What a great game

[mmmfloorpie]

Long time Civ fan here (except for Civ5 that is).

As a kid I loved playing Civ on SNES. I just downloaded it and have been playing it all weekend. What a great game some 20 years later!

The beauty of it is its simplicity. And everything just works. There's not a huge amount of penalties like there is in the later Civs. In fact, they should have subtitled Civ 5: Don't do anything fun, or else!

 

[InnateGamer]

You articulate my sentiments exactly sir! Penalties! That's a nice way to put it. The way I see it is that first it starts with Civ 1 of course, and then they look at how people play Civ 1 and for some reason they decide that they don't like it, so they try to penalize the players in order to make them play differently. They didn't like phalanx beating tank, so they added hit points, they also didn't like infinite city spawn, so they made the AI attack the player if the player became too strong, figuring that the player must have exploited some exploit in order to get strong. That didn't work, people still built a lot of cities, so they made corruption and waste huge problems in Civ 3 to make sure that people wouldn't build bug empires. But it still didn't work so they changed the formula in Civ 4 and then yet again in Civ 5 with empire wide happiness. In stead of adding new interesting stuff they've been working on penalizing gamers.

 

[Agent327]

I agre on Civ III and V, but happiness is already in Civ I. (Hmmm, as is corruption... )

 

[Tristan_C]

I love how democracies have no corruption.

Of course this is meant to show how wealth doesn't move and get put to productive uses quite as nicely in oppressive governments as it does in a free society, but it's funny how Sid Meier chose to produce that effect; i.e., "no corruption," lol.

 

[Hatten]

Have to say civ1 and 2 are the best ones

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

You articulate my sentiments exactly sir! Penalties! That's a nice way to put it. The way I see it is that first it starts with Civ 1 of course, and then they look at how people play Civ 1 and for some reason they decide that they don't like it, so they try to penalize the players in order to make them play differently. They didn't like phalanx beating tank, so they added hit points, they also didn't like infinite city spawn, so they made the AI attack the player if the player became too strong, figuring that the player must have exploited some exploit in order to get strong. That didn't work, people still built a lot of cities, so they made corruption and waste huge problems in Civ 3 to make sure that people wouldn't build bug empires. But it still didn't work so they changed the formula in Civ 4 and then yet again in Civ 5 with empire wide happiness. In stead of adding new interesting stuff they've been working on penalizing gamers.

Penalties? I've played Civ, Civ II and Civ III and I wasn't aware of any penalties!

What is "infinite city spawn"? You have always been - and still is - able to build a huge number of cities. There was perhaps a limit in early versions due to RAM limitations.

I don't know if aggressive AI is a penalty, I see it as adapting the AI when the human player is doing good. Maybe it's not the best way of adding difficulty, but I want the game to be challenging. We already have the difficulty levels, but the AI being able to adapt to human opposition could be a more fine-tuned difficulty system in addition to the main levels.

In what way was the players playing it wrong? How did the creators want us to play?

I agre on Civ III and V, but happiness is already in Civ I. (Hmmm, as is corruption... )

You mean you liked IV more than III or V? I don't know nothing about the reception of Civ V, but I remember many players liked III better than IV.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Phalanx beating tanks were removed in Civ2, returned in Civ3, removed in Civ4. If anything, phalanxes beating tanks often provides frustration for the players (What. The AI's PHALANX destroyed my TANK. The AI is a CHEATING BASTARD. WHYYYYY do my phalanxes ALWAYS lose)?
AI gang-banging on the player was added in Civ2, removed in Civ3, seemingly added again in Civ5.
Civ4 was the only game to actually limit infinite city spawn.

A large point in favour of Civ1 is its simplicity. If Civ1 is chess, then Civ4 is an unwieldy chess variant with 12 exotic new pieces played on a 15x15 board which also utilizes card trading and karaoke simulation.

 

[Civinator]

Phalanx beating tanks were removed in Civ2, returned in Civ3

Please tell us, how you come to this statement?

 

[Lone Wolf]

Civ2 introduced hitpoint difference between classes (warriors, musketmen, etc) of units, and firepower, which reduced the unpredictability of combat. Civ3 made hitpoints the same for all classes, and removed the firepower concept, which increased the unpredictability of combat, although not to Civ1 levels. Not necessarily a bad thing, but there's a reason why "phalanx/spearman beating battleship/tank" is a Civ1/3, but not a Civ2/4 meme.

 

[Civinator]

Civ2 introduced hitpoint difference between classes (warriors, musketmen, etc) of units, and firepower, which reduced the unpredictability of combat. Civ3 made hitpoints the same for all classes, and removed the firepower concept, which increased the unpredictability of combat, although not to Civ1 levels. Not necessarily a bad thing, but there's a reason why "phalanx/spearman beating battleship/tank" is a Civ1/3, but not a Civ2/4 meme.

Yes, concerning the HPs you are right, so it still sometimes did happen in Civ 2 that a Phalanx was beating a tank. As you wrote in the post above, this situation was reduced - but not removed.

 

[Osvaldo Manso]

I am sorry to disagree with the vast majority on the subject of Phalanx Vs. Armor (or Battleship or any other modern unit).
In my opinion, this is just the game reflecting real life. Sometimes, in a war or in a battle, victory goes to the less equipped and trained army.
If you look closely to the history of warfare, you can find several examples of this. For instance, who would think that the USA would be defeated in Vietnam? Who would think that NATO forces would be in trouble against the talibans in Afghanistan? Look at the conflict between Israel and Palestinians... aren't the Israeli much more well trained, equipped and technologically advanced than the Palestinians? So why is there so much trouble in the battlefield?

I particularly like that aspect on Sid Meier's Civilization because it benefits the side who defends.
In fact, it happens in real life: it's always easier to defend your territory than to conquer foreign territory, partly due to better knowledge of the territory and partly because motivation for fighting is higher for defending what is yours than for attacking what belongs to others.
This does not mean that technology is not important! It is important. However, technological edge is not enough to guarantee you an easy victory. You need to be prepared for unpredictable defeats. In the game, as in real life, if you are keen enough and well organized you will win, sooner or later.

 

[InnateGamer]

A large point in favour of Civ1 is its simplicity. If Civ1 is chess, then Civ4 is an unwieldy chess variant with 12 exotic new pieces played on a 15x15 board which also utilizes card trading and karaoke simulation.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[AdamCrock]

Hmm interesting... ( 'rises an eyebrow' - like Mr. Spock xD). Personally I think Civ was evolving in the right direction. I didn't played Civ 5 yet but if what I've heared about it is true -> no stacks, just "1" unit per tile is true than -> I don't want to play it xD - C'mon!!! : No combined units tactics ?! - soo totally unrealistic !! (somebody MUST protect those siege units ! or .... at very least flank them ). But jokes aside - like someone have said Civ 1 was chess but it was a fundament , it was a great over-game, I mean it was THE one game to rule them all xD All later 'spawns' CIV 2,3 ... etc. came with only more ideas - some good , some bad (overall it is all in "+" "me thinks"). I've played both pc and snes versions of civ 1 and I must say snes got better graphics (imho). So I hope that one day I will find Civ 5 (6,7,8,.... etc) to be a playable game

... and here it is ,my first post hehe Sorry about my English. It is not my native language though I'm trying my best (English native speakers should work more on 'culture' - more theaters etc. - production xD .... tho Hollywood made sure of that ')

 

[Lao]

What a great game
As a kid I loved playing Civ on SNES and computer . I have been playing it all weekend. Now I still play civ1 on smartphone and computer
( dosbox emulator ios, android ) and I play civ rev version ios too. I think it's a great game. It is a fascinating story and great graphics and sound.
civ5 on computer and smartphone great and awesome graphics and sound. And Incredible story.
Civilization is a great game only.

 

[nickthehun]

I love how democracies have no corruption.

Of course this is meant to show how wealth doesn't move and get put to productive uses quite as nicely in oppressive governments as it does in a free society, but it's funny how Sid Meier chose to produce that effect; i.e., "no corruption," lol.

Hah, that is quite funny and very ironic. I reckon Sid did get the balance right though. Democracy does have a few annoying penalties and is a very difficult early game government, I still struggle with the 2 unhappy person military unit rule. But after Railroad, Womens Suffrage and Factories it becomes unstoppable though.

 

[dynamictom2409]

yeah you should not switch to democracy if you have some war plans ;-)

 

[leejunfan777]

the computer is so hard after a while its crazy