Do I hear the bell wringing that signifies that this is done? I believe so, and thank goodness because I have experimented to with all the different variants in regards to playing this game (like number of other players, difficulty, and who I am). This game is hard and I don’t dare going past Prince, because on King difficulty I blinked and was gone. By the time of this last session the most aid I have given myself was pulling up the a guide with what the different controls are, and as well watched 5 minutes of a video on how to access the page with all of the details that pertain to each particular city, and what the input and outputs are like.

I was challenged by the game even though having a prior knowledge into how this series of games work didn’t prove to be that useful. Using strategies from Civilizations V only helped me maintain for a short time being until some barbarians arose and demolished what little I had built. A big challenge too that was presented was simply trying to figure how to deal with these randomly appearing characters. In the later versions camps are found, so at one point in the game barbarians do disappear because all of the land on the map is controlled by different players, which doesn’t permit them to then spond. Though with no defined area of what one controls allows them to appear out of no where and inflict havoc by destroying what improvements have been built. The greatest thing I find annoying within the game, is not the random appearance of these units, but is when they take your city. You can not reclaim your city when you attempt to, but merely destroy it. So in such an instance one must eliminate the city (they possibly just built) so barbarians do not remain present near your other cities.

Something that just dawned on me is there no defined space of what one’s territory really is. In the later versions of this game territory is defined for each nation. It grows and expands based on cities, and the culture that is produced in the border cities. This has made alliances more important, because borders can be closed or opened, and if one wishes to force themselves into a territory they were not welcome to is an act of war, and shall commence until peace can be agreed upon. Monuments and other buildings become very important when developing, because they help enrich the culture that is produced in the city, which effects how far borders reach, and what level of happiness is present in the respective city. If happiness is ever low, effected is the speed in which buildings or units are produced.

I am fascinated too by the difference in the strategy of unit placement, and movement based on tile shapes. To begin, in this game compared to the later versions, and what I am trying to get at specifically in this post, is the fact you are able to stack units on top of each other in this game unlike the later ones. This changes the complexity of the game and strategy used. In the later versions a key strategy when attacking another city is to arrange your units based on their type of attack, so swordsman would be in the front, archers in the next row of units, and the catapults in the back. With the version we are playing currently I can stack all of my men on one spot, and have an endless attack stemming from it. Tiles too in the newer versions are hexagons, unlike the squared shaped tiles that are used in this version. This allowed units to be able to move in a more diagonal direction, and speed up the process of getting units from point A to B.

I feel a need to rant more on randomly lost units. This continues from my last post, and when you lose a unit due to the inability to label a picture for what it really is. I can not even begin to describe the frustration when I see a graduation cap and tools, and I choose option A- “Education and Engineering”, but it’s really option F: “Education and Communism” (hypothetically speaking). Gone goes a soldier in a time of war, or gone goes a settler who is greatly contributing to the nations expansion. Or what about the times the game tells you your ship has been lost at sea, I mean really?! Come on game, do you think I can also afford you taking away a ship too, just after you took away half of my units I previously had? I come on this is like always dying of dysentery in the Orgeon Trail video game.

Another casualty the game loves to inflict is taking gold. It seems this happens when you already are in low standings to the other players, and you run across a new one, the game takes on a Hobbes like mentality. Instead of asking if you want to trade technologies, or simply offer you one, it instead demands gold. In relativity to how good the other player is doing at the time will reflect how much they demand. What I have experienced so far is a range from 50-100 pieces of gold, but never the less when ever it asks that I give gold to ensure peace with them it as a bad times when I am barely lasting. In multiple attempts to show I will not allow such behavior acted towards me, ends in initiation, because the enemy is next found knocking on my doorstep for the land that I have.

Seeing I have continuously fell flat on my face in retrospect for this game, I wanted to focus more on what could help further my strategy was industrializing the land around my cities for better production. From playing the later ones I knew it was possible to do such, and from there re-define what the city is producing. Being able to figure out such, and what characters do this. In the new versions there is a worker unit one can create to help make these improvements. Though for the original version of the game there is no such worker unit (which took me a couple times of playing to realize) and it is your settler that does such. This changes the strategy to a degree because you can use a unit to better the surrounding areas, and when pleased one can then disband the unit to create a new city, which can then help better the civilization as a whole. Done wrongly and not enough resources are present the city will suffer and loose population.

Settlers in new cities too can be a burden to create, due to the amount of time it takes to create this unit. If one is being attacked, and the troops are depleted what should one do!? Should they forfeit the time that was spent to create this important unit for expansion, to help protect what has already been built. Or tough it out, and suffer the losses that could be presented by the aggressor.

Random thought: isn’t annoying when you fail to show to your civilization that you are capable enough to lead, through the IQ test, that you lose these units you spent many turns trying to build, and the resources you have invested to create such? And at times the picture didn’t ultimately reflect what it intended too.

Looking back, I should have screened shot the message that kept popping up when the emulator would crash but it happened twice in this more recent session of playing Civilizations. This though allowed me to experiment more with the presettings to the game. Still seeing what number of other Civilizations I like playing with I intertwined this with the level of difficulty seeing I felt more competent with the controls to the game, and understanding how to be “successful” in the game. This mainly came down to developing a strategy for each stage one can be in while developing their nation. Something I took away from the later versions of the game (and applied it to this one) is when to expand, build culture, or re-allocate resources to help speed up production, or assist to population demands in each city.

Varying the difficulty was one thing that did mess with this strategy. When doing so it changed the rate at which the game presented questions “that test your knowledge” as a leader, to ensure to your “people” that you (the player) are capable to create the worlds greatest civilization. As well, the rate barbarians appeared drastically changed what I chose to focus on as a player. With this too, how many civilizations I chose to play with heavily influenced what I ended up doing. With increasing the number of other “players”, it too increased the chance for having more hostile opponents, who rather instigate than coexist.

The hostility generally presented its’ self in the times I refused to give another nation what they wished, like some form of research. The fact one can reason with them too proves to be beneficial, but again if one is not pleased actions will be taken. I also observed when your standing compared to the other nations was poor more the computer controlled players demanded more, like gold.

This is nothing compared to what I would describe the Civilizations that I know. To simply begin the presentation of the cities and units is way less intricate then the more modern versions. To accommodate this simplicity, I chose to use the keyboard controls while playing this game. With this too, I needed a manual open to help understand how to play this retro game. Not knowing the basics of the controls it took away from the experience of the game play, and making it more frustrating to play.

This game is one my favorites, because it allows someone to step into the shoes of another civilization and help design it as please. This occurs in many ways via the focuses of production, research, and the monuments built. While, each civilization still embodies characteristics/traits that are unique to that particular group. The most common example of such each nation will have a military unit that can only be found in a certain nation.

In this first hour too, the game kept crashing so I could never get a true sense of a full game play. I would always get into the game for about 20 minutes and then it would all crash and I would have to start over again. It allowed me three different times to play the game, and change the initial settings of how many nations I wanted to play with, and what nation I would be too. Something that struck me initially, when selecting a nation the picture was the same for the Americans all the way to the Chinese. In the newer versions avatars are created to represent a great leader who once reigned within the nations given. For instance, America would have George Washington, or India would have Gandhi.