Older Civs for a Civ IV newbie?

[JackRudd]

A tip for building early on - the Slavery civic (available with Bronze Working) is extraordinarily good. Population is an infinitely replenishable resource, and good use of pop-rushing can save you a tremendous number of turns early on.

[DrSpike]

I would avoid Civ (as Civ2 is basically the finished version) and Civ3 for generally being weak. Might well be worth looking at Civ2 or SMAC, depending on whether you prefer a historical or sci-fi setting - under the hood they have the same core, with both getting unique bits for the particular setting.

This wouldn't be to help you with Civ4 though.

[Provost Harrison]

SMAC pioneered a lot of what is now present in future releases - borders, civics, unique civilisation (faction) traits, etc, etc...

[Diadem]

I have never understood why people are so fond of civ2. It is, imho, by far the weakest game in the series. Civ1 was revolutionary, civ3 was disappointing, but at least it was original. And we all know that civ4 is genius.

But civ2? It's just civ1.5 really. It adds absolutely nothing new. Yes, better graphics, more units, more technologies, more buildings, etc, etc. But nothing new.

Of course it's a nice game, and more fun to play than civ1. That's obvious. It's a newer game. That goes without saying. And version 1.5 of a brilliant game is still a brilliant game.

But arguiing that civ2 is better than civ1 is almost perverse, considering that civ2 adds nothing to the original game.

[Solver]

I agree mostly with that, in fact. I don't like Civ2 that much. Although it did have a few good additions over Civ1 - diplomacy (more stuff, and you could initiate it) and firepower for more fair combat. I hated the graphics and could never get used to Civ2's isometry, and it really didn't add much. The AI was pretty much the same as Civ1, and strategy was certainly the same as Civ1.

Then again, back in 1995 everyone had different expectations. What can now be viewed as version 1.5 of a game was a good sequel back then. Take the same situation with Doom games. Doom2 is universally praised, and was considered a great sequel when released in 1994. Yet it looked exactly the same as the original, only featuring different levels with a few new enemies. Nowadays, for a FPS game, that would be considered pretty mediocre even for an expansion.

[DrSpike]

It really depends what you are looking for - was Civ2 more innovative than Civ? No - it was basically Civ1.5 as claimed. Was it a much better game despite this? Yes - that extra polish made a huge difference to gameplay.

So from a perspective of now it is perfectly correct to say play Civ2 not Civ, and that was the question that was asked.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by AreliusMaximus
I kind of like the historical feel to Civ, so I'm not sure how much I'd like a futuristic/space version of it, even as much a fan of sci fi as I am.

It's really cool and immersive. It's Civ with atmosphere

[AreliusMaximus]

Any recommendations on FreeCiv? I only ask because it's well... free.

My understanding is it's a Civ I/II reimplementation. Is it pretty much the same as Civ I/II?

[Nikolai]

I haven't tried FreeCiv for ages, but when I tried it last time, it still was a buggy, less fun hybrid of Civ1 and Civ2.

[DrSpike]

Freeciv is decent for a player driven project. If you want the lowdown on it PM CapTVK.

Personally I'd play Civ2 if you were hankering after an old game, which I am sure you can get pretty easily.

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah, Civ 2 was very good at the time and a worthy sequel (although the graphics weren't jaw-dropping at the time, and needless to say, they look pretty crap now) and I spent many years at the game. But I have found that each successive sequel has always made the previous obsolete...even Civ 3...although it just lacked that effortless playability - I have never figured out why though to this day. That just meant I played Civ less, and I thought it was going to be the end of my civving days.

Civ 4 is definitely the worthy successor, as I have said making all that have passed obsolete. And it is the most playable of the series and genre. You may as well stick with it as I don't think the previous games are going to lead you anywhere except to inappropriate strategies.

And a word from the wise - completely bypass the Call to Power series. Only diehard freaks like that sh*t

[Solver]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
And a word from the wise - completely bypass the Call to Power series. Only diehard freaks like that sh*t

It's funny how everyone praises Civ4, but seems to ignore or just miss the fact how many things in Civ4 have been inspired by the CtP series.

- Diehard freak

[Provost Harrison]

Granted, it was influential...but still sh*t nonetheless

[Solver]

No, it just took some open-mindedness to appreciate. Which, it seems, many lacked .

Honestly, all Civ sites seem to be full of CtP-haters, but I've seen lots of them say that they didn't really play CtP much.

[Virdrago]

I did, I did - and I liked a lot of the features. Some of it bothered me, but they took some of the better ideas and put them into Civ 3 and 4.

All of the Civ games brought in some good ideas, some were just better than others.