Does ANYONE still play the first Civ game? :)
jor...@my-deja.com
11 year old game, and on top of that I play version 1 (there were 5 of
them) cause its got that cool shift 56 "cheat".
Anyway, if anyone still cares, I found the coolest "strategy"! I never
saw anyone mention it in any FAQ or anything, but if you go through
enough cyles of global warming (took me over 600 years), the WHOLE
WORLD will turn into swamp! Do you realize the potential of this trick?
You can irrigate the hell out of your land and turn it all into
grassland!!! Way cool if you use the fast settler cheat. Of course most
of your cities will starve down to size 1 and you will lose all your
improvements. But here's the catch: Ocean, Tundra, Arctic, Hills,
Mountain and (drum roll) RIVER squares dont get converted to swamp!
River is basically grasslands so you can still have some fairly large
cities to support your settlers! My God in a few days most of my cities
will be around size 40 :)
Also, a lot of the irrigation remains on top of the swamp, even though
its not possible to irrigate it. No effect on production though.
Railroads also stay there so you can move your settlers around. This is
great because the computer isnt very good at recovering from that post
apocaliptic scenario, they dont make many settlers and they cant use
the fast settler cheat. Fun, eh? Well, at least I think it is. Any
comments?
Jorge Lima
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Nick
civ 1 when civ 2 is much better....weird
Nick
<jor...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8l4o1h$vif$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
charles
awesome game and I didn't get near the enjoyment of of 2. So I give you
marks for sticking with 1 but the cheating is lame in my opinion.
later,
charles
Nick
first one.
Nick
charles <pend...@pendragon.com> wrote in message
news:8l5c7u$mgf$1...@admin-srv3.micron.com...
charles
>first one.
How so? I played 2 for a few months but it just didn't do it for me.
later,
charles
Gerry Quinn
>I've played civ 1 and 2 to death but Civ 2 is superior in every way to the
>first one.
>
Not in *every way*:
Civ1 had a better manual. The leaders seemed to have more personality.
And the Roman fanfare was cool!
Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Puzzle / Strategy Games and Kaleidoscope for Windows
Download evaluation versions free, no time limits
New: Unique 2-player strategy game "Zen"
Daniel Silevitch
<ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> In article <8l7l77$t2p$1...@supernews.com>, "Nick" <nick_s...@lineone.net>
> wrote:
> >I've played civ 1 and 2 to death but Civ 2 is superior in every way to the
> >first one.
> >
> >Nick
>
> Not in *every way*:
>
> Civ1 had a better manual. The leaders seemed to have more personality.
> And the Roman fanfare was cool!
Also, as a reward, the Civ1 palace was better than the Civ2 throneroom.
I don't really remember the Civ1 manual (it has been many years), but
Civ2 did have a pretty good one.
-dms
Christoph Nahr
Agree with both of you. Civ1 had much more style! In addition to
what was said, it also had a better city screen and cool parades of
soldiers or citizens for conquests and "We Love The King" days.
Civ2's atmosphere was ruined by that dull, overly slick renderlook.
--
Visit http://uuhome.de/christoph.nahr/ for Might & Magic information
and game projects with source code for download: Star Chess & Hexkit
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Daniel Silevitch <dms...@pha.jhu.edu> wrote:
>
>Also, as a reward, the Civ1 palace was better than the Civ2 throneroom.
Well yeah, except for the "bearskins" stage of the throneroom in Civ2.
That was the best bit of all; it's all downhill after those stupid
citizens throw out the bearskins.
--
Leif Kj{\o}nn{\o}y | "Its habit of getting up late you'll agree
www.pvv.org/~leifmk| That it carries too far, when I say
Math geek and gamer| That it frequently breakfasts at five-o'clock tea,
GURPS, Harn, CORPS | And dines on the following day." (Carroll)
Mirror Spock
>
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 07:24:31 -0400, Daniel Silevitch
> <dms...@pha.jhu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <s9Vd5.9150$r4....@news.indigo.ie>, Gerry Quinn
> ><ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
> >>
> >> Civ1 had a better manual. The leaders seemed to have more personality.
> >> And the Roman fanfare was cool!
> >
> >Civ2 did have a pretty good one.
>
> Agree with both of you. Civ1 had much more style! In addition to
> what was said, it also had a better city screen and cool parades of
> soldiers or citizens for conquests and "We Love The King" days.
> Civ2's atmosphere was ruined by that dull, overly slick renderlook.
I miss the little replay of your progress at the end of the game, as
well as the timeline it would create.
* Robinson
--
"No one questions the assassination of a Captain who disobeys prime
orders of the Empire."
-- Ensign Pavel Chekov, "Mirror, Mirror"
G Bailey
>
>That was the best bit of all; it's all downhill after those stupid
>citizens throw out the bearskins.
I was disappointed that there weren't any dancing girls in the throneroom.
Or girls wearing nothing but bearskins. Zug zug. :)
Glen
Stranger
least comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic) should know that:
>In article <210720000724315052%dms...@pha.jhu.edu>,
>Daniel Silevitch <dms...@pha.jhu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Also, as a reward, the Civ1 palace was better than the Civ2 throneroom.
>
>Well yeah, except for the "bearskins" stage of the throneroom in Civ2.
>That was the best bit of all; it's all downhill after those stupid
>citizens throw out the bearskins.
:-)
Well you can keep the bearskins until you have maxed out all other parts
of the throneroom if you want...
Stranger
STEAMFAX
games and makeovers, I felt Civ1 was by far the tighter game.
It did not take forever to complete a game. By the third or forth night I
could finish a civ 1 game, maybe even in one day if I played at it and did
nothing else. Civ2 by contrast took weeks to finish, by then I lost interest.
They should redo Civ1, the graphics, remove some of the easy player schemes to
victory and sell it gain, maybe continue to improve it over time and sell it
as an ongoing classic, maybe like Monopoly over the years.
James Gassaway
: They should redo Civ1, the graphics, remove some of the easy player
: schemes to victory and sell it gain, maybe continue to improve it over
: time and sell it as an ongoing classic, maybe like Monopoly over the
: years.
They did. The first "improved" Civilization re-do was marketed under the
name "Civilization II". <grin>
--
Multiversal Mercenaries. You name it, we kill it. Any time, any reality.
Nick
first game....not...enough....time!!
Nick
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y <lei...@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:8l9pf1$7g5$1...@kopp.stud.ntnu.no...
> In article <210720000724315052%dms...@pha.jhu.edu>,
> Daniel Silevitch <dms...@pha.jhu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >Also, as a reward, the Civ1 palace was better than the Civ2 throneroom.
>
> Well yeah, except for the "bearskins" stage of the throneroom in Civ2.
> That was the best bit of all; it's all downhill after those stupid
> citizens throw out the bearskins.
>
>
Bishop
wrote:
>I've played civ 1 and 2 to death but Civ 2 is superior in every way to the
>first one.
>
>Nick
>
>
Nah. Civ 2 is a good game, but there's nothing like an original.
Playing Civ 1 for the first time was one of those special gaming
experiences that can't be recreated with a sequel.
You can't be blown away for the first time twice (sounds like
something Yogi Berra would have said).
Nick
civ 1 as civ 2. Sequels can be better !
Nick
Bishop <dweb...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:397a1043....@news.jacksonville.net...
Edmond Walsh
<gba...@aol.com.leavoff> writes
>>>Also, as a reward, the Civ1 palace was better than the Civ2 throneroom.
>>
>>Well yeah, except for the "bearskins" stage of the throneroom in Civ2.
>>That was the best bit of all; it's all downhill after those stupid
>>citizens throw out the bearskins.
>
>Or girls wearing nothing but bearskins. Zug zug. :)
>
>Glen
--
Edmond Walsh
Bishop
wrote:
>Civ 2 got better and better the more I played it. I wasn't as addicted to
>civ 1 as civ 2. Sequels can be better !
>
>Nick
Maybe I should have put it another way, both games are great, but the
original Civ will always be my favorite.
Buck Naked
watching your color spread over the continents. It is also missing the
history.txt file at the end you can create.
Simple pleasures for simple minds?
"Bishop" <dweb...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:397b8cbb....@news.jacksonville.net...
David Peterschmidt
>
> IThough Civ2 seemed to have more going on and it was easier to create custom
> games and makeovers, I felt Civ1 was by far the tighter game.
> It did not take forever to complete a game. By the third or forth night I
> could finish a civ 1 game, maybe even in one day if I played at it and did
> nothing else. Civ2 by contrast took weeks to finish, by then I lost interest.
>
> victory and sell it gain, maybe continue to improve it over time and sell it
> as an ongoing classic, maybe like Monopoly over the years.
I would think with the auto-settlers and such that Civ2 would play
quicker, especially toward the endgame. Personally I thought the only
thing Civ1 had over Civ2 was the game replay thingy at the end, where
you could see the ebb and flow of civs over the course of time. That
was cool. Otherwise Civ2 is just a better game all the way around IMO.
A lot of the little problems that plague Civ1 were addressed for Civ2.
Dave
Nick
the only thing 1 has over 2 though in my opinion
Nick
Buck Naked <an0n...@kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:S7Te5.12812$t%4.10...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
Daryl Sawyer
wrote:
>Civ 2 got better and better the more I played it. I wasn't as addicted to
>civ 1 as civ 2. Sequels can be better !
Civ1 may have had more "personality" to it, but in terms of gameplay,
Civ2 signifigantly improved the diplomacy. Civ2 fits much better with
someone who just likes playing a diplomatic game, carefully balancing
one against another, making sure they themselves don't get so powerful
that the computer gangs up on them.
jor...@my-deja.com
> Sorry you just sound very sad to me! Cheating for a start - and then
playing
> civ 1 when civ 2 is much better....weird
what shift-56 was? It didnt give you money or anything at all, it was a
special hidden debug mode that was just so cool! You could really see
the insides of the game and how some things were implemented. The only
advantadge I could see in it was that the map was revealed and you
could peek inside enemy cities. Not that useful, if you consider the
fact that Civ2 (which sucks BTW) has a builtin easily accessible cheat
menu which can spoil the game for the 99% players who end up not being
able to resist it. And I would really like to see you play Civ2 on a
25 Mhz 486 which doesnt have windoze. (My new computer broke down)
Anyway its sort of a weird experience to see 23 messages rambling about
minor points when no one talked about my cool trick/strategy. Anyone
know if it works on Civ2?
that reminds me, I really dont like Civ2. Its so... static. It doesnt
have any animations. It looks like a quick rehash of the original Civ
(as if they hadnt done it enought times already) and it isnt
necessarily better. I mean, come on, its got more units and more
buildings. Yay...?
Sure, the diplomacy looks cool. But does it work? It would work if the
computer wasnt so DUMB! I can be allied with the whole freaking world
and they send what, one or two units when I get attacked, if they send
anything at all?
I really need to check out the newer civ-a-likes. Anyone can tell me if
they got decent AI already? Or do they just keep on cheating
shamelessly?
Bishop
wrote:
>Yeah they should have put the end display in - I forgot about that. That's
>the only thing 1 has over 2 though in my opinion
>
>Nick
>
Civ 1 has a better manual, so that's 2 things. Uh oh, the list is
growing.. <g>
Nick
known about this I wouldn't have used it. I don't want to see inside a
game - I want to play it! I'm not interested in cheat modes - and I don't
use them even if I know where they are etc - its all about willpower - mate
Fair enough - if you've got an old machine there's no option. How is Civ 2
'static' compared to civ 1 exactly ?
Civ 2 is better. And you sound really sad btw - hope your other computer
gets better so you can stop ranting about your civ 1 memories!
Nick
<jor...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8lnr4d$cjh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Bishop
wrote:
>
>Civ 2 is better. And you sound really sad btw - hope your other computer
>gets better so you can stop ranting about your civ 1 memories!
>
>Nick
>
The funny thing is, if you read this entire thread, I think there are
maybe 2 people that totally agree with you. It's not that one game is
better, it's one's *opinion* which game they *prefer*. Everyone else
here is giving their opinions, but since they don't agree with your
*facts*, you call us and crazy and sad, yet nobody is ridiculing you.
How old are you anyway?
Here's how it works-
I like Civ1, you like Civ2, so who's right?
<Jeopardy theme>
Answer: We both are. Ok?
Nick
I used to love Civ 1 but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realise that Civ
2 is far better surely ?
Nick
Bishop <dweb...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3980aad0...@news.jacksonville.net...
Buck Naked
Why would you think that a number at the end makes it better?
Terminator ROCKED
Terminator 2 was a kinder, gentler, suckier Terminator.
I have seen alot of posts that says MOO is better than MOO2. Personally,
the glaring omission of watching your color spread around the world in the
end really ruined CIV2 for me.
"Nick" <nick_s...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:8lsu89$r5q$1...@supernews.com...
Bishop
wrote:
>I used to love Civ 1 but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realise that Civ
>2 is far better surely ?
>
I guess it does, cause I don't.
Any brain surgeons out there?
Nick
Seriously....Civ is a case where the sequel was better. Unlike Airplane
Shirley
Terminator 2...hmm. I really can't say which one I prefer, they are both
great in their own way.
Nick
Buck Naked <an0n...@kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:l0og5.11507$ci1....@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
> Maybe it is, and mabe it isn't, but don't call me Shirley.
>
> Why would you think that a number at the end makes it better?
>
> Terminator ROCKED
> Terminator 2 was a kinder, gentler, suckier Terminator.
> I have seen alot of posts that says MOO is better than MOO2. Personally,
> the glaring omission of watching your color spread around the world in the
> end really ruined CIV2 for me.
> "Nick" <nick_s...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:8lsu89$r5q$1...@supernews.com...
> > Well I was called sad by someone who made himself sound really stupid!
> >
> > I used to love Civ 1 but it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realise that
> Civ
> > 2 is far better surely ?
> >