Graphics over Gameplay...or?

[Boris Godunov]

EU made me appreciate Civ more. EU is, after all, dull.

[Ben Kenobi]

Fundy govt were enough to make the game ****!

How dare you blaspheme against the most powerful government in civ.

Do you have something against kicking AI tail with a real government and not a pansy democracy?

[Maquiladora]

I think graphics should be as good as they can be, without gobbling all the budget away to make gameplay as good as it can be, gameplay is way more important.

[Solver]

Do you have something against kicking AI tail with a real government and not a pansy democracy?

Yup. The AI was so dumb already, you didn't really need a govt where you don't pay for your army.

[pg]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
EU made me appreciate Civ more. EU is, after all, dull.

opposite for me. eu2 is slow moving but what really makes me love it is all the countries, and having a whole world map(that is filled with said countries). plus you practically get the same amount of gameplay civ has without tons of micromanagement. the price you pay is you are bored sometimes in between war or maneuvering for war.

civ games(single player) are usually over very fast but the rest of the game is spent mopping up. after you conquer your first civ(or by just using ics well) you have usually already won as no one will catch up to you in power. eu2 is setup so the game is very tilted against you in the beginning(unless you are playing france, but i usually play minors) so you have a hard time not because the game is unbalanced but because of your circumstances. i find this style leads to better gameplay than the standard civ style where everyone has a mini-empire before the real gameplay(read: war) starts.

[Maquiladora]

Dunno if this has been said but graphics can have influence on the gameplay anyway. If theyre clear and intuitive then its easier to learn and then more enjoyable and alot more comfitable to look at for hours.

3D is not necessary, but clear and understanable graphics are, if it can be made more clear in 3D better than it can in 2D then do that, but alot of games ive played its often harder to see things and harder to play in long periods in a completely 3D world.

[Traianvs]

I hoped that Civ 2 would take the classic that Civ 1 is, remove messy stuff, add something cool. Instead, I still had absolutely ridicilous air units, those DAMN CARAVANS!!!, the ability to buy half the enemy army with Spies, and the same unit building cities and doing terraforming. Most Civ 1 problems weren't fixed. Just the Warrior vs. Battleship, which was *sort of* fixed. While the crap that Civ 2 added... Leonardo's Workshop and Fundy govt were enough to make the game crap!

Well, I played civ1, after i played civ2, and the graphics were horrendous!! I just couldn't stand watching it top down, and units were mere icons of units, not real representations... i preferred colonization..

I liked the air units, although sometimes the fighters were a little bit weak.. though the bombers just kicked everybody and everythings ass, big time! I don't see what's wrong with caravans, as in the other civs caravans were also that: "caravans"

about buying all the enemy's units: well you can't bribe units when they are stacked: so that proved a good tactic, and also, paying 6000 for a rifleman or even a tank => i cannot afford that!

Btw: fundi gov was meant for endgames: it's stupid to switch to fundi when you haven't researched all your techs, because science research goes so horribly slow... it's simply meant for an all out war at the end of the game! Leo's workshop is something different... but it's handy, if you have many cities and you need to replace all your units with musketeers it could hamper your growth big time, therefore leo's workshop might come in handy, i don't think it's a bad wonder (the great library is a bit similar in my opinion..)


Civ2 was not a disappointment: it improved civ1 in a way that it didn't add a 1000 extra features, but it simply improved it, with an easier layout, and nicer more orderly graphics (although some disagree with that ). In any case, even though the AI relies on cheating on higher difficulty levels, it never really bothered me... as long as i don't know my enemy is cheating, i don't care!

[DrSpike]

I sympathise with some of the points about balance in Civ2, but I cannot believe that anyone who has played a lot of both could possibly believe the balance problems were any less severe in Civ1..........because they definitely were not. Civ2 was Civ1 + much more balance.

[Solver]

That's right, I will disagree on Civ 2 graphics improvements . Caravans were needed for your civ, but boring to the point of making me insane. I'm so glad they don't exist in Civ3 and SMAC, and in CtP they exist in a much better implementation.

[Solver]

Spikey, where's the balance in Fundy? Switch Fundy, get an army and go kick everyone. You don't even have to be modern with Tanks, you can do it with Knights as well. Where's the balance in Leo's Workshop, generally being lots of free units? Where's the balance in darn howitzer rush? And those bombers that fly, kill everyone and can hardly be intercepted, aren't too good either.

[Standup]

"Sunday Gamers" I like that idea.

I'd imagine that part of the reason is that (at least in the UK) Console games outsell PC games and that means more casual gamers/impulse purchases/presents which means buyers attracted by shiny objects with fancy graphics and who don't read reviews.

I've stood next to people who choose their game on the basis of the screenshots on the box so i don't think Gameplay is high on their list.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by pg


opposite for me. eu2 is slow moving but what really makes me love it is all the countries, and having a whole world map(that is filled with said countries). plus you practically get the same amount of gameplay civ has without tons of micromanagement. the price you pay is you are bored sometimes in between war or maneuvering for war.

civ games(single player) are usually over very fast but the rest of the game is spent mopping up. after you conquer your first civ(or by just using ics well) you have usually already won as no one will catch up to you in power. eu2 is setup so the game is very tilted against you in the beginning(unless you are playing france, but i usually play minors) so you have a hard time not because the game is unbalanced but because of your circumstances. i find this style leads to better gameplay than the standard civ style where everyone has a mini-empire before the real gameplay(read: war) starts.

That just isn't my EU experience. I found the gameplay to be very dull and repetitive. The rumored "complex" diplomacy was nothing of the kind, as you just bought yourself to good relations. There were lots of diplomatic options, yes, but not real depth.

There just isn't much to do in the game. The colony/territory building is as sparse as can be, which doesn't lend much to a sense of "empire," IMO. Having all the other nations is cool, but I don't think it actually enhanced gameplay that much. In Civ3, I feel much more of a sense of competition, which is what I want most. I also think Civ has a much more enjoyable combat mechanism, as EU's is a joke. And I've never had the EU AI put up as daunting a fight in war as I've had in Civ3.

[pg]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
That just isn't my EU experience. I found the gameplay to be very dull and repetitive. The rumored "complex" diplomacy was nothing of the kind, as you just bought yourself to good relations. There were lots of diplomatic options, yes, but not real depth.

dull and repetitive is all computer games more or less - so basically you just didn't like it. i hope you gave eu2 a good chance. i didn't say diplomacy was good but it's much better than you make it out to be. you can setup things like alliances that you know countries won't honor to gain cb's or pull others into wars/etc. i've yet to see a good diplomacy in a game but eu2 lets you do some decent stuff. civ's is pretty pathetic in diplomacy(civ3 is ok). the real depth in eu2 is playing as minors where circumstances are stacked against you then manipulating all the other countries to gain advantage for yourself. this is hard to do in civ just because there are so fewer countries(civ would be great if it could have many more countries i think).

There just isn't much to do in the game. The colony/territory building is as sparse as can be, which doesn't lend much to a sense of "empire," IMO. Having all the other nations is cool, but I don't think it actually enhanced gameplay that much. In Civ3, I feel much more of a sense of competition, which is what I want most. I also think Civ has a much more enjoyable combat mechanism, as EU's is a joke.

eu2 is very simple but that's why i like it. civ is kinda like a level treadmill where you replace units/buildings with newer ones yet it doesn't really change things that much other than adding tons of micromanagement. maybe you like micromanagement though but i don't.

the combat isn't that bad. it's basically the same as civ most of the time. in civ you usually have 1 fast type unit(knights, armor, etc), 1 artillery(catapult, cannon, etc), and 1 cheap/defense unit(militia, phalanx, riflemen, etc) along with air and ships. eu2 has ships(3 types), and artillery/infantry/cavalry. their usage is different but it's somewhat similar. it's even better in some ways with sieges, and terrain making a difference more than just defensive bonuses.

And I've never had the EU AI put up as daunting a fight in war as I've had in Civ3.

seriously? playing as a minor you don't have more problems than in civ3? maybe i just suck but i lose lots of games as minors or take a very long time to make a decent empire.

[Ben Kenobi]

Spikey, where's the balance in Fundy? Switch Fundy, get an army and go kick everyone. You don't even have to be modern with Tanks, you can do it with Knights as well. Where's the balance in Leo's Workshop, generally being lots of free units? Where's the balance in darn howitzer rush? And those bombers that fly, kill everyone and can hardly be intercepted, aren't too good either.

Solver:
How does one completely balance a game? Every game has strategies that work better than others, especially the ones that you have named.

You know what's really fun? Taking the unbalances and playing against them, such as forcing a Democratic war, or a Fundy research government. It may not be how the developers intended, but still doable. That to me is a sign of balance, in that all governments have a chance to prosper.

Although, I think we're getting off-topic for the other games forum...