Civ 1 or CivNet?

[octavius]

I used to play Civilization quite a lot when I was younger, but either the AI was very good or I was not a very good player, 'cause the only time I won was when I stole the secret of building nukes from top dogs the Romans. I then built one nuke and one paratrooper for each of their cities and then annihilated them. With the romans gone I was top dog and built the first space ship.

Anyway I was thinking of replaying Civ 1 again after not having played it for 15+ years, and I see there was a version released for Windows, with slicker interface and better graphics.
Is there any reason not to use CivNet instead of the old Civ 1? I did notice that the city production window was rather small.

Also, anyone played the Amiga version of Civ 1? For me it was one of the many things that made me abandon the Amiga when I discovered that unlike the DOS version with it's random worlds, the Amiga version always started you in the same place in the same world if you chose the same leader.

 

[Malakal]

You were young, AI wasnt ever competent in civ games. It just cheats.

Dunno about the original question.

 

[Grunker]

Good idea. Didn't even know about CivNet. I'd like to replay it too. I have a major irrational taste for the Palace-building of Civ1.

 

[DakaSha]

civ2

 

[octavius]

civ2

I didn't see that one coming.

 

[spectre]

He's kinda right. Last time I played Civ 1 was in 1995. When Civ 2 came out, I never looked back.

But if you're nostalgic enough, and would like to relive the tank killing chariot moments of your boy-hood I'd say go for CivNet.
The gameplay _should_ be identical, so why not just go for the updated version?

 

[Kersey]

Civ 2 was a little too different / more complex to completely replace Civ 1 for me. They're both good fun depending what sort of a Civ-fix I'm looking for. Last time I played Civ 1 I even tried the three versions I know of; the original DOS version, "Civilization for Windows" and CivNET. It's been a while but I'm pretty sure my preferred version was CivNET. It plays faster and has the best UI of the bunch. If I remember correctly the old Windows version is somewhere between the original and CivNET.

Of course the only way to get a proper nostalgia fix is with the original DOS version, CivNET lacks some of the flavour. Oh and if you get CivNET, PATCH IT.

 

[Grunker]

If I want nostalgia I play cIv, if I want the best game, I play cIV. I see no reason to play II. Except for:



Man shit was great

 

[Grunker]

"In truth sire... WE SUCK"

 

[octavius]

He's kinda right. Last time I played Civ 1 was in 1995. When Civ 2 came out, I never looked back.

While digging in my archives I found my old Civ 1 manual and technical supplement, which I had expected to find. But I also unexpectedly found a Civ 2 manual, so at one point I must have moved on to Civ 2 myself.

While reading up on Civ 1 I remember some things I didn't like about Civ 1 that was improved in Civ 2:

Combat. In Win 1 one militia could theoretically capture the world most heavily fortified city with a lucky die roll. Civ 2 was more realistic.

My pet peeve about Civ 1 was that you had to babysit your population too much, and the program would not advice you about upcoming revolts. IIRC Civ 2 did warn you about this before pressing End Turn, and you could avoid revolts by adjusting tax rate or hire Elvis.


Being young and innocent I didn't notice that the AI cheated shamelessly (although I did wonder why only my triremes sank in open water) in Civ 1.
Does it cheat as much in Civ 2?

 

[Erebus]

Never tried CivNet, but from what I remember, Civ 2 is a clear improvement over Civ 1 without being extremely different. I used to be addicted to it and, even today, I still play it from times to times.

 

[Luzur]

i played Civ I on both PC and Amiga, never saw any problems with it, Civnet i never tried although i owned it once (never unwrapped the box even) so i would say Civ I and Civ II

 

[DwarvenFood]

Out of the Civ servers I enjoyed CivIV the most, also with the mods and texture packs and expansions.

 

[Internet]

You could try C-Evo (it's free) if you haven't done so already.

 

[Kalin]

I'd recommend Colonization as well.

 

[octavius]

Hmm...aren't Barracks supposed to stop sea barbarians landing?
Funny thing is that the instant I switched production to barracks a raiding party landed near the city in question. Next turn the barracks was finished, and the turn after yet another raiding party landed.

 

[DakaSha]

You could try C-Evo (it's free) if you haven't done so already.

This is true actually. It is basically civ2 but better and with a MUCH better AI. Only thing civ2 has going for it is the nostalgia, music and advisers (which, given, is a big deal)

 

[someone else]

I thought the settlers icon in Civ 1 look like a loaf of bread.

 

[octavius]

Damned, this game is addictive!
I'm not a big fan of the extreme randomness in combat, though. A battleship losing against musketeers is just too annoying.
I just won as the Romans on King level, against 6 other civs, in year 1917. Score=813. I refused to research that vile ideology known as Communism, but I also defeated the Americans in 1916.
I cheated a bit, though. I couldn't be assed to babysit all my cities each turn, so I reloaded and adjusted if there was unrest. I don't feel bad about this. But I must admit also reloaded if the combat results were too bizarre.
But let's see how Hammurabi and the Babylonians fare without any combat reloads.

 

[DakaSha]

fail

 

[Internet]

Watching pikemen destroy tanks is an important part of every civ game.

 

[Kersey]

This thread inspired me to have a look at the early Civs. I actually enjoy Civ 1 the most right now. CivNet plays faster but there's something lacking. And the "randomness" of combat results also has me trying something extremely unprobable sometimes and being amazed that it actually worked every now and then which I quite like in this game. Civ 2 on the other hand is a little bit more detailed but also does some nice things to reduce the player's workload, I especially appreciate the option to have my cities produce wealth and other things instead of units or buildings. I prefer Civ 1 but is may be just for the nostalgia. Of all the later ones I'd just go for Civ 4.

 

[octavius]

I've found that I can regularly beat the game on King level now. So either the Amiga version was harder (not bloody likely) or I was not a very good strategy player back then. Of course now I have the advantage of having access to the accumulated wisdom of the internet, and I know more of how the game actually works, like how the AI cheats.
King level actually feels a bit too easy (I'm always in the lead in tech), while Emperor level is a bit too frustrating.

I have Civ 4 somewhere, but never tried it yet. And Civ 2 I didn't play much. My memory is fuzzy, but I probably didn't like Civ 2 as much as I liked Civ 1.

I've decided to try and win by world conquest in my current game (King level), instead of just winning the space race. Playing as the Germans I have wiped out the Mongols and the Zulus, while the Russians have gobbled up lots of other civs, including the Americans and the Chinese.
Too bad I can't play as Hitler against Stalin. Or rather, too bad I didn't think of renaming Frederick...

 

[Malakal]

The same could be said about civ2 and 3 too, perhaps 5 too, dont really play it now. Only 4 had really big penalties for overexpanding that could cripple you.

This is one thing I hate about civs 1,2,3, the endless city spam.

 

[octavius]

I can live with most of the ways the AI cheats, like being able to (apparantly) produce more than one unit per city per turn, being awarded wonders without actually building them, diplomats spawning from units fortified near your cities, and being able to meet with your king without using diplomats. But one thing is just too fucking annoying: that they can park units on your own squares and mess up your production and (if (rail)roads are blocked) logistics, while I can't do the same to them without breaking treaty.
And being a democracy, I can't even declare war on them without having a revolution first.