by marqzen
Flubuh wrote:
Having read the rules too, it's in my opinion an actual asymetric civilization game.
I agree, there's no assymetry in the beginning, as each player seems to play the same prehistoric mining and farming people. But the choices made in the tech tree let you customize and develop your own civilization... and, as you know, your government choice is unique (you can't play a democraty AND a theocracy). You get more and more specific powers during the game.
The assymetry then grows during the game. I don't think a series a specific powers from the beginning would improve the game.
Well, maybe I'm wrong and the differences are not that important. When all's said and done, the best way to figure out is to play the game!
I agree, there's no assymetry in the beginning, as each player seems to play the same prehistoric mining and farming people. But the choices made in the tech tree let you customize and develop your own civilization... and, as you know, your government choice is unique (you can't play a democraty AND a theocracy). You get more and more specific powers during the game.
The assymetry then grows during the game. I don't think a series a specific powers from the beginning would improve the game.
Well, maybe I'm wrong and the differences are not that important. When all's said and done, the best way to figure out is to play the game!
Xavier pretty much sums it up.
The way I see it, the game starts before the Greek become "Greek" and Babylonians become "Babylonians". What makes a nation unique(historically) is its geography, availability of resources, and the decicions made by the leaders of these nations. Rome did not start as an empire with a special potential for formidable armies and unbeleivable engeineering skills. They made it a priority.
That is the position I wanted to put the players in.