Nicol.Bolas
King
Civ2 and Civ4 are the series parts I know the best.
Civ2 was my first game and I played it as a kid.
Didn't play Civ3 much.
I recently played few civ2 games and I had some fun. (my interest was stirred by the 10 year old game of civ2, which was also featured in the civ 2 gotm
I also play these scenarios for civ 2 recently:
age of dinosaurs, midgard, aliens, after the apocalypse, master of magic, new world
This is what I can say for civ2:
+ very fast gameplay compared to sluggish civ4 (meant in technology terms, since I have and old PC and not enough money for a new one)
+ simple gameplay (no GP, culture, borders, resources, improvements)
+ fun combat
+ unit placement in terrain does play a role due to zones of control
+ stack of doom is stack of the doomed (you can stack units, but whole stack is lost if the defender losses)
+ has dinosaurs
+ has fanatics and fundamentalism
+ does not have slavery
+ has crusaders
+ no spy specialists
this is what i didn´t like in civ 2:
- is too huge (even small map means hundreds of cities)
- infinite city sprawl is the best strategy
these two things make the game kinda boring and tiring to play
- bad micromanagement - and lots of it due to 2 above points
so I would like next series game to step back a bit and have fundamentalism and crusaders and dinosaurs
some more stuff:
felt more epic in civ2:
- building the spaceship (you could build various sizes of the ship, to affect capacity, speed, reliability and thus score)
- democracy/republic "civics" - big bonus, but you really had to "care" for them to keep them
- air combat - I never really got the taste for aircombat system which begin in civ3 and was followed to civ4
interesting, not necessarily better or worse:
- unit support system (unit supported from its home city by hammers, home city concept)
- caravan system
- war unhappyness - based on the home city concept, away units from that city makes citizens unhappy. (but could be abused via shakespeares theatre which does the same thing)
way better in civ 4:
- less grind
- due to no engineer transformation (aka terraforming), you have to work with the land you have, I like this. more variety in tile improvements
- AI, compared to civ4, civ2 feels like a sandbox game. AI was improved hugely in all aspects: combat, expansion etc. this might seem obvious, but is there as much improvement in AI from civ3 to civ5?
- diplomacy system , in civ2, AI sneak attacked any time one of its units met a weaker unit
- culture system, removal of troops before war.
Civ2 was my first game and I played it as a kid.
Didn't play Civ3 much.
I recently played few civ2 games and I had some fun. (my interest was stirred by the 10 year old game of civ2, which was also featured in the civ 2 gotm
I also play these scenarios for civ 2 recently:
age of dinosaurs, midgard, aliens, after the apocalypse, master of magic, new world
This is what I can say for civ2:
+ very fast gameplay compared to sluggish civ4 (meant in technology terms, since I have and old PC and not enough money for a new one)
+ simple gameplay (no GP, culture, borders, resources, improvements)
+ fun combat
+ unit placement in terrain does play a role due to zones of control
+ stack of doom is stack of the doomed (you can stack units, but whole stack is lost if the defender losses)
+ has dinosaurs
+ has fanatics and fundamentalism
+ does not have slavery
+ has crusaders
+ no spy specialists
this is what i didn´t like in civ 2:
- is too huge (even small map means hundreds of cities)
- infinite city sprawl is the best strategy
these two things make the game kinda boring and tiring to play
- bad micromanagement - and lots of it due to 2 above points
so I would like next series game to step back a bit and have fundamentalism and crusaders and dinosaurs
some more stuff:
felt more epic in civ2:
- building the spaceship (you could build various sizes of the ship, to affect capacity, speed, reliability and thus score)
- democracy/republic "civics" - big bonus, but you really had to "care" for them to keep them
- air combat - I never really got the taste for aircombat system which begin in civ3 and was followed to civ4
interesting, not necessarily better or worse:
- unit support system (unit supported from its home city by hammers, home city concept)
- caravan system
- war unhappyness - based on the home city concept, away units from that city makes citizens unhappy. (but could be abused via shakespeares theatre which does the same thing)
way better in civ 4:
- less grind
- due to no engineer transformation (aka terraforming), you have to work with the land you have, I like this. more variety in tile improvements
- AI, compared to civ4, civ2 feels like a sandbox game. AI was improved hugely in all aspects: combat, expansion etc. this might seem obvious, but is there as much improvement in AI from civ3 to civ5?
- diplomacy system , in civ2, AI sneak attacked any time one of its units met a weaker unit
- culture system, removal of troops before war.