7 ms·

It's... it's like a really, REALLY long chess game... that's AMAZING!!!

• sspiff 12y ago
  I started this comment trying to explain how Civ was not like chess at all, but concluded that the two have much in common. There's an opening, where there are a few tried-and-true, well studied strategies, and the goal is to claim territory. Then there's a mid-game, where all available land is claimed, and competing players start trying to steal territory from each other, and capturing the others pieces (or cities). I can't seem to find a parallel in the end game though, it doesn't require nearly as much planning and cunning in Civ to finish of a wounded opponent as it is in chess.
  • T-hawk 12y ago
    There is a parallel in the end game: Military advancements. Civilization lets you research new technology for significantly more effective military units, to ease the mop-up phase. The equivalent military advancement in chess is queening a pawn. The difference is that chess requires continued tactical execution to get there, while Civilization lets you sit back and get there on a superior economy.