Robert Kasabian - 03:00pm Nov 24, 2002 PST (#401 of 403) Just read Greg Schloesser's very critical review of S.M. Civiization on the Web Grognards page. I would be interested to hear someone, who has played this game, address his specific criticisms. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Gallo - 03:23pm Nov 24, 2002 PST (#402 of 403) Up Front - Play it; Be it Robert, here is my take after one (also aborted paly through of only the standard game): 1) Trades - we just traded the resource chits. It was really easy to remember who got what at the end because we kept our cities and their status intact. I agree that trading the card would be problematic. I only played the original boardgame once (Truly boring game, IMO. I have put all of the bad experience out of my mind other than that reminder. I only bought the Eagle version after discussing it with Glenn at GenCon this year.) I have never played the computer version. 2) Combat - We had absolutely no problem with the whole screen issue. We used our arms, which were big enough to obscure our pieces. I played with gamers who are not historical wargame players, so maybe that had some influence on it. We thought the combat system was fun and easy to play. It is simplistic, but at the scale of abstraction it worked. We did decide that combat is REALLY bloody, expensive and slows the game down. Any players involved in a military buildup were likely out of the game. 3) City Improvement - Can not comment as we only played the standard game. 4) Exploration - The main complaint is that luck is a strong feature in the game. I agree. I have never played a game that involved exploration that was not heavily influenced by luck. I was prepared for it going in. One of the things that I have ALWAYS encountered in these types of games regardless of the gaming group is that any player that brags about winning a 'gimme game' gets razzed pretty darn hard. 1) Currency - I agree with the color issue. Pretty darn goofy decisions seem to be endemic to the Eagle process. The games are still fun to play, but I have yet to not have to fiddle with something. Some see this as a huge problem, I do not. 2) Map Size - Eagle games have BIG maps. I would like to see them slightly smaller (I have two tables large enough (one only barely) but none of my friends do) and it can be a problem. I though the map in Civ was a great improvement over their first two games. I agree that there were a couple of places where the land bridges could be clearer, but we saw those as prime house rule locations! 3) Plague - Very nasty. I do not have a ready solution. 4) Unit colors - We did not find this to be a problem. At all. Our only complaint was the use of identical artillery units without clearly explaining how to resolve these units when the Era advances. Also, I thought the battleships looked a bit goofy - more like big gun destroyers. I do not know if that was any help to you or anybody. It sounds like the reviewer had a bad experience. He has some valid points, but I do not feel that the game is quite as bad as he did. Our biggest complaint with the game was the time it takes to play. Our proposed solutions included changing the economic system so that players either get more money or stuff is cheaper. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PMC - 06:04pm Nov 24, 2002 PST (#403 of 403) Baskerville1 The only real problem with the game is in the trading rules, which require some clarification. The rest of it works, although that doesn't mean everyone will like it. And it does seem to be a long game. I think I like the Nappy and WAoI games better, but the Civ game is still a good game. I really liked the original Civ by AH, with one exception, a little too much rode on those calamity draws.