Answering the Critics
 

I have had a few ppl (one on another forum on these boards, among others I know/work with) that say Dominions is not a very deep game. The problem I keep hearing about, is that there is no city-building. Sure, you can build a fortress....a temple....and a lab. But there is nothing else. No buildings to build to enhance resources/gold collected. No buildings to really affect what units you can buy (although, the lab lets you recruit mages, temples allow you to recruit preists/sacreds, and fortresses usually allow you to recruit your national troops).

To me, the depth lies in the game once you "get" it. Once you have started to play, the game opens up, layer upon layer.

But, that is not the answer that these guys are looking for. I have been told that the game is complex to hide the dumbing down of the gold/resource model. The "economic model", if you will. Sure, there isn't a grand economic model in the game....but, there are resources for heavy troops, gold for elite troops, and holiness for sacred troops....along with all the units in the game. Fortresses (as in, where to place them), the combat engine, dominion spread, magic, ect ect ect ect....

But, all of that is made null and void to them when they simply say, "The amount of units do not add depth, just complexity, to cover up the dumbed-down economic model, the mediocre and crude combat engine, and the lack of 'city buildings'."

So, how would you guys answer these criticisms? Personally, I don't think they are "getting it". But, these are guys that no wargaming and strategy 4X games like the back of their hands....Perhaps Dom3 just isn't the butter to their bread....but at the same time, to pull the game down to "dumbed-down" is a stretch also.

There is incredible depth here....the amount of units allows for so many varied (random) strategies from game to game. Throw in the map terrains, the grand strategy, the warfare planning, each nation's uniqueness....not to mention the magic system....there is just so much in the game. I think that if there was a highly involved economic system placed in the game, the game would crumble. Imagine trying to balance steel, gold, food, population caps, wood, silver, iron, coal, and whatever other name for a resource in a Civ game (or an rts for that matter).

To me, this game is beyond Civ. This game has so much more to offer. Sure, in Civ, you can build a ton of buildings to allow you to recruit specialized troops, or buildings to allow you to take advantage of a specific resource, or to add more gold to you coffers. But that is just it....you build the same exact buildings in nearly every city (granted, Stardocks GalCiv2 fixes this somewhat). In Civ, you do not have the unit spread that Dom3 (or, heck, any of the Dom games) have. But, the amount of units in Dominions is just to "cover up" the lack of economics in the game.

So, how would you guys answer the critisism that I keep hearing in personal discussions?

Re: Answering the Critics
 

The true economics of Dominions is not the gold and resources, it's magic. They complain about there being few different types of resources? There are 7 different types of gems, and blood slaves, all with largely different specialties and uses. They want 'city advancement'? There is site searching and research. You have to balance mage time between progressing your research and finding sites either manually or through spells. The combat engine is crude? Sure, the graphics are from 10 years ago, but any true strategy/wargame player knows graphics are immaterial. The combat engine simulates all kinds of things. There are tons of magic items. There's swarming larger units, morale, weapon length, and armor. All simulated realistically. Then there's magic buffs and of course spell casting. You have to balance gems and mages between rituals and research or battle magic.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

I agree with The_Tauren13 : magic is what make the depth of the dominions series

Tell to your friends that magic research in dom has nothing to envy to civ4 tech research, and that between site-searching, magerecruting/summoning, dominions preaching, etc ... , there's plenty to do.

From another point of view, the raw number of units/spells can also be compared to magic: the gathering : you build your armies as you would a deck, choosing the right units available (from your national/summing pool available) to counter your opponents.

- Need to defeat a menacing undead army (did you say "Ermor" ?), recruit and/or send an army with lots of priest set to banish, and if available) mage with undead destroying spells (fire, astral or death mage should do the trick)

- Some SC coming your way ?
choose your favorite anti-SC tactic (horror mark spamming, your own SC or thugs, soul slay, etc ...)

Re: Answering the Critics
 

I can't answer for anybody else, but for me personally, depth directly correlates with choices, and this game offers me an abundance of choices: in the type of God I have, the nation I choose to play, the units I want to build, the magic path/s I want to pursue, the strategy I take to win wars, the tactics I use to win battles, etc. I don't think these things are meant to "cover up" a weaker aspect of the game but that the design philosophy used in its creation intentionally emphasizes certain areas over others. If economics is what they want I can recommend a plethora of games where that is the main focal point, but then those games lack certain qualities this game has.

As for specialized buildings, they are really just a hassle to me. The Total War series in particular comes to mind as it takes forever to build up a newly conquered province and start recruiting quality troops from it, or recieve an economic boost. I prefer to think of Dominions building as being "streamlined," lol, and I see nothing wrong with that.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

I'm no game reviewer, nor even (anymore, alas...) a big-time gamer, but here's one little half-formed take on it:
The depth of Dom3 comes in large part from magic. Each nation has different magic available (determined mostly by available paths) and the pretender gives you an opportunity to further customize. Discovered independent mages also help to make two games with the same nation different (my last big game in Dom2, as Tuatha, I ended up strongest in Death, while my big Ermorian neighbor was quite mighty in Nature). The magic available to you gives you choices - which schools to research, towards which spells, towards what strategy? Item forging and army-summoning both depend on and expand these choices, as well. Troops have many stats, and many possible effects, powers, modifications, and item slots, all of which are important and all of which are influenced by magic.

It is true that if you took out the magic, you'd have a fairly mediocre strategy game... It would have the added interest of the dominion system (though you'd have to include priests to get that fully, and then you've already got a more interesting game, though still pretty basic) but it would certainly not have the kind of depth or longevity that inspires strategy nuts to play obsessively for years. On the other hand, you could probably remove all the non-mage units and replace them with "footman", "archer", "flier", "horsey", "zombie", and "big monster", and the game would still be interesting. It's depth is obviously not economic; it is tactical and strategic, because of the rich magic system and everything that springs from it.

edit: looks like it's all already been said. Me type slow.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

Civ fans eh?

They're partially right, the economics is very simple and city building is non-existant. Although, one trend I've noticed lately among RTS games is to get rid of the complicated resource management and micromanagement of peasants because it's not fun, so...

I don't play that many Civ games, but I own Civ 4 and to call the Dominions combat system crude and mediocre when all you do in Civ 4 is move an army to the same square and watch a little animation, well I don't know what to say to that. The deep and strategic combat is the whole point of the game.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

There's no city building in chess either, yet I've never heard anyone accuse that game of not being deep enough. They might as well complain that Master of Orion 2 isn't deep because you can't equip your commanders with items.

Further they're confusing the terms complex and complicated. Dominions is complex, yes, but that's a good thing. It is not needlessly complicated (well, the GUI is, but the game isn't).

As The_Tauren13 pointed out, gold and resource points aren't the main resources in Dominions by far. In fact, by the late mid game they're not even important resources (well, true for Dominions 2 at least. I'm not entirely sure about Dom 3 yet.)

Just tell them to consider the magic aspect of the game as similar to the base building aspect of other 4x games. Then bludgeon them about the head with the manual until they see the light (or until you're hauled away by the police and charget with gross battery.)

Re: Answering the Critics
 

yeah....this is all things I know already. Just having a difficult time countering the "poor" economic engine

Re: Answering the Critics
 

Yeah, indeed in the surface Dom can look rather "simple", with its "poor economic engine". The thing is that economy/building is *not* the point, which is rather about war and destruction !
I find these critics rather funny, but telling how mainstream games have shaped "public opinion" :deep strategy games have to boast a complicated "building" system and should offer GNP growth ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif
Someone took chess as an example, but you can take any deep-as-you-wish wargame also (ever built something in Squad Leader or Combat Mission ? Do they lack depth ?) .
Dominion (1,2,3) is in fact more of a fantasy wargame than a 4X, even if it appears to the contrary on first sight.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

What's the difference between 'depth' and 'complexity' of a game in their view anyway? Without knowing that, you cannot answer them!

I think Leif_-'s chess analogy is quite good. Expanding it: What about strategic tabletops, like those block games or warhammer? Most have no economics at all, except for a point-buy in the start...

I recall that I got bored with "Master of Magic" just because of all the city building. It's fun to do for your capital, but it gets boring for me because you repeat the same process over and over again for each new province... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Well, I guess some have more fun to build up things in peace, while others have more fun to tear things down and devastate entire worlds in the clashes of epic armies... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Remember: [i]You cannot please (nor convince) everyone...but you might conquer anybody. Ouch! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Answering the Critics
 

Invite your friends to watch you playing your turn 132 of a big game. I think they would have understood why there is no city building etc... some hours before you click end turn. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Answering the Critics
 

Civ fans can start talking about wargaming accuracy when they either ditch the incredibly long (in specified time, not user time) turns or adapt complex ZOC and supply rules based on national capability, given the wide range of technology levels. If a square is a fixed area, something like a carrier wing should be able to exert tremendous destructive power over a wide area within a single turn, limited by supply constraints (fuel, AGMs, AAMs for air superiority, aircraft, pilots, et al) and air control (reflecting enemy interception capabilities, ground AA capabilities). Letting a bomber wing be airborne for a continuous year is absurd. Letting a hidden submarine group -block- air movement is even sillier.

And then there's the utility of combined arms, the need for supply, gradual and largely permanent degradation of units in combat...

Re: Answering the Critics
 

No to mention the fact that in the Civ games, a single primitive spearman can destroy a battleship or an aircraft carrier. That kind destroys any semblance of credibility for the game, imo.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

Dominions is a fantasy game. Citybuilding isn't a major part of the fantasy genre. Frodo doesn't go to Rivendell to help install a sewer system. As all the earlier posters have pointed out, Dominions' depth comes from the magic system and the interaction of numerous strategic choices vis-a-vis pretender design, research, expansion, gem use, etc. with all kinds of complex tradeoffs. It has lots of depth, and the depth is focused on the kinds of choices that drive good fantasy stories.

Dominions *is* a 4x game. eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate. It's all there. Citybuilding isn't part of the 4X definition. The genre is not 3XCBX, even if Civ and its relatives use citybuilding for the expoitation. Dominions just uses different stuff for that phase - site searching and research, as well as building construction. As Chazar points out, Dom exploitation is far less tedious (although site searching could use some automation).

Re: Answering the Critics
 

I personally have never heard anyone criticize Dom III for lack of depth or lack of complexity. If I had, I probably would have just laughed and moved on. Morons exist everywhere, and unless they directly affect you it is better to just ignore them.

That said, let me just add that Dom III is a piss-poor excuse for a first-person shooter. Look for my thread on "No Flashlight? No BFG?". We need to get the developers to finally respond to how poorly Dom III compares with the new Halo, Quake, and Unreal engines.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

Everything has its pros and cons.
Most games that have city building and involved economics tend to balance their game nation-vs-nation. You are playing basically the same units as everyone else but they were a different uniform color. Same cities, same units, same options. It HAS to be that involved because then you win by pursuing a different course than everyone else.

Dominions is rock-paper-scissors balance. A nation has pluses vs another and minuses vs someone else. Your depth is in the nation you choose and the way you play it. There is no way to compare that to those other games.

Gandalf Parker

Re: Answering the Critics
 

Dominions does not have a 'mundane economic model', because its a WARGAME, not a builders game!

It's about the fighting, with mundane troops, summons, magic spells and dominion.

Not about building the same 'city improvement' a thousand times.
Not about building the biggest city, the biggest empire, even.

It's about the last man (pretender http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif ) standing ...

Btw., I think its much better suited for MP because of that - no endless turns with nothing happening, no 6 hours of play before the first and deciding battle ...

Re: Answering the Critics
 

it is not a lack of complexity that are their complaints, but rather, what compexity there is (amount of units), covers up the poor implementation of other parts of the game (city building & combat).

I know what you are all saying....I pay the game....and I love it. The game has layers...the first layer is VERY low-key....but as you get into the game more, and more is revealed (how dominion works....how the stats for each unit works....alchemy, spells, battle magic....the list goes on)...well, let me just say, that Dominions is a jewel that rewards patiance.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

I agree. I was just about to say that it's quite weak as a racing simulation as well. I think GTR2 is much better in that respect.

I still think that all reviewers and news posters should pass IQ and anti-drug tests before they are allowed to post.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

That is a bit like saying that all the shooting in Doom is there to cover up the poor implementation of the platform aspects. Dominions doesn't focus on city building because it focuses elsewhere, not because the game isn't focused.

In addition, it's wrong to say that the complexity in Dominions lie in the number of units. The complexity lies in the interplay between the many variables (resources, magic, unit stats, unit abilities) and the large number of units is rather a symptom of this underlying complexity. Dominions 3 has a huge number of different units because there game's rules have room for them. Many games have a large number of units (not to the degree of Dominions of course) but few games actually manage to make a large number of units be effectively different.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

I'll take a shot at this. Have your buddies try and look past the "Civ IV City = Dom 3 City" thing and try to have them see what aspects of the game are actually equivalent.

Improving Something
Really, the Dom3 equivalent to a Civ4 city is a commander. You buy it, you assign units to it and you provide it with upgrades. In Civ4, an upgrade would be an aquaduct. In Dom3 the improvement would be a Sword of Sharpness. In each case, the improvement is based on resources and also on where you are in the resource tree.

Economics
As others have pointed out, gold and resources are not the Dom3 economy by any stretch. You have to add in the seven gem types, blood slaves and dominion effects. This is pretty much on par with Civ4's gold, resources, luxury sites and special resources. It would be tough to call either model more or less complex than the other one... though I think that the dominion effects would tend to tip the balance towards Dom3.

Research & Technology
The Civ4 tech tree is roughly equivalent to the Dom3 spell research grid. How you research is a bit more complex in Dom3, but not too much more. In Civ4 you get to build new units and buy new structures after gaining a new tech while in Dom3 you summon new units, cast new spells, and build new items for use with your commanders. Pretty much dead even.

Globals
In Civ4 the globals are "cast" by building wonders that you gain through research and pay for using gold and resources. In Dom3 you cast globals as spells that you gain through research and pay for using gems and blood slaves. Not much difference there. Dom3 adds a slight layer of complexity to the formula in that just completing the research does not guarantee that you have the proper commander/mage necessary to cast the spell.

Nations
Civ4 makes nations unique by giving them a single unique combat unit and provides the nation one or more advantages ("industrious", "militaristic", etc.). In Dom3, all races are given "unique" units for all purchasable units and provides some nations with special advantage/disadvantages (blood sacrifice, scrying, etc.). Tough to make the case that Civ4 is anywhere near Dom3's level of complexity here. Comparing the differences between England and Germany is laughable if you compare the differences between, say, Ulm and Mictlan.

Combat
Another area where the differences are pretty severe. First, comparing a IGO-UGO system to a WeGO system is apples-to-oranges... you'll never come up with a "winner" because they aren't playing in the same ballpark.

That said, it's hard to look at Dominions' dozen or so combat statistics (including poison, fatigue, morale, strength, precision, and others) combined with the tactical battlefield (range, temperature, positioning, castle walls, etc.) and compare it with Civ's fairly straightforward combat system.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

MythicalMino:

You know alot of people's criticisms of a game, any game, when you listen to them, comes down to this:

"I want Dominions 3 to not be Dominions 3 but game X - change it."

Now insert for Dominions 3 the name of any game being criticised.

What you have to tell them is that, this isn't game X, this is Dominions 3. The real question should be: Does Dominions 3 do what it was designed to do well?

That usually equates to, in simpler terms, is it fun?

I think we all know the answer to that one! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Answering the Critics
 

Now Im curious. Have you ever cracked it open yourself?
Come on. Some of the staff has to have gotten curious a long time ago. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Answering the Critics
 

Eh? This is just making no sense, if they are saying anything like this. Doms 3. is the most complex TBS on the market. Even an FPS player could figure it out. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: Answering the Critics
 

Okay great Gandalf, put me on the spot. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

The answer is of course. Although I haven't gotten to delve deeply into it like you lucky folks. My gaming time is quite limited. But I have a copy on my desk. Next chance I get I am going to go through the tutorial turn by turn. Something I never did with Dom2.

I have read the entire manual though!

Re: Answering the Critics
 

I don't really "get" the complexity of the Dominions magic system yet, I'm still learning it. It's the most complex magic system in a strategy game I've seen.

As to the graphics complaints, I think Dominions would do well do just ditch them completely and go boardgame. I'd rather read a more extensive report and dodge the battle graphics, using simple army and character counters.

More detail and complexity and less graphics would be fine by me.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

A lot of good reasoning was posted here, but my observation about people complaining about Dominions bot being "deep" is really about its "shallow" micromanagement. For example, to control research, Dom has just on/off switch for every mage. Compare it to something like Civ system when you can move the worked tiles around, tweak research rates, set specialists etc... Other areas (and in other games as well) are set up similarly. There is many more opportunity to achieve more or less the same goal objective by doing wide variety of clicks. For example, Dominions could have set up magic gem collection in a similar style: Let's consider the following model: each magic site needs to be worked to collect gems. For that we would need special cheap worker unit. It would be possible to let a real mage to work the site which would yield small bonus (let's say 3% per corresponding magic level). Then the mage proficient in another path could have collected gems of that type (with some conversion penalty of course). I don't think such scheme would change the game significantly, but now everybody would have tons of option to setup the most efficient gem collection (that would need to change every turn, of course).

Re: Answering the Critics
 

What are the pros and cons of saying everything has its pros and cons? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: Answering the Critics
 

This is true for SP also. I hate the early turns of Civ-like games because there is often *nothing* to do but hit "next turn" for a while. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif

Re: Answering the Critics
 

But that compares almost directly to the Civ research system. Your mages are the "tiles" -- do you use them to research, site-search, cast rituals, or lead armies? Once you decide what you want your mage/tile to be, you can set it up as a "specialist" with the appropriate gear (quill for research, boosters for summons, combat items for leaders, etc.).

Re: Answering the Critics
 

I havent played civ4, but in civ3, the research system is based on income. You set your research rate, and choose a path. In dominions, you set your mages to research (I consider mages a resource in this respect) You want specialists to boost research? Forge a Research bonus item.

I don't see how the economic system is any less complex than in other games. As long as civ is the comparison, how is it any better? Dominions even incorporates the temperature of the province into the income!

If Dominions is too shallow for you, don't bother looking to fufill your needs with video games, because your not going to find a more complex, more interesting game.

As for the graphics, I would like to get the 2d system back, with less of the superfluous graphics upgrades.

there are actually a few things I miss from dominions I, like the light/dark way of showing dominion strength, the ability to set 'attack commanders/attack magic users' and the ability TO USE MY DAMNED SCROLL WHEEL.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

Personally, I hope that attack commanders/mages is never returned, as all it does is force every nation to invest heavily enough into air magic to build a staff of storms. Otherwise there's no use for mages whatsoever on the battlefield.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

Hi Mino,
after many frustrating years trying to explain other peoples how great Dominions games are (beginning with DomPPP!) i have an simple advice for you:
Don't try too hard. Some people will like the game, most people don't.
There has to be no specific reason why someone don't have your taste in games, it's just different taste.
My favorite quote of a friend who refuse to play is:

Re: Answering the Critics
 

I find beating critics over the head with the manual helps them to like it. And it's a big thick manual that's sure to knock some sense into them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Answering the Critics
 

Especially since you can "upgrade" each "tile" with as many as 7 items or so, not to mention experience, prophetizing, heroic abilities, and empowerment. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Answering the Critics
 

City builder fans won't propably find much satisfaction in Dominions anyway.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

Well, *I* am a civ fan and a city builder one, and I still love dominions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Answering the Critics
 

I never played Dom1, so I'm just wondering what you mean by that.
I think I read somewhere on the dom2 forums that the game map used to change in color according to dominion and other stuff, am I right about this?
Either way, if it was possible to somehow extract information about the provinces (such as dominion and scales) it would be possible to make a program that will recolor the map for and run it --postexec, though I don't know how to get that information.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

You could set the map to be shaded in by dominion. The lighter it was, closer to white, meant a higher friendly dominion. The closer to black meant a higher enemy dominion. You had to click on the province to get the exact number of candles, but looking over the whole land, it gave you a much better idea than haveing to count each candle on the main map.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

I also miss the light/dark Dominion view.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

Dom:PPP maps were pixel-based. Pixels were changed by things. Dominion over-lay made provinces brighter or darker, depending on dominion. Cold areas got more white. Hot areas got more sand-like-color.

Dom:PPP GUI was also beautiful. It was! It didn't work, and was micro-management hell (Order allowed you to set taxes to 130% without unrest penalties, no effects otherwise), etc. But the GUI was beautiful. It also had the Cube. Turn-generation never looked so beautiful.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

The graphics were done differently back then. The new graphics mode didnt support it.

Of course NOW with the shift to an RGB format, it might be able to be done with an alpha layer. But thats a conversation to be had between better graphics people than I, and Johan

Re: Answering the Critics
 

Oooohhhhh, memories of The GUI... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif It was indeed beatiful. Dom 3 is a step back to the right track. But Dom 2 looked so, so....clinic in comparison.

And the Cube! The Cube! No-one still knows what eldritch mysteries it holds!

Re: Answering the Critics
 

I'm actually surprised at all the criticisms of Dominions being too deep to get in to. I figured out the demo for Dom3 in almost no time and have been playing the game non-stop since getting it Monday.
Maybe the interface is much improved, but I was fearing a backward interface from all the comments my friends had regarding the game.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

I learned to play Dominions with Dominions I and it's arcane GUI. And I was 13 or so. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Answering the Critics
 

The advantages of being able to find Abysia, Caelum and Ermor on the first turn and then rush one of them straight away. The memories.

My favorite feature was the ability to turn off the terrain, reducing the map into chessboard-like gray map with only borders visible. I still find the current dominions maps a bit visually heavy. They're beautiful, no doubt, but when going gets rough, all you need to know which provinces connect to your target. :E

Re: Answering the Critics
 

yes indeed... Dominions is a game which takes patience to realize its true value. Also true with Dragonballz... watching one episode won't be interesting, but after watching 15 episodes you'll eagerly want to see the rest of them. Yet don't watch the DragonballGT those are crap.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

I could just as easily accuse Civ 4 of "covering up the mediocre and crude units" with

And as was stated, if a Civilizations player came over to me and whined about Dominions' battle system, I'd snicker, shake my head, and walk away. Far away.

Dominions's battle system looks easy. But once you start getting magic-casting units, combined arms, et cetera, it becomes so infinitely deep that it's a joke.

It depends on what you want. You like a focus on city-building? Play Victoria or Sim City or Civilizations. Want action and battle? Play Ground Control (highly recommended).

Indeed.

Less of that in the last game. But boy, what a horrific feature.

That would be really, really nice. I've read so many idiotic reviews that it's not even funny anymore.

Re: Answering the Critics
 

I used to do Astral Wishes for the enigmatic cube, and I was never rewarded with anything but horrors and broken dreams! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Re: Answering the Critics
 

Well, in Dominions after first few turns you usually set a mage to research and leave him there (and maybe give him research booster once). In Civ you reshuffle the tiles every turn. So while in purpose they're kind of similar, in Civ you have much more options to micromanage stuff. For example, instead of cty building scheme you could just pay fixed gold amount/resources to get a bonus to research, commerce or production (maybe proportional to some research). But that again would make micromanagement more shallow.