>>2058053
>But they are? Mostly.
Weigh them and add in unique features that change these. Aachen/prelate boosts, Ovoos, pit mines, tax collectors, etc. These are significant departures on their own, even without considering the micro that comes attached.
Most civilizations functionally don't have shared economies.
>But why would you even want everything to be the same? You should want more differences because that widens the range of available strategies.
It means the civ's starting minigame is different, but actual strategy and variety isn't much improved; balancing needs get in the way. The exceptions are Malians and Mongols, whose tech differences complement their economic bonuses. Strategic variety has to be measured within the civ, so adding a special turnip-o-matic to a single civ doesn't improve variety in a sense deeper than spectacle.
>I actually think that in practice, the option to have infinite resources also increases the range of available strategies, because it's not always the best thing to go for
Depends. You can make that claim for something like trade or cattle booming. Not so for tax collectors, hunting cabins, enclosures, etc.
2 is fueled by scarcity. Everyone competes for the same quantities of finite resources and uses them in (mostly) the same ways. You can run out and turn the game into a slog or a one-sided beatdown if you mess up. It's much harder to do that in 4.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/vst/

Thread:

What characteristics would an RTS need to appeal to normies? What would the RTS equivalent of Skyrim look like?

What characteristics would an RTS need to appeal to normies?
What would the RTS equivalent of Skyrim look like?