GODLIKE Hot

The last time I played Civilization was a four-player game that lasted 12 hours. It was my fault, because I was re-familiarizing myself with the rulebook instead of paying attention to the game. They haven't invited me back to play again.

A close friend of mine plays a lot of Euros with this other gaming group, and I used to play with them sometimes before I became certain that I didn't like most Euros. Anyway, one time, one of them brought over his own custom-made set of Civilization/Advanced Civ. that was scaled up to 18 players, with a map that went as far east as Japan. The map was so big that he was blocking the whole sidewalk when he pulled it out of his car to show it off. There were only 7 of us there that day, and they were mostly standard Euro players, so we didn't even try to play Civ.

I played Advanced Civilization on the computer which was programmed by Avalon Hill's computer games department and had an excellent AI.

Assuming I had a real life copy of the game, I think it would be pretty hard to convince my friends to play it.

I'm too busy playing Through the Ages lately. But I do loves me some Civilization.

I am also working on getting a game of Sid Meiers Civ CHR going. Supposedly a complete redesign and re-imagining of the vulnerable original by Eagle games that while had some great ideas, failed to execute. I've read through the rules, and it does look promising.(At least to those of us who didn't toss the original in the trash)

How in the world could a standard CIV game run 12 hours long? Even with rules discussion and not being familiar with it, there had to have been some really, really long trade phases and a lot of staring at the board for that to have happened. The game has a timer mechanism, for pete's sake! The only thing other than the trade phase that can be a potential speed bump is if players fall too far behind the curve and fail to advance into successive ages. Last thursday we played a six player game and came to within three turns of finishing in about four and a half hours. Four new players and two (including me) who had not played in years.

I always hear about these kinds of sessions for a lot of games, and I just don't get it. I'm not ragging on you Shell- giving you the benefit of a doubt and all- but when I see some guy on the internet posting that some game took an inordinate amount of time I have to wonder what was really going on there. Like these people that claim to have played these 12-14 hour games of TI3...

I think that there's been a lot of mythologizing, a lot of hearsay taken as fact from the internet regarding a lot of older games like CIV. You've got these people who've never been within 10 feet of an Avalon Hill game proseltyzing how they're too long, too complex, totally unplayable, or somehow obsolete. Then you've got these oldtimers who seem to only remember one anomalous session where everything went wrong, the players weren't right for the game, and where some rare rules discrepancy ruined the whole game for all of time for them- and here are their thoughts on it, conveniently meted out in BGG game ranking comments format.

The way a lot of older games are treated in the community is really terrible, and it shows how ephemeral and short sighted a lot of people are- even those who claim that board gaming is somehow important, significant, or a major artistic medium. Is a movie like 2001 or A CLOCKWORK ORANGE any less of a film because it's "old" or because they don't feature current production standards, narrative conventions, or pacing?

I think it's really important, if you really give a damn about gaming, to look at these older games and see how they're still great, relevant, and fun. It's a damn shame that Schweig has to resort to playing ADCIV on the PC against AI (hell, I do too- it's a great conversion). It's a damn shame that people didn't flip their shit when that guy showed off his massive homebrew CIV expansion and fight for one of the 18 slots to experience that.

Yet you throw in a "clever" mechanic, put it in a brown box, introduce it at Essen, and it's a "classic"...

Michael, I've read your glowing comments on Mare Nostrum. Now that you've rediscovered the original Civilization, do you still feel the same about Mare Nostrum? How 'bout the other recent crop of 'Civ Lite' games?

I will admit that I have never played Civ in this form (although I've played Civ II and IV on the computer, but probably not the same). Everything I read would lead me to believe that I would love to play it. It seems that it is pretty popular as there seem to be alot of games that try to Euro-ize it.

One question I have is what is so bad about randomness and shattering events. One of the threads I was following in that other place was talking about how it seems that more Euros are trying to randomize and the discussion switched to Wings of War and Mr. Fun Murderer stated that his group will remove the "explodes" counter from the game. I don't see what's wrong with this. In World War II, the Zeroes and Bettys were notorious for exploding under the right circumstances (like a bullet hitting the gas tank), so it's not out of the realm of possibility. I mean randomness is a fact of life otherwise we wouldn't have this gem: "The plan will remain intact until the first contact with the enemy" or this other gem: "If everything is going well, it's probably an ambush". But since the Weenies don't play war games, they probably don't understand either concept. They just like their nicely wound games were nothing terribly unexpected happens.

I still love MARE NOSTRUM, I think it's one of the best games of the past ten years, and it's pretty clear that it's an attempt to reconstitute some of the things that made CIV great to begin with. I believe Serge Laget says as much in his comments at the back of the rulebook.

Strangely, I think the games are vastly different creatures beyond obvious similarities in theme, the trading (which MN reigns in somewhat by having a structured trading sequence), and overall sense of what the players are trying to accomplish. I think MARE NOSTRUM is actually a little more Ameritrash, it feels more akin to a Gamemaster style game with more emphasis on building armies, taking and holding on-board resources (not present in CIV), and combat. MARE NOSTRUM is much more specific with another layer of detail and I think all things considered it is very much a baroque rendition of CIV's minimalism. With the MYTHOLOGY expansion, it moves even further away from CIV, I think.

I do find it interesting that in MARE NOSTRUM your civilization advances are measured in personalities and wonders versus the concepts and ideas that you'll develop in a game of CIV. There winds up providing a much more streamlined feel (especially since you only need four in MN to win the game) but the result is that the game somehow feels less epic.

MARE NOSTRUM is definitely more on the Ameritrash end of the spectrum, interestingly enough. CIV falls really more in the middle.

Most "CIV Lite" games are doomed to fail, I think, because they can't capture a sense of scope or scale. TEMPUS really shows that for a game to depict the progress of Civilization, it _SHOULDN'T_ be 90 minutes.

I thought 7 AGES had some cool ideas and it definitely had the epic scope and scale down pat, but at the end it felt like the bastard child of HISTORY OF THE WORLD and CIV but with a ton of awkwardly applied detail and a combat system that made me think about what it would be like to hang myself. THROUGH THE AGES is a very, very good game that perhaps suffers because the card-based system creates a really weird absence of a geographical sense and a feeling of disconnection from material resources and footprint- it feels strange to be missing such huge factors in the growth of civilizations. There are some _very_ cool ideas in it but I do wonder if after a while it will develop certain paths or combinations that limit its replay value. Obviously, I liked ORIGINS very much and it definitely bears a strong CIV debt, but it brings a lot of new ideas to the table and emerges as a really idiosyncratic take on the genre.

TI3 is really a CIV game, in a lot of ways. And a great one at that.

CIV's the best, what can you say? I think it's a better idea just to plunk down the money for an Ebay copy than it is to go chasing around lesser games.

If you play cooperatively, putting trade before combat, the game will not run too long. People will be more able to make big commodities sets, therefore buying advances quicker, and making the overall game progress faster. However, if the group plays aggressively, each attacking his neighbour at the first sign of weakness, it will slow down the game, as you will tend to have less cities, therefore less commodities, etc. The computer AI is very aggressive, and therefore it takes more turns to complete the game than the average real-life game.

I play Adv. Civ. once a year with about the same people, we are all experienced, except for the occassional newbie. We put the emphasis on trade rather than combat. We usually get it done in about 8 hours. Last October I couldn't make it, much to my chagrin, but I was told that it turned into a bloodfest and lasted over 12 hours.

I agree that Civ is among the very best ever. What prevents me from declaring it the absolute best is the "bash the leader" problem near the end, which breaks the smooth flow that makes the rest of the game so enjoyable. I usually don't mind bashing the leader, but I don't know, in Civ it feels anticlimaxic.

I honestly don't remember why that Civ game took 12 hours. This was the day after FFG laid off all the warehouse monkeys (three out of four of us Civ players) for the holidays. Scott said, "you guys have any plans for tomorrow" and of course the answer was no, so playing Civ sounded great.

We started at noon and finished around midnight. There might have been an hour wasted with setup and going over the rules for myself and one other guy who hadn't played in years. And there was probably another hour lost to dinner... the host was such a vegan fascist that he wouldn't allow anybody to eat meat in his apartment, or even cheese. So the alleged "pizza" that we got was like some kind of zesty hot salsa on flatbread business. It tasted good, but it definitely wasn't real pizza.

Anyway, normally I am the very opposite of the analysis paralysis guy. Once I have a working grasp of game rules, I tend to play fairly quickly, planning my turn while waiting on other people, making minor adjustments to my plans depending on how the dice were bouncing. But I was having a tough time getting into the game that day, and instead of anticipating my turns, I was reading the rules. Then it would be my turn again, and I would be caught off guard, not knowing what had changed since my last turn. And I think I remember the trade phases did take too long, too. I know that by 8:00, Scott and his non-FFG friend were both pretty annoyed at me.

With the right players, I would be willing to play Civ again. I had a blast the first time I played it. I've never come even close to winning, but the epic feel of the game is great.

Definitely a great game. The disasters really add spice and excitement although I hate most of them with a passion. While the game plays smoother without conflict, its nice to have the war option. Besides, most wars aren't going to last long because if not prosecuted well will set both players back instead of forward.

The last game I played was about a 3 hour affair with 3 players. We didn't quite get to the end. I think we would have needed about another hour. But was great fun anyway.

Bill N.

This made me think of SimCity. Yeah, tornadoes and Godzilla are exciting and all but that doesn't mean you have to like when they come and wreck your shit.

We actually did break out Advanced Civ for a three player game last year. We put the trading and other phases on timers, so things would be speeded up, and even though we put a time limit of 3 hours on the game (we had to be somewhere the next day and we needed to get some sleep so my wife and I could drive) the game itself was a blast. Just like those days about 12-13 years ago where we'd play until the sun came up.

--Mike L.

Mike L. makes a good point. There is Civ and then there is the Advanced Civ expansion which is the only version I've ever played. I believe Advanced Civ makes great improvements over the basic game, but I can't say what the difference is off the top of my head (I think Advanced Civ comes in a red box with the same picture on it).

Bill N.

How does this game compare to Tresham's REVOLUTION: THE DUTCH REVOLT 1568-1648? Given that REVOLUTION is still widely available, is it a suitable substitute for CIVILIZATION, or is the comparison meaningless?

I've never played Revolution. Maybe Barnes has.

--Mike L.

Barnes:

The more I play Through the Ages, the more Euro-ish it seems. In practice, it is really just Advanced St. Petersburg.

Save that it actually sticks to its theme, is vastly more complex, and remains compelling over its 4+ hour length. Unlike St. Petersburg.

One game you really do need to play is Antiquity. It is clearly Euro. It has almost no luck. The first half of the game actually has no interaction. It is also:

A: Vastly more complex than Puerto Rico, but with simpler rules.

B: Brutal. When you make a mistake, the game lets you know it. The first solitaire part of the game is basically practice for the really freaking hard part once civs collide. While the game has no war, it does have pollution and famine.

Just guessing but maybe your host added a house rule that wouldn't let you advance past digging roots and picking berries. That will drag the game out a bit.

Ha. One thing I have discovered is that on a 3 or 4 player game, once the calamities start coming, they tend to come in waves. It's one thing to have calamities spread out across a 6-7 player game, but quite another to concentrate them into a 3-4 player game. You can go from 8 cities to 2 before you can say, "what the hell happened?"

--Mike L.

I have played REVOLUTION. One time, but I completely savored that one time. I've never been able to convince anyone to play it again. Which is sad, because it's a great game. It does have some points of comparison to CIV- the combat system is the same, it has the tokens/treasury/population thing that I really like, and it hinges on a strict turn structure (16 phases, I think). I wouldn't say that it's a substitute

On THROUGH THE AGES- there are definitely some comparisons to ST. PETERSBURG, but the game actually means something and it's not just some bullshit card drafting routine. I've played five games of it, and one thing I noted is that it seemed less exciting and innovative each successive game. Still very good, but _definitely_ not worth the $200 or so I got for mine on Ebay or even the $70 FRED is charging for it. And it takes as long as a game of CIV, so it's not a good substitute either.

Lawson- That's something that can be kind of a quirk in 3-4 player games- there's much more ebb and flow because the calamities naturally hit a tighter number of people. But it's also easier to rebuild since there is more room to move and develop- you usually have more territory in a 3-4 player game.

Talking about "Revolution: The Dutch Revolt"...

I would really like to try that one, the only reason I didn't buy it is the price which is a little too high IMHO. I'd need a "guarantee to be played" before affording a purchase ;)

I've been tinkering around with the abandonware version of Advanced Civ, and I have to admit the AI is pretty good. Who the hell did they mimic, Greenwood? The current game I'm playing I'm Africa, and I've been hanging in there pretty well, but the last couple of turns I've gotten the Barbarian Hordes, and I've spent way too much time trying to rebuild to 6 cities rather than keeping away those pesky Egyptians and Iberians.

Now, if someone could redo the graphics and speed up the turn movement of the AI, this would be a winner. But hey, it ain't called abandonware for nothing.

--Mike L.

First of all, superlong games are one of the hallmarks of some Ameritrash games. That said, like Barnes, I don't understand how the game would have taken 12 hours, unless it was your first game, or maybe you misinterpreted some of the rules. (The typical Civ games in my group are 2-4 hours (4
player). However, I should note that my first game of AH Kingmaker was 8 hours! It was so unlike anything we had ever played.) I think, as you get in the groove, gameplay will flow, and it will take significantly less time. Enjoy! It really is one of the best games ever designed.

mtlawson wrote:
"Now, if someone could [...] speed up the turn movement of the AI"

AdvCiv ran pretty smooth on the machine I played it on. I guess this is an Operating System issue. If you play it on a modern Windows OS you should consider getting DOSBox or any other DOS emulator, which have options for speeding up programs.

I love Revolution. I try to get it on the table as much as possible, which sadly isn't all that often. Despite the fact that it does have some mechanical similarities to Civ, it plays nothing like Civ at all. While I wouldn't go too far out and say that Revolution is a wargame, it is all about conflict. So much so that there are 4 or 5 different phases dedicated to different ways you can conflict with each other. Whereas, while Civ has conflict it is something that you save up for or resort to it absolutely isn't the focal point. Revolution is bloody, Civ is about tending to your empire.

I have been hankering to get Civ on the table again, it's been about three years now...

I was able to play REVOLUTION again a couple of weeks ago and damn, it's just a great fucking game. Just like Sisteray says, it's a bloody, brutal game of conflict but it's not quite a wargame...it's more subtle and diverse than that. There's so many ways to fight and so many different ways to do it, it's quite amazing. It has a much more insular theme than CIVILIZATION does, but I would say that the mechanics and gameplay will definitely appeal to people even if the Dutch Revolt doesn't. It's pure Tresham, and as such it's up there with the best games you could possibly play.

Plus it's a good substitute if you can't people to play HERE I STAND and you want to get in on some that Reformation action.

Just another Revolution fan weighing in. Revolution is a game that I'll play any time with any group. It is just that good.

Can someone please explain to me what is to like about HIS? I just don't get it.

REVOLUTION is an extremely tight system where everything splices together and the system beautifully interacts with itself. All the decisions you make are real and there is little downtime as the turns are interwoven throughout the phases.

HIS is thematically beautiful, with few strategic decisions. Everything runs on rails with a couple if/then decisions, then all actions that you want to take depend entirely on luck to see if what you intend to accomplish actually gets done.

Anyway, CIV is a masterpiece. I will say my only experience is with Adv Civ, but I've spent many hours with that system. As much as I'd like to, I can't say that it is a perfect game. My biggest gripe is the amount of future accounting calculations you have to make when buying ships, this puts the resources in Power Grid and the loans in Age of Steam to shame. I wish ships were more smoothly incorporated into the system.

I also have real issues with the Civil War card. We have house rules on it, because it is just too devastating and can throw the balance of the game off to the wrong people where they can just luck into an easy victory after everyone has spend hours of hard work building themselves up.

Card counting the decks sucks a lot of the fun out of the game and the untradable calamities are a double bone as they hurt you and you don't get a resource.

I want to try playing where the red cards just get played face up and you can decide to try the deck again to get another card. This screws up the irritating counters planning what they will do with the deck by where they assume the cards will be next turn, and allows people the opportunity to at least recoup some damage (although, of course, it could be another calamity).