stwils
Emperor
Those of you who have now played all three Civs, which do you think is easier to learn and get the hang of?
stwils
stwils
For those who have played Civ1,2, and 3
- Thread starter stwils
- Start date
stwils
Emperor
Well since no one has responded, I am wondering if anyone here has played Civ1 and Civ2.
I recently got Civ1 for Windows on a CD that came with Computer Gaming. To me it seems much simpler, but then I have not really played it that much.
Civ2 was hard for me to get the hang of.
That is why I have asked you all which one of these 3 games is easier to learn. Maybe Civ3 is - with the good graphics.
I was wondering because I have not had an easy time getting the hang of any of the 3 games.
So where should a person like me start? Civ1? or Civ3? What?
stwils
I recently got Civ1 for Windows on a CD that came with Computer Gaming. To me it seems much simpler, but then I have not really played it that much.
Civ2 was hard for me to get the hang of.
That is why I have asked you all which one of these 3 games is easier to learn. Maybe Civ3 is - with the good graphics.
I was wondering because I have not had an easy time getting the hang of any of the 3 games.
So where should a person like me start? Civ1? or Civ3? What?
stwils
bulletsponge
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2001
- Messages
- 229
Start with Civ3, and stay with Civ3...then when you get the hang of Civ3, play Civ3 some more...and then finally, when you get bored of Civ3, uhmm...play Civ3 some more...
Dimy
Monarch
Heya,
Well I happened to play Civ I, II and now also III
. I've been a hardcore addict to Civ I for a very long time... I dont think there's been any game that I've played for more hours than Civ I.
In my opinion Civ II was a bit of a disappointment. The game was good and playable till about the middle ages, after that it became unplayable... the AI was quite aggressive and almost impossible to keep peaceful relationships. I never played Civ II as much as the original.
I'm only in my first game of Civ III and at the moment just entered the Industrial Time Zone, but the game is really really good... for me as hardcore Civ player the game was easy to learn as the basics of the game have remain the same.
Civ I is easiest to learn I think, so if you want to get the hang of Civ, play a couple of games with Civ I first, if I were you I'd skip Civ II and jump right to Civ III when you familiarized yourself with the game.... of course you can also try to learn and play with Civ III itself. It's up to you I guess....good luck!
Dimy
Well I happened to play Civ I, II and now also III
. I've been a hardcore addict to Civ I for a very long time... I dont think there's been any game that I've played for more hours than Civ I.In my opinion Civ II was a bit of a disappointment. The game was good and playable till about the middle ages, after that it became unplayable... the AI was quite aggressive and almost impossible to keep peaceful relationships. I never played Civ II as much as the original.
I'm only in my first game of Civ III and at the moment just entered the Industrial Time Zone, but the game is really really good... for me as hardcore Civ player the game was easy to learn as the basics of the game have remain the same.
Civ I is easiest to learn I think, so if you want to get the hang of Civ, play a couple of games with Civ I first, if I were you I'd skip Civ II and jump right to Civ III when you familiarized yourself with the game.... of course you can also try to learn and play with Civ III itself
. It's up to you I guess....good luck!Dimy
shirleyrocks
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2001
- Messages
- 441
I've played them all. I remember spending decades playing Civilization on my family 386(?) 33Mhz way way back in the day. It came on like 2 or 3 floppies and you would have to switch back and forth between them during the game. Civ2 came out around the time I had bought my very own computer and now it's Civ3 when I have my very own place. Anyway, it's been far too long since I started Civ1 or hell, even Civ2, for me to accurately remember those learning curves. I would think Civ1 would be the most basic if you just want to get a good handle on general game concepts. But I would probably just recommend starting right off with Civ3 getting your feet wet with the tutorial and trying your hand at some games with lower level settings on smaller planets.
The basic premises of Civ have always been the same no matter what the version...Civ3 has a lot more depth than Civ...a lot more...but I don't think it's all that more 'complicated'. One of the things that makes a great game great...baseball, football, poker, chess, Civ...is that, at it's core, the game is quite simple in concept, but there are so many different ways you can mold that core over the course of a game.
The basic premises of Civ have always been the same no matter what the version...Civ3 has a lot more depth than Civ...a lot more...but I don't think it's all that more 'complicated'. One of the things that makes a great game great...baseball, football, poker, chess, Civ...is that, at it's core, the game is quite simple in concept, but there are so many different ways you can mold that core over the course of a game.
LoneWolf5050
Warlord
I've got Civ1 on 2 5.25 inch floppy disks (and a CD version), and the original version of Civ2, and now Civ3. I actually just played a game of Civ1 and then Civ2 in the weeks just before the Civ3 release.
Civ1 is definitely the simplest game and the easiest to learn. Civ2 is not really much harder to learn, since it's basically an identical game. The only major change for a newbie is combat, which is a tad more complex to get the hang of, than in Civ1. Civ2 is definitely a game that bogs down towards the end, no doubt about that, a lot more than Civ1.
Civ3 is the best in my opinion. It's really hard for me to say if it's as easy to learn as Civ1. My hunch is yes and no. Civ3 is quite easy to play, but there are a lot of layers of complexity to Civ3 that you can uncover over the course of many games. Civ1 doesn't really have that same depth to it. It was just downright fun and simple.
--LW
Civ1 is definitely the simplest game and the easiest to learn. Civ2 is not really much harder to learn, since it's basically an identical game. The only major change for a newbie is combat, which is a tad more complex to get the hang of, than in Civ1. Civ2 is definitely a game that bogs down towards the end, no doubt about that, a lot more than Civ1.
Civ3 is the best in my opinion. It's really hard for me to say if it's as easy to learn as Civ1. My hunch is yes and no. Civ3 is quite easy to play, but there are a lot of layers of complexity to Civ3 that you can uncover over the course of many games. Civ1 doesn't really have that same depth to it. It was just downright fun and simple.
--LW
fleabrains
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2001
- Messages
- 15
Civ 1 was very easy for me to play and get into back then. I remember one of my my first games before I knew about changing government and on easy level I still won somehow. On higher levers though it was a chalange even after I learned what to do.
Civ 2 was more complex and harder to know what to do. At the same time yI started to get annoyed at the strange thigns the AI coudl do, like the unsinkable trirems that let them cross the oceans when you spent 30 turns trying to find a way off your island without sinking.
Civ3 adds more interesting things like the culture, influence and population nationalities that make the game much harder to learn (not that you need to be a phD but relative to Civ1). If they didn't add these things people woudl say it is the same damn thing as the last one though.
I played CCTP for a bit and it had tones of new "toys" like space cities and slavers, all made the game cool but they were so many things, and there was just such a slow game that it sapped away any fun from the game.
IMHO Sid has contenued along the same path from C2 to C3 as he did from C1 to C2. I think he did a great job at it too. I just wish the AI would be more reasonable! It won't make a fair trade on equal terms.
Civ 2 was more complex and harder to know what to do. At the same time yI started to get annoyed at the strange thigns the AI coudl do, like the unsinkable trirems that let them cross the oceans when you spent 30 turns trying to find a way off your island without sinking.
Civ3 adds more interesting things like the culture, influence and population nationalities that make the game much harder to learn (not that you need to be a phD but relative to Civ1). If they didn't add these things people woudl say it is the same damn thing as the last one though.
I played CCTP for a bit and it had tones of new "toys" like space cities and slavers, all made the game cool but they were so many things, and there was just such a slow game that it sapped away any fun from the game.
IMHO Sid has contenued along the same path from C2 to C3 as he did from C1 to C2. I think he did a great job at it too. I just wish the AI would be more reasonable! It won't make a fair trade on equal terms.
Optimus
Chieftain
I played all 3 games and started with civ 1 one the Amiga 1000, Ahhh the memories.
Iin fact after civ2, Alpha Centauri got out and I got addicted to it Immediately, I found I had much more fun with the new concepts it introduced. But it had me re-think a lot of tactics.
But now that there's Civ3 I wont go back to civ2 in a while.
I always like to play the newest ver of the game unless the new game is disapointing.
So basically I would recommend starting in Civ 3 just because starting with Civ2 would be just a bit less fun then Civ3 and Civ1 would be just a bit less fun than Civ2.
And it's all about fun ! So jump into the tutorials for Civ3, play then read the manual (I did it in that order) than play some more.
Read here often to hear about the tactics the people here are using and you'll be a pro in no time !
Then when you'll need youre multiplayer fix Fire up Alpha Centauri and have a ball!
Come to think of it, i'll most likely never play Civ2 and Civ1 again but Alpha Centauri will still be on my HD and played for a while still... That is until I get multiplayer options for Civ3
Iin fact after civ2, Alpha Centauri got out and I got addicted to it Immediately, I found I had much more fun with the new concepts it introduced. But it had me re-think a lot of tactics.
But now that there's Civ3 I wont go back to civ2 in a while.
I always like to play the newest ver of the game unless the new game is disapointing.
So basically I would recommend starting in Civ 3 just because starting with Civ2 would be just a bit less fun then Civ3 and Civ1 would be just a bit less fun than Civ2.
And it's all about fun ! So jump into the tutorials for Civ3, play then read the manual (I did it in that order) than play some more.
Read here often to hear about the tactics the people here are using and you'll be a pro in no time !
Then when you'll need youre multiplayer fix Fire up Alpha Centauri and have a ball!
Come to think of it, i'll most likely never play Civ2 and Civ1 again but Alpha Centauri will still be on my HD and played for a while still... That is until I get multiplayer options for Civ3
donsig
Low level intermediary
Civ III has been easiest for me to learn but that's probably because I got the basics down through playing Civ I and Civ II.
I played Civ 2 and Civ 3. I don't think I was old enough to appreciate the complexities of Civ 1 when it came out so I can't comment on that one. However, from what I can tell, I'd recommend that you just start with #3 because it sports some big changes from Civ 2. I think some of the diehard Civ 2 people had trouble adjusting to some of the changes in Civ 3 so if you spend all your time on 2, you might end up getting some nasty habits that you don't want when you start 3.
Alpha Centauri was also an excellent turn-based game and actually I found it to be the easiest game to get into. I found it to be significantly easier than the Civs for some reason so you might want to investigate that game further.
Alpha Centauri was also an excellent turn-based game and actually I found it to be the easiest game to get into. I found it to be significantly easier than the Civs for some reason so you might want to investigate that game further.
Fayadi
Technocrat
Civ2 was the best.Civ1 graphics is worse than cartoon.Civ 2 is agressive that was fun!Not agressive enough to me,their military strengthe cant beat mine in Deity level.I gain technologies through invading,any civ with great library i will sent a full scale attack(but normally at starting ,I will rush the tech to literature(great library)!I spent 60-70 % on science though.Civ2 AI seems not agressive enough.Civ3 AI seems to be a bit strange.Civ2 is the best among civ collections.Civ2 got MP and editor.I cant edit in Civ3 ,thats totally not fun,i cant create maps like world war 3 anymore,damn!!No editor and MP totally dissapointment!Well what can i do?just wait for the patch or the money faced expansion!
I think Civ I is the easiest... Civ 2 being the next.. Civ 3 just a different animal.. Civ I and II are a lot alike, except in a few ways..
Civ III is a total right turn comparitively...
So if you want to learn Civ III, play civ III its too different from civ II to gain much knowledge IMHO .. great game tho... very interesting
if you want to learn civ II, play civ II or civ I,
Civ III is a total right turn comparitively...
So if you want to learn Civ III, play civ III its too different from civ II to gain much knowledge IMHO .. great game tho... very interesting
if you want to learn civ II, play civ II or civ I,
Alexander I
Chieftain
That's true. I spent hours and hours on civ2, but civ3 is definitely different. I thought I was quite a good civ player, but when I played my first civ3 game I got my ass kicked pretty hard, pretty soon! On Chieftain level for godsake! When you start playing civ you should start with civ3, it's different, more difficult and better.
I too have all three (plus SMAC). Once I got CIV 2 I pretty much stopped playing CIV 1 and have only played it once since then (if memory serves me). CIV 2 was just that much better than CIV1 for me. I was playing CIV 2 right up till I got CIV 3, even prefering it to SMAC, just my preference - not a comment on SMAC's quality. I am still trying to get the hang of CIV 3, so I will be sticking with it for now. I probably will go back to CIV 2 occasionally as it has the customization options that I like, scenarios, a working editor, etc. If they ever get some of the bugs out of CIV3 (such as world maps, scenario creation, etc), I will probably will play CIV 3 exclusively. I was able to win my first game on CIV 1, CIV 2, and SMAC (on the easiest settings, still haven't won on Diety in CIV 2). It took me a half dozen games to finally win a game in CIV 3 on the easiest setting. Don't know if that is because of the increased difficulty or my inability to change my playing style quickly enough to the new game rules and game style.
To sum up my answer to your question though, I think if you haven't played any of the CIV series yet, then CIV 3 is what would be the easiest to learn and you should play it exclusively. If a person has played a lot of the earlier CIV's then depending on how well they can adapt to the new rules is the deciding factor.
To sum up my answer to your question though, I think if you haven't played any of the CIV series yet, then CIV 3 is what would be the easiest to learn and you should play it exclusively. If a person has played a lot of the earlier CIV's then depending on how well they can adapt to the new rules is the deciding factor.
Il Mafioso
Chieftain
The basic mechanics of the games are the same. Once you understand:
Shields
Food
Gold
Happyness
Defending your city
Improving territory
You can have very enjoyable games with either of the 3.
Civ3 adds culture which is an aspect you can either play hard or somewhat ignore, after all if you're focusing on Happyness you will build many of the things that boost your culture (basically if you really put importance on culture, you'd want to build them sooner... but unless you play on unrealistically hard levels you probably won't suffer drawbacks of not playing a culture game, you just won't see the added benefit).
Combat is similar but different in the 3 games. Civ1 was alright, imho. Civ2 got much better, in a bad kind of way... they made it more realistic but that took some of the fun away.
Civ3's combat is less realistic in terms of result of individual unit attacks, but does a much better job overall of modelling the true hardship involved in waging war.
When folks tell you Civ3 is harder, I think they'd all agree with me that what they're saying is that the COMBAT is harder. The AI is more proficient, less predictable and definitelly more challanging.
If those 4 aren't all pluses, I dunno what is.
Also if you skip the previous versions of the game you won't fall into the trap that many Civ2 vets here have... like expect ridiculous Civ2 production from faraway and/or conquered cities, and will see the corruption and waste for what it is... an additional layer to the game.
Definitelly do the scenario.
Definitelly read the manual.
If you read no other chapters read the first one and the two about "managing your city" and "managing your empire"
You should also read the one about units.
Ah.... to heck with it... you REALLY should read the whole thing
My vote is 100% for Civ3.
Shields
Food
Gold
Happyness
Defending your city
Improving territory
You can have very enjoyable games with either of the 3.
Civ3 adds culture which is an aspect you can either play hard or somewhat ignore, after all if you're focusing on Happyness you will build many of the things that boost your culture (basically if you really put importance on culture, you'd want to build them sooner... but unless you play on unrealistically hard levels you probably won't suffer drawbacks of not playing a culture game, you just won't see the added benefit).
Combat is similar but different in the 3 games. Civ1 was alright, imho. Civ2 got much better, in a bad kind of way... they made it more realistic but that took some of the fun away.
Civ3's combat is less realistic in terms of result of individual unit attacks, but does a much better job overall of modelling the true hardship involved in waging war.
When folks tell you Civ3 is harder, I think they'd all agree with me that what they're saying is that the COMBAT is harder. The AI is more proficient, less predictable and definitelly more challanging.
If those 4 aren't all pluses, I dunno what is.
Also if you skip the previous versions of the game you won't fall into the trap that many Civ2 vets here have... like expect ridiculous Civ2 production from faraway and/or conquered cities, and will see the corruption and waste for what it is... an additional layer to the game.
Definitelly do the scenario.
Definitelly read the manual.
If you read no other chapters read the first one and the two about "managing your city" and "managing your empire"
You should also read the one about units.
Ah.... to heck with it... you REALLY should read the whole thing
My vote is 100% for Civ3.
Il Mafioso
Chieftain
... I know I'm going to be called on the following statement so let me clarify it:
When I say "in a bad kind of way" I mean that they made battle outcomes probably more realistic, which meant that a more advanced culture with musketmen and riflemen could basically steamroll over a slightly less advanced one, and capture a huge empire in a relatively short time.
That to me wasn't "FUN"
I'm sure to some (many? Most?) that was their favorite part of the game.
P.S. Civ3 solved A LOT of the incredibly annoying micromanagment nuisances that prompted me (and many others) to stop playing the game once we reached the modern age (when you break a treaty and all 40 of your cities fall under disorder, and you have to click OK 40 times, then the next turn you fix the problem and you get 40 OKs for "order restored" and then the next turn 20 Oks for "We love the President day") that gets ANNOYING (yeah I know you could uncheck the preference... never did remember to do that). Make sure you look into BUILD QUEUES in Civ3. Guaranteed way to make your games last HALF as long but pack more fun!
When I say "in a bad kind of way" I mean that they made battle outcomes probably more realistic, which meant that a more advanced culture with musketmen and riflemen could basically steamroll over a slightly less advanced one, and capture a huge empire in a relatively short time.
That to me wasn't "FUN"
I'm sure to some (many? Most?) that was their favorite part of the game.
P.S. Civ3 solved A LOT of the incredibly annoying micromanagment nuisances that prompted me (and many others) to stop playing the game once we reached the modern age (when you break a treaty and all 40 of your cities fall under disorder, and you have to click OK 40 times, then the next turn you fix the problem and you get 40 OKs for "order restored" and then the next turn 20 Oks for "We love the President day") that gets ANNOYING (yeah I know you could uncheck the preference... never did remember to do that). Make sure you look into BUILD QUEUES in Civ3. Guaranteed way to make your games last HALF as long but pack more fun!
Similar threads
