Civ 2 will RUIN you (in the best way)

[@CarlLevitt]

I always found that the best way to play the early civ games (1 & 2) was to enter into a flow state where 90% of decisions aren't thought about at all. The only exceptions the highest level decisions such as wonder construction, initiating war and deciding the next turning point tech to chase. Everything else: ordering settlers to make improvements, choosing the next building or unit to build and moving units at war is done almost by reflex. I find it almost meditative.

[@Hypernefelos]

The initial Civ2's graphics are a lot cleaner than the version you're showing. There's nothing even approaching the ambiguity of the ironclad you show at 10:54. Also, the unit graphics and the game rules were very easily moddable, and the manual even had instructions on how to do it. Civ2 was the first game I ever modded because of that. That gives you the _power_ to draw positionally ambiguous units, but you have the implied _responsibility_ not to do so. I started the series with Civ1 and there are things I like about every game in the series. One thing the first two Civ games got right, in my opinion, that the newer ones have moved away from, is assembling a spaceship in space, with lots of parts that can be constructed in various cities. And I mean _lots_ of parts. A fully assembled spaceship, that would have the best odds of reaching alpha Centauri and give you the highest score upon arriving there, would need 12 modules, 16 components, and around 30 structurals, all assembled gradually on their own screen for you to admire. Space victories always feel somewhat underwhelming for me in more recent civ games. I used to play with extreme save-scumming, to get the highest possible scores. One time I spent a preposterous amount of time doing that on a long deity game with max civs on the biggest map and it broke the game. I got a _negative_ score, because it went higher than the highest assigned integer value for it. It was over twenty years ago and no screenshot survives of it, but it's burned in my memory forever.

[@suedeciviii7142]

Integer overflow hahah

[@Adi_Bossanac]

Give me more soldiers noble leader, that they may sheathe their swords in the beating hearts of our enemies!

[@OviD11111]

Here's another pain fact: they changed the AI when the re-releaded the "ultimate classic collection" to hyper-aggressive. I will never forget my turtle game as Carthage on an island when I had met NO ONE and the AI would announce defensive pacts to "end Carthaginian aggression". 20 turns later the Mongols began a D-Day style invasion on me to ens me once and for all. I had to get a fan-patch to make my game even playable.

[@suedeciviii7142]

:/ Is that what did it in my games?

[@ImmLff]

@@suedeciviii7142 The AI in original Civ2 was a lot less unstable and aggressive. The backstabbing maniac AI that most of Civ2 players are familiar with was introduced in Civilization 2 Multiplayer Gold version. Test of Time also has it, it seems, but I haven't played ToT version myself so can't tell for sure. There is a fan patch to change this in Civ 2 MG, it also introduces multiple quality of life features. It's called "Civilization II User Interface Additions".

[@suedeciviii7142]

@@ImmLff I'll look for that if I record more footage for my sci-fi/fantasy video for ToT

[@ImmLff]

@@suedeciviii7142 The patch I've mentioned in my previous comment is specifically for Civilization 2 Multiplayer Gold game version. But there is a similar fan patch for Test of Time too, it is called "Test of Time Patch Project".

[@danlorett2184]

Yeah I played Civ 2 (original CD rom release when I was a kid) and it was NOT hard. I went back and played it (had to pirate it) and it was suddenly REALLY hard, like unplayable hard. There's definitely something fishy going on because I'm way better at Civ now than I was as a kid 😂

[@ImmLff]

Several of your complaints about the game are specific to the Test of Time version. Visual clarity is a lot better in normal Civ 2. UI seems to be more convenient too. Settlers don't have ability to attack in normal Civ 2 either. In the normal version you can see and select units in the city if you right click on it. There are probably many other differences, but I haven't played Test of Time version myself, so I can't do a full comparison.

[@suedeciviii7142]

I purposely didn't mention graphics/visual clarity (except in that one diagram where it was relevant) because, a lot of it seemed like ToT being weird. Looking now, it seems like settlers don't have an attack value in normal civ 2. I have no clue how he took my city, but I have the footage. Twice since I tried to reload hahah. But I don't see the game being unforgiving as really criticism.

[@Stowkaa]

​@@suedeciviii7142Units with no attack value can still take empty cities. Technically they're not performing an attack, they're just walking in.

[@dariusmite1562]

Nice video Suede. Made me realise that one thing's I love about civ3 is how it looks.

[@suedeciviii7142]

I was worried that my criticisms about visual clarity weren't substantiated, but several times in the video I was trying to point out something happening on screen and the graphics were not doing me any favours.

[@MongyUT]

I'd love to play civ 2 but the UI seems too difficult to get used to

[@suedeciviii7142]

@@MongyUT I wish I could say it was like Alpha Centauri where you will get used to it, but not, it's kind of always suboptimal

[@illegalsmirf]

civ2 is endlessly frustrating, really don't see any reason why you'd still want to play it.

[@suedeciviii7142]

@@illegalsmirf The wonders, buildings and governments kick so much ass though

[@pokedude104]

civ 2 is my favorite but I'm 100% biased because it was literally my introduction to PC gaming, learned by watching my dad play growing up. To me the newer games just lack the capability to scratch the civ itch like 2 does. You build cities, amass an army and conquer the world, simple as. I don't want to worry about culture or tourism or those specialized buildings for resource tiles. I still like the new civ games don't get me wrong, but civ 6 is for when I want to relax and civ 2 is for when I'm seeing red and want to paint the map with my colour and decimate anyone who tries to stop me.

[@suedeciviii7142]

I used a couple clips from the fantasy/sci-fi mods for Test of Time, but I did not comment on these mods. I had too much to say! Typically I aim for about 9 minutes for video essays, I had to cut this one in two.

[@cameramano1]

Shots fired! Been playing since 1996. Was so pumped for civ 3 that I bought it. Was Sophmore year in the dorms on an honors floor. Somebody cracked it in 24 hours and we all played our minds out. But... the combat! You are right about so many things about Civ 2 generally (though using ToT is not representative at all). However, Civ 3 combat is just too coarse! There is no way a doomstack of horsemen should take down a smaller, end-game army! In Civ 2 we had the running joke about spearman beating a tank as an outlier result, but in Civ 3 that is a regular thing. Howitzers may be crazy OP, but at least they create winners on the right side of the tech tree! So glad to rant on Civ 2 and Civ 3 in 2024. Thanks!

[@Kulumuli]

I liked the Atlantis scenario but it was hard. Most times you would be defeated early in the game because none of your triremes could make it to safe land before Atlantis dissapeared. As Atlantis I think you got a tech lead from the start but you are in every other disadvantage given you ever make it to safe lands.

[@avramlevitter6150]

It sounds like a lot of the UI and gameplay issues are unique to the Test of Time edition. At least half of those issues I never encountered in the Gold Edition.

[@skipperxiv9401]

So, Civ 2 is the Dark Souls of the Civ franchise? Incredibly difficult and punishes even slight mistakes, but you can become absurdly powerful in response.

[@suedeciviii7142]

I've only played Dark Souls once but... Yes

[@gyppygirl2021]

I think probably the worst thing about Civ 2 for me is the invisible fog of war. The fact that you can't see how far your units can see is absolutely infuriating... oh, and zone of control is also obnoxious. LOL

[@suedeciviii7142]

Agreed, I don't get it! Why can I see battles on the other side of the map, but I can't see a city 2 tiles away from my own city! And trying to scout without the extra visibility over water/mountains/hills that Civ 3 introduced feels so bad.

[@Winspur1982]

omg I'm already becoming a Civ 2 apologist: zone of control cuts both ways. It can save your ass from a barbarian warrior marching into your unguarded city.

[@gyppygirl2021]

@@Winspur1982 That's true. That's why it's not as bad as the "fog of war". :p

[@Stowkaa]

As someone who actually prefers Civ2: It's simply the first Civ I've played, this is what I'm used to and this is what feels right. That's all there is to it really. I really like the UI of Civ3 though.

[@davidklein8608]

It really depends on how I want to play on whether I prefer Civ 2 or 3. For doing a world conquest I'll always choose Civ 3, but I really like doing a peaceful victory on Civ 2. I like how Civ 2 lets you engineer any tile to change the land. The spaceship building with its different chances of success and travel time is also a nice touch. The extended game on two planets is also fun if playing that version. Civ 2 is just a more rewarding game to play as you feel like your civilization has overcome a lot of obstacles to achieve something great. I also enjoy the fantasy mods from Civ 2, but Civ 3 lets you create your own. Things I have tried are creating a tech tree after the modern era to allow robots to improve your cities and your armies. I've even added an alien artifact wonder that allows your stone age civilization to have a free robot guardian every five turns. Another thing is adding different temples to the old Greek gods that allow different bonuses to the city or special military units from the gods.

[@Winspur1982]

yes. I admit to liking the palace decoration minigame as well. You better work hard for that throne on the dais and red carpet. Your daddy will not give you a small loan of a million gold for a head start.

[@nathangamble125]

0:30 Civ II: ToT is my favourite game. I prefer it to Civ III. Civ II's combat system is better than Civ III's and I will die on this hill (on which I have stacked 2 cannons and 1 musketeer, in order to protect the cannons while minimising the risk of losing an excessive number of units, should an enemy choose to attack me with with a force capable of defeating my musketeer) any day. Putting all of your units in a single "doomstack" is unrealistic and boring. Units in Civ III having 3-5HP also makes combat too random compared to in Civ II where units have 10-40HP. Civ II also has less randomness, because your success isn't dependent on having access to strategic and luxury resources. I prefer this personally as it makes the game feel fairer and less frustrating, though the impact on Civ III is arguably good because it forces you to play different games of Civ III differently, so Civ III is more interesting if you play multiple games in succession. But then, if you want some variety in ToT, you have the fantasy and Sci-Fi modes. While it's definitely a problem in both games, as it makes the late game very tedious, I find city sprawl in Civ III more frustrating to deal with. Corruption exists in both games, but its effects are a larger in Civ III than in Civ II. Starts in Civ III are brutal, whereas in Civ II it's much easier to keep to yourself and still have enough room to expand. In Civ II I can build a load of settlers and just a handful of units to fight barbarians, and normally don't have to start worrying about the other Civs until I want to, whereas in Civ III it's much more important to focus on early trade and there's a high chance of being forced into a war. Civ II has the disadvantage of it being easier for one Civ to take the lead and run away with it, but I prefer the less intense starts. ToT does have some annoying bugs and civilopedia errors though, and I'm very annoyed they removed the high council that was in the base game. IMO the most annoying thing in Civ II is the chance of your decisions being overruled by the senate in Republic or Demoracy. I pretty much never use Republic or Democracy, for that reason.

[@suedeciviii7142]

Doomstacks are not unrealistic. These are big patches of land, they can easily hold tens of thousands of units. Discouraging stacks is an ok mechanic, but the question is , does the game make you want to split up your units naturally? Civ 2 fails on that front. The game is all about finding clever ways to basically attack with stacks. Railroads, fortresses, finding a mountain near the city, etc. Sure, I agree combat feels a bit more deterministic here. But the formula used to calculate it is harder to do napkin math on. I disagree about what you said about being forced into a war. As long as you either have a big army or give into AI trade demands, you don't need a big army in Civ 3 and can expand freely. I find barbs less punishing in Civ 2, since they can't take planted cities in Civ 3. Luxuries/Res do add RNG, but they add strategic depth too, and make IMO the biggest point of Civ 2 over Civ 3 is one you didn't mention: the buildings and wonders are just better in Civ 2. The governments 2.

[@Ranyanya]

Communism and integrism were much more interesting for my playstyle than republic or democracy.

[@HansLemurson]

I've studied how the AI plays in Civ2, and the "Gentler start" plus "One runaway Civ" are actually symptoms of the same problem. Basically the AI can't develop its land well and never clears forests even when short on arable land (the clearing forest/jungle/swamp action is disabled for all governments less advanced than Republic for the AI settler routines). It get stuck in very slow growth and development, and some Civs never mature if they don't have any farmland. The "Runaway Civ" is generally a lucky civ that started next to a lot of grassland/plains and can actually grow properly. This problem is made even worse because the default settings on the map generator produce a LOT of rough terrain that's hard to farm. Lots of hills and mountains and such, making food very scarce.

[@suedeciviii7142]

@@HansLemurson Agreed. Terraforming is harder in Civ 2 and the AI isn't good at it. Doubly so because you pay a ton of maintenance on settlers!

[@HungarianWarHorse]

Its crazy civ II has tanks, pretty sure tanks werent invented when civ II came out

[@suedeciviii7142]

rename modern armor to "premodern armor"

[@ksenolog]

Glorious, simply glorious! Thanks! Can't wait for second one

[@rabdag591]

What graphics are you using? Looks different than the civ 2 I played/play

[@vonhapen1]

That's the "Test of Time"-version/addon (so to speak). That's classic Civ and I love it, despite all of its flaws. Adds to the challenge I guess. "Modern" Civ starts with Civ3 imo (maybe even with SMAC).

[@suedeciviii7142]

Civ 2 Test of Time. I was ignored the differences in graphics when talking about the game. Civ 2 ToT is ugly as hell. From what I've seen, the basic Civ 2 is much nicer looking.

[@nathangamble125]

@@suedeciviii7142 ToT is primitive 3D while the base game is 2D pixel art. ToT looked more impressive at the time, but definitely hasn't aged as well as the original.

[@suedeciviii7142]

@@nathangamble125 It uses moving icons too! Yeah, an interesting difference I'll highlight in my ToT review

[@jonm2438]

CIV 2 Scenarios was an awesome add on. The WW1 scenario alone is worth the price

[@Wairaotoledo]

They way how they made artillery an unit with stats like attack, defens and HP is far superior than how civ III worked it, but after all the mess up, the super inmersive absent of fog of war and the Tax/Research/ Luxury tab, here comes the first civ i played over 1999 The rest is history, for me my favs are far II and III for equa Edit: the way how you need to attack with air units like ground ones BUT calculating the moves to get back on an airfield... Oh lord, flashbacks how i lose a lot of planes by "out of fuel" Civ II clasic is a complete chaos

[@runr1ckyrun113]

I have a top score of 819%. I was unemployed and I spent a week micromanaging and grinding pop (after reducing the ai to a single 1 pop city) just to beat my sister’s score. She has vowed one day to waste as much time to beat it.

[@Sianistic]

A unacknowledged reason why people look down on Civ III, is that Alpha Centauri was such a difficult game to go up against, due to its strong everything

[@jamesgoudreau1940]

I loved civ and civ 2 but these days the dated user interface and limitations will drive me crazy after the hour or two of nostalgia is overcome with frustration. People forget that early computer games were generally unforgiving and meant to hurt you. Designers didn't have to listen to players whining continually online and it showed.

[@suedeciviii7142]

Platformers and fighters started as arcade games trying to suck your quarters, so them, I understand. But why strategy games? Still, I'm glad it exists because the experience it offers is so unique.

[@jamesgoudreau1940]

@@suedeciviii7142 I think it was just a different mindset. If you ignore the strive for popular and avoid the professional gamer drive for optimal strategy to win as quickly and efficiently as possible and focus on the essence of the game for the average player. Civ2 was about making big immediately impactful decisions that had noticeable differences. Whereas most modern games are a progression of minor impacts that build up over time. The percentage of civ games I have finished has progressively diminished since Civ2. Civ2 was go big or go home, no nickel and dime crap it was c-notes or nothing. I think over time Civ has watered down the value of each decision, but added many, many more decisions. In Civ2 you almost always knew exactly what you messed up, Civ6 meh, you didn't make enough optimal decisions.

[@x999uuu1]

​@suedeciviii7142 There is a difference between meaningful difficulty that challenges your brain to overcome and tedious, grindy difficulty that exists just to say there's consequences involved and civ 2 leans to heavily on the second.

[@x999uuu1]

​@jamesgoudreau1940 I wonder how much "difficulty" nostalgia is a result of people growing up. If you're a kid with all weekend to play away you more tolerant of clunky features and punishing mechanics. As an adult I don't have that time nor desire.

[@suedeciviii7142]

@@x999uuu1 I disagree. Proper tile assignment and worker moves is a lifesaver in Civ 2.

[@mangomation3945]

I will say I do sort of wish the original SMC2 was used for the basis of this video and Test of Time getting its own focus in its own video. At least for the Ironclad hilarity, that's definitely a Test of Time thing only I believe. Though since Test of Time in general deserves more recognition on its own terms (as does Call to Power 1/2 imo) I'm certainly glad it got showcased at all lol.

[@suedeciviii7142]

This is the version I grew up with. From what I've seen online, the UI is pretty much the same but the graphics are way different. But I'll mention what you say when I do my essay on Test of Time specifically

[@mangomation3945]

@@suedeciviii7142 Well given half the reason I was hoping that was because I was hoping Test of Time would get its own video, I'm actually super happy to hear that! Looking very much forward to that.

[@suedeciviii7142]

@@mangomation3945 There's almost no info on Lalande 21185 anywhere on the internet! It's a must, IMO

[@ajunjahi]

I agree! I played vanilla Civ 2 back in the time and it kind of hurts me that ToT gets called Civ 2 in the video all the time :) I didn't buy ToT back then, and I don't like it when I see it today. From reading the Wikipedia article about ToT it was a quick remake of Civ 2 where they included some space stuff to fend off SMAC and Call to Power. Also, the original Civ 2 was created by Jeff Briggs and Brian Reynolds who then moved on to SMAC and had nothing to do with the cheap remake that ToT is ;) I would love to see a video essay on the original Civ 2!

[@mangomation3945]

@@suedeciviii7142 Definitely up there with Civ Call to Power's sea/space layers for forgotten yet very fascinating mechanics / game modes for the time IMO.

[@theCynecologist]

Regarding the zone of control. I was so happy when i found out, that a Diplomat can be used to bypass it. Diplomats ignore zone of control and you can move any unit onto a tile with a friendly unit on it.

[@suedeciviii7142]

Yup! Combined with railroads it's actually insane

[@YuriTereshyn]

Just booted up Civ 2 test of time on my windows xp computer. Loved every minute of it

[@Masemiliano_]

They had animated cows and stuff in civ 2? That was actually kinda cool, why did civ 3 remove that :(

[@suedeciviii7142]

In the civilopedia there's no cows at all!

[@mrlolhead]

@@suedeciviii7142 Never playing this game.

[@glmrgloam]

this is the re-release of civ2, test of time, which changed the graphics significantly (and for the worse imo). all of the map graphics are static in vanilla civ 2.

[@Masemiliano_]

@@suedeciviii7142 well I meant buffalos haha 😅

[@Masemiliano_]

@@glmrgloam ah okay, makes a lot of sense, thanks for the explanation

[@Winspur1982]

This inspired me to start a Civ 2 game in my browser on freebie games. I got some nice rolls in world creation and I have a capital at a long river's mouth; my first tribal hut was mercenary archers. Playing on Emperor level. I am sure I will rue my existence when locked in eternal phony ceasefire with some railroad-spamming superpower but I have to say it's a pleasant experience at this point.

[@suedeciviii7142]

Does emperor get 2 free content citizens? or 1?

[@Winspur1982]

@@suedeciviii7142 2. I couldn't handle only 1, what with the UI being so slow and the growth from 1 to 2 so fast 😵‍💫

[@suedeciviii7142]

@@Winspur1982 The crazy thing is IIRC you need to fix it AT SIZE 1 when you're about to grow. There's no grace period.

[@Winspur1982]

@@suedeciviii7142 Yes, not even a one-turn honeymoon.

[@CloudLadder-c7e]

I actually love the zone of control in Civ II, for me it's the biggest thing I miss in Civ III. It makes the positioning of units feel a lot more meaningful when the enemy can't as easily just walk around your unit on a mountain and it makes fighting defensively feel like more of an option. Also it makes having mountains on your borders actually a defensive boon rather than being ironically a perfect route for invasion like it is in Civ III since you can't stop enemy armies from walking through them unless you put a unit on every tile and once they're in there you'll never get them out.

[@suedeciviii7142]

I see the purpose it serves and it would be tolerable if it was disabled during peacetime, maybe with some restrictions related to borders.

[@elarmino6590]

Oh no He is definitely going to go back to THE CIV someday near

[@suedeciviii7142]

Do people care about Civ 1? I've never played it in my life

[@ajunjahi]

@@suedeciviii7142 Definitely some people! :) I guess Civ 1 is to me (and others) what ToT is to you.. But I can't imagine someone who has never played Civ 1 back in the time and who knows the later versions get into it or like it, guess it's pure nostalgia.. And back then of course it was not called Civ 1 but just "Civ" :D

[@mycophobia]

@@suedeciviii7142 if you've played Civ 2 then you basically already know Civ 1's mechanics. 2 more than any other Civ sequel is an extremely iterative one in that it kept the rules mostly the same (fixing an exploit here and there) and just added more content. you could more or less expect "Civ 2 but less stuff in it, and also I can rushbuy a temple and put the production into a wonder without penalty"

[@suedeciviii7142]

@@mycophobia Yeah, from what I hear the combat is a big difference? Anything else?

[@mycophobia]

@@suedeciviii7142 oh right the combat lol. completely forgot about that. it's just a straight up single roll of attack against defense, no hp or multiple rounds. beyond that i'm sure there's a lot of little differences, just no huge system overhauls. you can found cities directly next to each other which is pretty funny also AIs won't demand you leave their territory and their attitude toward you is a lot simpler iirc

[@cmdrwilmot2696]

Not sure about test of time, but regular Civ 2 lets you select units from a stack via right click. I believe you can use this to select a unit from a city without opening the city screen.

[@Illuminati0101]

Best civ game hands down

[@thomasvandevelde8157]

lol yeah, that constantly getting "lost" with my active unit! And than you hit one of your keys, and the damn unit moves right into some disasterzone without the option to return to base course lol. Just staying alive in Civ 2 feels good, for this very reason. And stacking units almost automatically forces you to attack. If you stack without taking the initiative soon there after, you're asking for a disaster. This however made strategic chokepoints worth their weight in gold too, like land narrows or mountain ranges (only the case for scenarios I think?) Anyways, the only thing I absolutely hated, was micromanaging the trading caravans. Put them on a boat, take em off a boat, my goodness... Often I just used to "go to" automation, and just let the computer deal with it. But this only worked between your own cities, as far as I remember? It's all a long time ago. Anyways, another interesting one. Might one of these days actually start playing again, but it's so highly addictive always...

[@suedeciviii7142]

Jesus, I didn't even consider caravans to other landmasses! Torture

[@johuotar]

The caravans are so complicated too, like if you send oil to city that wants oil, the gold and beaker bonus is multiplied by 7 and divided by 2 afterwards. Destination on another continent is x2, distance affects it, your tech count affects it, etc. How do I make the decision where to take a caravan when I get no info before the delivery is made? But regardless, the movement of caravans (and large armies lategame) is the one tedious part I genuinely don't like.

[@jacobc6556]

Civ II was my first Civ game and at the time I absolutely loved it. Alpha Centauri then blew my mind. But trying to revisit them... I have new respect for myself as a kid.

[@AFnord]

I never could get over the UI in Test of Time. The original version of Civ II I found a lot easier to navigate, but the Test of Time version was just not particularly enjoyable to me.

[@suedeciviii7142]

What are the differences? I don't have the normal one installed. The menus seemed the same from a glance but I'm not sure about other UI changes

[@AFnord]

@@suedeciviii7142 Navigate might not quite have been the right word to use, but it was easier to read and find things. The two biggest differences are that the top bar is to the side, which isn't really a big deal, and then the UI is a lot brighter, giving a better contrast between the text and background. The City management UI was also a lot cleaner with information being, in my opinion, easier to read at a glance. Then there's the map tiles and units which were a lot simpler in their design, but which I think made everything a lot more readable. It also made the resource information easier to parse. That also ties in with the visual clarity issue you brought up in the video. I never found that an issue in the original, but a consistent issue with Test of Time.

[@dr.tarantula4209]

Test of Time has menu options to switch to the old map layout and city screen

[@AFnord]

@@dr.tarantula4209 Ah, I did not know that, that would help a bit. Still leaves the poor contrast and cluttered tiles as issues holding it back compared to the original.

[@suedeciviii7142]

@@AFnord Ok then, so visual clarity is worse (I'd agree with that) but the way the menus and options work mechanically is the same. Makes sense!

[@AntonSlavik]

I tried playing this again a few months ago and it made me cry

[@Rynewulf]

Do you think you will cover FreeCiv? It's an open source copy of Civ II and III (rulesets for both are included), similar to FreeCol for Sid Meiers Colonization, or OpenTTD, Open Zoo Tycoon and Rollercoaster Tycoon or Daggerfall Unity. FreeCol and through it finding FreeCiv is how I got introduced to the older Civ games, and I would be fascinated to see what a veteran player like yourself makes of it

[@vytah]

*Civ I and II. Yeah, I wonder if someone who wants brutal Civ II experience but without UI annoyances shouldn't just pick up FreeCiv.

[@flibbernodgets7018]

I had some fancy edition that had tons of scenarios like dinosaurs or mars colonization or alien invasions, I basically never played the base game. I guess making unique assets was easier because of the lower graphics. I have no idea what that version was called, and even if I did I basically can't buy it anywhere because of Sid Meyer and his giant ego

[@suedeciviii7142]

Test of Time! Or fantastic worlds. I will be doing an essay on the special mods too

[@youmukonpaku3168]

with the cool scenarios built in: Fantastic Worlds (also included in Multiplayer Gold Edition.)

[@PassivesAbseits]

The funniest thing was... every Civilization started building "The Oracle" in 1915... right after my Civilization finally also discovered "Mysticism"... And yes: before you, as THE PLAYER, can also build a certain wonder, the AI won't care about it at all...

[@dataportdoll]

0:30 >looking inside bedroom closet They really got us in the last half there.

[@mikebikepills]

Why am I only now finding out about stack movements by holding down control key 😖

[@suedeciviii7142]

I only learned it when whining to others in preparation for this video

[@nefftron1]

Loving these spinoff videos!

[@Mogris24]

My only problem with Civ2 is I don't have a system that can play it. Is there anyway I can get it for Windows 11?

[@suedeciviii7142]

Did you try buying it on GOG?

[@Mogris24]

@@suedeciviii7142 well its not for sale anymore. Something about Windows 7 and later not supporting it.

[@therexbellator]

The trick to not being a fanboy is to recognize that all games have flaws including the one you favor. I enjoyed Civ V back when it was attacked by Civ IV fanboys but I also resent Civ V fanboys for ragging on Civ VI for utterly superficial reasons. Civ VII isn't even out yet and people are already getting up in arms. Gamers are, sadly, ultra-conservative in nature it seems. Few like change. Change is good! Change keeps games fresh and feeling different even as the years go by. I sitll go back to play older Civs; I've been on a Civ IV kick lately even though technically it ranks low on my favorite entry in the series. All these games are enjoyable despite their flaws.

[@suedeciviii7142]

I'll do a whole video on this once I have a good enough computer to gather footage of the later entries, but TLDR, we are SPOILED to be fans of a franchise with 4-5 games that are among the best of the genre. HoMM fans don't have what we have. Command and Conquer fans don't have it. Even Starcraft fans stare down a dead franchise. All of the mainline civ games are incredible in different ways. It's a blessing. We don't need the new Civ game to remake Civ 3 or 5 or whatever.

[@Winspur1982]

Yes ... I have tried Civ 1 through 6 in my lifetime, and was pleasantly surprised on trying Civ 2 again this year. The underlying game might be almost the same as Civ 1 but there are so many small enhancements added (e.g. NO CITIES RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER) that I feel it was a successful project.

[@bobcook-d5v]

Civ II is one of my fav games ive ever played. Does anyone know a way to play with out a windows XP? i loved playing the WWII Scenario and others as well.

[@suedeciviii7142]

What are you currently running? Windows 10?

[@carl4889]

I do miss the ability to terraform in later Civ games. Don't want a hill on that tile, why turn it into farmlands! As far as jankiness goes, Civ 1 is infinitely worse than 2. Enjoy losing an entire stack of units because the enemy got a single luck shot.

[@johuotar]

I love terraforming in this game and SMAC, being able to change the environment to my liking. It's nice to make a place your by changing it

[@owenkile6042]

Is sid on civ3 the hardest difficulty out of any game?

[@suedeciviii7142]

Yes and I don't think it's close unless Civ 5 has a hard one I dont know about

[@thiagoneubauer5190]

It was the most dificult for me, for sure. Without exploits, it was the only one i could not win. I think the hardest list go like this, civ3 sid, deity civ4, deity civ2, civ5 and civ6

[@suedeciviii7142]

@@thiagoneubauer5190 No way. It took me 3 sessions to win on deity here. For Civ 3, I still cannot consistently win on Sid without exploits like capturing the Great Library

[@thiagoneubauer5190]

​@@suedeciviii7142but i agreed with the fact that civ3 is much harder to win than civ2.

[@Live01Legends]

I watched one of my childhood friends play civ 2 in 2000 and the next year my parents bought me civ 3 for Christmas. The rest is history

[@suedeciviii7142]

Sibling and a sibling in-law for me

[@Damo13579]

Civ3 was the first civ I played and hadn't tried civ2 until somewhat recently and had a lot of the same issues with the game, its missing a lot of quality of life features that make it tedious and chaotic to play. any idea how freeciv compares?

[@suedeciviii7142]

I've heard Freeciv is solid, but not a proper upgrade over Civ 2.

[@johuotar]

I remember having a problem with freeciv that if my lone unit is attacked the combat is not shown so i it disappears instantly and I dont know what attacked it.

[@anathardayaldar]

So which is the best civ game of all time? My fav is Alpha Centauri. But I never played civ 4, 5, 6

[@suedeciviii7142]

Check the name of my channel :) But Civ 4 routinely tops lists made by publications.

[@Tealdragon204]

Intro music?

[@suedeciviii7142]

The Shining path from the Civ 2 OST. Do you like the inclusion of music? It was something new I tried here.

[@Tealdragon204]

@@suedeciviii7142 yes it made a banger intro

[@PerennialSash]

"a roller coaster of frustration and fascination" yeah. Yup. Just so.

[@BrentDeJong]

Watching this video makes me wonder if so much time playing Civ2 as a kid is the reason I almost never play later games on higher difficulties

[@suedeciviii7142]

Bad habits? Or trauma?

[@PF2015]

I started with civ2 on Playstation and I'll never forget being introduced to civ3 by watching my history teacher play 3 before class one day. I don't see how civ 3 could be considered ""bad"" 😅😅😅

[@shadout]

Say what you want about Civ2 having the same sins as Civ3... from a person who saw it all begin with Civ1, Civ3 almost made me give up on the franchise. It was a game I found so boring that I considered it to be a way to wind down for bed time rather than one that kept me up too late like Civ2 did. So I guess Civ3 had one thing going for it. It is why I loved Civ4 so much. It was the one that brought me back.

[@nEiKKah]

Aha! You cannot bait me into posting a comment with that 007! ...wait

[@torrvic1156]

Thank you for playing Test of Time and not the original Civ 2 which looks really…not so good as Test of Time.

[@Aarlaeoss]

I support the civ II, Daggerfall alliance

[@molybdane7240]

I think you struggled with this game because you are unfamiliar with some of the habits of civ 1 and 2. Mostly that cities were defenseless unless you put multiple units in them. Moreover, those units would have helped with keeping the city happy as well. And I can't remember how having a unit in it's parent city helped with maintenance. Nevertheless, these older games aren't as good now as we remember them to be. Rome: Total War belongs in a similar basket.

[@suedeciviii7142]

Yeah I figured out soon that on deity you pretty had to have a unit or a temple in if you want it to get to size 2. In Civ 3 a unit being in a city or not doesn't change maintenance. I'm still confused how unit support works in relation to government... the civilopedia for each government page does not mention what makes a unit "free" of support

[@Winspur1982]

​@@suedeciviii7142 The civilopedia states exactly how many zero-support units you get in each government. (In despotism it is one per citizen in the maintaining city ... I think this is supposed to represent quartering your soldiers in private homes, which admittedly doesn't make sense given you can build barracks from the get-go) I don't think the location of the unit ever matters for maintenance costs in Civ 2 either.

[@arisrayden]

the one about the settler stealing the city and then another instance preventing you from attacking the settler also seems like political satire

[@HansLemurson]

Holy heck, why did YT not show me this video until now? I've been playing Civ2 again recently, and it's fresh on my mind. I've been using the "Civ2 UI Additions" mod for Civ2MGE which makes things a little bit nicer in several ways. My biggest irritation with Civ2 though in terms of management is units having "Home cities". The amount of shuffling and re-homing needed to keep things balanced and not have cities go into disorder or be drained of production is...frustrating. And also early-on, unit upkeep costs are KILLER. When a unit ends up devouring double-digit percentages of a city's output...not great. That, and the lack of overflow makes the game require a level of micromanagement that sometimes gets to me, especially since the problems were so avoidable. The AI of Civ2 is actually pretty tame and ineffective once you know how to defend yourself, and so I often find myself playing the "Wait for Jesus" challenge on Deity, where you pass the first 100 turns of the game until 1AD, then settle your first city.

[@suedeciviii7142]

Yes, same with Alpha Centauri. It would be a massive quality of life improvement to allow you to just declare a home city whenever you want. It makes sense, just have a different settlement send the upkeep needed. That is an insane challenge, are there any write-ups about it on CFC or anywhere?

[@HansLemurson]

@@suedeciviii7142 I think I remember a readup of a "Wait for Jesus 1 City Spaceship Victory Challenge" (caravans are OP AF), but I don't recall where it was. The AI is so slow to get started in Civ2 when the terrain is bad that honestly giving it 100 free turns is fine. It struggles in low-food environments and won't clear forests/jungle in any government "lesser" than Republic. And Deity AIs only have costs reduced to 70%, which isn't that bad. I will hunt around for a writeup of a WFJ challenge.

[@atakorkut5110]

Bro, I don’t know about all that civilizationV and civilization VI. I love civilization three through and through now I’m not saying that there isn’t parts of the game that I would wish to change and improve, but I’m saying that I would not have made it today

[@johuotar]

I wish I had 32bit computer to play my original box CivII but I've settled on playing Multiplayer Gold Edition with AI aggression fix. No music, wonder videos or Elvis though. Perhaps I should setup old windows on my previous PC...

[@lordhoot1]

Love this game, for its moddability if nothing else.

[@Blxz]

Civ 2 is fantastic. The issues you talk about with upkeep is because you are applying modern civ strats to an older style of game. Gotta embrace that oldstyle mindset.

[@suedeciviii7142]

Not being able to scout freely was a bummer! But yeah, I adapted

[@Blxz]

@@suedeciviii7142 embrace the fuzzy information.

[@ihavethepowerquery4718]

I'm with the masses! I anticipated Civ III more than any of the other games of the series and I was so disappointed by it. I was there at the start but it was Civ II I played the most.

[@suedeciviii7142]

That's wild! I was disappointed by Civ 4 on launch

[@terrencecrowley5137]

Perfect Dark > Golden eye

[@suedeciviii7142]

Time Splitters > Everything

[@Cygnus__X1]

GOLDENEYE WAS GREAT WOW PLENTY OF ENTERTAINMENT IN 1996

[@patrickbass9957]

How can you play Civ 3? Is there any bonus for capturing enemy cities ? Spying is so expensive and not as fun as having a spy unit. Everything about Civ 3 is good but I don't understand playing it when there is no point in capturing cities.

[@suedeciviii7142]

Luxuries and strategic resources were introduced in Civ 3, and they offer a big incentive to conquer. Also, just improving the commerce and production of your empire, although eventually that will run into diminishing returns due to corruption.

[@patrickbass9957]

@suedeciviii7142 Thanks, that makes sense actually. Good point. The enemies always try to capture resources in Civ 3 too. Do you like Civ 4 and do you think it is a very different game from Civ 1,2 and 3 ?

[@suedeciviii7142]

@@patrickbass9957 It's quite similar to Civ 3. I'd say 3 and 4 have a lot of copy pasted mechanics, same with 5 and 6. Trade routes and city combat are very similar in 5 and 6, for example. The downsides to 4 in my eyes are a slightly weaker combat system, worse visuals/UI, and exploration being underwhelming.

[@patrickbass9957]

@@suedeciviii7142 Ok Thanks I like the idea of the new graphics style but it is easier to play the game when the units are easy to make out. Civ 3 has good unit designs but the Civ Test of Time design is not so good Thanks maybe I'll give civ 4 another go sometime, Civ 5 and 6 seem too complicated now and I miss bonuses like city view and palaces and the advisors and I like spy units and the freight unit system of trade is the best. I think they should keep more of the things people like and then improve the graphics, add without taking away, I think its a bit difficult to move from one Civ to another actually, and a civ 2 test of time with modern graphics and clear units is what I would really like

[@suedeciviii7142]

@@patrickbass9957 Great to hear. Maybe check out Freeciv too!

[@shanavalkyria3438]

my first experince with civ was i think civ 1 or 2 for playstation, i loved the game but mostly play 6 now but i do enjoy 5 from time to time

[@SkyFly19853]

No Pain... No Gain... 🤔😏

[@manic_eyes_music]

I'm someone who has enjoyed every civ game. I find it much harder to go back to the older ones now because I've adapted too much to the newer philosophy of 6, but I'll occasionally go back and play 5 as well. That being said, on civ 5 launch. I'm coming from the perspective of someone who played civ 4 a lot when five was still the most recent game. Civ 5 on launch was atrocious and I hated playing it so much that I stayed playing 4 until both expansions came out and went on sale. I did the same thing with civ 6 tho so maybe civ launches are just weak after 5

[@suedeciviii7142]

I also played 5 on launch. The game was just dead. It had most of the core mechanics but on emperor and above, every part of the game was miserable and you have few options.

[@manic_eyes_music]

@@suedeciviii7142 it definitely took the expansions to make it feel like a full experience for me. After Gods and Kings and BNW it's a great game, but before that it just didn't feel fun. I also went back and played civ 6's base game a year ago and was stunned at how empty that game felt in that state compared to now. I don't remember ever feeling that way for previous civ titles

[@suedeciviii7142]

@@manic_eyes_music I'd be open to giving current patches of Civ 5 (maybe with mods) another shot when I get my new computer. I remember them being alright.

[@LemonCake101]

Hey, surely cooking and tax payments aren't THAT when done at the same time!

[@keysersoze8762]

Civ2 ToT is cumbersome. I like the classical civ2 better. much more simple graphics, but everything is sharp and clear.

[@Samski1987]

Well i got ill yesterday and decided to play something nice and old in my bed while recovering..so i launched civ2 on laptop and got absolutely demolished by AI by year 1000ad or so. I forgot a lot of the mechanics and def need to change the difficulty. Your points on the UI are very relevant! Ps. Im a civ veteran and played all of them, not that i am good at it. Civ3 is my favorite i reckon. Civ6 is the most meh for me.

[@ze90s]

The thing I most liked about civ 2 was the diplomatic relations. Somehow the system feels lacking in civ3. I remember civ2 being more dynamic, including with the possibility of forming permanent alliances in wich I would try to attack an ally's city and couldnt.

[@Winspur1982]

Funny you should say this. I tried to establish relations with India by sailing my trireme into their capital (seriously ... I forgot some things since I last played), and lost the ship in a battle. And now my foreign minister says I don't have contact with anyone.

[@hueylong3918]

Civ IV forever

[@Ranyanya]

All Civ are great. Civ IV and II are my favorite. But I enjoyed all of them.

[@wastelanderone]

My childhood was Civ 1 and I love love loved it (and I did not understand that in the slightest). But 2 was the first game I bought for myself at the age of 12 and it's my great love. I've never managed to win, lol. It doesn't matter.

[@suedeciviii7142]

It's so hard to make any progress early on!

[@Serena_Lunar]

Yeah, I've recently been replaying the older civs ahead of maybe playing 7, and feel much the way you do about it

[@willywonka6487]

I dont get why this game is pain. This was one of the first games I ever played and its very relaxing, and can be played on autopilot Civ2 is absolutely superior to civ3, and probably civ4 also. Never played civ3 much since it was such a step down.

[@user-ge2hp3qw3j]

I like the graphics of Civ 2 far better. I find it just visually easier to read. The game is flawed but is so good in some ways that it makes up for its flaws. I really like the custom scenarios included in Civ 2 gold. It's a nice break from the monotony to go play a medieval fantasy Civ 2 or go colonize a planet or something. Some things are atrocious like how damn long the AI turns take sometimes.

[@arisrayden]

democracies experiencing NO CORROPTION is definitely also satire... or extreme levels of naivety

[@Excremental]

TBH you should play Civ2 multiplayer gold edition

[@Dusty78dk]

I'm not saying that Civ 3 is a bad game - I'm just going to say that I played Civ 2 and Civ 3 for five year each. I won many game in Civ 2, never won a game of Civ 3. Yours sincerly, the gamer who started with Civ 1 in 1995

[@Ayeshteni]

That's Civ II: Test of Time. Civ II graphics are clearer, no ambiguity over ironclad position and settlers do not have an attack value and cannot capture cities.

[@suedeciviii7142]

From what I've been told, settlers don't have an attack value in either version but they can capture cities anyway

[@cinnanyan]

I've played a LOT of Civ 2, but after 3&4 came out (well actually Alpha Centauri) I've never wanted to play it again. The AI was predictably obnoxious on higher difficulties - if you were #1 on the rankings they would instantly gang up on you, truce break, lose, then ask for peace immediately and if you had democracy you'd be forced to accept it. I don't want peace, I want revenge!!! I will also always clown on this game for genderbend Shaka and for introducing a lot of lazy "wonders of the world" like King Richard's Crusade.

[@suedeciviii7142]

Some people replied telling me this was a bug in later patches of the game

[@PillowWillow007]

Hmmm... I should play Alpha Centauri

[@suedeciviii7142]

It's cheap and I have a couple guides for it. It's the first game in the series that I'd say has all the UI requirements of a modern game.

[@AndresGarcia-yg1bw]

si yo tambien jugue en la play 1 lol un saludo

[@dr.tarantula4209]

Civ3 was worse for lacking zones of control and stack kills. Civ2 just has a better combat system. Test of Time looks better than later games too 😏

[@suedeciviii7142]

Yeah, a few people are saying that. I'd need a whole other video to do justice to the combat system differences. It does seem like a well planned, intricate system

[@danishquill]

You leave your cities undefended? Your capital? You don't have at least one unit in every single city? Rookie mistake

[@suedeciviii7142]

I sent it off north to body block the Spanish (the people I was actually at war with)

[@computernerd8157]

I think its better than civ3 by a long shot. Civ2 Is the Best game ever. One of the best Dialog ect. I do love Spain in Civ4. Isabella really attractive but she will kill you for not following her faith. In Civ2, I love the Egypt Diplomat and how they will tell you to get ride of your Nuclear weapons before they destroy us all. Civ2 does not Favor Democracy or Republic as much as Civ3 and thus is the better game. Taking a City allows you to take a Technology not so in Civ3, stealing Tech does not cost a arm and a leg. Spies are actually units that I can control to steal tech. Yea Civ2 is way better then Civ3,4,5 and even 6.

[@TheShinyFeraligatr]

You forgot probably the worst aspect of Civ II's tech tree, which is that, 1/3rd of the time you get a new tech, you will not be able to move onto a specific new tech. Because techs are only available 2/3rds of the time. Also the worst aspect of the governments, which is that A, going into anarchy to switch governments is actually exploitable (See, the anarchy turns actually end on very specific turns every single save file, so if you know what the so called "Oedo" years are you spend a lot less time in anarchy. Which sounds like a great system until you remember that what it actually incentivizes is opening up a spreadsheet and waiting until the numbers match to do a thing - a system that needlessly punishes new players and creates only boring situations for older players), and B, Communism, one of the lategame governments, is really, really awful, because the tech required to get it and all things that come from it (including Spies, one of the main benefits of Communism) actually provides a permanent nerf to Cathedrals and some Wonders. On the subject of the combat system, there's a few inbalances there to be sure (the Firepower system always stands out as being pretty reasonably not necessary, and the AI getting doubled attack during a sneak attack but not you is... weird, and incentivizes being a dick to the AI so they conventionally declare war which was almost certainly not intended), but the worst thing is something the game never brings up that completely fucks up early-game combat - When the combat calculations for your units and your enemy units tie, the defender wins ties, which doesn't sound like much but in the early game can lead to supposed 50/50 shots being 21/79 shots. This wouldn't be too bad except that the game, as mentioned, does not bring this up a single time at any point in the game, not even in the manual.

[@suedeciviii7142]

This was mentioned very briefly (or, it flashed on screen) when talking about the mountain of stuff that got left in 1996 for a reason

[@Winspur1982]

Again I will defend civ 2 and say that 1/3rd of techs not being available to research doesn't really impair my enjoyment. Maybe it's because I hate hyperplanning and like flying by the seat of my pants (or not flying if it's not available, haha).

[@suedeciviii7142]

@@Winspur1982 Personally, I didn't find it got in the way, I just found it confusing. And it's already confusing planning techs without an in-game tech tree. But yeah, totally not a deal-breaker. Just some charming old-school jank

[@fatyak4122]

​@@suedeciviii7142Well, each game came with a huge chart of with the tech tree, detailed pictures of all types of terrain and resources, units, etc. it was a form of copy protection. Sooner or later everyone learned those by heart

[@suedeciviii7142]

@@fatyak4122 Yeah. I'll say, because the tech tree was less grounded (and worried about working visually), it does seem more intuitive, and it allows you to tech deeper. Like, in Civ 3 you need polytheism to research gunpowder, which doesn't make much sense.

[@ultimoguerreiro82]

Nice vid. Civ 2 is still king. =D

[@thiagoneubauer5190]

For me the worst part about civ2 was the managing de worker moves, sooooooo tedious. By the way, i cannot choose a favorite civ, i think each one is unique and fun; but i could not make me play civ1, way too rigid for me

[@suedeciviii7142]

It's like pulling teeth getting your land improved

[@Winspur1982]

there are no workers in civ 2, just settlers / engineers. Yes it is tedious to do all the improvements but it makes you think about how best to use your settlers before they found cities, if they do.

[@Planetdune]

These graphics look weird and too dark for Civ2.

[@suedeciviii7142]

This is the Test Of Time version, the one I grew up with, which I have since learned is not very popular

[@jonm2438]

Civ 3 is great as long as you turn off Culture victory’s

[@CarlosMartinez-su9qq]

Civ2 >>>>> Civ3

[@jlsegars631]

the part about parents' mental disorders was so real i liked and subscribed instantly

[@suedeciviii7142]

That means a lot to me dad