The real essence of Sid Meier's Civilization is Civ 1

[stwils]

I did not start out with Civ1. I bought Civ2. And never did get it... I tried, but the light never dawned on what all of the game was about - even though I had the manual and a strategy guide. The lights never came on.

But a few years later, there was a copy of Civ1 Windows included on a disc in PC Gamer magazine. I grabbed it and came straight home.

Then the lights came on! I could finally feel the heart of this game.

Yes, I love Civ3. But when I want to get to the heart of Civilization, I come back to Civ1. Not that is simple, no. But it is not embellished with bells and whistles. The core game - this beautiful game - is Civ1.

Do any of you feel the same?

stwils

 

[Tenochtitlan]

I only play Civ 1

 

[trada]

I, also, only play Civ 1

 

[nock371]

Same here, civ 1 is the ultimate strategy game...

 

[sotris99]

+1

I only play civ 1 (DOS)

 

[Gundus]

I did try Civ2 some years after playing Civ1 for the first
time and it was a huge letdown. The 3-D view was just
annoying, I didnt like units surviving but being injured,
there was no temple improvement and the shear size of
it was just to massive to handle.

Civ1 forever!

 

[Ali Ardavan]

I did try Civ2 some years after playing Civ1 for the first time and it was a huge letdown.

I tried Civ2 after years of playing Civ1 as well.

The 3-D view was just annoying,

Agreed, but with time I got used to it. I still prefer Civ1's flat view though.

I didnt like units surviving but being injured,

To many, myself included, that was one of the significant improvements over Civ1.

there was no temple improvement

There is a temple. No Civ1 improvement was eliminated. Some were tweaked and many new ones were added.

and the shear size of it was just to massive to handle.

Civ2 is a more elaborate game than Civ1, but mostly for the better.

 

[Osvaldo Manso]

I bought the four games of Sid Meier's Civilization but I only play Civ 1. The truth is I can't get tired of playing this wonderful game.

I tried playing Civ 3 and even Civ 4, but I don't like the visual side of these games. I find Civ 1 more abstract and serious. The others look too much like children's games. They have too much animation and leave almost nothing for my imagination.

When I play Civ 1, I forget that I'm playing a computer game. I imagine myself as a general or a political leader looking at a map and taking key decisions. Even when I'm not playing, I can' avoid thinking about the problems of my people or the threats of my enemies.

I like to play very slowly, careful planning every move and evaluating the consequences of every small action, before taking it. Sometimes, my games take weeks to finish. However, I must recognize that the beginning is always the most exciting part, while I'm discovering the world, strategically placing my cities and finding the location and size of the other civs. When the entire world is discovered and I know that it is just a matter of time to win, I lose interest and start immediately thinking in the next game.

The possibilities of Civ 1 are so big that I could spend the rest of my life rewriting history, just by returning to the dozens of «saved worlds» that I keep (I always save the game in the year 3980BC)!

Reading this forum, I find that I am not alone. I play this game since 1993 (I think) and I still feel that the next game will be «the one». I feel that, even after all these years, my best «Sid Meier's Civilization experience» is yet to come and I always get excited when I read the message «Osvaldo Manso you have risen to become leader of the portuguese. May your reign be long and prosperous. The portuguese have knowledge of...»!

Conclusion: the more I play it, the more I get addicted to it. It's very hard to imagine my life without Civ 1. However, despite being addicted, I really feel blessed for taking so much pleasure from this game. I thank God, Sid Meier and Miguel Ferreira (a university colleague that introduced me to Civ by lending a copy of the game in three diskettes and giving me one serious advise: don't start playing it before the end of your exams; otherwise you'll put your study books aside). He was so damn right...

 

[stwils]

I bought the four games of Sid Meier's Civilization but I only play Civ 1. The truth is I can't get tired of playing this wonderful game.

I tried playing Civ 3 and even Civ 4, but I don't like the visual side of these games. I find Civ 1 more abstract and serious. The others look too much like children's games. They have too much animation and leave almost nothing for my imagination /QUOTE]

I think you hit the nail on the head about Civ 1. Its beauty is its abstract quality.

And being more abstract, takes it into the world of imagination - which all the graphics of Civ2,3,4 with its concrete characters approaching more and more to the real world, takes it out of the world of imagination and makes things more realistic.

Civ1 is more like the old radio shows that let you imagine rather than seeing -like came about with TV. Seeing with the imagination is magic, whereas seeing with the eye is a hinderance.

stwils

 

[Dearmad]

Sort of a self-selcting bunch of replies. I liked Civ 1 better than 2, but civ 3 was a bit more fun for me. And 4 blows them all away. It adds so much more to the story of the civilization. I don't understand the idea that it leaves less to the imagination, IMO it adds more material to really send your imagination off. And modifying it for even more fun has been a lot of fun for me.

I LOVE the graphics, the superior AI, the challenge, all of it so far. Also noit as much micromanagement is required to do well, and still there are a plethora of choices to make.

 

[tomsnowman123]

CIV 1 is the best, and CIV 2 is close behind. CIV 4 was ok for a while, but now I don't really like it, and CIV 3 was a huge dissapoitment.

 

[stwils]

CIV 1 is the best, and CIV 3 was a huge dissapoitment.

I agree about Civ 1 being the best. But I want to know why you found Civ3 such a disappointment. To me it is second best to Civ1.

stwils

 

[tomsnowman123]

I agree about Civ 1 being the best. But I want to know why you found Civ3 such a disappointment. To me it is second best to Civ1.

stwils

I thought that there were too many annoyances and too much micromanagement, like the city riots, pollution, corruption and waste, etc. They went a little overboard in trying to limit ICS and make the game "fair."

 

[trada]

ICS? What is this ICS?

 

[void]

Infinite City Sprawl. Something like: build Militia, build Settler, found new city, repeat. Generally keep the cities down to size 3 or less. Never build improvements like Temples or Granaries, and don't improve the surrounding land.

The idea is that you're getting more production and trade because the game gives you one bonus worker per city. (It costs 1 population to create a settler, but then when you found the new city, you get to work 2 squares!) As an added bonus the terrain below the city tile gets a free road, further increasing trade.

 

[tomsnowman123]

I thought he was being sarcsatic. ICS is my strategy each and every game.

 

[trada]

Oh, I've heard of that. The very unhappy people that were implemented in v5 make ICS less effective. Also, changing settler production to 70 also helps limit that. I personally don't like it as a stradegy, it's old and stale and works. But it goes against the spirit of the game.

 

[iguana1]

I don't get the "civ 3 is disappointing thing" either. I loved civ 1 and played endless hours when I should have been doing other things. I still remember my early games, played mostly with a couple high school buddies during the summer. My geeky side really came out as we missed more than one good party because we had to play "just one more turn" before leaving. Then I ticked off my wife on more than one occasion because I had to finish "just this one last turn" before doing a number of things that I never got around to. The nostalgia of civ 1 is what has me in this forum but I just don't see it being the best version.

When civ 2 came out I saw it but figured they would have just messed it up and a first look at the game proved that to be correct. The weird view, no replay at the end, the stupid throne room instead of the cool palace building, etc. I had no interest in buying it and continued to play civ 1 for years. Finally, I ran into the buddy from high school that introduced me to civ 1 and he raved about civ 2. I found a bargain priced version of civ 2 gold and bought it. It took a little getting used to and the lack of replay was still a downer but the game was basically the same with a few tweaks. The downside of civ 2 for me was finding Apolyton. Being hooked on the game for so long, I was compelled to read the strategy of so many players. This led to the game being far too easy once I discovered the full power of Caravans/freight. All in all, civ 2 was different from 1 and 2 is what I played most once I had it but civ 1 had its advantages and kept me coming back for a game from time to time.

When civ 3 came out I really wanted it and got it from my wife for Christmas. I figured the civ specific traits concept was going to kill the game but I had read that these could be turned off. I also wasn't sure how the new resource model would work and was skeptial about the new concept of "culture". However, the addition of real borders, the re-introduction of the replay movie and the option to play against more than 6 opponents was enough to make me very excited.

At first I was bummed that some tried and true methods of playing all the way from civ 1 were eliminated from the game (namely getting huge money from caravans and democracy and then buying up cities with dips/spies). I've always been more of a perfectionist player than a ICS guy so the changes there weren't earth shattering as good or bad. It took a little to get used to/accept the new resource system but after a short adjustment time, I found civ 3 to be amazing and while I like to drift back to a game of civ 1 from time to time, civ 3 is by far the best, IMO!!! Having real borders is one of the best features ever. Not only did they bring back the replay but now it is better than ever with multiple historgraphs to follow during the rise and fall of the nations. The abstraction of diplomacy and trade was a shock but the whole idea of having to barter or battle for resources is awesome. Adding true alliances, ROP agreements and trade embargos makes for much more interesting diplomacy (I wish they would have kept the cease fire as one more option). Even the civ specific traits are better than I expected (I don't turn them off anymore...). Also, once I got a new PC and could play against 15 AI, I can't see going back! Throw in that the AI plays a ton better (although there is always room for improvement) than any previous version and I can't see going backwards a version or 2 as the only one I would play. I only have vanilla civ 3 and it is of such quality and substance that I never have been tempted to pick up PtW or Conquests or whatever other versions are out there. The only temptation is that I believe you can now play against 32 or so AI.

As for civ 4, I haven't played civ 3 enough to consider it "played out". I have 2 kids as well as the wife now and there just aren't enough hours in the day to wear out the game. Plus, nothing I saw in the pre-release info grabbed me as a must have improvement over my current version. For me, civ 3 was civ 1 taken to the next level. I'm just not sure I can think of anything in civ 1 that I would rather have than what is in civ 3. Someday I am sure I will pick up civ 4 in a bargain bin and give it a shot but it will need to not break anything significant and add something I don't anticipate to surpass civ 3 in my civ rankings.

 

[Ifrit9]

I saw all of them excluding Civ 4, but play only CivDOS. In Civ 2 and next versions I felt as I was working, not playing, and there's no original Civ atmoshere. As it was said here, Civ 1 is graphically absract, which stimulates imagination and makes game process more role-playing. Also IMHO isometry is not suitable for global strategy games at all - it hardens the undestanding of the map situation. Same with overload of small graphical details (Civ 3 & Civ 4).

 

[Andy6474b]

I also liked the cultural borders thing in Civ III.

But I still couldnt stand it for more than a couple of games due to the stupid isometric view.

Looks terrible. Very hard to figure out where something is moving and how far away things are from each other, and all those 100km tall giants look the same.

So despite wasting quite a few bucks on Civ III a few years back (ditto Civ II even further back) its still Civ I which I play while the others gather dust. Thank heavens for DOSBox so I can play it on pretty much any machine. (Even had it running (albeit slowly) on my Linux box!)