away yet. After all, five years ago we would have said a game as good as EU was flatly impossible

With the rapid changes in technology nothing would surprise me now. But back in the Avalon Hill - Gettysburg, Stalingrad etc. days it was almost unthinkable that those huge, tube-filled, air conditioned computers would be used for anything fun (unless of course you had a pocket protector and horn-rimmed glasses - in which case just knowing the CPU speed was fun).

I can hardly wait for the holographic version of EU!

 

[unmerged(5190)]

zum teuffel

i cont care about accuracy so much as being constrained by the same forces hat Henry VII or Louis XI or you name it whomever.
It took england 100 years to realize there was no northwest passage. we know that already. we know north america to be a fertile, rich continent, Henry VII did not know that it was not a was te of time to colonize. He had to look constantly at France/Scotland and worry about his own nobles.