Game: Sid Meier's Civilization: The Boardgame

Thread: Re: 2nd Edition?

Lagduf — 2008-09-23T18:50:38+00:00

Does this 2nd edition improve the game?

Edit: NM, read that above thread.

Interesting.

Thread: Re: Best way to play with 2 (if any)?

JLNijholt — 2008-09-22T21:29:08+00:00

Indeed. A couple of weeks ago Zippadeedoodah and myself played a game of RFC: the Boardgame and decided to play on the Old World using 2 civs each. (You can find the review on the main page.) However, I recently had the idea of just using 2 civs with 1 neutral civ, to be played alternately by each player. (Although this hasn't been tested yet, it's similar to what we've tried with classic Risk ages ago. In both cases the neutral civ actually has a chance to win, in which case both players lose the game!)

Thread: Re: 2nd Edition?

Tim Synge — 2008-09-07T10:07:28+00:00

Certainly looks that way. Here's what Glenn Drover of Eagle Games said some time back:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/16211

Thread: cyberboard

bahaiguy — 2008-09-07T02:43:29+00:00

Does anyone know if there is cyberboard version of this game? I have this game but could only play it with my friends online.

Thread: Re: 2nd Edition?

Hisst Ka — 2008-09-05T16:55:59+00:00

Good News, So if I have 1st edition then I can d/l the 2nd edition Rulebook and be good to go?

Thread: Re: 2nd Edition?

Tim Synge — 2008-09-05T16:40:32+00:00

Same game, but there are far fewer errata in the rules.

Thread: 2nd Edition?

Hisst Ka — 2008-09-05T16:10:59+00:00

Is 2nd edition a seperate game or a more recent printing of this?

What are the differences?

Thread: Re: Rhye's and Fall of Civilization mod - first session report

JLNijholt — 2008-08-28T23:56:29+00:00

On the same CFC thread there also are several posts on an actual 5-player session using the original rules (more or less; as has been noted there are some inconsistencies) by Rhye. These guys (actually 2 girls played along) spent a shorter amount of time on their game and found it quite enjoyable (including the newbies).

Thread: Re: Rhye's and Fall of Civilization mod - first session report

rnijholt — 2008-08-24T09:53:33+00:00

You're welcome Philip. Just remember that this modification is still a beta version, not yet final. Even so, it worked remarkably well.

Thread: Re: Rhye's and Fall of Civilization mod - first session report

fipple — 2008-08-24T04:25:45+00:00

Thanks for the interesting session report! I haven't come across this Civilization variant before and I'm definitely intrigued by the idea. After reading your report I'm definitely going to have a closer look.

Thread: Re: Rhye's and Fall of Civilization mod - first review

JLNijholt — 2008-08-24T03:26:41+00:00

Pretty good (and extensive) review!

I suggest translating the rules/player aid sheets so everyone can enjoy this.

Yours truly,

JEELEN.

Thread: Re: Rhye's and Fall of Civilization: TBG

rnijholt — 2008-08-23T21:17:59+00:00

Thanks for posting. I finally got round to testing this mod. I added a session report and a review of the beta version of this mod, which appears to work quite well.

[Edited for grammar. ]

Thread: Re: Rhye's and Fall of Civilization mod - first review

rnijholt — 2008-08-23T21:15:40+00:00

Wow, I did not expect reactions to come in so quickly.

Richard:
Please confirm this is actually modification of the boardgame version.
Yes, this is a mod designed by Rhye over on CivFanatics. It includes a number of new printable cards and charts, as well as a readme. In effect, this becomes a different game. Note, however, that all the information is scattered over the readme and the charts. As I mentioned above it is not streamlined yet. This is the Beta version of Rhye's rules.

1. Will this work with the first edition set of rules?
Yes, I also own the first edition, although I later also bought the coloured minis, which work a lot better.

2. Can you add a link to where this can be downloaded?
Thanks, Aaron, for pointing him in the right direction. For completeness' sake, here is the link to the forum discussion on CivFanatics, where you can also download the mod:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=273983

3. If it revamps the game, anyone here think that it should get its own entry, the same way expansion packs get their own entry?
Please note that this is not an official expansion of any kind. Rhye is just creating a game variant that appears, to me at least, to work a lot better than the original.

4. Can someone contact Drover or FRED about this? If it works, it might be possible to get this new version released. I know, like in the case of myself, there is a eager desire to get a quick playing Civilization that doesn't bog down and has sufficient depth.
Well it might be a bit early days for this, although this is really up to Mr Rhye, of course.

Thread: Re: Rhye's and Fall of Civilization mod - first session report

rnijholt — 2008-08-23T20:57:02+00:00

Thanks for the tip, Chris! Image added.

Thread: Re: Rhye's and Fall of Civilization mod - first review

Aarontu — 2008-08-23T19:54:51+00:00

I have had this sitting around for a bit and am really looking forward to trying it out as well. It looks like it makes the combat really much more like the PC game than it originally was.

docreason wrote:
Please confirm this is actually modification of the boardgame version. I ask, because I actually own the first edition, and didn't think the game would ever get salvaged. If it does work, that would be great. If so, I have several questions and comments:
1. Will this work with the first edition set of rules?
2. Can you add a link to where this can be downloaded?
3. If it revamps the game, anyone here think that it should get its own entry, the same way expansion packs get their own entry?
4. Can someone contact Drover or FRED about this? If it works, it might be possible to get this new version released. I know, like in the case of myself, there is a eager desire to get a quick playing Civilization that doesn't bog down and has sufficient depth.
This post on the mod has links to the download page and forum page on CivFanatics:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/327966

It should work fine with the first edition.

Thread: Re: Rhye's and Fall of Civilization mod - first review

Surya — 2008-08-23T18:42:50+00:00

docreason wrote:
there is a eager desire to get a quick playing Civilization that doesn't bog down
Roll Through the Ages? :P

Thread: Re: Rhye's and Fall of Civilization mod - first review

docreason — 2008-08-23T18:25:35+00:00

Please confirm this is actually modification of the boardgame version. I ask, because I actually own the first edition, and didn't think the game would ever get salvaged. If it does work, that would be great. If so, I have several questions and comments:
1. Will this work with the first edition set of rules?
2. Can you add a link to where this can be downloaded?
3. If it revamps the game, anyone here think that it should get its own entry, the same way expansion packs get their own entry?
4. Can someone contact Drover or FRED about this? If it works, it might be possible to get this new version released. I know, like in the case of myself, there is a eager desire to get a quick playing Civilization that doesn't bog down and has sufficient depth.

Thread: Re: Rhye's and Fall of Civilization mod - first session report

Liumas — 2008-08-23T17:33:39+00:00

You can upload your session image to your own personal image gallery and then link to it here!

Thread: Rhye's and Fall of Civilization mod - first review

rnijholt — 2008-08-23T14:06:58+00:00

[Also published on CivFanatics]

This variant is really very well-balanced as well as fun to play. It is an excellent compressed version of the Civ concept, so kudos to Mr Rhye for making it available to the rest of us. It shows that he has a good grasp of the game's essentials, and it also shows that his adeptness at creating mods for the different PC versions actually carries over into the more physical realm of the boardgame.

There are some minor quibbles as well as some omissions, and there may certainly be room for further improvement. The most obvious is a streamlined set of rules or at least a brief summary, which I therefore created for myself. I will report said items to Mr Rhye. The variant itself, however, is eminently playable.

The available governments and religions are a very nice addition. It forces the players to contemplate if the time is right to switch their government, for instance from Monarchy to Republic, which gives double cash for each city or village. Players must weigh the advantages of another government or religion against the action they 'lose' to have a Revolution.

Because of the actions mechanism, players are constantly having to decide whether to cash in this turn, because they need to add new units or upgrade existing units or villages; or for instance to go for a new technology first. Or perhaps to have a revolution, because a new religion can add a defence or attack die for each battle, and certain governments result in a dramatic increase in income. There is even the possibility of a fascist or communist state, which when founded will immediately destabilize all monarchies and republics. The stability principle works really well, too, keeping all the players on their toes, because no one wants to risk a revolt or a civil war. Everyone may need to spend an action now and then to restore stability.

There is the danger for a change of pace halfway through the game, from lots of movement to almost no movement on the board whatsoever. Once all the territories are explored (and subsequently mostly settled), everyone can dig in, and the game can swiftly move from Action card to Action card. Although this speeds up the game considerably, it also makes the second stage of the game a little more repetitive. Different unit statistics might remedy this, but that is of course subject to subsequent testing.

The trade mechanism also speeds up the spread of new technologies, since you can trade anything except Wonders. This in turn also speeds up the game - since one of the victory conditions is that the game ends once all technologies are discovered. (Well, actually the game ends 5 turns later, but by that time you will already know who will win.)

The complete absence of city micromanagement is a true blessing for this variant. Gone are the days of painstakingly trying to calculate the income for each of your separate cities each turn. Rhye's simple, but elegant income system simply works, and works very well. I also did not miss the age divisions, which are completely absent in this variant.

All in all, this is truly a great, streamlined variant that breathes much needed new life into an otherwise rather unplayable and extremely lengthy game (with a lot of bookkeeping) that was collecting dust in my house. There are some blanks that are not made clear by the author, which I will report to him. I filled those in myself before we first started to play. However, all of the additions combine well, and really make for a shorter, tenser and much more FUN gaming experience.

Thanks, Mr Rhye!

[See also my session report on Rhye's and Fall of Civilization in the Sessions section]

Thread: Rhye's and Fall of Civilization mod - first session report

rnijholt — 2008-08-23T13:25:36+00:00

[Also published on CivFanatics]

This is my first session report ever, which goes to show how involved I am with this very interesting new variant for this game.

My brother and I played a first game with 4 Civs, each of us taking control of two. Both of us prefer to play on a 'historic' map, so I did not need to print all of the extra random map tiles (and saved a lot of printer ink that way). We used Sid's original map, playing on the Old World, including Africa and Australia. For the same reason we decided that each empire would start in its 'historical' starting position. To ensure a little bit of decision-making, we each were given 3 empire cards, and had to discard one. Since I received the Aztecs, I had to discard that empire, since it was 'off the map'. Lesson learned: next time I will remove the New World empires before starting the game.

I took control of the Persians (Caspia) and Vikings (Scandinavia), my brother took control of the Greeks (Danube) and Mongols (Baykal). Although Rhye provided images for capitals in his package, I decided to use the visually nicer (3D) capital cities from History of the World (AH version).

Initially I felt rather restricted, with my Vikings on the Scandinavian island without a boat - although they start with Trade so they can buy a boat. But it takes 2 extra turns: one turn to generate income, and one turn to actually build the boat. So I tried to compensate by buying my first boat and moving a unit to Britania (alas, a desert), then moving swiftly on to start exploring and later colonizing the African continent, which went very well.

The Greeks were always close by, but lacked a boat in the first turns, so they had to 'walk around' the Mediterranean before meeting the Vikings in northern Africa. And so the early Viking disadvantages (started on an island, first territory discovered was a desert) quickly turned to their advantage as they grabbed most of Africa for themselves - the Greeks retaining a foothold in the northeast. Even after the Greeks destroyed ALL of the Viking fleets, the Viking territories both in Scandinavia and in Africa were relatively well-defended, and the Viking fleets were later completely rebuilt.

The Persians and Mongols in the meantime explored all of Asia, and then came to a bit of a standoff. Both subsequently started to build fleets and explore the islands off the Asian coast and Australia, where the Mongols gained control of a resource, and the Persians eventually founded another city. The Mongols were the only empire to actually lose a city to a revolt. Since this was late in the game, the newly independent city gained a highly effective machinegunner as defender, and so remained independent for the rest of the game.

Four minor empires arose during the exploring phase, most of these on islands, as luck would have it. However, no one really wanted to attempt to subjugate one, because of the severe stability penalty (-2 levels) and because there was generally sufficient room to build cities and expand elsewhere. This leads me to think that the impetus for conquest may be too small. Perhaps a monetary reward, or an extra free unit, should be added to the spoils of conquering a minor empire.

While we were all exploring, expanding and building new cities, we were all the time cashing in, buying and upgrading units, gaining new technologies and building Wonders. Each empire was trying to keep up with the 3 others in all of these areas, some more successfully than others. Technologies, once discovered, spread like wildfire through trade with 'friendly' neighbouring empires. (In our game this meant that if one of our own two empires gained a technology, the other gained it as well.)

In the end, although the Mongols gained the Space Flight technology first, it was the Vikings who within 2 turns used their large empire (2 villages, the maximum of 8 cities, and a highly lucrative monopoly on horses) to generate enough money to actually build the Spaceship. Since the Viking capital was out of reach for the Mongol and Greek empires, this effectively finished the game. In hindsight, losing a city to a revolt in the second half of the game might have cost the Mongols the final victory.

]]>

We spent an enjoyable 2 afternoons on this game for an estimated total of somewhere between 6 and 8 hours. (We were not really keeping track of time, and we had a lot of breaks.) Not bad for a first game, and I'm sure subsequent games will go faster now that we are aware of all the mechanics and possibilities.

[See also my review on Rhye's and Fall of Civilization in the Reviews section]

[Edited to include a session image as illustration.]

Thread: Re: "Advanced Fast Play Rules"?

Aarontu — 2008-08-12T22:43:18+00:00

Well, that's easier than scanning it.

Thread: Re: "Advanced Fast Play Rules"?

NickB — 2008-08-12T14:26:02+00:00

http://web.archive.org/web/20060113112908/http://home.indy.rr.com/tkecon/Civilization+Advanced+FastPlay+Rules.pdf

You'll need to copy and paste the entire link, because there is an error in the regex here for URLs. Alternatively:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/5zqqn4

Nick

Thread: Re: "Advanced Fast Play Rules"?

badmojo — 2008-08-12T13:43:21+00:00

Thanks in advance! I remember I liked them as well but wanted to change some thing as well - the use of an ordinary deck of cards among them.

Thread: Re: "Advanced Fast Play Rules"?

Aarontu — 2008-08-12T13:07:00+00:00

I have them printed out. I can scan them when I have the time (I hope I have the pdf on my PC still). I remember there were some things I liked and some I didn't like about the fast play rules, myself. I did like the new combat rules and used them in the full game (each unit gets rolls a number of dice equal to it's era. Cavalry get a bonus die in open spaces, infantry get a bonus die defending cities, artilery get a bonus die attacking cities and lose 1 die in open spaces. In combat, roll all dice for all units at once and inflict a casualty for each 6 rolled. Also cavalry move 2 spaces).

Thread: Re: do you consider "Movement and battles phase" 1 or 2 phases`?

Aarontu — 2008-08-12T12:58:11+00:00

I've played both ways. If you play so everyone moves, then you resolve all battles, you will have larger battles and it may shorten the play time a bit. You'd have to decide what happens when units that haven't moved yet are attacked; we ruled that they cannot move, though this can give whoever moves first a big advantage. We made all sorts of house rules to try to balance things out. After all normal movement but before battles, we had a "reinforcement" phase where players went in reverse order moving any units that didn't move already, but they could only move into an already contested space. We also ruled that if player A attacked player B in an adjacent space and player B wanted to attack player A in the same space player A was coming from, the combat took place on the border between the two spaces and the winner would move on into the opponent's space. Units fighting on the border were in niether space and did not get any city defense bonus. If a space was attacked from multiple borders, the defenders would have to stay put.

That's how we played it, anyway.

Thread: "Advanced Fast Play Rules"?

badmojo — 2008-08-12T12:14:04+00:00

I wanna give this game a new chance with the excellent "Advanced Fast Play Rules" that where out for playtest a couple of years ago, but can not find them anywhere on the net since TFK.s link does not work anymore.

Does anyone have them available and can upload or mailthem to me?

Thread: do you consider "Movement and battles phase" 1 or 2 phases`?

caltha — 2008-08-12T11:50:28+00:00

According to the rules it seems that each player do both move and fight before the next players turn.
Do you play this way or do you allow all players to make their moves in turn then resolve all declared battles?

which would be most even/easy/fun to play?

Thread: Re: An epic night of gaming

DocD — 2008-08-09T13:19:02+00:00

Good game session. I believe the game would have been even better if you guys had been able to round up a 4th player. Red possibly would not have had the Americas all to himself. In almost all the games I have played, I have found military battles lacking. Players quickly realized that it is far more benefical to work on tech and city progress than fighting costly wars. I think that is the one negative with the board game vs the computer game.

Image

fractaloon — 2008-08-03T06:49:34+00:00

Thread: Phase order variant

bazzawood — 2008-07-27T07:02:39+00:00

I am quite enjoying this game despite the negative reviews, but here is the one variant I think is the most important and am not sure whether anyone has suggested it. Make the Movement phase last in a turn. The reason for this is that due to the turn marker shifting it is quite possible to purchase a lot of units and then attack another player without that person having a chance to either build more units OR purchase any units. This was becoming the main tactic when I was playing it and it's a pretty crummy tactic as you can't do anything to prevent this. Since changing the phase order we now have a much tighter game.

For reference other house rules that we usually play include.
Start money 10 (because you produce 1st now).
Start with only 1 village + 1 tech
Randomised start locations (with minimum distances from other players)
When defending a city the size of the city is added to your role.

Thread: Re: Big Review of Sid Meier's Civ

ibn_ul_khattab — 2008-07-25T23:04:00+00:00

This game gets much better past the first age or two, but it has real issues. I'm glad you like it, I didn't find the rules too bad from memory, just the game.

Thread: Big Review of Sid Meier's Civ

sbarrera — 2008-07-25T21:10:33+00:00

Sid Meier's Civilization is a Big Game and it deserves a Big Review. I am rating four factors on a scale of 1-5. The weight of each factor in the final rating is provided.

Rules (15%)

Unfortunately, the rules are poorly written. Separate sections are provided for a Basic and an Advanced game, with substantially different rules. But some important rules are actually in neither section, instead being in the introductory text at the start of the book. Even after perusing all these sections, there will still be unresolved questions. You can explore the Rules posts on this site to see what I mean.

There are other problems with the rule book. It is wider than it is tall, which makes it unwieldy. Many of the rules are explained in examples, which all refer to explicit territories on the board. To make sense of them, you need to have the board out, but the board is so huge that this is not a trivial matter. I guess all I'm saying is that I found it annoying that I couldn't easily review the rules without having the board set up.

]]>

Components (10%)

I like the components to this game. The board is attractive. It is also very large, so you will need a big table to play on. The territory borders are not very sharp so you might overlook a territory during setup.

The plastic figures to represent settlements, settlers and military units also look good, and are solid and durable. The military units are all one color (i.e. they are shared by all players) and flag pieces are provided to differentiate forces. There are so many figures you will probably want storage containers for them.

The cards are ok, though if I recall there are a couple of errata on the technology or wonder cards. The cards for the cities have values printed on the edges, and rotate to indicate what values are in play based on the city size. The city improvements also use the card edges, with each card representing up to 8 different improvements (4 each on each side). You indicate which improvement the card represents by tucking it under a city card with the requisite edge showing.

The city and improvement cards seem a little odd at first, but I have never had a problem using them as designed. You might think you would run out of improvements with each card serving multiple duty, but that has never happened in a game I have played.

Game Design (25%)

The game follows the basic outline of any civilization game. You move stuff on the board, maybe you fight some battles, you get money, and you build stuff and buy technology. Technology determines capabilities like how big you can make your cities, or what military units you can build.

Here are some issues with the design-

• The map is our familiar world, and generally it always best to try to consolidate in the Americas or Africa, as Eurasia is too large. So the land masses are fixed from game to game. But, weirdly, terrain types that might come into play are randomly set up with markers; i.e. Brazil might be a desert, or Arabia a forest.

• The explore markers are set up randomly, and since some of them are much worse than others, it is possible for one area of the map to become a nightmare to explore and settle, and for another area to be a paradise. This can be unbalancing early on, and there are variants to try to even out the distribution of positive and negative markers.

• The trade system is inelegant. There are significant bonuses for controlling sets of resources, and it is possible to trade with other players to build these sets. But the way this is implemented is to have the players exchange their city cards (the city card itself has the resource built-in) just before income is generated, then trade them back. This just bugs me, personally.

• The rules for military units and warfare are confusing. The same figure represents more than one unit type, depending on the technology in play. There is a rock-paper-scissors type rule where each class of land unit gets a bonus against another class. What this amounts to is that each time you roll for a unit, you have to go over all these factors to figure out exactly how many dice to roll and what bonus to add. It’s just a lot of calculating to resolve a battle. The warfare system is so annoying that there are alternate systems in existence, available in the download area.

Here are a couple of cool things about the design-

• There is one card to purchase for each technological development. When a player purchases it, that technology is available to everybody. The owner gets the advantage of a kickback from the other players when they purchase the unit or improvement the technology makes possible. I like this system because it means there can be a large number of technologies and a large number of players without a multiplicity of tracking mechanisms.

• The VP award for certain technologies and for wonders is high enough that simply advancing your technology gets you a good way towards victory; i.e. you don’t have to be large and powerful, though that can help. Actually, it is possible to over-invest in military, and this encourages diplomacy, which is good.

Game Play (50%)

The biggest problem this game has is that it takes a really long time to play, assuming you want to play through all four of the ages. Which you do, because it’s fun to see the whole development of civilization from ancient to modern times.

As the game progresses, fortunes will fluctuate. Some players get resource monopolies earlier, others later. Some players fall behind in development, but then catch up. Sometimes a risky military move pays off and a player secures a strong position; other times it doesn’t and the player can only curse his luck. As the ages progress, a powerful military can be rendered weak by the pace of technological progress. And multiple kinds of victories give different players different options in the end game. All in all, these factors combine to create interesting tension and a satisfying flow.

The game does evoke some of the feel of the PC version. In particular, you will see the familiar technologies, unit types, and wonders emerge. A full game runs the gamut from ancients with spearmen building pyramids, to atomic era societies building computers and jet aircraft. The implementation of production and happiness, however, is simplistic and tacked on. There is another game that more faithfully recreates the Sid Meier system of city development.

Summary

If you like epic games that take a long time to play, which I do, you might want to check this one out. But be prepared to go over some confusing rules and consult the online resources. You might even find yourself throwing in a house rule or two to get over some of the annoying stuff.

Image

Aarontu — 2008-07-25T01:30:43+00:00

Good box back

Image

Aarontu — 2008-07-25T01:30:03+00:00

Good box front

Thread: Re: Best way to play with 2 (if any)?

Aarontu — 2008-07-23T18:55:46+00:00

Also, check out this variant for the game:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/327966

It seems like there would be less luck and shorter playing time than the base game, which would be great for 2 players.

Thread: Rhye's and Fall of Civilization: TBG

Aarontu — 2008-07-23T14:16:20+00:00

This is a set of variant rules and cards and stuff that you can find on CivFanatics. It was made by Rhye, a game modder who has created some amazing official mods for the Civilization PC games.

From the read-me for this board game mod:

Rhye's and Fall of Civilization: the Boardgame is a modification for Sid Meier's Civilization: the Boardgame.
It is inspired to both Rhye's and Fall of Civilization (also called "RFC"), the very popular official
mod for Civilization IV, and Age of Mythology: the Boardgame.
The purpose of this mod is to:
• Shorten the length of the game to 2-3 hours
• Simplify complicated rules, retaining some interesting aspects of the advanced rules
• Get rid of the need to count with a calculator or a PC
• Fix broken mechanisms
• Add a new layer of strategy
• Reduce the ties with Civilization III PC game
• Make it a more European style game, with little luck involved

You can download it here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=9347

And the forum thread on CivFanatics is here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=273983

Some of the really cool looking bits:
-All new technology tree and cards (less techs, but they are individually owned)
-No more rock-paper-scisors battles. Each unit gets an amount of dice depending on their era, type, and if they are attacking/defending. Much more like the PC game than it was before.
-You choose an action every turn (similar to role selection). You can recruit armies, build and upgrade cities, collect taxes, research tech, have a revolution, or focus on increasing your nation's stability/happiness. (this mechanism largley eliminates book keeping and city micromanagement)
-Government types, different nations with special powers, religion, and "stability" (kind of represents overall happiness, if you expand too quickly your stability drops your settlements may revolt)
-Random map tiles
-Suggestions for balancing the game with varying numbers of players (what continents and exploration markers to leave out and stuff)

Some of the rules are kind of vague; you have to read the tables and charts along with the rules to figure it all out.

Thread: Re: Best way to play with 2 (if any)?

nyhotep — 2008-07-18T09:34:48+00:00

qzhdad wrote:
I think using it to start a fire for a romantic evening would be the best use of this game.

That's a bit harsh, but this game really disappointed me and I was so hoping to like it.

He didn't say he wanted to play it in a romantic setting I'm sure he wouldn't want to give the wrong idea...

Besides which, is choking on burming plastic fumes really your idea of romance?

Thread: Re: Best way to play with 2 (if any)?

Hugh_G_Rection — 2008-07-18T05:55:45+00:00

And that game would be Civilization CHR

Thread: Re: Best way to play with 2 (if any)?

michelkeijzers — 2008-07-17T21:43:41+00:00

Hello,

I saw your post about two player games. I have spent quite some time about rules for two players. There is a real good expansion (tough it takes time to print etc) but then you can use the 2 player rules too.

Please take a look at it, maybe you get some ideas.

Downloadable at:

http://www.mindcreations.com/projects/civilization/downloads...

Greetings

Michel

Thread: Re: Best way to play with 2 (if any)?

qzhdad — 2008-07-17T18:08:59+00:00

I think using it to start a fire for a romantic evening would be the best use of this game.

That's a bit harsh, but this game really disappointed me and I was so hoping to like it.

Thread: Best way to play with 2 (if any)?

Lightstorm — 2008-07-17T17:48:31+00:00

I've seen posts indicating that a 2-player game should be played with parts of the board closed. Is this the best way to play with 2? Any suggestions on the best way, if not this?

(also, if closing part of the board is the way to go, which part?)

Thread: Trade Range Question

caltha — 2008-07-16T09:26:07+00:00

To start with, do you use the rule about trade range at all?
Each time we play it is completely forgotten.

Then a question about the actual rule:
For land trade it says 1 untill steam power, but at "start of game" it says 1 (city in an adjacent region), does this aply for all the 1s?

I interpret it as: when you reach Trade then your merchantdudes may travel across one unsettled province for trade.
how do you play?

Then i have another intresting scenario:
lets say player A B and C have their civs in europe, middle east and china.

if china theoretically have two resources of same type that i may sell and both A and B wants them. (A and C are not within trade range)
could B buy both resources and sell one of the bought resources to A?(for a little extra cash of course)

Thread: Re: Size of gameboard

Aarontu — 2008-07-15T13:16:17+00:00

I know it is rather small for 6. In a 6 player game, some players may get confined to three or four spaces near the beginning of the game, depending on where they start. In a six player game I played, once guy got stuck with three spaces, and only one was a resource. He only managed to stay in the game because he built boats early and took a couple islands and bought a military tech that everyone else used. I've used the whole world for 2 players and it was just fine, though I've played only using the Americas or Africa and Asia, too, and that was fine.

I would say to have 10-15 spaces for each player (just a guess). Not too many islands, since islands tend to break up your empire and are very hard to defend (unless you want a bunch of island spaces).

If you just wanted to add some spaces onto the board that comes with the game, you could make an Antarctica area with some spaces, or you could make a small board for Europe (with several spaces) to replace the 1-2 spaces that represent Europe on the main board.

Thread: Size of gameboard

caltha — 2008-07-15T11:34:00+00:00

Hi I was wondering how you felt about the size of the gameboard. Not the physical size (which is disgustingly huge) but the nr of provinces.
For example if you use the whole boardgame for a 2player session its way to big. For 6 players I have no experiance. So what is the optimal amount of playters for the boardgame.

I am asking because I want to either create a new board or restirct the one in the box so it will neither be too crowdy or too lonely =)

how many provinces/player do you think is apropriate?

Thread: Re: Does 1st Ed Civ have Player COLORED MILITARY units?

UnknownParkerBrother — 2008-07-07T21:09:49+00:00

I believe the proper term is "African American".

Thread: Re: Does 1st Ed Civ have Player COLORED MILITARY units?

Hugh_G_Rection — 2008-07-07T16:12:20+00:00

No, they are tan.

Thread: Does 1st Ed Civ have Player COLORED MILITARY units?

SFRR — 2008-07-07T15:56:19+00:00

I'm trying to find more Eagle Games Sid Meier Civilization MILITARY Units in the separate PLAYER Colors (NOT generic tan, NOT the settler/flag bearer/city units).

The RED, Yellow and PURPLE MILITARY units are no longer availabe from the Eage Games website, they are sold out.

Question: does the 1st Edition of this game have military units in the separate player colors, or are they generic tan?

thanks, sfrr

Thread: Re: Running out of units

SFRR — 2008-06-12T13:37:34+00:00

Lots of the game components are still available from Eagel Games as well, so you could just order more if you wish.

Thread: Re: Running out of units

Howitzer_120mm — 2008-05-21T03:16:55+00:00

You can make your own units/counters to support more units built. Units are not exhaustible.

Thread: Running out of units

ElSoyokaze — 2008-05-21T02:34:29+00:00

I couldn't find anywhere in the rules where it covers this, but if you run out of units of a type (this has happened to me twice so far in this game alone), can you substitute other markers for the ones you need, such as the clearly not-yet-discovered artillery for Men at Arms?

Or, hell, any marker for the unit. Are the units exhaustable, giving people who build first the advantage over those who build last, or not, trusting that the limited number of units is a consequence of production concerns, and not game balance?

--ElSoy

Image

Howitzer_120mm — 2008-05-17T13:22:24+00:00

The starting units, bagged, ready to play. This speeds up the game.

Thread: Re: 61 city cards?

TRISTANY — 2008-05-04T20:26:13+00:00

Hi,

First, sorry for my bad english, I'm from Spain.

The correct number of city cards are:

61 square city cards includes the following: 5 of each resource (40 cards), 17 no resource city cards (17), and 4 blank cards (4).

The original manual have a several erratas, you can verify the correct number of cards (and others erratas)in the errata pdf for the game in the web of Eagle Games, the direct link is:

http://images.freddistribution.com/docs/Civ_ERRATA.pdf
http://images.freddistribution.com/docs/Civ2_ERRATA.pdf

I hope that this be useful for all.

Image

Chilwd — 2008-05-04T14:02:32+00:00

2 player game in progress

Thread: Re: An epic night of gaming

sbarrera — 2008-04-21T15:38:07+00:00

I believe there were four land battles and three naval battles in the whole game.

I like Civ a lot, but I wish the rules had been thought out more carefully. There are too many details that aren't clear.

Thread: Re: An epic night of gaming

ctalbot — 2008-04-21T13:18:25+00:00

Good report. I only played the game once (and it was three-player short game that took us about five hours or so), and it was slowed down a lot by massive amounts of war between two players. It sounds like you didn't have a lot of battles. Is that right?

BTW, what did you think of the game in the end?

Chris

Image

sbarrera — 2008-04-20T02:40:37+00:00

Red threatens Green; Green responds by building Men-at-arms.

Image

sbarrera — 2008-04-20T01:48:47+00:00

End of game from Green's perspective; Red is the winner.

Image

sbarrera — 2008-04-20T01:47:50+00:00

Caucasus post-Manhattan Project.

Image

Me 262 Schwalbe — 2008-04-09T21:10:08+00:00

An old pencilbox comes in handy

Image

Howitzer_120mm — 2008-03-06T21:22:03+00:00

A few 1st Age Teches