1st Game Challenge - Page 2

bed_head7 · 15-09-2005, 22:38

Was probably a bit young to have played Civ1 originally. Played Civ2 after it had been out a couple of years. I found it on the computer of a teacher of mine, and since I was taking math at the high school, which was on a different schedule, me and another kid taking math with me played Civ2 played it a couple times a week and both got hooked. We found out a friend of ours had the game, and had him make copies for each of us. After trying unsuccessfully a number of times to set up multiplayer games, I think he lost interest, and I just started playing the WWI and WWII scenarios over and over again. I think I only won once in epic mode, and it was a close thing as time was running out.

I only found out about Civ3 about a year after it came out, I think. Well, I don't remember exactly, but I do remember saying "Civ3 is out and I didn't know about it!" It was at the top of my Christmas list, and I think I was a freshman at the time. My first try was as the Japanese on Chieftan, but I ended up trying to take my neighbors the Chinese who had swords while I only had archers. In the ensuing slaughter, I decided to start again and be a bit more careful about war declaration. I played continents and Persia, and actually took over my starting continent fairly quickly (by knights, I think). But at that point, I stopped trying to expand. Only when tanks came did I finally again try to fight, and I think I ended up winning a histographic victory with about 40% of the land, and my capital was withing a few thousand cp of twenty thousand.

For the next few months, I played quite a bit (without ever realizing that each civilization had a UU, if I remember correctly), then I got into another game, and then into something completely different, like reading about WWI or something. I think for the next two and half years, more or less, I would play Civ obsessively for a month or two, and then move on, and then a few months later come back to Civ3. Then conquests came out (I completely missed hearing about PTW), and by the time I got it Conquests was completely patched (well, the final patch was out, at least) and I got obsessed for good. When I had managed to start winning on Monarch regularly (even as the Portuguese, twice!) and was trying to move up to Emperor about a year ago that I went online looking for information about preferred and shunned governments, because somehow I got it in my head that it was important. I found my way onto CFC, and now I am here.

I think with Civ4, I will probably read up a bit on the differences and give Emperor a shot in my first SP, and hopefully I can win there. If things look good, I will give MP a shot, and if it looks like there are some good (different) variants and time permits, I will probably join an SG or two. I am not sure if I will buy the game right off the bat though. Probably wait until end of first semester, when I have a month off and can properly get into it. I will probably restrain myself from reading too much about it, as I want to discover the quirks and secrets myself, and not prejudge it on what I read.

akots · 15-09-2005, 22:57

IIRC, I never played any game on Chieftain. it was always some medium difficulty for the first shot, regent (prince) or monarch. Second or third was on Deity. I remember first Deity game I lost in Civ1 to some AI which was landing swarms of tanks on my little island and I kept bribing them with a diplomat. When I had wasted all cash, the game was over as well.

I'd say from the very first game, it was evident that civ is very addictive but released version always needs some patch. I've played my first Civ3 game on Monarch and won by Space Ship rather easily. Diplomacy was very glitchy and I thought that some features (RoP rape, gpt deals and their abuse) were a bug whereas it were a feature. First version of Civ3 was so glitchy, I actually was able to play only a couple of games and started playing again after patch 1.29.

And I'm not buying Civ4 for 50 bucks. I'll wait until it gets down to 30.

Pastorius · 16-09-2005, 09:42

Hehe. Back when I first played civ, I set it to max difficulty, since I had no clue (I was so young that my english was very poor at the time) about those settings being for difficulty.

I was always puzzled about how the AI had modern techs while I used medieval units, and I most of the time fought wars with knights against riflemen. I made an effort to create my own civ - the Norwegians, with such cool city names as Paalsburg, Paaltown, Paal Harbour, Paalsville etc.

When I was studying for tests in school, I made an effort to spend my half hour breaks playing civ. It was difficult to get away.

My main civ1 strategy seemed to be isolationist for much of the game. I dont think I ever won while I played civ1 on the 386 my father had (which had an incredible 80MB of harddrive space - spacious for the time!) After some weird attempts on high diff levels, I did come second in a space race once.

Did better with civ2 though, although I almost exclusively played chieftain or warlord. Got the grasp of the most important parts, but not so much about expansion by infrastructure. I developed a tendency to attack with 2-3 units and fight for 1-2 cities, then make peace. Only years later I heard that score is very much increased if you have good relations (no?)

I carried with me the impatient warmonger tendency from civ2 to civ3. First game on chieftain, I grasped the idea of roadnetworks, but neglected to some extent connection of resources.
Like the civ2 monger I used to be (had been some while between civ2 games and first civ3 game) I attacked the nearest neighbour with only a few units. Loosing them, the AI came with more units, and I was beaten back. Hm - bad choice. Restart a new game.

Took me a while to reach regent, since I stayed on warlord for a bit too long - probably because other stuff got in the way - like a period spent replaying AoE2. During warlord I took to more thought out war plans, but tended to halt expansion till modern age.

Reaching regent, I started more closely to look at general strategies at that other forum. I had a poor understanding of worker usage, but this improved a lot during my slow move from chieftain to regent. At monarch I now have the hang of it, and only lack of time is preventing progress upwards.

Ok, so I talked about the first second and third games for all versions here, but I am not going to purchase civ4 (without proper convincing) - and well, I found this "history" moment amusing...

15-09-2005, 22:57	#12
akots Nebuchadnezzar II Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Glover Park Posts: 4,459	IIRC, I never played any game on Chieftain. it was always some medium difficulty for the first shot, regent (prince) or monarch. Second or third was on Deity. I remember first Deity game I lost in Civ1 to some AI which was landing swarms of tanks on my little island and I kept bribing them with a diplomat. When I had wasted all cash, the game was over as well. I'd say from the very first game, it was evident that civ is very addictive but released version always needs some patch. I've played my first Civ3 game on Monarch and won by Space Ship rather easily. Diplomacy was very glitchy and I thought that some features (RoP rape, gpt deals and their abuse) were a bug whereas it were a feature. First version of Civ3 was so glitchy, I actually was able to play only a couple of games and started playing again after patch 1.29. And I'm not buying Civ4 for 50 bucks. I'll wait until it gets down to 30. __________________ Cujusvis hominis est errare; nullius, nisi insipientis in errore perseverare Ciceron (Marcus Tullius)

16-09-2005, 09:42	#13
Pastorius Custard used tile Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Opening a can Posts: 3,158	Hehe. Back when I first played civ, I set it to max difficulty, since I had no clue (I was so young that my english was very poor at the time) about those settings being for difficulty. I was always puzzled about how the AI had modern techs while I used medieval units, and I most of the time fought wars with knights against riflemen. I made an effort to create my own civ - the Norwegians, with such cool city names as Paalsburg, Paaltown, Paal Harbour, Paalsville etc. When I was studying for tests in school, I made an effort to spend my half hour breaks playing civ. It was difficult to get away. My main civ1 strategy seemed to be isolationist for much of the game. I dont think I ever won while I played civ1 on the 386 my father had (which had an incredible 80MB of harddrive space - spacious for the time!) After some weird attempts on high diff levels, I did come second in a space race once. Did better with civ2 though, although I almost exclusively played chieftain or warlord. Got the grasp of the most important parts, but not so much about expansion by infrastructure. I developed a tendency to attack with 2-3 units and fight for 1-2 cities, then make peace. Only years later I heard that score is very much increased if you have good relations (no?) I carried with me the impatient warmonger tendency from civ2 to civ3. First game on chieftain, I grasped the idea of roadnetworks, but neglected to some extent connection of resources. Like the civ2 monger I used to be (had been some while between civ2 games and first civ3 game) I attacked the nearest neighbour with only a few units. Loosing them, the AI came with more units, and I was beaten back. Hm - bad choice. Restart a new game. Took me a while to reach regent, since I stayed on warlord for a bit too long - probably because other stuff got in the way - like a period spent replaying AoE2. During warlord I took to more thought out war plans, but tended to halt expansion till modern age. Reaching regent, I started more closely to look at general strategies at that other forum. I had a poor understanding of worker usage, but this improved a lot during my slow move from chieftain to regent. At monarch I now have the hang of it, and only lack of time is preventing progress upwards. Ok, so I talked about the first second and third games for all versions here, but I am not going to purchase civ4 (without proper convincing) - and well, I found this "history" moment amusing... __________________

15-09-2005, 22:38	#11
bed_head7 Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: . Posts: 545	Was probably a bit young to have played Civ1 originally. Played Civ2 after it had been out a couple of years. I found it on the computer of a teacher of mine, and since I was taking math at the high school, which was on a different schedule, me and another kid taking math with me played Civ2 played it a couple times a week and both got hooked. We found out a friend of ours had the game, and had him make copies for each of us. After trying unsuccessfully a number of times to set up multiplayer games, I think he lost interest, and I just started playing the WWI and WWII scenarios over and over again. I think I only won once in epic mode, and it was a close thing as time was running out. I only found out about Civ3 about a year after it came out, I think. Well, I don't remember exactly, but I do remember saying "Civ3 is out and I didn't know about it!" It was at the top of my Christmas list, and I think I was a freshman at the time. My first try was as the Japanese on Chieftan, but I ended up trying to take my neighbors the Chinese who had swords while I only had archers. In the ensuing slaughter, I decided to start again and be a bit more careful about war declaration. I played continents and Persia, and actually took over my starting continent fairly quickly (by knights, I think). But at that point, I stopped trying to expand. Only when tanks came did I finally again try to fight, and I think I ended up winning a histographic victory with about 40% of the land, and my capital was withing a few thousand cp of twenty thousand. For the next few months, I played quite a bit (without ever realizing that each civilization had a UU, if I remember correctly), then I got into another game, and then into something completely different, like reading about WWI or something. I think for the next two and half years, more or less, I would play Civ obsessively for a month or two, and then move on, and then a few months later come back to Civ3. Then conquests came out (I completely missed hearing about PTW), and by the time I got it Conquests was completely patched (well, the final patch was out, at least) and I got obsessed for good. When I had managed to start winning on Monarch regularly (even as the Portuguese, twice!) and was trying to move up to Emperor about a year ago that I went online looking for information about preferred and shunned governments, because somehow I got it in my head that it was important. I found my way onto CFC, and now I am here. I think with Civ4, I will probably read up a bit on the differences and give Emperor a shot in my first SP, and hopefully I can win there. If things look good, I will give MP a shot, and if it looks like there are some good (different) variants and time permits, I will probably join an SG or two. I am not sure if I will buy the game right off the bat though. Probably wait until end of first semester, when I have a month off and can properly get into it. I will probably restrain myself from reading too much about it, as I want to discover the quirks and secrets myself, and not prejudge it on what I read.