CIV ][ • s******j@**.com 06/06/1996 00:00:000 UTC _Civilization II_ sort of took a lot of people by surprise. It appeared without a lot of advance hype, compared to other games. It also didn't do everything that was promised, like have multiplayer net support built in. Friends have guessed that that feature was removed so they could sell CivIINet seperately. CIVII adds a lot to the original game. There are more "wonders of the world," military units, techno/socio advances, terrain types, etc. It also corrects a lot of flaws and simplifications. These both make the game more challenging and removes "cheats" that gave advantages to the computer player. Five years of progress in graphics and sound have also had their effect on CIVII. It almost goes without saying that the game can no longer be played on a HeadStart Explorer with a CGA monitor, as T.O.G. did for many years. With all this said, it's pretty much the same game. I just finished a marathon session, and racked up a pretty high score (171%, playing at King level against some pretty tough cookies). But I didn't feel like I'd accomplished much. Just lots of micromanagement of intricate toy cities, plus trying to diplomacize with six foreign leaders (the same ones through thousands of years of history) who behaved like playground bullies. The diplomatic aspect really ticked me off. There are plenty of cases in history of nations being friends and allies. In CIV II, you spend much of your time and resources buying off the foreign powers. By giving them cash or technology, they leave you alone; but as soon as you look like your getting ahead, they make surprise attacks. I never broke a treaty in the last game I played; never attacked anyone without being attacked first. But towards the end, after it became apparent that I'd kicked ass, nothing I could do would keep the bastards off. The "Celts" and "Babylonians" were tossing nukes at my cities and refused to talk peace. Why? Spite? Jealousy? These were supposed to be democracies and republics, not ancient kingdoms ruled by petty warlords. Another thing missing from the game was Nature, in the broad sense of the word. In the course of human history, grasslands have become deserts, plagues and earthquakes have wiped out cities, and warm snaps have allowed chilly lands to flourish. The old game had some random events, but they were almost ignorable. Civ II has none of that; massive pollution can cause a greenhouse effect, but that's easy to avoid. Where are the droughts, hurricanes, and floods which plauqued humanity through the millenia. As in Civ, religion and culture are treated as an opiate of the masses. "Polytheism" and "Monotheism" are things you apply research points toward. Yeah, right. Where are the prophets and holy men and prostheletyzers? Why no uprisings of religious hysteria, or monks setting themselves on fire to protest your rotten policies? Why don't cities full of upset people generate Pilgrims who leave in disgust to form their own societies? And art and artists . . . why should you have to "build" "Shakespeare's Theatre" or "Bach's Chapel?" These things arose because of cultural conditions unique to their time and place; their cost was trivial. In CivII, they make those pesky red-dressed "unhappy" people docile. In real life, their effect was more subtle, something that might not be representable in a game like this...but such subtlety is probably called for in a game which purports to simulate the growth of a civilization. What Civ really needs are people. It needs for the various nations to be led by a chain of different emperors, kings, and such who arise and die. It needs scientists and philosophers to appear and either be nourished or pushed aside as the "ruling force" of the civilization (i.e., you) decree. It needs messiahs and mass murderers to show you when things are going wrong, and great philosophers and artists to show you when things are going right. It needs chance and contingency. It needs dynastic marriages. It needs a Civil Service advance. It needs slavery and an Emancipation wonder of the world. But, I'm sort of glad that the above will never happen. Such a game would be so utterly fascinating to play that I'd never get any work done. --SEJ -- +-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+ ***@***.com ~ s*****s@a*****.***u.edu ~ s******j@**.com http://www.ini.cmu.edu/~sjones/ • a*******g@i*.******m.com 10/06/1996 00:00:000 UTC s******j@**.com (Stefan E. Jones) writes: >_Civilization II_ sort of took a lot of people by surprise. It appeared >without a lot of advance hype, compared to other games. It also didn't >do everything that was promised, like have multiplayer net support built >in. Friends have guessed that that feature was removed so they could >sell CivIINet seperately. I've been playing CivII for a while now and I really like the game. I've been to the IRC #civnet channel, the Microprose homepage, various Civ Web pages, and the alt.games.civnet newsgroup. According to various sources, MP decided not to include the multi-player option with Civ II because TCP/IP support for Civnet didn't work very well. It took them several months and several patches (goto http://www.microprose.com for the latest patch) to get the game to work right. Right now, they are up to patch III and the game seems to work well. I have played several times. Sources at MP have stated that they may release the multi-player patch for free on their web page - but don't count on it. More likely they will release a multi-player version. I've also heard a rumor that Microprose is in serious financial trouble. Does anyone know any more about this? >CIVII adds a lot to the original game. There are more "wonders of the >world," military units, techno/socio advances, terrain types, etc. >It also corrects a lot of flaws and simplifications. These both make >the game more challenging and removes "cheats" that gave advantages to >the computer player. Not only this, but they removed some serious imbalances in the game, particularly in reguards to the wonders, and disallowed certain player sleezes (like selling your palace). >With all this said, it's pretty much the same game. I just finished a >marathon session, and racked up a pretty high score (171%, playing at >King level against some pretty tough cookies). But I didn't feel like >I'd accomplished much. Just lots of micromanagement of intricate >toy cities, plus trying to diplomacize with six foreign leaders (the >same ones through thousands of years of history) who behaved like >playground bullies. The AI is better than original Civ but still leaves much to be desired. But then, I've never seen really good AI in any game, which is why I much prefer human opponents. Concerning micromanagement, you can always set a city's production to auto. You have a choice of letting you domestic advisor or military advisor run the city. In CIV II, you spend much >of your time and resources buying off the foreign powers. By giving them >cash or technology, they leave you alone; but as soon as you look like >your getting ahead, they make surprise attacks. These were supposed to be democracies and republics, not ancient >kingdoms ruled by petty warlords. This is done to make up for the fact that computer players, on any level, cannot match a human player in ability. So this appears to be a programmed strategy to make up for this fact. But then again I have played several games of Civnet and found that a lot of human players act the same way. And consider this, in recorded human history, there have been over 100,000 military conflicts (Wars, revolutions, etc) so maybe this aspect of the game is not too far of the mark. >Another thing missing from the game was Nature, in the broad sense of >the word. In the course of human history, grasslands have become deserts, >plagues and earthquakes have wiped out cities, and warm snaps have allowed >chilly lands to flourish. The old game had some random events, but they >were almost ignorable. Civ II has none of that; massive pollution can cause >a greenhouse effect, but that's easy to avoid. Where are the droughts, >hurricanes, and floods which plauqued humanity through the millenia. I agree. Perhaps they should have put in a option for this somewhere. Events like this have had a profound effect on human history. But remember, Civ is first and formost a game, not a simulation. It can be disheartening when the city you worked so hard to build is randomly taken out by a volcano. >Why no uprisings of religious hysteria, or monks setting themselves on >fire to protest your rotten policies? Why don't cities full of upset >people generate Pilgrims who leave in disgust to form their own >societies? Apparently, events like this are assumed to be happening "in the background." Events insignificant in the "Grand sweep of History." But I agree that stuff like this could (should?) have been worked in to the game without sacrificing much in the way of playability. My own personal beef is that little was done in the way of encouaging exploration. It's still a viable strategy to stay on your little island, untill you launch your Rocket to Alpha Centauri. Colonization should have been a much more significant aspect of the game. And art and artists . . . why should you have to "build" >"Shakespeare's Theatre" or "Bach's Chapel?" These things arose because >of cultural conditions unique to their time and place; their cost was >trivial. Yeah, but how do you code this into the game. I think that the wonder idea was a viable option. Rather then *build* Shakespeare's Theatre, it might the assumed that the resources were being used to produce great plays etc. (btw, I am currently reading a book that shows how controversial the theatre was). >What Civ really needs are people. It needs for the various nations to >be led by a chain of different emperors, kings, and such who arise and >die. It needs scientists and philosophers to appear and either be >nourished or pushed aside as the "ruling force" of the civilization >(i.e., you) decree. It needs messiahs and mass murderers to show you >when things are going wrong, and great philosophers and artists to >show you when things are going right. It needs chance and contingency. >It needs dynastic marriages. It needs a Civil Service advance. It >needs slavery and an Emancipation wonder of the world. Perhaps some sort of SimHistory game. If done right this could be really cool. But I think that it all comes down to the conflict between realism and playability. It's difficult to design a game that excels in both. I do belive that a multi-player option will make Civ II much more enjoyable. By the way, anyone (Glen?) interested in trying Civnet should write me at a*******g@i*.******m.com. -Tony Civil War, the Game: Roll a die: high roll wins the Civil War. Advanced rule: on a tie, the war goes on for four more bloody years. Roll again. Civil War, the Simulation: First, get 4 million of your closest friends....