In old days, strategy games used to be called simlation game in my country

[strategic_panda]

I don't know if it's the same for other countries,
but in Japan, strategy games used to be called simulation game like until around 2005.

To me, Civilization series was simulation game at the time, indeed.
I thought it was simulating the world and history.
But after spending years, I have realized that it consists of many compromised elements to make it fun. I now feel it's a strategy game, which is ignoring compelling factors to more focus on strategy.

For some people, it's much better choice.

But for me, the less compelling and logical factor it gets, the less reason that makes me to play.

I always wanted to experience 'What if' world or history.
"What if Japan and China were located in one continent?"
"What if Christianity had not been adopted in ancient Rome?"
"What if Europeans hadn't made it to the American continent?"


In that sense, economy mechanism in Ara is much more compelling to the ones that the other competitors have, except for some gamy rules such as caps for certain craft improvements and number of cities.

It would be nice to have compelling factors and formulas for these too.

I'm looking for seeing more compelling factors in this series, which seems to be not something many people are aspiring for though.

[The Former]

Have you played Crusader Kings? It’s a game that starts at a historical point, but after that everything is fresh each game. So you have things like new branch religions popping up way ahead of schedule, lines of succession being totally different from what they were historically, and so on.

I agree, I like this “what if” history way more than simply playing through history more or less as it actually was.