#1 Person
The Cow
I like civ 2 in a similar way I like public television, it isn't flashy, with funny sound effects and graphics. It is just simple and clean and easy.
What's so good about Civ2?
- Thread starter Swedishguy
- Start date
What ISN'T so good about Civ II?
I think it's better than Civ III and IV, it's much faster, no time wasted with shiny graphics and having to watch your little men walking.
It is fun because it can get so ridiculous (see the list of A.I stupidities) yet is always challenging.
Now stand still whilst I burn "I love Civ II" to your forehead
I think it's better than Civ III and IV, it's much faster, no time wasted with shiny graphics and having to watch your little men walking.
It is fun because it can get so ridiculous (see the list of A.I stupidities) yet is always challenging.
Now stand still whilst I burn "I love Civ II" to your forehead
paquitisimo
Chieftain
Back in the 1980's Civ1 could be played on a Tandy1000 (any one old enough to remember what that was?), it did take 50 minutes to build a world, though. Then Civ2 came out and I bought it as soon as it was available. Great and always different, easy to modify (even without the patch that made the 3 custom-advancements actually work, so that there was only plumbing to do something with...)
Then there was civ3. Impressive graphics, great rules, BUT
defenders advantaged over attackers even more than in civ2,
the one way to create production in cities located on icy wastes (seeding forests and then cutting hem down, time and again) was made impossible in the first update (which you need for the bugs it took out), and then, in the later game, if you're a micromanagement type, you spend 75% of your time cleaning up pollution, which cannot be avoided except by not producing much. Brrrr. BORING...! (Graphics are great, I admit.)
I bought civ4 as soon as it came out, I 've heard a lot about it, and there it sits, in its box, waiting to be installed whenever I get tired of civ2, or curious enough...
The internet is quite instructive, so I find ever new ways to play civ2...
How can any one question its greatness?
Well, taste and such...
Then there was civ3. Impressive graphics, great rules, BUT
defenders advantaged over attackers even more than in civ2,
the one way to create production in cities located on icy wastes (seeding forests and then cutting hem down, time and again) was made impossible in the first update (which you need for the bugs it took out), and then, in the later game, if you're a micromanagement type, you spend 75% of your time cleaning up pollution, which cannot be avoided except by not producing much. Brrrr. BORING...! (Graphics are great, I admit.)
I bought civ4 as soon as it came out, I 've heard a lot about it, and there it sits, in its box, waiting to be installed whenever I get tired of civ2, or curious enough...
The internet is quite instructive, so I find ever new ways to play civ2...
How can any one question its greatness?
Well, taste and such...
What I'm not going to do here is assent to my other thread in regards to City Walls, there's no need for that here.
Rather, what I intend to do here is show why this quote really bothers me, and indeed that there's nothing wrong with it in this particular situation.
In other words: Forget the whole idea of impenetrable city walls, and concentrate solely on the idea of a Rifleman attacking a Phalanx behind a City Walls. Let's investigate the scenario.
First, a couple assumptions
1. The riflemen do not have a battery with them (for if they did, it would not merely be a rifleman unit, but a rifleman + howitzer unit).
2. The guns are not space-age, and the wall fully encompasses the city (you can't just "walk in" if you get close enough).
So, let's walk through the scenario. A brigade of Riflemen walks up to a city protected by a wall, and defended by Phalanx. Suppose they open fire. What are the phalanx likely to do? Duck behind the wall, I hope. In other words, the phalanx aren't dead, yet. It seems to me that in order to enter the city and take it, the Riflemen need to select one of three options.
1. Fire at the wall and try to get the bullets through it, or just take it down with fire.
2. Aim upwards and hope the bullets will fall down onto your opponents and kill them.
3. Climb the wall and start firing.
Response to 1: This doesn't seem feasible. A small bullet may do a damn nice amount of damage, but barring space-age technology (which I have so entered: or this wouldn't be a normal rifle), those bullets aren't going to be going through that wall anytime soon. You need something to smash through, and rifles aren't going to cut it. And even if they do, the amount of ammunition needed to crack right through the wall would more than likely deplete all of the reserves. This isn't going to work.
Reponse to 2: This is why archery was discovered. You CAN kill people by doing this (this is why discharging of firearms within a city is illegal: people have been killed by accident because of this), but it is not obvious how one is supposed to aim a rifle into the sky to fire and hit a specific point when it turns back towards the earth and drops. The smallness of the projectile is too small to make this practical. And besides, it is one thing to hit your opponent and kill him by accident; it is another when your opponents all know what you are doing and have shields. One could just cover oneself with the shield and let it take the battering. If this option could ever work, the level of marksmanship and professional training of these Riflemen would have to be simply unimaginable.
Response to 3: Certainly the most interesting case. As previously noted, the Riflemen won't be able to shoot the defenders behind the wall because there isn't any way of doing so thus far. Thus, there's only one option left if the Riflemen have no battering support: Climb the wall to get in range. How else are you going to be able to fire at your opponents? But do you see what this option implies? The Riflemen need to climb up using various tools (which can potentially be disrupted), their ability to fire properly will be hampered, and the first chance they can actually have a straight shot at their opponents is when their opponents are in melee range of them. You need to have a lightning fast finger on that gun you're now holding precariously with one arm to nail your opponent before that spear hits you. It's totally unclear how the Riflemen are supposed to gain the edge here. (Need I mention how well the Zulus performed against the British without gunpowder: in a field, yet? This is an even nastier scenario.)
The Phalanx unit wins.
Swedishguy
Deity
There are so many ways to answer this question. "It sucks" might be a good one.
Yes, you do.
If you haven't upgraded your computer over the last ten years...
You obviously haven't played Civ4 at all, have you?
Just turn "Quick moves" on!!! Jesus!
"Ridiculous"? "Irritating" would be a better word.
Because the developers gave you massive handicaps.
[/QUOTE]
Are you angry because burned "I hate CivII" on your forehead?
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Swedishguy, I was going to stay silent on what I reckon is a irrelevant debate,
but I think some things have to be said on this one, just so you are in the know.
Graphics? Who cares? You might, but I would rather play a good game from 1996,
than some beautiful-looking but souless borefest like Oblivion, Warpedcraft, or AoE!
Snore....Yawn!
True, the CIV2 (vanilla) GFX are crude, but so were most games when the program was released!
Everything in the game is moddable, and if you wish to see what is being done with CIV2 these
days, come to Poly CIV2 forums and look at fairline's artwork. I am sure you will notice a
major difference from the vanilla game. Few games are perfect when released...
Hence, why there are so many modification sites for almost ALL games....
Also, if you dislike the tech-tree or stats, there is nothing to prevent you
opening a mere notepad and making changes...That is what most people do!
Why is it so liked? Well, that is a matter for individual tastes...I can only give my own
perspective...And at the end of the day, just because you hate the game, that is not
going to affect me or any of the other CIV2 people in any case!
I think CIV2 appeals to we classic war-gamers due to the resemblance to old
board games like 'A&A' or 'Risk', and also because is harkens to a time when games
were fun, and not exercises in committee-formula design like nowadays...
The interface is easy, the game can be easily minimised and does not eat up gigs
of hardware to run, and (if you have error-free mods) never crashes, ever!
There are hundreds of totally awesome scenarios made for CIV2, covering all eras
of history, and some of the scens done for ToT (the final version) are truly great.
In the end, it is up to you what you play - And if you want to know why people still
play an old game like CIV2, and what the appeal is, then I suggest you grab some good
scenarios and mods, run them and find out for yourself...Playing the vanilla game is
only the tip of a very large and amazing iceberg!
Regards,
Curt
but I think some things have to be said on this one, just so you are in the know.
Graphics? Who cares? You might, but I would rather play a good game from 1996,
than some beautiful-looking but souless borefest like Oblivion, Warpedcraft, or AoE!
Snore....Yawn!
True, the CIV2 (vanilla) GFX are crude, but so were most games when the program was released!
Everything in the game is moddable, and if you wish to see what is being done with CIV2 these
days, come to Poly CIV2 forums and look at fairline's artwork. I am sure you will notice a
major difference from the vanilla game. Few games are perfect when released...
Hence, why there are so many modification sites for almost ALL games....
Also, if you dislike the tech-tree or stats, there is nothing to prevent you
opening a mere notepad and making changes...That is what most people do!
Why is it so liked? Well, that is a matter for individual tastes...I can only give my own
perspective...And at the end of the day, just because you hate the game, that is not
going to affect me or any of the other CIV2 people in any case!
I think CIV2 appeals to we classic war-gamers due to the resemblance to old
board games like 'A&A' or 'Risk', and also because is harkens to a time when games
were fun, and not exercises in committee-formula design like nowadays...
The interface is easy, the game can be easily minimised and does not eat up gigs
of hardware to run, and (if you have error-free mods) never crashes, ever!
There are hundreds of totally awesome scenarios made for CIV2, covering all eras
of history, and some of the scens done for ToT (the final version) are truly great.
In the end, it is up to you what you play - And if you want to know why people still
play an old game like CIV2, and what the appeal is, then I suggest you grab some good
scenarios and mods, run them and find out for yourself...Playing the vanilla game is
only the tip of a very large and amazing iceberg!
Regards,
Curt
Ace
Emperor
CurtSibling, I agree with everything you have said except the 1996 bit. I would have said 1986!! The oldest game I have on my pc is a goodie called "Wasteland" which was originally made for the C-64 and than ported over to the PC. (does that give away my age...?) What graphics it has are horrible, but the game has infinate replayable.
Civ II is like chess, a game for the ages. It is like a fine wine, it just gets better with age.
Civ II is like chess, a game for the ages. It is like a fine wine, it just gets better with age.
dagriggstar
King
@swedishguy - the developers still give the AI handicaps
I'm 17, I didn't start playing civ 2 until about 5 years ago but...
I STILL THINK ITS BETTER THAN 3!!!!
Civ 4 is better in some areas (Graphics), but civ 2 is better in others (trade system). They even out to being about the same.
I'm 17, I didn't start playing civ 2 until about 5 years ago but...
I STILL THINK ITS BETTER THAN 3!!!!
Civ 4 is better in some areas (Graphics), but civ 2 is better in others (trade system). They even out to being about the same.
What is there to like about Civ2 in preference to later games ?
Firepower. A simple mechanism that worked.
Caravans/Freight and Diplomats/Spies. Yes they are overpowered in some circumstances, it's trivial for a large Fundamentalist empire to buy every non-capital city in the world, but that's an argument for fixing them, not getting rid of them.
Being able to terraform terrain with Engineers.
The multi-maps feature in Test of Time.
An interface with more words. Text is unambiguous.
Less messing around with cartoony graphics that do nothing for the gameplay.
Not being bound by Ages, so you can research down one tech path in advance of others with more flexibility.
I speak as a regular player of Civ 2 and Civ 3 who has bounced pretty hard off Civ 4.
Firepower. A simple mechanism that worked.
Caravans/Freight and Diplomats/Spies. Yes they are overpowered in some circumstances, it's trivial for a large Fundamentalist empire to buy every non-capital city in the world, but that's an argument for fixing them, not getting rid of them.
Being able to terraform terrain with Engineers.
The multi-maps feature in Test of Time.
An interface with more words. Text is unambiguous.
Less messing around with cartoony graphics that do nothing for the gameplay.
Not being bound by Ages, so you can research down one tech path in advance of others with more flexibility.
I speak as a regular player of Civ 2 and Civ 3 who has bounced pretty hard off Civ 4.
Banach
Warlord
Ace: I own a copy of Wasteland as well, and love it. I've played through it numerous times and always enjoy it.
On a related note, the general topic of older vs newer games is a common one. I love Civ II because of the gameplay. I think that many gamers prefer gameplay to great graphics. In a similar fashion, I still love Final Fantasy VII. Sure, the graphics are nothing compared to the new ones, but the gameplay was phenomenal. Civ II's gameplay is very engaging and endlessly fun. No one ever says that Chess is too old to play anymore - the gameplay is still there, and it's still entertaining. I guess I'll just have to quote that old saying - "Different strokes for different folks".
On a related note, the general topic of older vs newer games is a common one. I love Civ II because of the gameplay. I think that many gamers prefer gameplay to great graphics. In a similar fashion, I still love Final Fantasy VII. Sure, the graphics are nothing compared to the new ones, but the gameplay was phenomenal. Civ II's gameplay is very engaging and endlessly fun. No one ever says that Chess is too old to play anymore - the gameplay is still there, and it's still entertaining. I guess I'll just have to quote that old saying - "Different strokes for different folks".
77alex77
Chieftain
Hi there,
I've been playing Civ since CivII but I don't play CivII anymore. I'm playing CivIV instead and, yes, I also think that gameplay is more important than graphics.
But I don't want to start a "My favorite game is better then yours!"-post.
I'm more interested in coming to know what features or concepts of CivII people like or liked.
In the CivIV forum some players say that they want to have concepts like Caravans or Diplomats in CivIV. I didn't really like these features in CivII. But that's only my personal opinion. So I would like to know what concepts of CivII you miss in Civ III/IV.
What about the zone of control, for example?
Or the new city maintenance concept in CivIV?
I've been playing Civ since CivII but I don't play CivII anymore. I'm playing CivIV instead and, yes, I also think that gameplay is more important than graphics.
But I don't want to start a "My favorite game is better then yours!"-post.
I'm more interested in coming to know what features or concepts of CivII people like or liked.
In the CivIV forum some players say that they want to have concepts like Caravans or Diplomats in CivIV. I didn't really like these features in CivII. But that's only my personal opinion. So I would like to know what concepts of CivII you miss in Civ III/IV.
What about the zone of control, for example?
Or the new city maintenance concept in CivIV?
I go back and forth on ZOC; Civ II and III work very well in different ways which lean a lot on the differences in how ZOC works between the games. I think the Civ III concept of units getting a free shot at anything passing through their ZoC could be improved, particularly if every unit in a stack got that free shot.
Concepts I miss most; toss-up between firepower and terraforming, really.
On the one hand, a battleship really, really, really should do a lot more damage than a catapult in a single attack.
On the other hand, the ability to make even the most hostile terrain useful in the way you need if you invest enough engineers, and the shields and food to support those engineers, is definitely something I want in the game; it adds a range of choices of where to concntrate your efforts which having basically useless terrain reduces.
On, um, this prehensile tail over here, I really miss air units that move like actual units.
It's not a good one, its not a reason its just opinon, which you are of course entitled too, but it might be more constructive to either further detail what you dislike about the game, I mean constructively add to what you have already said, or just let these guys continue to play the game they enjoy in peace
I don't understand the tendacy in the modern age for players of newer games to crusade against the older games (mind you I know this works both ways) I happen to really like both Civ II and IV but it doesn't occur to me to try and get people who don't like one of these to renounce the game they do like. No offence meant Swedishguy I'm sure you just want to understand why people like a particular game, but sometimes these kind of posts come accross as "you should like this Civ because its newer so move on, play IV just because its newer" IV is very diffrent to II and I can see why some players don't like it same goes for all of them
I'm lucky I like all the Civs and play all of them.
small lawe
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 20
In my house the best games console is the nintendo 64 and the computer I play civ2 on is a windows 95. So I have always known pretty low grade grafics and its because of this I love civ2 and the other games I own. Civ2 was is always fun to play (even with AI thats not to die for) and is as addictive as crack once you get into it. I've never played the other civs and may never in the future. I shall always remain content with my classic games as I don't play new ones that much.
P.S Please don't send messages saying how deprived I am.
P.S Please don't send messages saying how deprived I am.
Swedishguy
Deity
^^
Ooookay...
Just one question: How old are you?
Ooookay...
Just one question: How old are you?
Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion. He's stating his opinion, which he is entitled to, and you seem to think this makes him childish. You asked people why they like Civ2; don't chastize them for it.Swedishguy said:
Swedishguy
Deity
No, I think he's old. Just old people are technophobic.
Thorvald of Lym
A Little Sketchy
That's a rather risky stereotype. I know quite a few "old" people who are tech-savvy, and quite a few "young" people who aren't. Either way, I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion.
dagriggstar
King
Just an example of a young person not being tech savy...
One of my mates the other day got a virus on his computer...he then decided to ask me over MSN to scan the internet for viruses so his computer can get fixed
One of my mates the other day got a virus on his computer...he then decided to ask me over MSN to scan the internet for viruses so his computer can get fixed
What's so good about Civ2?
The advisors dammit! Their bickering, their characters were priceless. I can't believe noone's brought them up yet.
Aside from that, you've just got to look at the game in its context. It was fantastic for a lot of people because it was one of the earliest incarnations of a strategy game on the PC, and it allowed you to do so much that was fresh, new. I got it in 1998 (for my 9th birthday, along with FIFA 98, another classic) and it really captured my imagination. As a kid I had loved maps, I had loved Risk and this completely novel game gripped my imagination like nothing else before it.
I know it's perhaps harder to understand for you, being part of a generation (the one after mine, in fact) which grew up with a wide range of choice, which approached games with the cynicism that comes with a wealth of experience. But can you see why it's such an influential & lauded game in its context? Yes, it's perhaps unimpressive now, but hopefully you can think of what it meant at the time, especially personally.
I personally prefer Civ IV, not because of the graphics or the more 'user-friendly' interface, but because I think it has superior gameplay - however Civ II is still very much playable (in the same way minesweeper is still highly playable) and once you consider it in its context, you'll truly appreciate what a great game it was.
I'll put 'old people are just technophobic' and your flippancy when replying to Rooty down to immaturity rather than to prejudice & rudeness. I do hope you can appreciate how poorly it reflects on you when you take up such a tone over the internet.
The advisors dammit! Their bickering, their characters were priceless. I can't believe noone's brought them up yet.
Aside from that, you've just got to look at the game in its context. It was fantastic for a lot of people because it was one of the earliest incarnations of a strategy game on the PC, and it allowed you to do so much that was fresh, new. I got it in 1998 (for my 9th birthday, along with FIFA 98, another classic) and it really captured my imagination. As a kid I had loved maps, I had loved Risk and this completely novel game gripped my imagination like nothing else before it.
I know it's perhaps harder to understand for you, being part of a generation (the one after mine, in fact) which grew up with a wide range of choice, which approached games with the cynicism that comes with a wealth of experience. But can you see why it's such an influential & lauded game in its context? Yes, it's perhaps unimpressive now, but hopefully you can think of what it meant at the time, especially personally.
I personally prefer Civ IV, not because of the graphics or the more 'user-friendly' interface, but because I think it has superior gameplay - however Civ II is still very much playable (in the same way minesweeper is still highly playable) and once you consider it in its context, you'll truly appreciate what a great game it was.
I'll put 'old people are just technophobic' and your flippancy when replying to Rooty down to immaturity rather than to prejudice & rudeness. I do hope you can appreciate how poorly it reflects on you when you take up such a tone over the internet.
Similar threads
