CIV1 Vs CIV2... useless to argue!

[Portuguese]

I have seen people say that CIV2 is better than CIV1.

You make me laugh.

This is why:

(1) The Map Grid (the diamond grid is just unecessary)

(2) The graphics when you speak to AI's. I loved talking to Stalin or Gandi and they'd get pissed off and them and their followers would scowl at you.

(3) Caravans - its such a pain in the ass in Civ II to choose Beads, Gold, Coal, etc. Who cares, the new caravan system is needlessly complicated.

(4) The AI's military intelligence... Believe it or not, I think the AI was more challanging in Civ I, when they were at war with you they were really relentless. I remember playing the Indians (on Earth) and the Russians and Zulus coming after me like mad.

(this ones were fom Narz www I hope he doesn't care about it )

(5) Wonders that unbalance the game: who has Leo's for example, has a huge advantage!!!

(6) So many horses, with so little diffeences make me mad! I usually ended to wait until Cavalry, being "Forced" to make a peacefull life between knights and cavalry.

(7) I never had the problem with that low-city-opponents. Even if they have few cities, they wold be hard to kill, unlike CIV2, where after cavalry, I enter a Wold War and kill all the others (I usually have more cities than the sum of theirs...)

(8) And the most important. Windows' bas did not appear and the hypnosis was complete. YOU LOST THE CONTROL OVER TIME!
I never understand if I have played for 1 or for 7 hours!!! In CIV1, of course...

(9) Graphics and sounds are cooler in CIV1. Bedoloop and other funny sounds were substituted by other sounds that really aren't better than the previous.

And don't speak in the multiplayer, as it is sooo boring to play it with 2 computers. I pefe alone, in high dificulty levels...

So, CIV1 rules...

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

1-8 = opinion...so does 9 but I agree on 9!

 

[Zwelgje]

Some people prefer Civ1, others Civ2. It's a matter of taste really.
Personally I only play Civ1 but lately I was forced to play Civ2 as well (being president of the demo game does that to you ) and I quite enjoyed it. But I'll never get as addicted to Civ2 as I am to Civ1!

 

[Wil]

Well, as some people already are spitting on civ II, let's continue...

Also annoying with civ2:
- repetitive cousellors animations
- sounds, finally more kitsch than in civ 1 (e.g.: when the cavalry charges)
- the confusing pseudo3D view, of course
- the new wonders are finally disappointing (opinion)
- it's too easy to have wall city
- the size: everything is too small, even in 640*480!
- some new rules (but I'm not sure which can be mended), such as new city size limits
- the equilibrium in military units is profundly upset. It has already been discussed. It's true some changes are corrections, but when you get used to a system, it's hard to adapt (and your species becomes endangered!)

On the other hand, the following looks cool:
- new governments
- runs on modern PCs!
- some new military units (though I never played long enough to build modern ones, that tells everything!)

It's some confort to see that other people never really liked civ2, and maybe were disappointed in this game.

To confess the truth, I haven't played civ2 for long, but I'll try again and come back here with more knowledge.

 

[tSlater]

Well, I've only played Civ1, but I an say that:

I don't like the isometric 3d view in Civ2 and 3.

However, the "culture" thing and improved diplomacy in Civ3 does look intriguing.. although I can already tell it just wouldn't be the same as Civ1..

 

[Portuguese]

Originally posted by Wil
To confess the truth, I haven't played civ2 for long, but I'll try again and come back here with more knowledge.

Don't. To that you'd have to play!!!

 

[eyeball]

I like Civ2 better than Civ1.

 

[Portuguese]

Originally posted by eyeball
I like Civ2 better than Civ1.

Try to explain to me why...

 

[covok48]

I HATED Civ II for a number or reasons but...

Military units too specific: Two Words....Alpine Troops....sure they can ski on mountains, but also on deserts, swamps and jungles too...

 

[Turner]

It's kind of a toss up, really. There was so much that I liked about Civ 2 that Civ didn't have. Scenario editor, map editor, autosave every turn. . . but after playing Civ again so much this past couple of weeks, Civ 2 just doesn't have the playability that Civ does.

 

[GenghisK]

Maybe I prefer Civ 1 because it was the one I played first and we always know that generally one prefers always more ones first game... Plus, the isometrical 2D of Civ 2 suck, indeed. I'll never get bored with Civ1, that's for sure.

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

Ok I'll give you 20 reasons why civ2 is better than 1:

1: Graphics: Aside from advisors and the rolling waves(in civ1 DOS only) EVERYTHING else is just better in civ2.

2: Units: There are SO many more in civ2 it just blows civ1 out of the water

3: Interface: Sorry, it's just better in civ2, no stupid floating windows to worry about, they are nice and aligned up on the right side of the screen.

4: Tech tree: Much more detailed with a lot of techs that civ1 didn't have.

5: AI: Sorry again to those who make false claims that civ1's was tougher, it wasn't Civ2's AI occasionaly attacks with more than 1 unit, a rarity in civ1 indeed Also, civ1's AI had NO desire to improve their own road system or irrigation or mining. I see very little of any improvements in Civ1, even during the modern age.

6: Diplomacy: Civ1's was just too limited. More options in civ2 is better than civ1, not much arguing to be done.

7: Spaceships: Much better and more accessible in civ2. The concept just didn't seem fully developed yet in civ1

8: Space Race: I never even had a space race until civ2. The Civ1 AI does not prioritize building a spaceship.

9: Engineers!!!!!: Deserving of their own category indeed. It always disturbed me that an ancient settler unit could build as fast as one in 1995 could in civ1 Unfortunately they've returned to the primitive civ1 method in civ3

10: Sounds: Ok, bleeblop was cool...but armor attacking sounded the same as warriors attacking, there just wasn't any realism.

11: Hit points and firepower: MY GOODNESS!! No more phalanx beating battleships...if you have a brain at all, you'll never lose such a battle in civ2. To share a short story, today I was playing civ1. I had 7 armor attacking a French city defended by 3 musketeers. The first armor just died. THe second killed a musket and then died. So did the 3rd. 4th and 5th just died. 6th finally killed the musket but died attacking a settler. 7th finally occupied the city and killed the surrounding settler. THAT IS BULL**** and completely avoidable in civ2.

12: Manual and neato tech tree shipped with the game: The manual was better than civ1's was. And more informative. And the tech tree posters were just awesome.

13: Government: More choices in civ2

14: City display: Civ1's city display is the most uneedlessly cryptic piece of garbage I've seen in a while. While you can get the needed info from it it is MUCH easier and more eye friendly in Civ2.

15: SCENARIOS: Another MAJOR point, civ2 gets a lot of replayability from scenarios. Civ1 just didn't have that, in civ2 you can download lots of scenarios.

16: Maps: While the world map is fun and all it's much better in civ2 where you have a MAP EDITOR, which is just a necessity. You can also download tons of maps off the net. Nothing of the sort in civ1.

17: Freight: Yes, trucks were invented. I don't know many modern traders outside of the arab world still using camels in the modern ages

18: Advisor screens: About equal between the 2, with civ1's providing more in SOME areas while civ2 was better in the rest. Just the nicer looks of civ2's push it forward in this area, and they are MUCH nicer looking.

19: Autosave: Yes, you get an autosave for your game and not a stupid box popping up every thousand years asking you to save!

20: Spies: Yes, they have added features and some defense for a change. Better movement is a plus as well. Let's face it, there ARE spies in the world

Now lemme make myself clear. I LOVE Civ1, I play it a TON even now a days! It's a great game with tons of replayability, BUT I like civ2 more, it's more playable and much more user-friendly. Civ1 just cant quite stack up. I would've just sat by and let this thread fall to the bottom again but it's really a joke that it should even exist. As fun as Civ1 was with it's entire arsenal of a whopping 28 units at your disposal, it just doesn't have what it takes to take on a game like civ2. Sure it's the original, and as such it's more PRIMITIVE. Civ is one series where the 2nd in the series flat out takes the cake from the 1st.

Feel free to rebut, I'll be happy to shut you down

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

Oh, and about the isometrical view. It is, IMO, better than civ1's ghetto view, and it really is what makes ZOC's work better in civ2.

Some people think it's hard to place your units in the proper spots on an isometric grid but i honestly CANNOT see how you have a problem with it. The terrain squares are easily distinguished apart. It's REALLY not hard people.

Also, people use the shortest distance between two points arguement to defend civ1's grid. Mainly because they say going up diagonally SHOULD take less time then getting there through other routes(over and up). Now I ask...why should taking an odd diagonal route all the way up and back down to a square 2 spaces away take the same amount of time as a straight line? It doesn't make sense to use a square grid in a game such as civ. The wonderful blessing known as the isometric grid SPACES STUFF OUT, something that is not done much in cluttered civ1.

EDIT: might as well add to the list

21: Isometric Grid: Reasons above

and finally reason number 22.

22: Auto-centering: How stupid is it when your units get hidden behind those stuipid floating boxes in civ1? Yeah you can turn them off but they often contain pretty critical info! In civ2, not only can you not get hidden behind the windows because they are off of the playing field, the screen also auto-centers when you get a few squares away from the screen edge.

So I guess portugese was right with this thread title, Civ1 vs. Civ2, USELESS to argue. Civ2 takes the cake ALL THE WAY.

I'm in the mood for arguing now PM me, post here, get my IM info out of my profile and ARGUE WITH ME!!!! I've even prepared some back-up points in case you did manage to rebut a point or 2 out of the 22.

My list sure beats portugese's list of 9 OPINIONS on why civ1 is better

 

[Wil]

What's this, another attack?
-About the grid, I don't understand. The movement rules are not really affected, are they, except that the grid is turned 45°? (I'm aware of the - stupid - river rule).
I have trouble with this 3D view, I never could get used to it.
If civ2 had a top view like civ1, I would play more often.
-About windows hiding units, are you talking of civ1 Win? In that case, nobody will argue that Civ2 isn't superior.
-About combat rules, it is true civ1 can be frustrating, but sometimes you win fights the same way. But I don't like the civ2 rules either, you lose too much time healing your troops. What we need is civ1 rules with much higher numbers for modern units.
This terrible frustration is part of the fascination for the game, you really panic before a fight (you save!).
-About the sounds, it is clear the civ1 ones are not great. Sounds are not essential to the game, you may switch your speakers off and listen to some music instead.
But the civ2 sounds really suck! Those samples quickly become irritating (eg: crusaders, cavalry...)
-About units: there are more in civ2, and that's a good point, but the attack & defense points of previous units were revised, for the worse IMO.
-About scenarios & maps, government, there is no discussion
-Diplomacy rules: it's crazy in civ2, when your unit approaches an allied city, it is transported back to your town!
-AI: I think you're biased, civ1 creates improvements, railroads, mines..., and it attacks you with loads of units it moves by boat.
I don't know for civ2, but in civ1 the AI doesn't improve with the difficulty level, the pc just gets an easier life: less time to build units etc.
-About GRX: it's a matter of taste, I prefer civ1 GRX. One thing is sure: civ1 GRX are clearer.
-Autosave: each turn seems too much
-Tech tree: i like the civ1 tree but i won't argue as I don't know the civ2 one so well.
-Series: it's just like movies, only the first is important, the follow-ups are just for money and soulless.
-Settlers: I like it to keep old units, sometimes you start the game with 2 units, you build a city and keep your second unit forever.
-Space: true, it isn't a great thing in civ1, you don't want to win like this, it scores less. But the AI builds ships (try playing above chieftain).

Some points you forgot:
-moving
It's easier to move units with your mouse in civ1
-city walls
In civ1, you had to pay big $ for this, in civ2 it's free!
It disrupts the game!
-sanitation: we can live without that
-new wonders
It would be difficult to devise wonders that suck more than the ones they found! How disappointing!
-council: multimedia! How impressive!
- quizz: there's no such thing in civ2, so people with little wisdom are allowed to play.
-you will never ever be hypnotized while playing civ2. It's because of the Win task bar and windows widgets instead of fullscreen with waves.


Thanks for writing a new page is this heavy tome: civ1 vs civ2

 

[Hackcraft]

Some body said that civ 1 won't work on new comps i got a brand new dell with p4 and loads of other stuff and it works like a charm

 

[Hackcraft]

I'll say one thing CIV 3 better than both

 

[covok48]

Civ 3 is needlessly complicated and the entire premise of the game has changed...

Ok ok I started playing Civ II again and I kinda like it now after playing civ 3.

Pros:
1) I do like the council, sure they say the same damn things all the time, but it's fun to watch.
2) The AI is still inept, but it's to the point where I can no longer send carriers and transports unguarded and expect no resistance.
3) The wonder movies are fun to watch, even is the wonder does suck...
4) The AI actually fights each other!
5) The Map editor was nice.
6) The liked the benifits of some wonders like the courthouse making one person happy in Democracy.
7) LOVE the spy feature!
8) Better economics system, wasn't hurting for money all the time.
9) Capitalization a god-send

But this is why I still kinda hate it:

Cons:
1) More units doesn't mean better. They were too specific, I might as well had been playing a MOD!
2) The isometric view was crap, it was simply a matter of getting on the big 3D bandwagon that was big in the day.
3) The AI infinite computer cruise missle cheat, made you unable to build battleships.
4) Wonders were total crap...Effiel Tower? Please!
5) The City Walls for free, AT LEAST civ I was realistic about that. I'm surprised that City Walls aren't one of the most expensive improvements in the game.
6) Economic benifit of railroad worthless, read any US History book, they were a revolution in of themselves!
7) Technologies way too specific and some made no sense. The techs of civ I reprsented groundbreaking changes that truly revolutionized society. Warrior Code, Sefaring, Tactics, The Laser ENVIRONMENTALISM! Oh please...
8) Fundamentalism disrupted the entire goverment system. Fundamentalism=war.
9) Auqaducts at size 8, sewer system at size 12...sooo unneeded!
10) Ok who actually takes the space race seriously anyway!?!
11) Of course people downloaded map off the internet, the random map generator was so sh**ty!
12) AI distinctions lacking, every side is the same A**h**e! Civ I had different personality for each side.
13) I spent more time healing then EVER fighting!
14) The only good scenarios came with the game...everything else required you to change the units, rules, icons, and everything else! As if the things that came with the game weren't good enough...
15) There was a units limit in civ I for a reason... do you want to kill 400+ units?
16) Beads, dye, gems, oil....who gives a damn!?!
17) The Civ I manual gave you more historical infomation, the civ II manual gives more filler.
18) The civ I combat system kept you on your toes didn't it? ;-)
19) I graphics actually look BETTER on civ I (of course I have the rich-colored Mac version)
20) When I capture a city in civ I I actually gain money! In civ II I lost money (horrid little bug)
21) Terran modification unrelaistic.
22) Diplomacy screen among the worst ideas in Civ II!

 

[Alice]

I don't understand how some people find the isometric view confusing. There was nothing wrong with the old one, but I guarantee that after a couple of games you will get used to it and even like it!

Both Civ1 and 2 are great games, we should all unite against Civ3 lovers!!! :shotgun: :die:

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

-Space: true, it isn't a great thing in civ1, you don't want to win like this, it scores less. But the AI builds ships (try playing above chieftain).

I have played about 20 chieftain games in civ1. In the hundreds of emporer games I've seen the AI has never had the chance to build a spaceship, and on king I've only seen them try once. I guess it all depends on how long you let walk all over you

As for most of you points, they are mostly your personal preference, which is fine, of course, or false by my observations. I've never seen a large naval assault from the AI in civ1. Never. As for your comments on units, I feel they are more balanced in civ2. Increasing the power of the modern units in civ1 would help, but it gets a little crazy when you have units with attacks of 20 just so they won't lose to phalanxes. And of course it could screw up the industrial units, which would have a chance of beating the modern units in rl but not if their attack is so high in the game.

I like civ2's sounds..but best of all they are customizable and there are lots of cool sounds for them.

Less stuff is hardcoded in civ2. Playing with the rules.txt is a blast, you can't do that in civ1.

And of course, there are far more civ2 players online then civ1, more to play with and more to talk to about the game

I also agree that civ for DOS is better then winciv..I've played them both(and civnet for that matter) but civ for DOS is truly the best of them(except for lack of multiplayer) and it was the basis for my above points(except the hiding behind windows point).

Civ2 is much better, it is cleary a big improvement based on user input received from the release of civ1.

@Alice: Hey! No ganging up on civ3 lovers either

Civ3 is a great game but I'll never stop playing civ1

 

[Wil]

Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ


I have played about 20 chieftain games in civ1. In the hundreds of emporer games I've seen the AI has never had the chance to build a spaceship, and on king I've only seen them try once. I guess it all depends on how long you let walk all over you

If you play a military game, they won't have the chance, but if you give them the chance by being civilized, they will do it.
Indeed, it is much more difficult when you try to be civilized.
Naval assaults: it's true, it seems all vessels are on their own, but they come by incredible waves (the AI may build a lot in superior levels).
I confess I have too little civ2 experience to know if the AI is really better.
You say nothing about wonders, do you like them so much?
And city walls, is it really a matter of personal preference?

I didn't know sounds are customizable.
As for combat rules, it isn't an easy matter anyway.
Of course, more people play civ2, the game is more modern and runs troublefree on all PCs, and what you say about chatting, nets, maps, scenarios... is certainly true.
But the game is less addictive to some who stick to civ1. Really I never could finish a game in civ2 while civ1 can rob me days and nights! I promise I will try again to know more, & who knows I could get hooked!

BTW, I take advantage of this occasion to shamelessly brag: lastly I finally won an emperor game and without cheating! But I used the recommended military option (develop only wheel, writing, bronze, iron, maths, navigation then raise taxes, create no improvements but caserns, don't even build roads, build cities everywhere, then loads of chariots and invade everybody) and it worked, giving a score above Salomon.

Have you not this feeling that when you're very poor in techs, your enemies are too, and when you develop very fast, they keep up with you? Technologically, they seem to follow you. Is it another trick or just an impression? In this game, they had metallurgy by 1000AD.