Man plays Civ 2 game for 10 years

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by bradster57

Civ 2 was a great game. I still think it is the best of the series.

I stopped playing Civ after #3, life and all that. I really did like 2 though. However my favorite is still Alpha Centauri, you can pick it up at www.gog.com for $5.99.

[alan21]

Originally Posted by GGG

How do the turns work at the end of civ 2? Does it go slower than by years. Because I was thinking that 3991 is only 2000 turns past the end of a standard game. So play a turn a day would only take 6 years. Now he is probably at the point of 30 minute turns but that is still only 1000 hours of game play over 10 years. Doesn't seem like all that much.

This is exactly what I was thinking.
I was expecting the game year to be at least 5 digits long.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by GGG

How do the turns work at the end of civ 2? Does it go slower than by years. Because I was thinking that 3991 is only 2000 turns past the end of a standard game. So play a turn a day would only take 6 years. Now he is probably at the point of 30 minute turns but that is still only 1000 hours of game play over 10 years. Doesn't seem like all that much.

It has been a while since I played. I think BC years went by like 50 per - I know in the 1800s (or 1900s) it goes @ 1 per year.

How much is a standard game?

I think it is at least 700-800 and maybe 1000 turns to get up to the year 2000.

Really not much of an accomplishment.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I stopped playing Civ after #3, life and all that. I really did like 2 though. However my favorite is still Alpha Centauri, you can pick it up at www.gog.com for $5.99.

Civ 4 was great for many reasons, one of which is this:

[Daradon]

Yeah once you get to year 1900 I believe it goes by 1 year per turn. So he played an extra 190 turns a year?

Someone journalist just didn't have something to write about apparently. But I kinda thought they didn't know what they were talking about when they mentioned the armies were fighting over 'dwindling resources' The resources don't run out. At the worst you can just have cities too close to each other. Just a way to tie in concerns for our possible future, which it seems the reason the article was written in the first place.

[Barnission]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Yeah once you get to year 1900 I believe it goes by 1 year per turn. So he played an extra 190 turns a year?

Someone journalist just didn't have something to write about apparently. But I kinda thought they didn't know what they were talking about when they mentioned the armies were fighting over 'dwindling resources' The resources don't run out. At the worst you can just have cities too close to each other. Just a way to tie in concerns for our possible future, which it seems the reason the article was written in the first place.

Eh, the writer didn't know what he was talking about, and was trying to be dramatic, I suppose.

[evman150]

There are scenarios for Civ 2 where you can play 1 turn = 1 month or even less. Maybe this is what he did?

[QuadCityImages]

When the icecaps melt, don't some of the land squares become water squares, in addition to all the swamps popping up? So the dwindling resources thing may be referring to ever-shrinking land areas.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by QuadCityImages

When the icecaps melt, don't some of the land squares become water squares, in addition to all the swamps popping up? So the dwindling resources thing may be referring to ever-shrinking land areas.

I guess, if you've had several nuclear wars like he's had. But there's no real need for that anyway (except for the sheer thrill of obliterating a city).

Also I'm pretty sure that as the pollution goes back down those squares come back.

The way the article was written it made it sound like this guy was a awesome gamer that found out that CIV 2 was so realistic it could actually show the realism, folly, and travesty of global politics and the human condition. Really it's just a crappy writer covering a gamer I assume to be sub-par.

It's really not that difficult to build the 'utopia' in Civ 2. Once you have the advantage you just press it and clean up everything in your wake. A wake you can keep to a minimum with a few smart decisons. In some of the later versions I even keep the aggressor nations around as small states after I smack them down just so I can have a more realistic and textured model of civilization.

[cDnStealth]

For those interested PC Gamer did an interview with the guy which you can read here: http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/07/17/co...s-eternal-war/

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I guess, if you've had several nuclear wars like he's had. But there's no real need for that anyway (except for the sheer thrill of obliterating a city).

Also I'm pretty sure that as the pollution goes back down those squares come back.

The way the article was written it made it sound like this guy was a awesome gamer that found out that CIV 2 was so realistic it could actually show the realism, folly, and travesty of global politics and the human condition. Really it's just a crappy writer covering a gamer I assume to be sub-par.

It's really not that difficult to build the 'utopia' in Civ 2. Once you have the advantage you just press it and clean up everything in your wake. A wake you can keep to a minimum with a few smart decisons. In some of the later versions I even keep the aggressor nations around as small states after I smack them down just so I can have a more realistic and textured model of civilization.

If you are playing on a hard enough level and you let the AIs get too far ahead, it can be pretty dificult to contain them, especially after they get nukes. Certain civilizations just don't care about reputatoin, etc.

The bit I don't understand is how he ended up with perfect balance between the two AIs. Normally it can be pretty easy to gang up on one and shift the balance of power.