Has everyone here played Civ2 first?

[sboog]

I am wondering if everyone here first played Civ2. And I am wondering how you would compare the two.

While waiting for EA to send my SMAC manual, I am trying to learn to play Civ2. It is not easy for me. I am having trouble knowing just what to do and getting adjusted to a Turn Based game.

Is SMAC as hard to get into as Civ2? I know both games have depth and hold people a long time.

Please tell me how you rate the two as far as ease of learning and fun.

sboog

[Sikander]

I got CIV2 about a year before SMAC. The games weren't all that hard for me because I played a lot of CIV1 and have been playing turn based games for almost 30 years. They are complex buggers if you are new to the TBS game world, and I think SMAC is a bit more complex than CIV2. It is also a lot more fun in the long run, since there are so many play styles to choose from. If you are having trouble with CIV2, but think that you will eventually master it, and are enjoying yourself, then I would stick with that for a little while longer because:

1) It's a little bit more intuitive due to it's basis in history rather than science fiction.

2) It's a simpler game.

3) There are a lot of similarities between the games, so if you become proficient at CIV2, it will save you half the learning time that SMAC would take.

[RobN]

I played Civ a lot, then recently decided to move on to either Civ2 or SMAC. I chose SMAC primarily because it is a newer game - I reckoned that Civ2 might seem a bit primitive.

[Cybergod]

I have first got interested into turn-based games through Worms 2 . Then I saw a SMAC demo on a CD-games or something's cover disk. I thought: "Hmm... This sounds interesting..." I've heard of Civ games before but never had a chance to play them. I really liked the demo. Then I bought the game , and you know the rest of the story . Of all other civ games I've only played CTP and found it boring. Oh well. I am planning to buy Civ3, when it comes out though.

[cbn]

I played CIV for years before moving to CIV2. I played that for a year before getting SMAC and then a year later SMAX. I like SMAC/X better because there is more game complexity than CIV2. for example

1. The factions all have very different strengths
2. You can custom engineer your military in the design workshop
3. Social engineering of governments is much more complex

I believe that you might be best to play a bit of CIV2 first. Once you have the CIV2 concepts understood, you can move on to SMAC/X at a time when you can better understand and appreciate the complexity.

[The Commodore]

I began with Civ, then CivII, then SMAC.

[mark13]

SMAC was my first encounter with the Civ genre, although I now have Civ2, and play it occasionally.

[Ned]

I've played both CIV and CIV2. I personally consider CIV harder than either CIV2 or SMAC. The it did things create trade routes between cities without using caravans. Also, combat was all or none. This really complicates your life in numerous ways. (BTW, although many on this board are trying to figure out how to make SMAC harder, no one seems to want to use simple combat ala CIV. That really would make the game hard.) But CIV had one major drawback. It had a unit limit of around 115. Since one practically had to ICS to win CIV, this made garrisoning cities very hard if not impossible.

All said, though, there are so many improved features in SMAC that make it more fun to play. Most here would agree. But if you really want a hard game, try CIV.

[sboog]

Ned, no I DON'T want a hard game. I just want a game I can get into and enjoy. Civ2 is hard for me because I just can't get the hang of what the units do yet. Or where to move them and why.

I hope SMAC is easier to get into. My manual should be here next week so I can try it.

I never played Civ1.

I think coming right from AoE I am having a hard time with the different concepts and graphics. You can't just click and have something happen right before your eyes.

sboog

[Alex]

I played Civ2 first, then SMAC. I think SMAC is a superior game, but it is also much more complicated than Civ2. When I first booted SMAC, I kept looking at the screen for a long time, just wondering: "what am I supposed to do now?". But, since I had played Civ2 before, it was not so hard to start applying some basic guidelines.
Anyway, play Civ2 first. You will then be more prepared to handle some of SMAC subtleties.

[Iskandar Reza]

I played civ2 first, then smac, then ctp, then smax, then ctp2, and then back to smac/x.

ctp's just... well i don't like public works.

[Sprayber]

I started with SMAC. I was destroyed many times by mindworms that came from no where and took an unguarded base. I was like what the hell was that? After becomming good at SMAC/X I tried CTP and was bored out of my skull. So I would play a quick game of SMAC to get my spirits up again. I really wanted to like CTP, because I like history so much. But I never got into it though. SMAC/X has that way of pulling me into the story. I catch myself saying, "here comes Yang" and actually be concerned if I'm going to get away. Or If my invasion will be successful, because damnit, Yang took out my colony pod or former and he's going to pay. In CTP, it was like. Here comes the green guy. Oh whoopeee. I haven't tried CIV2. I think that I will get Civ3 just to see what all the fuss is about though.

Just as a note. The AC fiction forum has helped continue my interest in SMAC/X. The SMAC universe contains so many possibilities. I think it is a tribute to all the project team at Firaxis, despite legitmate gripes we may have, that they created a game where we can go along with the story as the game goes on.

[Lefty Scaevola]

I started with smac.

[Garth Vader]

I started with CIV, then Civ2, then SMAC. Civ2 is easier to learn but SMAC is more fun.

[Earwicker]

I started with Civ2 and found it pretty easy to learn and captivating with the historical side of things. Love them both but play only one at a time (until I get bored, then switch to the other, and so on . . .)