Portuguese
Vassalising Spain
1st: it's the 1st time a mod put a thread that I started in his sig [dance]
Now...
"Graphics: Aside from advisors and the rolling waves(in civ1 DOS only) EVERYTHING else is just better in civ2."
Graphics in CIV1 may be "backwards", but I prefer them. 2 reasons:
- CIV2 units are too small
- CIV2 units are strange. Look at the settler. I'm thin, but he is only bones and skin.
Note also that in 1995 it was possible to do better ones. Ensemble did AoE in 1995 and CIV1 units could be much better.
"Units: There are SO many more in civ2 it just blows civ1 out of the water"
More units is always good? Imagine a game with 1024 units. It would be unplayable. My point is that there is a right number of units and, IMHO, CIV2 just have too many, specially in Napolean times. It makes me never being willing to attack, as I know that a few turnslater I'll have better units.
This is particularly serious if you don't have Leo's. In that case' you would want your knight to be usefull till much later...
"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."
This is the WORST thing in CIV2. CIV1 DOS (not windows) have it's own magic because it completelly take over the screen and emerge you in a way that you evenforget to eat. This is why I consider CIV1 DOS a bit dangerous and when I played it, I used an alarm clock to remember me to stop for a while!!!
"Tech tree: Much more detailed with a lot of techs that civ1 didn't have."
Like in reason 2, I don't see the advantage of having so many. There is techs in CIV2 that don't give you Nothing. So, why are they there?
"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."
- it is tougher. I lnow that after you conquer a city he always offer peace and that wars are smaller, but growing avoiding wars makes them stronger than if they just always try to kill each other. That makes them stronger and thus tougher.
-in CIV1 they didn't irrigate and road, so in CIV2 they do that with military units. Yeah, right. I prefer them dumb to cheaters! I saw an armor building roads when passing to my territory!!! That's not a point in favour, me thinks.
"Diplomacy: Civ1's was just too limited. More options in civ2 is better than civ1, not much arguing to be done."
Did you know that the number of advisors that a leader bringed with him to negotiations showed his power.
And what about that faces in CIV1. I always loved that smiley Stalin!!! (I never trusted him: his smile was clearly fake and it was rarely backwardedby its actions in following turns...)
I haveto admit CIV2 has more options, but I found more fun in negotiations in CIV1.
That Stalin...
"Spaceships: Much better and more accessible in civ2. The concept just didn't seem fully developed yet in civ1
Space Race: I never even had a space race until civ2. The Civ1 AI does not prioritize building a spaceship."
I usually won before I get there. I never found so fun in Alfa Centauri. Make the Earth one-coloured was much more fun and seemed so much better in Replay...
"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"
In 1300 I had or Eurasia+Africa or all Americas all irrigated and railroaded!!!
Engineers are only usefull because the maps are bigger and there is more work to do (annoying as it is so many and there is no automatization) and the game takes longer. My 200 settlers just did the job! In CIV2 I just do that to my home island/core citties part of the continent and then send them to other regions when they become engineers to make use of the new abillities...
Again, this is a bit tricky if you don't have Leo's or you only have it after the discovery of the automobile... In this particular case, I prefer CIV3 soluction: a tech makes them faster. Anway, I don't miss faster settlers in CIV1.
"Sounds: Ok, bleeblop was cool...but armor attacking sounded the same as warriors attacking, there just wasn't any realism."
Sounds were so much cooler in CIV1. CIV2 maybe more realistic but they don't get to bleeblop.
"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. "
In this one you are RIGHT.
But it is curious that in CIV2 they put an option to play CIV1 "simplified combat". I wonder if anyone uses it!!!
"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."
I only have the manual of CIV1 as I arrange CIV2... it doesn't matter. Anyway CIV1 manual is very good and that idea of introducing the techs while you were reqding it was cool. I leran most of them before I play! Why was CIV2's better?
"Government: More choices in civ2 "
Good at 1st, but has you go until the end. More governments should have been good IF it was not fundamentalism (or totalitarism like I think there is in a mod...)
Fundamentalism was outrageous! You just put 80% money, 20% luxuries and steal techs and bought all cities but the capital, that you have to conquer with... bribed units or units from subverted cities!!!
Not a big enhancement, hugh?
"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."
OK, ok.
But I loved to see the CIV1 city with their citizens.
And when we conquered a city?
And when we found it?
It cannot be put into words...
" 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.
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."
"Freight: Yes, trucks were invented. I don't know many modern traders outside of the arab world still using camels in the modern ages "
Why to put more graphics in a game. Camels were a symbol and more graphics makes heavier games and the game is played in 386. That is not really needed.
Because following that, much more units should have benn aded. And Zulus, for example, should use a unit of their own.
Adding trucks, engineers, dragons,... they were not needed and they would only make the game bigger, with no add-value to gameplay. That's only to that guys like my young brother colleagues that love a game just for the graphics. A good strategy player doesn't care just about them.
And another time, bigger maps requires higher movement points after medieval age, when your empires gets huge and your units have to go through higher distances.
"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."
CIV2 are very repectitive, completelly overweight the game and are not that beautifull. They are funnier, just that.
"Autosave: Yes, you get an autosave for your game and not a stupid box popping up every thousand years asking you to save!"
A 1000 years ran so fast...
And furthermore, why do you like autosave. Do you load it so many times... (I caught you
)
"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 "
The question is: should they be in the game?
Of course I think not, after all...
... they just get +1 movement point because of the bigger maps
... they are not very differen from diplos and they are one more unusefull graph
... they tend you to go into fundamentalism!!!
... their pic is a bit strange. Is that a woman or a man? Strange pic...
"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."
I like CIV2 also. I'm currently playing a game to remember of somethings and I like it very much. Maybe one of it's big advantages (or not
) is that I can stop playing. what makes him playable when I just have somedays to play
I am looking forward to see yet a game as addicting as CIV1DOS!!!
You have to admit: it's magic was not repeated by another game, including CIV2!
"Feel free to rebut, I'll be happy to shut you down"
Oops!
21: CIV2 grid is confusing in the begining... And I like to catch AI units using diagonals! It's better in gameplay and you should like it, as it is more realistic: If you go east and then north and I go northeast, who do you think is going to get there first, assuming equal movement points and equal terrain?
Besides, that is a game trying to be what it is not: a 3D game, what I don't found so funny...
And it's so confusing sometimes...
Especially when I'm sleepy
22: I found it funny to catch the units and play a game called: "Do you remember me? Who am I? Where am I?" It's a game inside the game!!! It was do funny. I remembered all teh units location and then I have to guess. I was damn good
Eh eh eh...
Final coments:
1st, you focus in CIV1. If you notice, you always say CIV1 hadn't...
I focus also in some things that CIV1 has and don't appear now: The news papers with Cleo's beauty secrets and the vulcano eruptions, the armies taking a city,...
2nd, If you wanted me to beat 1 or 2, well, get up from the floor
3rd, Sorry for taking this time, but I DON'T HAVE NET AT HOME (and I don't have free net at my hometown, in the green end of the world... ), so I could not answer till now. Oh and I'm at the dumb computers at the university, so if that "Feel free to rebut, I'll be happy to shut you down" means you'll crack this computer from distance, be my guest and end with system so the university give us new ones. It's time to say goodbye to Win95!!!
Hoping to haven't shocked anyone, Ricardo Magalhães.
Now...
"Graphics: Aside from advisors and the rolling waves(in civ1 DOS only) EVERYTHING else is just better in civ2."
Graphics in CIV1 may be "backwards", but I prefer them. 2 reasons:
- CIV2 units are too small
- CIV2 units are strange. Look at the settler. I'm thin, but he is only bones and skin.
Note also that in 1995 it was possible to do better ones. Ensemble did AoE in 1995 and CIV1 units could be much better.
"Units: There are SO many more in civ2 it just blows civ1 out of the water"
More units is always good? Imagine a game with 1024 units. It would be unplayable. My point is that there is a right number of units and, IMHO, CIV2 just have too many, specially in Napolean times. It makes me never being willing to attack, as I know that a few turnslater I'll have better units.
This is particularly serious if you don't have Leo's. In that case' you would want your knight to be usefull till much later...
"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."
This is the WORST thing in CIV2. CIV1 DOS (not windows) have it's own magic because it completelly take over the screen and emerge you in a way that you evenforget to eat. This is why I consider CIV1 DOS a bit dangerous and when I played it, I used an alarm clock to remember me to stop for a while!!!
"Tech tree: Much more detailed with a lot of techs that civ1 didn't have."
Like in reason 2, I don't see the advantage of having so many. There is techs in CIV2 that don't give you Nothing. So, why are they there?
"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."
- it is tougher. I lnow that after you conquer a city he always offer peace and that wars are smaller, but growing avoiding wars makes them stronger than if they just always try to kill each other. That makes them stronger and thus tougher.
-in CIV1 they didn't irrigate and road, so in CIV2 they do that with military units. Yeah, right. I prefer them dumb to cheaters! I saw an armor building roads when passing to my territory!!! That's not a point in favour, me thinks.
"Diplomacy: Civ1's was just too limited. More options in civ2 is better than civ1, not much arguing to be done."
Did you know that the number of advisors that a leader bringed with him to negotiations showed his power.
And what about that faces in CIV1. I always loved that smiley Stalin!!! (I never trusted him: his smile was clearly fake and it was rarely backwardedby its actions in following turns...)
I haveto admit CIV2 has more options, but I found more fun in negotiations in CIV1.
That Stalin...
"Spaceships: Much better and more accessible in civ2. The concept just didn't seem fully developed yet in civ1
Space Race: I never even had a space race until civ2. The Civ1 AI does not prioritize building a spaceship."
I usually won before I get there. I never found so fun in Alfa Centauri. Make the Earth one-coloured was much more fun and seemed so much better in Replay...
"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"
In 1300 I had or Eurasia+Africa or all Americas all irrigated and railroaded!!!
Engineers are only usefull because the maps are bigger and there is more work to do (annoying as it is so many and there is no automatization) and the game takes longer. My 200 settlers just did the job! In CIV2 I just do that to my home island/core citties part of the continent and then send them to other regions when they become engineers to make use of the new abillities...
Again, this is a bit tricky if you don't have Leo's or you only have it after the discovery of the automobile... In this particular case, I prefer CIV3 soluction: a tech makes them faster. Anway, I don't miss faster settlers in CIV1.
"Sounds: Ok, bleeblop was cool...but armor attacking sounded the same as warriors attacking, there just wasn't any realism."
Sounds were so much cooler in CIV1. CIV2 maybe more realistic but they don't get to bleeblop.
"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. "
In this one you are RIGHT.
But it is curious that in CIV2 they put an option to play CIV1 "simplified combat". I wonder if anyone uses it!!!
"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."
I only have the manual of CIV1 as I arrange CIV2... it doesn't matter. Anyway CIV1 manual is very good and that idea of introducing the techs while you were reqding it was cool. I leran most of them before I play! Why was CIV2's better?
"Government: More choices in civ2 "
Good at 1st, but has you go until the end. More governments should have been good IF it was not fundamentalism (or totalitarism like I think there is in a mod...)
Fundamentalism was outrageous! You just put 80% money, 20% luxuries and steal techs and bought all cities but the capital, that you have to conquer with... bribed units or units from subverted cities!!!
Not a big enhancement, hugh?
"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."
OK, ok.
But I loved to see the CIV1 city with their citizens.
And when we conquered a city?
And when we found it?
It cannot be put into words...
" 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.
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."
"Freight: Yes, trucks were invented. I don't know many modern traders outside of the arab world still using camels in the modern ages "
Why to put more graphics in a game. Camels were a symbol and more graphics makes heavier games and the game is played in 386. That is not really needed.
Because following that, much more units should have benn aded. And Zulus, for example, should use a unit of their own.
Adding trucks, engineers, dragons,... they were not needed and they would only make the game bigger, with no add-value to gameplay. That's only to that guys like my young brother colleagues that love a game just for the graphics. A good strategy player doesn't care just about them.
And another time, bigger maps requires higher movement points after medieval age, when your empires gets huge and your units have to go through higher distances.
"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."
CIV2 are very repectitive, completelly overweight the game and are not that beautifull. They are funnier, just that.
"Autosave: Yes, you get an autosave for your game and not a stupid box popping up every thousand years asking you to save!"
A 1000 years ran so fast...
And furthermore, why do you like autosave. Do you load it so many times... (I caught you
)"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 "
The question is: should they be in the game?
Of course I think not, after all...
... they just get +1 movement point because of the bigger maps
... they are not very differen from diplos and they are one more unusefull graph
... they tend you to go into fundamentalism!!!
... their pic is a bit strange. Is that a woman or a man? Strange pic...
"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."
I like CIV2 also. I'm currently playing a game to remember of somethings and I like it very much. Maybe one of it's big advantages (or not
) is that I can stop playing. what makes him playable when I just have somedays to play I am looking forward to see yet a game as addicting as CIV1DOS!!!
You have to admit: it's magic was not repeated by another game, including CIV2!
"Feel free to rebut, I'll be happy to shut you down"
Oops!
21: CIV2 grid is confusing in the begining... And I like to catch AI units using diagonals! It's better in gameplay and you should like it, as it is more realistic: If you go east and then north and I go northeast, who do you think is going to get there first, assuming equal movement points and equal terrain?
Besides, that is a game trying to be what it is not: a 3D game, what I don't found so funny...
And it's so confusing sometimes...
Especially when I'm sleepy
22: I found it funny to catch the units and play a game called: "Do you remember me? Who am I? Where am I?" It's a game inside the game!!! It was do funny. I remembered all teh units location and then I have to guess. I was damn good
Eh eh eh...
Final coments:
1st, you focus in CIV1. If you notice, you always say CIV1 hadn't...
I focus also in some things that CIV1 has and don't appear now: The news papers with Cleo's beauty secrets and the vulcano eruptions, the armies taking a city,...
2nd, If you wanted me to beat 1 or 2, well, get up from the floor
3rd, Sorry for taking this time, but I DON'T HAVE NET AT HOME (and I don't have free net at my hometown, in the green end of the world...
), so I could not answer till now. Oh and I'm at the dumb computers at the university, so if that "Feel free to rebut, I'll be happy to shut you down" means you'll crack this computer from distance, be my guest and end with system so the university give us new ones. It's time to say goodbye to Win95!!!Hoping to haven't shocked anyone, Ricardo Magalhães.
Have to install it then... 
What a bunch of liars! I'd take alaska over california anyday! I've been to both BTW, too much pollution in calif, although there is disneyland 
