«

[laiocfar]

Civilization 1 REMAINS the greatest strategy game ever made...to date!

and what about colonization, i like it more as strategy game.

[Grand Dad]

Yes Colonization is very good too, but then it's a matter of opinion, which is better and which you loke more.
I have all four of them but the others are nowhere like the first one! <_<

[blastradius14]

My armies of phalanx will indeed crush your one armor! :bleh:

You can always build roads in the water, which is useful if you want to build.... anywhere. As long as you have a fish or two...

[velik_m]

Originally posted by Grand Dad @ May 30 2006, 09:19 AM

Yes Colonization is very good too, but then it's a matter of opinion, which is better and which you loke more.
I have all four of them but the others are nowhere like the first one! <_<

actually civ2 feels like civ1.2

[Japo]

Originally posted by velik_m @ Jun 7 2006, 07:27 AM

actually civ2 feels like civ1.2

That's my point also.

[Eagle of Fire]

I always way prefered Civilization to Civilization II. Granted, CIV II is better in every aspect... But in comparison to Civilization, it take so much time to end a game that you could play 8 Civilization games by the time you end one in Civilization two. Add to that there wasn't that much new things to play with in Civilization II vs the original, and you end up sticking to it.

Civ III is about as bad as Civ II when it comes to the time it needs to finish a game, but at least you have so much improvements that it's worth playing with. In Civ II, all what was really interesting was the movies, and even then I always skipped them after 2-3 views because they became bland and boring very quick. The only real problem with CIV III is the random generator... Or, to be more precise, the lack of one! You either win or lose, there is no inbetween.

[Grand Dad]

Except for the graphics. Did you know that Sid Meier himself wasn't too happy with Civ 2? :bleh:

[velik_m]

Originally posted by Eagle of Fire @ Jun 7 2006, 08:16 PM

I always way prefered Civilization to Civilization II. Granted, CIV II is better in every aspect... But in comparison to Civilization, it take so much time to end a game that you could play 8 Civilization games by the time you end one in Civilization two. Add to that there wasn't that much new things to play with in Civilization II vs the original, and you end up sticking to it.

Civ III is about as bad as Civ II when it comes to the time it needs to finish a game, but at least you have so much improvements that it's worth playing with. In Civ II, all what was really interesting was the movies, and even then I always skipped them after 2-3 views because they became bland and boring very quick.

thats how i always felt about civ2 - too much like civ1. no inovation, just couple of fixes. at least civ3 feels like your playing another game, not just the same game on a new OS.

[Japo]

Civ2's graphics were too Windows-like, I didn't like that, but one got used to it after a while. Anyway I prefer graphics which are immersive, everything's about the game not the operating system. I guess everybody prefers so, that's why now all games are full-screen.

Anyway it's true that Civ2 is but an upgrade of Civ, but that's not bad, at least it's better than screwing the thing up like in Civ3 --in my humble opinion. I played Civ1 for hours which ammounted to months altogether, and then when I saw Civ2 I thought it was a bad sequel and wouldn't ever play it. But now when I want to play Civ I play Civ2, it's got everyrhing from Civ1 and combats are not too random like in the first game.

[blastradius14]

Of Course, you gotta remember that Microprose wasn't at the head of Civ 3, or 4. Sid only got to "approve" of things for 3 and 4 :bleh:

You wanna make Civ 2 full screen? Adjust your monitor so you can't see the name task bar at the top anymore, and Auto-hide the start menu/task bar. Its as close as you can get, I bet