Civilization 4 vs GalCiv 2

[Wiglaf]

Is this game more or less complicated than GalCiv 2?

I own Civ and it's got a lot of **** going on. For instance, there are these "specialists" who need "food" but seem to generate "beakers" and yet if there is too much "food" apparently people reproduce wildly and starve themselves, especially if they are pacifists and do nothing but pot and screw, figure that one out. Also this may or may not cause my "sad face" ratio to get out of hand. And I think you would need to be some sort of cartogrepher to understand how discovering the world is round somehow speeds up your ships, or the formula for war weariness, which is bizarre flat out.

Can anyone who played GalCiv confirm that the game is better suited to idiots or those who are unable to grasp arbitrary concepts for the sake of strategic gameplay?

[Willem]

What is the point of this thread Wiglaf? You're not fooling anyone pretending to be a newbie. Grow up and get a life. While you're at it, stop coming here and trashing a game you obviously don't like. Talk about a waste of time!

[Wiglaf]

I have made it clear several times I have no idea how Civ works, but thank you for your time

I prefer to drop cities in the nice blue circles because it's what the game tells me to do, if you really must know.

[Willem]

How about that, this forum has an ignore list. So I won't have to put up with your crap anymore and end up wasting my own time.

[Wiglaf]

I am amazed people who use the ignore list always feel compelled to tell everyone when they are using it. Smug satisfaction

Aside from this petty 2nd grade level bullying from the Canadian, it's still a live and interesting question to me, since GalCiv looks fairly cute.

[Solver]

Cut the crap you two, will you? Get some discussion going or the thread is toast...

[Wiglaf]

Well Solver you've played Gal Civ. Is it as complex as Civ or no?

[wodan11]

I bought GC2 and played it, discovered a horribly broken strategy, and uninstalled it from my system.

Wodan

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by wodan11
I bought GC2 and played it, discovered a horribly broken strategy, and uninstalled it from my system.

Wodan

You do know that patches radically change Galciv right?

[johnmcd]

Gal Civ 2 is an adequate title but you've got to love your space strategy, it's not as intuitive (or fun) as Civ, in my opinon.

[Elwro]

GalCiv2 hides more mechanics-related information from the player than Civ does. For example the exact way the social/military etc production sliders work... hidden in mystery.

[marvinkosh]

In my opinion, both titles have good gameplay. Complexity doesn't necessarily make a game less fun, so long as it's not overdone. If the player is able to make decisions on how to press forward and is engaged enough by the game to want to continue, then they'll play on.

[Solver]

In my opinion, no, GalCiv2 isn't quite as complex as Civ4, though it's not too far off. But in GalCiv2, provided you actually have a good understanding of the game's mechanics, you have a lot to gain from micromanagement, more than in Civ4.

GalCiv2 is also probably easier to play than Civ4. As said, GalCiv2 tends to throw less in your face, and the AI is easy to customize for appropriate challenge - if you set it to a low level of intelligence, it will employ strategies that new players with little understanding of the game are likely to employ.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


You do know that patches radically change Galciv right?

Yes. That was when it first came out. I haven't tried it since.

Wodan

[Blaupanzer]

GalCiv2 is a nice diversion with some definitely hidden game mechanics. CIV4, especially BTS, is a life commitment.

Solver, I see a lot more opportunity for micromanagement in CIV, so I am not sure I understood your point about relatively more benefits to be had from GalCiv2. Care to explicate?