Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Unity_Games] Re: Contestant #2: Civilization

Expand Messages
  • David Fontes
    on 11/25/02 3:34 PM, Chris Lockheardt at clockheardt@yahoo.com wrote: On Civ. vs Adv. Civ. ... Having played Civ many many times but not very recently, and
    Message 1 of 7 , Nov 25, 2002
      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 the
      > debate.

      Having 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
      =============
      David Fontes http://www.mmiusa.com/ookpik/
      dfontes@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.