Civilization 4 Expansion disc: thoughts?

[Vigilance]

I'm slightly intrigued by everyone's rave reviews, although I do find CivIV to be less appealling than CivII. I probably try to get the wife to buy it for a Xmas present, if nothing else more exciting crops up on the horizon.

The game is machine intensive. I had to buy a new graphics card to work, so make sure you meet the system requirements, they're steep, and the game means it.

Beyond that, the game is really great. It's the best incarnation of Civ yet. The graphics are much better and the gameplay has been improved as well. This is the true heir to Civ II, what Civ III should have been.

Chuck

 

[TheAuldGrump]

This is the true heir to Civ II, what Civ III should have been.

Chuck

I traded a game that I picked up for $5 for a friend's copy of Civ III... There is no doubt in my mind that he got the better end of the deal. (The $5 game was Sea Dogs, which is a darned fine game, the only reason I was willing to trade it was that I had finished it. It was still a mistake. )

The Auld Grump

 

[Vigilance]

I traded a game that I picked up for $5 for a friend's copy of Civ III... There is no doubt in my mind that he got the better end of the deal. (The $5 game was Sea Dogs, which is a darned fine game, the only reason I was willing to trade it was that I had finished it. It was still a mistake. )

The Auld Grump

Lol.

Civ III was just toooooo much. So many vital resources, which were so scarce, and even if you DID secure all the resources you needed, they usually ran out during the course of the game.

Also, the AI cheated, which the AI in a Civ game likely ALWAYS does, but in Civ III it was really obvious.

Also, a game of Civ III took *forever* to play.

In short, they made a lot of design decisions that seemed to make sense on the surface, but decreased the FUN of the game.

In fact, a lot of the things they did in Civ III worked for me elsewhere, like Alpha Centauri and Civ IV. It was just a design that went with realism over making the game fun. I liked playing the game a lot, but the length did me in eventually. I think I played one game all the way through.

After that Id play till the middle ages or so, get bored and then start playing something else.

Chuck

 

[green slime]

Ahh, I miss the old random events. Volcanoes, earthquakes, tidal waves, revolutions in distant lands... I detest that the most random event is the discovery or loss of a resource.

 

[Vigilance]

Ahh, I miss the old random events. Volcanoes, earthquakes, tidal waves, revolutions in distant lands... I detest that the most random event is the discovery or loss of a resource.

I agree... the other stuff was pretty good. But on the whole... it's a bad idea to allow random events if they're going to seriously effect play I think.

For one thing, there are so many TURNS in a game that even if all events are a 1 in a 1000 chance, you will likely experience half of them or more in every game.

Secondly, if you've sunk 30 hours into a game only to have it ruined because your one source of oil goes away, that just bites.

So in general I think the game should be strategy first with very few random events. Just global warming and barbarians.

It's not like the game is predictable with only those variables.

Chuck

 

[Agamon]

Ahh, I miss the old random events. Volcanoes, earthquakes, tidal waves, revolutions in distant lands... I detest that the most random event is the discovery or loss of a resource.

I've played all the Civs (Well, the first one and it's actual sequals, not those horrible copycat games that were actually allowed to use 'Civilization' in the title), and I don't recall this. Sim City, yes, but not Civ. Maybe my memory is going. Must...get...more...memory....

And I find being attacked out of nowhere by another civ as kind of a random event. Seriously, Civ is more like a Eurogame, in that strategy is more important than random events.

Couldn't get into Sea Dogs, even though it looked gorgeous. I played the heck out of the original SM's Pirates! and was hopiing for a credible sequel, but I was kinda dissapointed. Now, the new Pirates!, that's a fun game, and made by the same guy that made Civ, go figure.

Not to go on too much of a tangent, but has anyone tried CivCity Rome?

 

[Vigilance]

I've played all the Civs (Well, the first one and it's actual sequals, not those horrible copycat games that were actually allowed to use 'Civilization' in the title), and I don't recall this. Sim City, yes, but not Civ. Maybe my memory is going. Must...get...more...memory....

I was referring to Civ III, which had volcanoes as a new terrain in the expansion disc, Civ III: Conquests. The Volcano was a mountain surrounded by good farmland. Every turn there was a chance of it erupting, which placed damage in all the surrounding squares, sort of like fallout from a nuclear attack.

Civ III also had some nutty things I think of as random events, like disease coming from swamps, jungles and flood plains, that would strike randomly and reduce the population of a nearby city, often dramatically.

And then there was the random chance of a resource being depleted. This was the one that really bugged me, since some strategic resources were SO rare that losing one randomly was a REALLY huge blow that could really ruin a game, depending on what it was.

Lose your only source of iron or oil? Well, hope you have a strong enough military to take some already, because the military units you can build was just reduced by about 2/3.

And I find being attacked out of nowhere by another civ as kind of a random event. Seriously, Civ is more like a Eurogame, in that strategy is more important than random events.

Couldn't get into Sea Dogs, even though it looked gorgeous. I played the heck out of the original SM's Pirates! and was hopiing for a credible sequel, but I was kinda dissapointed. Now, the new Pirates!, that's a fun game, and made by the same guy that made Civ, go figure.

Not to go on too much of a tangent, but has anyone tried CivCity Rome?

The reviews for CivCity: Rome have been pretty lackluster, so I'm staying away for now. Plus I'm still conquering the world with my Mongolian Jewish Theocracy, with Great General Scipio Africanus leading the final assault on Chicago.

So I'm busy right now

Chuck

 

[Agamon]

Ah, I only played Civ3 with the Play the World expansion, and even then, not very much.

The reviews for CivCity: Rome have been pretty lackluster, so I'm staying away for now. Plus I'm still conquering the world with my Mongolian Jewish Theocracy, with Great General Scipio Africanus leading the final assault on Chicago.

Heheh. Gotta love Civ4. Didn't think I'd play any of the scenarios, but I'm kicking some butt as the state of Zhou in the Civ version of Romance of the Three Kingdoms. A lot less wacky, but pretty cool, nonetheless.

 

[punterke]

The vasal option is also nice, so you don't have search half the globe for that last lousy city that's probably built near the polar regions or some small island.

 

[Nifft]

I actually liked the CivIII volcano thing, too.

Just want to re-iterate, though: Alpha Centauri II would kick butt. Alpha Centauri even had better volcanos...

-- J