[RogtamBar]

It's been 27 fucking years since 1990, and the civilization franchise is still a glorified boardgame, where the only agency is had by each player.

Totally unlike the real world, where ruling or governing is more about figuring out how to exercise power without getting overthrown.

Such a game would be way more interesting.

[jon-wood]

I think that's fine, if you want lots of intricacy in diplomacy Paradox have that covered. Civilization is very much a board game - in general Firaxis seem to have gone down the road of making incredibly polished boardgames that you can play on your own with a computer, and I think it's worked out really well.

[RogtamBar]

>polished boardgames that you can play on your own with a computer, and I think it's worked out really well.

Paradox is also in the business of making boardgames, albeit with way more elaborate rules.

> your own with a computer, and I think it's worked out really well.

I don't think it has. The AI in Civ series is just bad, and only gets by through rampant cheating. Civ V was out for years, and they haven't managed to do anything decent with the combat AI. Nor prevent the AI from doing stupid things.

[dragonwriter]

> It's been 27 fucking years since 1990, and the civilization franchise is still a glorified boardgame, where the only agency is had by each player.

Yes, that's​ pretty much what the game is designed to be; keeping the game what people have enjoyed it for is sensible.

> Totally unlike the real world, where ruling or governing is more about figuring out how to exercise power without getting overthrown.

And, sure, such a simulation would be interesting, but it's not what civilization has ever been, or advertised itself to be. It would certainly be good to have such a game, but why should it be in, or replace, the Civ line?

[tarpherder]

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that it would make an interesting game. Making something more like the real world is often exactly what you don't want to do in a game.

[RogtamBar]

Because it'd be more complex and interesting and not just about optimizing to win.

No emergent gameplay at all in Civ.

[chongli]

Complex does not equal interesting. I suggest you take a look at Extra Credits' episode on Depth vs Complexity [0].

[0] https://youtu.be/jVL4st0blGU

[RogtamBar]

By 'complex' I meant that it'd not be a boardgame anymore, but a boardgame in which the 'pieces' would have minds of their own and would do whatever they were could.

Have you read about the Russian frontier? As soon as it was at least somewhat secure so living on it wasn't a sure-fire way of getting enslaved by Muslim steppe raiders(Tatars), the empty land was filled up by peasants looking for land to farm.

An increase in population led to more slave raids, so Moscow was forced to push the border further south to protect the farmers. In this way the border kept moving south. In 250 years, this mechanism caused the Russian state to expand from Moscow to Crimea.

[24gttghh]

If you don't do it right, citizens rise up against you and pillage your empire from the inside. It's certainly frustrating, if not interesting.

[amyjess]

You might like Crusader Kings II and Victoria II.