Hi
I have never played or even seen a screen shot of civ1 I cant really say anything about it. But of the games I have played I would Rank em Civ2, Civ4 and civ3 a VERY distant last.
Overall for me civ2 is by far the best. I admit it could just be bias in how I was exposed to it. My very first computer was my bro's old hand me down after he got an new one. And the best part of it was all the game son it and civ2 was the best of the lot. It was waaay outdated at that point but I didnt care. It was soo fun to play and things like the council (forget winning the game I worked on figuring out how to build up a solid economy just to hear "we're rich rich RICH!!!" and would go into anarchy JUST to see them get all angry and yelling) and wonder movies (These were sooo cool I would build em JUST for the movies and to this day I STILL dont understand how witch much cheaper but better technology availabe and a bigger budget available --Im just gonna go out on a limb and assume that just 5 minutes worth of Leonard Nimoy's cost more than ALL the civ2 wonder movies combined that they havent even ATTEMPTED to TRY and do something that was a cool as those little quicktime movies) and even the thrown room to just the cannons yelling "FIRE!" or the bugles of a cavalry attack was just so fun NONE of the civs I played afterwards ever that "WOW" feeling of civ2. Even looking back I think now that even things like the use of heralds was a much better idea. Not only did it make more sense that meetings especially in ages before quick trave or instant communication would be done through intermediaires more often that actual heads of states but imagine what could be done with like civ 4. With heralds it would be so much more flexible to mod. You could change leaders without having to necessarly change the herald artwork. You could change/mod herald artwork without changing anything else or both. And the thrown room could be SOOO awesome if they had kept that idea now.
And as far as naval combat goes there is no comparison. The FIRST strategy guide I ever read ever in my life about a game mentions in one part "if you control the sea you control the land" Maybe civ1 did and maybe civ5 does but neither civ3 or civ4 come close to making navies as powerful or as important (or as fun) as civ2. Just look at aircraft carriers. I once read in a a book describing the power of a modern aircraft carrier this way "imagine a 1000 mile bubble around an aircraft carrier. Nothing exists in that bubble unless the aircraft carrier allows it" A civ 2 aircraft carrier loaded with civ2 bombers had that kind of power. Civ3 and Ci4 carriers dont even come close. In civ2 acircraft carriers were the most powerful most dangerous ships on the water in civ3they were usesless and in civ4 at BEST they are just minor support to the rest of the navy.
And its not JUST that itwas like the MOST powerful ships were battleships and aircraft carriers they could DEVASTATE cities. BUT they WERE vulnerable to subs and missles. And also since while they could kill EVERYTHING within there range they COULDNT actually take over territory to have a powerful navy you would need battleships and carriers and transports but also destroyers and cruisers surrounding them to protect em from missles and subs. And since battleships were powerful they were expensive and important enough that you really DIDNT want to risk your own capitol ships against enemy capitol ships when there as a much cheaper alternative--subs of your own to hunt enemy battleships.
At the time I was too young too fully understand WHY but civ2 naval combat for me was one of the MOST fun parts of the game and the navy parts of the versions that follow have all paled in comparison. But looking back now it's like EVERY naval unit was necessary and important and not having it could be a major weakness. In retrospect modern naval combat in civ2 is just SOOO balanced so...well perfect. And actually I cant think of ANY game civ or otherwise I have played that came close to that kind of perfection civ2 managed to accomplish.
Now I am NOT saying civ2 as whole was perfect just that one aspect but that IS more than I can say for any other game I have played. But heck even things that now could be considered broken were still kinda fun. Now the way TMiT feels about "fill in the blank" economy I feel about the term overpowered but for lack of a better word I'll use it. You just THINK Prats are overpowered. Give me a full treasurey and a boatload of diplomats now THAT'S over powered or even using railroads to take over entire empires or even multiple empires in one turn THAT"s overpowered. Or using caravans to block and starve cities and the ai unable to do ANYTHING about it without declaring war. THAT"S overpowered.--but still FUN to do hehe
In comparison Civ 3 was just meh. Even with the expansions it wasnt that big a deal to me. It wasnt necessarily a "bad" game but it wasnt anywhere near as good as civ2. It was like they threw away a LOT of what made civ2 SOOO good and what they added at worst made the game less fun and at best while maybe a good idea just wasnt executed well enough to make up for what was lost.
Civ 4 was a vast improvemnt. Unlike civ3 it did get rid a LOT of what was bad and kept what was good and what was added improved the experince. Still NOT the same wow as what civ2 had and like I said in many ways it makes me even more curious as to how things like wonder movies or heralds or a live action (or even a cg animated) council or thrown room could be and disaapointed that they didnt even try (Yeah I know I know they DID bring back wonder movies BUT the civ 4 versions are SUCH poor excuses for wonder movies compared to civ2 that I dont even count them as a serious attempt. They seem like such an after thought that I am not even gonna dignify them as a "try"). Not to mention that naval play still ISNT close to either importance to the game or execution of mechanics or in just plain fun that it was in civ2.
So while I think civ4 is a GREAT game and light years better than civ3 its still not as good as it could have been. Even how great the mods are is kind of a negative in a way to me. Pretty much EVRYTHING in the BAT mod SHOULD have been in the game in the first place and fact that it was left up to modders doing it shows that great as it was civ4 still didnt reach its full potential.
So given how it seems civ2 managed to accomplish so much more with so much less (just in my opinion anyways) it has to be considered the superior game. And this is from someone who never played any of the civ2 mods or exapnsions as far as I know it wasnt even patched. At the time I still wasnt allowed to have my own internet connection and have no clue if my brother ever dl'ed a pacth or if there even were patches for it so as far as I know I am speaking of what I experienced from civ2 vanilla right out of the box.
I havent played civ5 but frankly I am not too enthusiastic. For two reasons a) From the video reviews and walk throughs and other discussions I see it just seems like theyre trying to make it a turn based version of Rise of Nations or Total War or something in order to appeal to the broader RTS market. And in doing so have taken a lot of steps backwards rather than forwards. Something that no ammount of eye candy can make up for. I mean all in all aside from the wonder movies civ2 is by far the ugliest of the civs but even so that doesnt stop it from having had the biggest impact. At least for me. and b) and this a major deal breaker --this thing of ordering the game a certain way gets you "extra" content. THAT is just annoying and even if civ5 turns out to be the bestest and coolest game ever in the history of mankind until I can just pick it up at walmart or order it from amazon or however I choose and get the FULL content of the game I am not even gonna consider buying it just on principle.
Kaytie
).
