We know what goes into the stew, but not how it's cooked.
I think this is a key insight into how the AGE engine works its magic. Turn resolution is complex, but by definition not incalculably so, so the algorithms can only simulate dynamic complexity rather than actually achieve it. But so much happens under the hood in these games that even the most experienced players are constrained in their ability to min/max, and must rely on heuristics (rules-of-thumb). The result is a game experience that rewards logical play (keep in supply, stay near depots, bring a larger better trained and led force to a battle, etc.) but which still yields constant surprises for the player(s) that don't feel arbitrarily random. This makes gameplay feel very realistic in its uncertainty, yet still intuitive: things MOSTLY work the way you expect them to, but with just enough surprises to make things interesting and to highlight the exceptions to the rules that provide new insight into the underlying mechanics and their complex interactions. The illusion of dynamic complexity originates in the convoluted algorithms, but is reinforced and enhanced by the opacity of the rules to the player. Seeing through this opacity is an addictive puzzle that the player must at least partially solve to win the game, resulting in a compelling, one-more-turn gaming experience.
I seek to understand what is going on to improve my game, which is why I have been lurking in these forums for years and lately posting, but the black-box underneath has a lot to do with what makes AGEoD titles so much fun. No matter how much we figure out and no matter how much the developers reveal to us about the inner workings, we cannot integrate the whole picture and thus perfectly predict what will happen from turn to turn. That they have made games that feel so dynamically complex without relying on excessive random number generation for the uncertainty is a testament to their game-design skills. (Thanks for the good work guys!)
