DeLong: I had to decide whether to be a Civilization addict or an economics professor

[Carolus Rex]

Another (although obscure) economist here, who barely made the PhD due to a Civ 2 and Apolyton addiction...

Still trying to figure out if it was worth it (the PhD? the Civ 2 madness? )...

Carolus

[MarkG]

http://www.cafepress.com/apolyton.65373168

[Kuciwalker]

[asleepathewheel]

Re: DeLong: I had to decide whether to be a Civilization addict or an economics profe

Yeah, I barely got through law school due to the PTWDG

[Ecthy]

Markos, you got T-Shirt on demand? Can I get a "Ecthy is teh best" shirt for standard price?

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You. Don't. Have. CivIV?!

Neither do I, it wouldn't even run on my machine. Seen it, but never played it.

Are you OK Im?

[-Jrabbit]

I'm among the last of the Civ2 players.
My comp won't handle IV.

[Ecthy]

Civ 2

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Markos, you got T-Shirt on demand?

for years now

Can I get a "Ecthy is teh best" shirt for standard price?

sure. just let me know of details (type of shirt, font used in the text, etc). we also have the option to do black t-shirt now although i havent bought one of those yet to see how it turns out

[Sikander]

I have Civ 3, but don't like it. I won't even try Civ 4 until it costs 5$ or less. I occasionally fire up Civ 2, but the Civ game that wasted large swaths of my life was Civ 1. And of course SMAC/X.

[Ecthy]

Fun, that.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
CivIV kicks CivIII's ass so hard it isn't even funny.

True - except for how they handle artillery units (catapults, cannons and artillery). In Civ III these units could be protected by friendly units as they fired at the enemy from a distance - which is what artillery does in real life.

In Civ IV, if you want to target enemy units, you actually have to use your artillery like you'd use common melee units and directly attack the enemy with them, most likely losing them in the process because artillery units aren't made for that kind of fighting. This is a change that really sucks in my opinion and the collateral damage - although a nice touch - really does not make up for it.

Also, I kind of liked how in Civ III you couldn't just capture a city and then move all your forces on to attack the next one. If you wanted to keep the first city, you'd have to leave an occupying force there for some time to put down resistance and restore order. This, in my opinion, was much more realistic than the "leave one unit and move on" approach of Civ IV.

Look at Iraq, for instance. Much of the problem there is that the US and their allies invaded with a force large enough to topple a government in just over 30 days, but not nearly large enough to control the country afterwards. In the words of an insightful comedian, "We have gone from promising to democratize the Middle East to hoping to secure a safe ride to the airport!"

Except for these things, yes, Civ IV is vastly superior.

[Guardian]

Whoops... made a mistake trying to edit the previous post in a hurry and ended up doing "reply with quote" instead.

Since I can't delete posts, this one stays too, but I'm not gonna make you read the above all over again.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Guardian
Whoops... made a mistake trying to edit the previous post in a hurry and ended up doing "reply with quote" instead.

Since I can't delete posts, this one stays too, but I'm not gonna make you read the above all over again.

No worries. I think the usual protocol when that happens (we all do it) is to hastily edit the duplicate and replace the text with 'dp' for duplicate post, or 'x2'.

[Ecthy]

Or "nm".