«

Has anyone discovered how to download and play on Windows 7

[The Fifth Horseman]

Downloading it goes the same as on any other Windows version. Playing it goes the same as on Vista and XP - just use DOSBox

[MonsignorGabriel]

I dunno if it's because I'm too unskilled or too stupid to play this game... But it was actually a challenge for me to like it.

I never managed to get past the development of iron-clad ships and Musketeers. Somehow, my enemies had developed airplanes in the meantime! What the hell was I doing wrong for that to happen?!

One thing I can't seem to get pat down is city management/improvement. There is always a famine/riot that disrupts the whole damn game for me. And yet I still have to expand and gather resources... I never understood resources, either. Was I supposed to MINE for them? Was I supposed to mine where the diamond icons were at? I couldn't figure it out in time for me to abandon playing it after it thoroughly kicked my ass at playing it.

But I guess it is a good game either way. Revolutionary, considering it was the only game of it's kind at that time. Can you really imagine a world without strategy games?

[Japo]

Originally Posted by MonsignorGabriel

I never managed to get past the development of iron-clad ships and Musketeers. Somehow, my enemies had developed airplanes in the meantime! What the hell was I doing wrong for that to happen?!

Generally speaking if you want scientific progress, you'll want to discard despotism ASAP, and also monarchy in favor of republic or democracy.

One thing I can't seem to get pat down is city management/improvement. There is always a famine/riot that disrupts the whole damn game for me. And yet I still have to expand and gather resources... I never understood resources, either. Was I supposed to MINE for them? Was I supposed to mine where the diamond icons were at? I couldn't figure it out in time for me to abandon playing it after it thoroughly kicked my ass at playing it.

The key here is looking up the Civilopedia, the last menu on the right. It has all the info on how much of each resource each kind of terrain yields, what improvements increase what output, and what bonuses does every government system have.

If you look it up you'll see that you'll want to irrigate and build roads across plains and grasslands, and mine hills, or if you have no hills mine deserts or mountains. Later railroads can add a little bonus to everything. Jungles and marshes are worthless, unless they have some special feature, if they don't and you're short on terrain clear them for farmland or transform them to forests if you're short on production (shields). Special features like diamonds give big bonuses with or without improvements, but you should still improve that terrain in the same way.

[MonsignorGabriel]

Originally Posted by Japo

Generally speaking if you want scientific progress, you'll want to discard despotism ASAP, and also monarchy in favor of republic or democracy.


The key here is looking up the Civilopedia, the last menu on the right. It has all the info on how much of each resource each kind of terrain yields, what improvements increase what output, and what bonuses does every government system have.

If you look it up you'll see that you'll want to irrigate and build roads across plains and grasslands, and mine hills, or if you have no hills mine deserts or mountains. Later railroads can add a little bonus to everything. Jungles and marshes are worthless, unless they have some special feature, if they don't and you're short on terrain clear them for farmland or transform them to forests if you're short on production (shields). Special features like diamonds give big bonuses with or without improvements, but you should still improve that terrain in the same way.

*takes notes*

So... What would you say is an ideal tax setting?Lil' Ol' Communist me always keeps taking it away from the people.

Seriously, though, I always set it at 50%, and always panic about it when people start to get angry (ironically, I soon realized it never did anything).

[Japo]

Originally Posted by MonsignorGabriel

What would you say is an ideal tax setting?

As Kmonster said, as low as you can in order to cover your expenses, since what you get in money you could have got in science, or luxuries. Of course you'll want to keep a fund for rushing production during emergencies, but there's no good reason for your treasury to grow indefinitely.

[Abandoned Witch]

Civilization is one of my favorite games as well. I still love its gameplay. A great classic indeed.

[TheChosen]

I was playing Civilization 2 today when I realized that I havent played any of the other Civilization games, or either of Call to Power or Alpha Centauri spin-offs. Only other game of the series I have played is Colonization and like Civ 2 I like that very much.

So the question is, if you have played Civ 2, is the original Civ worth playing? Or considering there's now Civ 5, If Id have to get the next game should I pick that rather than go through 3 and 4 plus many of the add-ons released? Or should I just play all of them and try out and experience mechanical changes and video game history?

As for add-ons, how different are those compared to original? Alpha Centauri's getting pretty high praises, but Call to Power seems to have mixed opinions (I've heard both really good and really bad).

[Eagle of Fire]

Well... I'm pretty sure I'm counter current here but I'm going to go with what I always said anyways: Civ II is the worst game of the whole lot that I've played.

Civ I is really great if you don't want to spend to much time playing this type of game. You can easily end up a game in a whole day. The graphics are of course way too old for "modern" gamers, so it can turn many off.

Civ II was way too slow for me. Close to the original but with very little more to show up when compared to Civ. The only real difference for me was the graphics and slightly improved engine which was only natural because of the limitations of computers back in the time Civ was made. The only real plus side I have for Civ II was the cinematics when you research a topic but that's really only some unrelated fluff.

Civ III actually added quite a few new and well thought concepts. You can now win with a more elegant culture and border setting (which was initiated in Civ II but greatly improved upon) and it is really a great and well polished game.

Civ IV is to Civ III what I consider Civ II is to the original: nothing much to show up except graphic overhaul.

Never bothered with Civ V, really.

[Mighty Midget]

As far as Civ2 is a remake or not of Civ, well, not entirely. For one thing, Civ 2 introduced the city's ability to "produce" money instead of units/improvements, something I missed a lot in Civ. In the first installment, after a city had all the improvements, and I didn't want/need any more units, there were no options to build units anyway only to discard them upon completion.

Another thing is how the wonders work. I never really appreciated how the pyramids enabled all govt forms. A granary in each city, well it's a whole less far fetched.

Last: Let's not forget how an axe man now stand less of a change of wiping out entire panzer armies, something that happened more than once in the original Civ.

Ok, so it might be a remake but one with some good improvements over the first Civ.