alastair
Junior Member
A-List Star
Posts: 1,736
|
Post by alastair on Sept 27, 2024 16:02:41 GMT
I played a fair bit of Civ 1 back in the mid 90s, and then got quite into Colonization. Did anyone else play that?
It was a somewhat one dimensional approach to Civ where you colonize the Americas and then have to win a war of independence.
And the more recently I bought Civ6 on iPad and played through it. I had to delete it once I'd completed my playthrough because it was preventing me from going to bed or getting anything done!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by britesparc on Sept 27, 2024 19:52:18 GMT
I feel if I had your willpower to actually uninstall Civ VI I might have finally finished writing my book.
|
|
lukasz
New Member
Meat popsicle
Posts: 682
|
Post by lukasz on Sept 28, 2024 7:13:31 GMT
I played a fair bit of Civ 1 back in the mid 90s, and then got quite into Colonization. Did anyone else play that? It was a somewhat one dimensional approach to Civ where you colonize the Americas and then have to win a war of independence. And the more recently I bought Civ6 on iPad and played through it. I had to delete it once I'd completed my playthrough because it was preventing me from going to bed or getting anything done!!! Colonization was great. Spent countless hours as a teen playing it. The remake around civ4 time was also very good |
|
|
|
Post by britesparc on Oct 2, 2024 11:40:21 GMT
Played a couple more games of Ara and I think its idiosyncrasies are becoming more apparent. Here are a few thoughts.
I like the way you build your cities and claim regions around them, which are all named individually. So your city might be "London" but the regions will then be random English towns/cities like "Salford" or "Leeds" or whatever.
The game is sort of focused around crafting, so to build a triumph (wonder) you might need the wood and stone that's generated automatically from claiming land, but also you might need to craft ten wheels or five glass bowls or something. This puts a different spin on development and building and means you can change focus even late in the game, shifting what you're concentrating on.
It's still a bit fiddly and if you're running out of food or money, and therefore can't expand or build anything new, it's hard to get out of the rut. It's also harder (so far) to predict what you'll need down the line; it's not as simple (to me, as a middle-of-the-road sort of player) to know that you'll need a granary and a monument in every new city in Civ.
The nuances of diplomacy and combat are becoming apparent. Diplomacy definitely still a weak point. The way you build up "forces" of troops to send into battle is pretty good though, as combining skill-sets can make your forces quite strong, as can adding "paragons" (great people, basically) to your battalions.
Anyway, I'm still really enjoying it, it's definitely got that one-more-turn thing going for it. I don't think I'm loving it quite as much as I do Civ VI, I'm not finding it quite as personable, my empires not quite as "me" as they are in Civ. But given my worries about the direction of Civ VII, it's definitely a good replacement for now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vandelay on Oct 2, 2024 11:51:25 GMT
Sounds pretty good and it is doing something unique, unlikely Humankind that just felt very much like a Civ game (with most of the changes being not very well implemented). Good timing for release too, not long after the Civ announcement but a good time before that people can buy to tide them over. Hope it does well and they get a chance to expand on what they are well and tidy up the bits that aren't so good.
|
|
