Egyptians would be more suited for a cultural victory, while the Arabs can develop a stronger economy.įurther adding to strategic culture are the game’s Social Policies and Ideologies. Babylons, for instance, would be better geared towards a science victory whereas the Zulus would be more appropriate for world domination through war. Though this might be taking it too far, these unique perks can be called ‘strategic cultures’, as it more often than not influences the victory route a civilization would take. The Egyptians can build Wonders 20% faster. The Babylons generate science faster than other civilizations. Arabian caravans spread religion twice as effective and have twice the range. Zulu military units get additional perks and are cheaper to maintain. The Aztecs, for example, get a culture boost whenever they kill an enemy. In Civilization V, this process is simplified, but nonetheless, is an adequate reflection of the real theories of strategic culture.Įach civilization has their own unique perk. The works of Johnston , Klein , and Gray provide the theoretical basis of how strategic cultures work and are formed. So, if Clausewitz were alive, I bet he would recommend this game too. Also, there’s the added ‘fog of war’, which obstructs the player’s view of other players’ cities and units, adding to the ‘realness’ of the game. I think this is Clausewitzian ‘friction’ in action. Marshes are terrible units exhaust movement points and also incur a penalty in combat abilities. Plains don’t hinder movement but also doesn’t provide additional defense. Hills, forests, and jungles provide added defence, but consume more “movement” points. The game also factors in terrain when deciding the outcome of combat. A trained army would be exceptionally hard to take down. A seasoned veteran unit can be hard to take down. Every time a unit levels up, they gain an additional perk which increases their effectiveness in combat. The game also factors in a unit’s ‘experience’, which is metered by experience points. The strategist ought to consider the composition of their army and concoct an appropriate strike plan.Īn untrained army is no good. Siege units deal terrific damage, but lack defense. Ranged units help provide cover, but are weaker when attacked. Melee units are often strong front-liners that are essential to capturing cities. There are different military units – some civilizations have Unique Units – that fulfill three basic strategic roles: melee, ranged, and siege. Or, if a player just wanted to see the world burn, they would opt to maximize their military output at the risk of lagging behind in science.īut if we were to talk about purely militaristic strategies, Civilization V excels also in that field. They would invest more in science and might have a weaker military overall. Say that a player wants to pursue a science victory, which requires the player to advance in the science tree so they can build spaceship parts. Each route has their own requirement, which usually involves “dominating” other civilizations in one aspect or more. Such is the core of Civilization V. There are multiple victory routes in the game: science, domination, culture, and diplomacy. And depending on the end goal of your strategy and after checking with your finance minister, you can choose to specialize or maintain an all-round approach. We recognize that “power” is comprised not only of military strength but also economy, culture, science, etc. This is especially true as our lives get more complex by the minute. Hart coined the term “grand strategy”, almost anything can be incorporated into the realm of strategy. Or at least understand the more abstract concepts in strategy. Having invested over 300 hours in Civilization V without any end in sight, I can safely say the game provides, within its artificial limits, a place for me to apply theory into practice. Luckily, there’s Civilization V, which helps the aspiring strategist apply what they learned in a sandbox simulation of real-world politics. Sure, I understand that strategy is a clash of wills, but how do I observe such a phenomenon without leaving the comfortable ivory tower? Furthermore, observing behaviour takes a long time. What’s even more problematic is the fact that there are few ways in which I can translate what learned in class into real-life situations. Studying about war and strategy is boring, especially when we cover the dry, theoretical aspects like Clausewitz and game theory.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |