Ok ive been thinking of buying this game for the last week hence my "should i buy civ 1 post". I know that i was bound get a biased answer from that one. But can some one tell me how hard civ one is compared to civ 4 and civ 5. Also i would like to hear some contrasts between civ one and the newer civs
How hard is civ one?
- Thread starter jojorah
- Start date
Specialist290
Terracotta Statue Man
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,335
Forgive me if a get a detail or two wrong, but it's been a while since I've played the original... (Also, I don't know anything about 5 beyond what I've heard; some of the changes they made to that one turned me off to it, honestly.)
The overarching difference: The original is, on the surface, much simpler than the ones to follow. Note though, that "simpler" does not always mean "easier."
There are many things you might be familiar with from previous games that are simply "not there" in Civ1:
-Culture (Introduced in Civ3; your civ's territory in 1 and 2 was simply whatever was inside your cities' radii)
-Hit points for units (Introduced in Civ2; combat is a one-for-all affair; winner comes out intact, loser dies)
-Stacks of Doom (Only became viable in Civ3 and after; combat mechanics in 1 and 2 meant that if a unit died on defense, all units in that square also died unless they were in a city or fortress)
-Workers (Introduced in Civ3; before then, Settlers performed those tasks in addition to founding cities)
Additionally, many concepts are extremely simplified compared to later games:
-Unit Experience (Until Civ3, units were either regular or veteran (+50% bonus to all combat). Civ3 changed it to experience = hit points, and Civ4 introduced a much more RPGesque experience system)
-Resources (Only modify production, trade and food output; until Civ3, no matter what resources you had, you could build any unit you had the tech for. Also, no special buildings were required to get the bonuses, although they did stack with terrain improvements.)
-Terrain improvements (Only roads, mines, railroads, irrigation, and forts in Civ1. Railroads give bonuses to production in squares that have them.)
-Diplomacy (Extremely simple in Civ1; you only had "Peace" and "War." There wasn't a transparent Relationships or Reputation mechanic, or an Open Borders agreement, or a permanent alliance. You could still trade techs, make demands, give gifts, and ask civs to attack one another, though.)
-Differences between Civs (Unique units and Leader bonuses were only introduced in Civ3. Before that, AI leaders had some personality, but it was along a continuum of "Aggressive vs. Pacifist," "Expansionist vs. Perfectionist," and one other axis that I'm forgetting; each could be either positive, negative, or neutral. Beyond that, every civ was the same out of the box except for the city name lists.)
There's a few other that don't come to mind at the moment, but I'll leave them to the experts.
The bottom line is: There's a lot of different mechanics that totally change what works as a strategy from game to game, so I can't say for certain that Civ1 is an easier game or not. By comparison, though, it's a much simpler one.
The overarching difference: The original is, on the surface, much simpler than the ones to follow. Note though, that "simpler" does not always mean "easier."
There are many things you might be familiar with from previous games that are simply "not there" in Civ1:
-Culture (Introduced in Civ3; your civ's territory in 1 and 2 was simply whatever was inside your cities' radii)
-Hit points for units (Introduced in Civ2; combat is a one-for-all affair; winner comes out intact, loser dies)
-Stacks of Doom (Only became viable in Civ3 and after; combat mechanics in 1 and 2 meant that if a unit died on defense, all units in that square also died unless they were in a city or fortress)
-Workers (Introduced in Civ3; before then, Settlers performed those tasks in addition to founding cities)
Additionally, many concepts are extremely simplified compared to later games:
-Unit Experience (Until Civ3, units were either regular or veteran (+50% bonus to all combat). Civ3 changed it to experience = hit points, and Civ4 introduced a much more RPGesque experience system)
-Resources (Only modify production, trade and food output; until Civ3, no matter what resources you had, you could build any unit you had the tech for. Also, no special buildings were required to get the bonuses, although they did stack with terrain improvements.)
-Terrain improvements (Only roads, mines, railroads, irrigation, and forts in Civ1. Railroads give bonuses to production in squares that have them.)
-Diplomacy (Extremely simple in Civ1; you only had "Peace" and "War." There wasn't a transparent Relationships or Reputation mechanic, or an Open Borders agreement, or a permanent alliance. You could still trade techs, make demands, give gifts, and ask civs to attack one another, though.)
-Differences between Civs (Unique units and Leader bonuses were only introduced in Civ3. Before that, AI leaders had some personality, but it was along a continuum of "Aggressive vs. Pacifist," "Expansionist vs. Perfectionist," and one other axis that I'm forgetting; each could be either positive, negative, or neutral. Beyond that, every civ was the same out of the box except for the city name lists.)
There's a few other that don't come to mind at the moment, but I'll leave them to the experts.
The bottom line is: There's a lot of different mechanics that totally change what works as a strategy from game to game, so I can't say for certain that Civ1 is an easier game or not. By comparison, though, it's a much simpler one.
SkyProf5
Chieftain
One big difference in Civ 1 is city based support. Each unit is supported by a home city (usually the one that created the unit). If that city doesn't produce enough shields (hammers? in civ 4), units are automatically disbanded (starting with the one farthest from the home city).
Remeber that Civ1 world maps are SMALL. England is only 6 tiles.All European civs are just a few tiles from each other. So this means not-so-many cities if you have neighbors nearby.
If played as an 'old game' this is one of the best you'll run into.
If played as an 'old game' this is one of the best you'll run into.
Tristan_C
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,727
I think it's important that Civ 1 was pre-internet. It is an extremely challenging game to a lone actor- particularly the emperor setting. But our gestalt mind has devised stripped-down strategies, paths to avoid, and an emphasis on micro that can smash emperor. On the whole, later releases of Civ have sealed off the highest settings in many ways to combat the gestalt mind.
On that topic, besides being pre-internet, the original Civilization was also created in a time before large budgets and long development times. While 90s PC development had graduated from the era of the lone programmer and 1-4 weeks deadline, most games of the era didn't have more than 5-10 people working on it and deadlines were a few months at most.
Most notably missing during this time was professional testing. Mostly the task fell to the programmers but they are infamous for taking shortcuts via debug menus and in general don't hit the user interface as hard as a real player would. Players are also more likely to find logic flaws because they'll attack the game in ways the programmers didn't expect.
While many of us can play this game extremely efficiently, doing so required hundreds of hours of trial and error and recounting general, repeatable strategy particulars can be difficult due to the complexities of the game.
Most notably missing during this time was professional testing. Mostly the task fell to the programmers but they are infamous for taking shortcuts via debug menus and in general don't hit the user interface as hard as a real player would. Players are also more likely to find logic flaws because they'll attack the game in ways the programmers didn't expect.
While many of us can play this game extremely efficiently, doing so required hundreds of hours of trial and error and recounting general, repeatable strategy particulars can be difficult due to the complexities of the game.
Diviner
Prince
In Civ4 you could move up difficulty levels rapidly without considerable alteration of your gameplay. Civ1 has 5 difficulty levels, but there is asharper difference between every one of them. It has definitely much shorter learning curve than the newer civ games (not talking about Emperor level) so I don't think you will face difficulty problems after a while. At any rate, your civilization routine should be a big help.
ATC1983
Chieftain
It's a good game and worth getting. Pretty sure it can be picked up online as can colonization. I started out with this in 1993, after thinking it looked cool in my local "game" for the Commodore Amiga 1200 (the PC version is a lot different from the Amiga version in important respects).
It is as hard or as easy as the others, in that it too has multiple levels of difficulty. However, if you are used to the others, to learn what differs and sets it aside should be intuitive if you have progressed in your play of later versions. As someone said above, hammers are shileds, commerce is divided into science, cash, and luxuries; you make factories to boost production; you manually control settlers to make improvements to terrain.
One thing I would say is the interface is hugely simple when it comes to the AI. It's really war or peace (sometimes separated by 1 turn), decided randomly by the game engine. Tech trading is also basic in the extreme; and the pattern exists, or was formed in this game, for the peaceful / psychopathic AIs.
I could go on all day with some of the games I've played of this over the last 15 years.
It is as hard or as easy as the others, in that it too has multiple levels of difficulty. However, if you are used to the others, to learn what differs and sets it aside should be intuitive if you have progressed in your play of later versions. As someone said above, hammers are shileds, commerce is divided into science, cash, and luxuries; you make factories to boost production; you manually control settlers to make improvements to terrain.
One thing I would say is the interface is hugely simple when it comes to the AI. It's really war or peace (sometimes separated by 1 turn), decided randomly by the game engine. Tech trading is also basic in the extreme; and the pattern exists, or was formed in this game, for the peaceful / psychopathic AIs.
I could go on all day with some of the games I've played of this over the last 15 years.
Civ1 is so simple in apperance but hugely complicated beyond surface.
And AI is the most agressive there. I somedays simply start anoder game when discovered Mongols on my continent.
My all-time best gaming experience was with Civ1. That game finally ends up with full scale nuclear war involving tree sides - and the only time, I was nuked by AI with no direct provocation - I (German) was attacked by Babilon, mount counterattack and start invasion, bet then India respond with nukes, and the hole long stacked arsenal of them go of... Puny Americans was burn to the dust, even before the game crashes.
Played all versions of Civ since then, bet newer get recreated that single game...
Other versions simply lost that feeling.
And AI is the most agressive there. I somedays simply start anoder game when discovered Mongols on my continent.
My all-time best gaming experience was with Civ1. That game finally ends up with full scale nuclear war involving tree sides - and the only time, I was nuked by AI with no direct provocation - I (German) was attacked by Babilon, mount counterattack and start invasion, bet then India respond with nukes, and the hole long stacked arsenal of them go of... Puny Americans was burn to the dust, even before the game crashes.
Played all versions of Civ since then, bet newer get recreated that single game...
Other versions simply lost that feeling.
ATC1983
Chieftain
Agree with sentiments above. There's something "do or die" about Civ1 that doesn't exist in any later franchise. For example, if you fight, you win or lose, you don't have "health". If your cities revolt, your government can fall, making government choices important. A lot of the game is just very direct is what I mean, but you need to play to get a feel for this.
Boris27
Chieftain
Civ is very simple among modern games and versions of CIV... But it is necessary and sufficient for game to have all this stuff it has. So, it looks like essence or extract all of strategic games...)
At the same time this simple one allows to develop so comlicated and different scenarios from initially one situation (save game and play many times from one point).
Especially interesting and hard to play with 3 or more big advanced AIs at the end (2000 AD -
)
At the same time this simple one allows to develop so comlicated and different scenarios from initially one situation (save game and play many times from one point).
Especially interesting and hard to play with 3 or more big advanced AIs at the end (2000 AD -
)Similar threads
