Accessibility and Simplicity. Good or Bad?

Is Accessibility good for Grand Strategy?

Over the past few years, the genre has placed a special emphasis on “accessibility”. Of course, it's a good business choice, as they need to make money, making it easier to appeal to a large audience isn’t bad, but it takes a lot out of some games.

In some games such as Atwar, or Call Of War, their simplicity makes the game so much more enjoyable. One of the things I love about Atwar is that it doesn't add so many mechanics, it knows its purpose. Its goal is to provide a simple strategy game. Their are only 5 things you need to know to get in. Capturing Cities = Money, Fighting in Cities reduces population and thus reduces money, Their are 3 diplomatic relations, (Allied, Peace, and War), if you control the capital the area gets painted your color, and how to move units. The reason it is so simple yet so fun, is it puts it on you, the player, to make dialogue, and you, the player, to choose where to capture cities. If this game didn't have a chat, it would be somewhat empty, but their are near endless possibilities. Atwar is an example of good simplicity.

An example of bad simplicity, is Hearts of Iron 4.

This game, although fun, leaves a lot to desire. It's been completely dumbed down, the AI is stupid, and you can literally make 10 clicks and win a war. I did an experiment as Nazi Germany, where I would allow myself 20 clicks, and I had to defeat France and Poland 6 were used on justifying and declaring wars, the other 8 were used to assign 2 front lines, and 2 offensive lines. Although it was slow, by 1941, I had won the war.

The problem isn’t necessarily the interface or the mechanics, but that they can’t compensate for the features they lost with AI competence. Theirhave been times when the AI just left their front lines, and other times when you're on the Maginot line and Germany just throws 60 divisions against you. The AI does not calculate the risk very well. I have done world conquests on Veteran as Guatemala, and that's the problem.

Europa Universalis 4 has “Simplicity in Complexity”. The game mechanics are very complex, but a lot of them aren’t in your full control. So it feels much more abstract.

Crusader Kings 2, is easy to grasp, with the core mechanic being Marriage. And although easy to grasp, their is so much to do.

One major problem, in my opinion, is interface. Victoria 2 has a terrible interface, which makes starting your first game daunting. The menus are poorly organized, and sometimes don’t make sense.

Then you have Civilization. I will be using Civilization 6, because it is the newest version.

With civilization, the notification system makes some things easy, and with an amazing interface, it is very inviting. The top bar shows all of your stats, and the production and focus system are also easy to understand. Troop movement is also easy, as all of the options are right in front of you. So while incorporating many mechanics, Civilization 6 is still very accessible

So in the end, I feel it boils down to AI competence and interface. To add difficulty to the game, the AI needs to be competent, but to make the game easy to grasp, it must have an intuitive and straightforward interface.

So In Conclusion, simplicity can be a good thing, if integrated correct. A game that is simple, but has life, is still a good game, but the problem is in an attempt to make a game simpler, they drain the life from it. in my opinion, the way to integrate it, is by making a good interface, with an "Assistant" like in Civ 6.