Re: [Unity_Games] Re: Contestant #2: Civilization
- on 11/25/02 3:34 PM, Chris Lockheardt at clockheardt@... wrote:
On Civ. vs Adv. Civ.
> However, I encourage both camps to keep investing spleen in theHaving played Civ many many times but not very recently, and Adv. Civ
several times and much more recently, here's my take:
Civ tends to be a friendlier game. If you like a healthy dose of war and
aggression in your games, go with Adv. Civ.
Adv. Civ. is, I think, slightly more chaotic. Calamities seem to come up a
LOT more frequently than in Civ. Again, it's been a long time since I've
played Civ, but I seem to remember the civilizations being a little more
stable than in Adv. Civ.
The trading rules are much better in Adv. Civ., making it easier to screw
someone in a deal without having to do math calculations in your head. The
variety of commodities in Adv. Civ. also make the trading more interesting.
You do have to plan out your advancement strategy much more carefully in Civ
than in Adv Civ. Whether or not that is a good thing or a bad thing depends
on your outlook.
The "screw the leader" effect is more pronounced in Adv. Civ., largely
because of the extra benefits of attacking.
Both are great games. I think I lean towards Adv. Civ as better, but not
really by much.
David Fontes http://www.mmiusa.com/ookpik/