stwils
Emperor
Well, I play Civ1 and Civ 3. And sometimes I wonder why I don't just stick with Civ1, as there seem less details to learn, less micromanagement - it seems more straightforward.
On the other hand, I love the graphics of Civ3 and choices of map size etc.
To be really honest with you, I don't play either game very well. I don't seem to stick with a long game. I'd love it if there were some short term game goals so you could play shorter games.
I tried two SG games. They were fun because I had team mates and we talked about the game as it went along.
Sometimes I think I ought to play either Civ1 OR Civ3 - spend a few months truly mastering ONE of them. But I love them both.
So am I shooting myself in the foot trying to play both? Can you manage to play both until you really master one or the other? Or can playing both enhance your learning experience?
It seems maybe Civ1 has the basics of the game and maybe I'd be better off working on that game alone. On the other hand, Civ3 is so beautiful and so much fun...
Advice please?
stwils
On the other hand, I love the graphics of Civ3 and choices of map size etc.
To be really honest with you, I don't play either game very well. I don't seem to stick with a long game. I'd love it if there were some short term game goals so you could play shorter games.
I tried two SG games. They were fun because I had team mates and we talked about the game as it went along.
Sometimes I think I ought to play either Civ1 OR Civ3 - spend a few months truly mastering ONE of them. But I love them both.
So am I shooting myself in the foot trying to play both? Can you manage to play both until you really master one or the other? Or can playing both enhance your learning experience?
It seems maybe Civ1 has the basics of the game and maybe I'd be better off working on that game alone. On the other hand, Civ3 is so beautiful and so much fun...
Advice please?
stwils