3 ms·

I probably played Civ1 the most, on the Amiga back in the day. IMO, Civ II was the best in the series, and if I find myself craving a game of Civ, I go for Fre

by jcadam 6y ago

I probably played Civ1 the most, on the Amiga back in the day. IMO, Civ II was the best in the series, and if I find myself craving a game of Civ, I go for FreeCiv. Never tried Civ VI, the last few iterations just did not hook me the way the original did. If I'm looking for a good world sim, I like the Paradox series of games - Europa Universalis, Victoria, etc.

skatanski 6y ago
Similarly played Civ1 on Amiga 500 a lot. Didn’t know how to create save disks, so just left it running overnight. No game again reproduced that feeling of marvel, getting to know its mechanics first time. It does feel that Paradox games create a better simulation. Even Crusader Kings, albeit on a slightly different level.
- cptnapalm 6y ago
  /r/shitcrusaderkingssay is certainly proof of being on a different level.
- brobinson 6y ago
  I like Crusader Kings more than all the others because it results in amazing stories as it's character-focused rather than focused on faceless nations (Victoria, HOI, EU, etc.). I can tell you about the time I conquered most of east India and became a king, swore fealty to the emperor of Tibet for protection, married my daughter to his son for a non-aggression pact with him, then somehow my daughter later ends up becoming empress, and one of my fellow vassals (my daughter is my liege at this point) starts pushing my _wife's_ weak claim on the empire of Tibet in a civil war... And I have tons of stories like that. I have basically none from other grand strategy and civilization management games in comparison.
- zajio1am 6y ago
  > It does feel that Paradox games create a better simulation. I would say it is complicated. On the first look, EU4 is much more realistic and less stylized/symbolic than Civ, but on the second look, Civ (even the first one) has many important game mechanisms just right to express more realistic dynamic behavior. E.g.: waging war in Civ feels costly, as building capacities are used to build units and therefore cannot build civilian improvements, which leads to long-term falling behind. OTOH in EU4, waging war feels cheap, one can lost all its manpower and there are no significant ill effects, and being in peace while on full manpower is just wasting manpower recovery resource. Even better example is city/province development, where Civ has natural growth, diminishing returns from growth and different results for each city based on local geography and infrastructure, in EU4 it is just paid monarch points and linear effects. One can have satistying pacifist play of Civ, while pacifist play of EU4 would be exremely boring.
dragontamer 6y ago
FreeCiv is based off of the Civ2 engine, with a few quality-of-life adjustments from the newer games (cultural boarders, optional hex grids, etc. etc.). Even today, I find that FreeCiv is one of the most tactical / strategic versions of Civ. Even compared to recent Civ4 / Civ5 and Civ6 games. FreeCiv is just missing the music and graphics (which are superb in the mainline games)

by jcadam 6y ago

skatanski 6y ago

Similarly played Civ1 on Amiga 500 a lot. Didn’t know how to create save disks, so just left it running overnight. No game again reproduced that feeling of marvel, getting to know its mechanics first time. It does feel that Paradox games create a better simulation. Even Crusader Kings, albeit on a slightly different level.

cptnapalm 6y ago
/r/shitcrusaderkingssay is certainly proof of being on a different level.
brobinson 6y ago
I like Crusader Kings more than all the others because it results in amazing stories as it's character-focused rather than focused on faceless nations (Victoria, HOI, EU, etc.). I can tell you about the time I conquered most of east India and became a king, swore fealty to the emperor of Tibet for protection, married my daughter to his son for a non-aggression pact with him, then somehow my daughter later ends up becoming empress, and one of my fellow vassals (my daughter is my liege at this point) starts pushing my _wife's_ weak claim on the empire of Tibet in a civil war... And I have tons of stories like that. I have basically none from other grand strategy and civilization management games in comparison.
zajio1am 6y ago
> It does feel that Paradox games create a better simulation. I would say it is complicated. On the first look, EU4 is much more realistic and less stylized/symbolic than Civ, but on the second look, Civ (even the first one) has many important game mechanisms just right to express more realistic dynamic behavior. E.g.: waging war in Civ feels costly, as building capacities are used to build units and therefore cannot build civilian improvements, which leads to long-term falling behind. OTOH in EU4, waging war feels cheap, one can lost all its manpower and there are no significant ill effects, and being in peace while on full manpower is just wasting manpower recovery resource. Even better example is city/province development, where Civ has natural growth, diminishing returns from growth and different results for each city based on local geography and infrastructure, in EU4 it is just paid monarch points and linear effects. One can have satistying pacifist play of Civ, while pacifist play of EU4 would be exremely boring.

dragontamer 6y ago

FreeCiv is based off of the Civ2 engine, with a few quality-of-life adjustments from the newer games (cultural boarders, optional hex grids, etc. etc.). Even today, I find that FreeCiv is one of the most tactical / strategic versions of Civ. Even compared to recent Civ4 / Civ5 and Civ6 games. FreeCiv is just missing the music and graphics (which are superb in the mainline games)