Other versions of civ for civ2 players

[db105]

I have only played civ1 and civ2, and I have been thinking about trying another version of civilization, for variety's sake, but I'm a bit wary of all the modern graphics of later versions. I fear that they may be like a hollywood blockbuster, where they are so focused on special effects that they forget about actually making a good movie. I feel that a civ game should look good but have simple graphics, so that you can easily get the tactical information you need. Of course, I have never played recent versions, so I might change my mind after trying them.

My question is: as players who love civ2 (so your taste must be somewhat similar to mine), what other versions of Civilization do you enjoy? And which ones do you dislike?

 

[nerdfighter13]

I really like civ 4 and I highly recommend it. I've not played civ 3, and only played civ 5 once, so I can't judge those.

 

[db105]

What is it about civ4 you like, nerdfighter? How would you compare the gaming experience to civ2?

 

[nerdfighter13]

Something that I like that is similar is technology. You can trade it with the AI, and when you research a new one, it tells you how many turns it will take and what the tech allows. There is something similar to the science/tax/luxury scale, but it is science and culture. I would say it is somewhat similar, and my favorite similarity is that unit movement is easier.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Very much like you I have been an avid Civ1 and Civ2 player. I have played a few games of Civ3 but not enough to form a strong personal opinion. I own Civ4 but have never played it. I never purchased Civ5.

I have spend quite a bit of time reading about these games though and the overall opinion seems to be that Civ3 is OK but not great, Civ4 is very good if not great, and Civ5 is a disappointment. These opinions are mainly formed by balance in game play, challenge, and fun not graphics. No doubt each subsequent game has better graphics than the previous ones.

 

[jarhead_leif]

Very much like you I have been an avid Civ1 and Civ2 player. I have played a few games of Civ3 but not enough to form a strong personal opinion. I own Civ4 but have never played it. I never purchased Civ5.

I have spend quite a bit of time reading about these games though and the overall opinion seems to be that Civ3 is OK but not great, Civ4 is very good if not great, and Civ5 is a disappointment. These opinions are mainly formed by balance in game play, challenge, and fun not graphics. No doubt each subsequent game has better graphics than the previous ones.

.Why??.Is civ4 too complex to understand??

 

[Ali Ardavan]

As far as I know, it is not much more complicated than the other ones. I just never played it because originally the graphics server on my machine was not strong enough and the installation failed. Since then I have a newer machine, and playing Civ4 is on the back burner, but between Civ2 and real life I have not had a chance to do it.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Civ3 is OK but not great, Civ4 is very good if not great, and Civ5 is a disappointment.

Exactly.

My favourite is the Civ 2 variant Test of Time.

 

[gps]

I really recommend trying Civ IV. The Complete version of it (including the Vanilla game, plus its two expansions Warlords and BTS, plus its spin-off Colonization remake) is still quite easy to get, usually cost not more than 10 Euros, Dollars or Pounds or so (so if you don't like it, it's not too much money wasted) and really is massive in its content. Have a look here, the Civ IV part in this package does not even have the disk copy protection:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Civilizatio...T826/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1352715893&sr=8-1
Especially BTS is considered by a huge part of the community to be the best, deepest and most complex part of the franchise - and if that should be too much for anyone there's still the "streamlined" Vanilla version to get used to the game. The game development team - as far as I can judge - took quite some effort listening to community feedback when fixing bugs, improving gameplay and adding new features - and I think it shows in the quality of the product we have now. Also there was quite some effort on working multi-player support.
Another great feature of IV is it's open structure and the way the developers and the fan base expanded on the main game: even the base package comes with quite a handful of good mods (for example the Space Mod called "Final Frontier") and scenarios (WW2, Ghengis Khan, Charlemagne, Unification of the Chinese Empire, etc.) - and there's fan made must-have stuff like "Fall from Heaven 2" (high quality fantasy mod), "Rhye's and Fall of Civilization" (a mod with fixed and enhanced game rules to recreate real world history), BUG and BAT mod (improved user interface / improved grafix) or the TAC expansion for enhanced gameplay in Colonization. No need to say there are zillions of fan made scenarios, units, civilizations, leaders, mapscripts, game rule changes / improvements, fixes, improved AI and other stuff.
For me sure IV is the part I spent the most time with and which is still the most fun to play.

 

[db105]

Thanks, gps. That's a really inexpensive package, considering that it includes III, IV and all the expansions. With shipping charges to my country it's more expensive, but still cheaper than I can find here.

One question: you say that civ4 (BTS in particular) is deeper and more complex. Does civ4 games take much longer than civ2's, then? Civ2 already seems a long game to me (particularly at the end, when you have a large civilization to manage... it gets really time-consuming).

 

[gps]

Thanks, gps.

You're welcome!

One question: you say that civ4 (BTS in particular) is deeper and more complex. Does civ4 games take much longer than civ2's, then?

I wouldn't say that. Or it depends a lot on how you play the game, what mapsize and what gamespeed you chose and how much wars you fight. Added complexity means there are more strategic options, more unit types, more victory conditions. The basic gameplay however has not changed that much. You still move your units, manage your cities or make your diplomatic negotiations more or less in the same way you would in Civ II. So if you average turn took 3 minutes in II there's no reason why it should take 15 minutes in IV. It's not really more work or effort, just more choice and options...

 

[caravaner]

Iwe been trying civ 4 couple of times.

One thing that annoys me a lot is that I can't have same kind of view as in civ 2. When I try to zoom out it does that tilting action and goes into that top down view, which is horrible. What was the point of adding 3d camera when you can't get a decent view with it? Is there perhaps some kind of fix to it?


I tried also C-Evo. It has lots of civ2 in it and completly reworked military units. More like in AC where you need to design all of your units. It has a bit clumsy interface, but one thing that seems to be good is that it seems to have solid non-cheating AI. I have only played one game yet, but I got my ass handed to me badly. And I played on medium AI.

 

[jarhead_leif]

As it's been said, civ4 is very complex and got smarter AI's (smarter than V).

You can get easily beaten on "warlord" difficulty <snap> just like that. You got to have proper knowledge of micromanagment and diplomacy.

 

[caravaner]

As it's been said, civ4 is very complex and got smarter AI's (smarter than V).

You can get easily beaten on "warlord" difficulty <snap> just like that. You got to have proper knowledge of micromanagment and diplomacy.

I did not say anything about civ 4 ai. My problem with civ 4 is that I can't get into it at all. Mainly because its 3d view is so anti-strategy and clumsy.

I'm interested of it because it has some things that other civs don't have like religions. Sometimes when I try to play it I end up closing the game in less than a minute of gameplay because the interface is so clumsy and has horrible graphics.

Been playing c-evo now and started to make a civ2 player friendly graphics mod for it

 

[starlifter]

Civ 4 is in fact a "Great" game. Its different in many ways than Civ 2, and solves many of Civ 2 quirks, but introduces its own of course. I was originally very biased against removing Freight, WLTP growth, direct trade, and adding the nutty concept of Religion, where all are politically correct and totally equal. Many gameplay improvements have been made, including things like guaranteed movement onto terrain with partial move points remaining, 'intelligent' AI, food/production/science carryover (no micromanagement needed), and lots more.

Civ 3 and Civ 5 were not up to par. Civ 5 is a disaster, and I will never play it again, it is a steaming crock of something. Civ 4 is the Flagship of the 4X genre.

Civ 2 is in fact simpler, but still very replayable.

IMO, Civ 2 should be professionally revisited with intent to bring it into the current hardware, without making great changes in game elements. Put the development into good AI, skip trying to capture the fickle attention-challenged crowd and their assumed need for realistic/fantasy graphics. And make it backward compatible with importing Civ 2 MGE maps and games.

 

[sme1154]

Some games just define 'Classic'. CIV II was one, Panzergruppe Guderian (a board game) was another. Advancing the state of the art is fine for those with that penchant -- but simply refining and de-bugging classics should be an alternate approach. cheers.

 

[Zhu]

i have played all. 2 is best i think. 5 gets more slow every turn. 4 and 1 is good. i like stalin song on 1 i talk to him much