Best Civ games?

Hi everyone. I'm pretty new to this site as well as to board gaming, and this is the first topic I've started.

I found the whole discussion on the 'Civ Lite' concept fascinating, as well as Michael Barnes' review of Civilization itself (which I've not yet had the opportunity to play). The ultimate conclusion seemed to be that a Civ Lite is impossible, because by cutting down on play time and rules you destroy the immersion and epic feel of the game. Or in simpler terms you might say the 'Lite' kills the 'Civ'!

So, Civ Lite is impossible, well and good. However Civilization stye games remain great. The main point of this topic is simple: I want to hear what you all think are the best games you've played in this genre. I'm sorely inexperienced in this category; the most Civ like boardgames I've played are Settlers of Catan and Warrior Knights. I've played the Sid Meier computer game too. But here's what I think are the basic elements of what constitutes a Civ game (although I’m open to debate on these points):

Resource and Trade-Real historical civilizations (successful ones anyway) usually relied a lot on natural resources and commerce and trade. Players should have to manage resources and possibly trade in order to get ahead.

Conflict-A lot of great Civilizations made great conquests over their neighbours, but even the more passive ones rubbed edges over territory. There should be some sort of conflict (not necessarily military).

Upgrades or Developments- One thing that distinguished great civilizations from lesser tribes and peoples was their technical advances. These also went a long way in defining the civilization itself (like the Roman Arch or Egypt’s irrigation). Players should be able to acquire improvements of some sort for their civilization, and the developments should be significant enough to give some uniqueness to the civ that acquires them.

Multiple paths to victory- Some civilizations are famous for their conquests, some for their art and culture, some for their technical advances, some for a combination of things. There should be multiple paths players can take to achieve victory. Note that this does not mean multiple victory conditions; but for example if you look at Civilization (which I haven’t played, but have read the rules) the victory condition is simply having a certain number of points worth of developments; it doesn’t say which you need or how you have to get them. In other words the game should be fairly open, not a scripted VP race.

I’m guessing there are a wide variety of games that still fall within the basic elements I outlined above, and I’m excited to see what you guys (who are pretty much all more experienced than I am) will come up with!

I have hope for Mare Nostrum, which (unless he's changed his mind) Michael likes, too. A group of six of us played with the Mythology Expansion, and while I felt the game still ended too quickly, chiefly because people weren't aggressive enough, it has a lot of the civ elements and is gorgeous to look at. There's trading, direct conflict, multiple paths, and development, although the last one is perhaps a bit thin (coming in the form of Heroes and Wonders only) if you're looking for heavy detail--but then this is supposed to be civ lite, right?

Here's our session report: www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/329785
It's written by the guy who was most lukewarm on it, and a few of us rebutted some of his points.

I'm also picking up Antike in a math trade, but I know not that much about it other than it uses the rondel mechanism and has a lot of civ elements in it themed to an ancient setting (like MN).

I actually just finished posting a question about MN, and why it's usually referred to as a Euro when it seems to have a lot of AT elements to it. It looks really great, I feel like checking it out again. A few questions: did you think that your choice of Heroes /Wonders was a major part of your strategy? Because that's one thing I'm really looking for- developments that have a real impact on the way you play the game. Here's the main complaint about the game that I've heard that actually bothers me: how the trade phase isn't really about mutual improvement so much as trying to screw up the other players' plans. That might work from a gameplay standpoint, but it seems anti-thematic. What do you think of that?

The purpose of this was actually not so much to find a 'Civ Lite' so much as just to find out what everybody thinks are the best Civ Style games period. So they can be long or detailed games just as easily.

Thanks for your thoughts!

I guess you could consider Starcraft a civ game. It doesn't have trading but it has the other elements and plays in 3-4 hours. I have enjoyed Vinci, Antike and Mare Nostrum. I keep thinking La Citta could be considered a game that has the expansion, development, city building of say the Sid Meier PC game, a side that is often missing or very undetailed in civ board games.

Starcraft looks freaking awesome, although it seems to mostly be focused on the combat element. The combat system looks great, and the idea of each side having lots of different types of guys, along with three different races that play differently sounds awesome. I've been seriously considering buying Starcraft for a while. Here's one concern of mine; it seems like from what I've read that there's some unbalance between the different units in the game. Now a little of that is pretty inevitable in a game with so many different units and technologies. But my question is really: how serious are those imbalances? Are they bad enough to restrict your choices? That's what I wouldn't like: you have seven different types to choose from but the only way to win is to only get two of them. What do you think of that?

As regards La Citta, it's true that most Civ games seem to operate on a grand scale, so there's little to simulate managing an individual city. Now that I think about it, if you wanted to make a Civ Lite your best bet would be to restrict your scale to smaller areas and periods of time (such as managing a single city). That way there's less of a need to abstract everything to the point where it's meaningless.

Is there any chance of FFG or someone else of like mind and financial clout actually acquiring the rights to REAL Civilization and reprinting it?

At some point I might actually make my own copy of the real Civilization; it doesn't sound like it has that many components. From what I've heard it's a really good Eurogame, of which there are precious few.

gstormer wrote:

I actually just finished posting a question about MN, and why it's usually referred to as a Euro when it seems to have a lot of AT elements to it. It looks really great, I feel like checking it out again. A few questions: did you think that your choice of Heroes /Wonders was a major part of your strategy? Because that's one thing I'm really looking for- developments that have a real impact on the way you play the game. Here's the main complaint about the game that I've heard that actually bothers me: how the trade phase isn't really about mutual improvement so much as trying to screw up the other players' plans. That might work from a gameplay standpoint, but it seems anti-thematic. What do you think of that?

The purpose of this was actually not so much to find a 'Civ Lite' so much as just to find out what everybody thinks are the best Civ Style games period. So they can be long or detailed games just as easily.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Sorry. I kind of forgot about this thread.

I didn't really feel like the Heroes and Wonders were that impactful. There are a lot of them, especially with the expansion, but I didn't feel like a huge amount of use got made of them in our game--which was a learning game, admittedly. We actually paid more attention to using the gods than in using Heroes, although, now that I think of it, the civilization-specific Heroes were useful in improving upon the civilizations' strengths (like making Atlantis a better sea power). I think we didn't play "right"--we should've played more aggressively against each other--so maybe the Heroes and Wonders would've come more into play. I won by building the Pyramids and not by normal Heroes/Wonders, so obviously Heroes weren't a big part of my personal strategy.

Trading does have a "negative" element, and that drew mixed reactions in our group. The guy who liked MN the least actually liked the trading element of it the best. It's true that the trading can and probably should be used to hurt other players, and we started to see some ways in which the Director of Commerce, who controls the number of cards traded, can do that. For instance, when I signaled that I had a lot of commodity cards--12, in fact--the Director probably should've made me trade more so that I could be blocked form a win; instead, we traded only four or five, and I was able to pick up unique cards to get a set of 12 pretty easily. That was just a gameplaying "lapse" and a mark of inexperience. Still, though, trading can get you stuff, as it obviously got me the commodities I couldn't myself easily produce. I'm kind of babbling now, but I basically like the "negative" trading, and I don't really see it as antithematic given the zero-sum game being played.

The problem with calling the number of cards is if you call too many, if someone doesn't have that many, they don't have to trade. If Chaos is your aim, you have to say a low enough number that everyone can participate. The Wonders and Heroes are helpful if you know how to use them. I forget which hero, but on face value his power seems useless but you can use it to force someone to trade with you. The one that lets you pick up any resource is pretty useful too.

But I have the same problem with Mare Nostrum that I have with alot of other Euros, just as things are moving swimmingly, the game is done.

mikoyan wrote:

The problem with calling the number of cards is if you call too many, if someone doesn't have that many, they don't have to trade. If Chaos is your aim, you have to say a low enough number that everyone can participate.

The only point I'd add is that the number of cards held by each player isn't secret information; in fact, if I remember correctly, it's supposed to be in plain view so that there's no guessing required here as to who has how many.

But I have the same problem with Mare Nostrum that I have with alot of other Euros, just as things are moving swimmingly, the game is done.

Give me a few more plays, but I may agree. I do have that feeling about Imperial, which is an otherwise outstanding game cut from similar cloth.

Origins: How we Became Human. Plays in 4-5 hours. You start out still needing to develop things like language. You end up in the Industrial Revolution. The expansion deck takes it to the nuclear age. Get it. Play it. Love it.

(download the current revision of the rules, don't mess with the ones in the box)

http://www.sierra-madre-games.com/downloads/ORIGINS-Living_Rules-29-04-2008.pdf

Origins looks pretty fascinating too. One thing criticism I've heard a bunch is that there are lots of times in it when you're basically stuck, and can't do anything. The question for me is how exactly that is the case (if it is the case). If you get stuck for one turn once or twice in the game then that's actually kind of cool, and realistic. But if it's common to see someone be stuck for several turns on end that sounds like it wouldn't be much fun.

I guess the negative trading thing just sounds a little gamey, but from a mechanics standpoint it looks pretty clever actually. What seems really clever about MN is how each of the different 'director' players control how each phase plays out. It helps keep the rules simple while still providing variety.