Tresham's Civilization (and Advanced Civ) thread

I've been thinking about this game lately and so I've been trying to read about people's thoughts on it. And while in my seach I found some good threads on Boardgamegeek, I was surprised to find you guys haven't discussed it here. I came across a 10 year old-article on the F:AT blog in which Matt talked about its lenght and why it hasn't been dethroned while Barnes complained about The Dutch Revolution* not hitting the table, but not much more.

What do you guys think of the game? Is it still worth playing today or does it take breathing space from other long games? What's your take on it?

*If the other thread is any indication, this hasn't changed in ten years.

I played a lot of Civilization in the 80's, with four or five players. For that number of players, it was about five or six hours. Maybe supper would be in there somewhere.

I'd play it this weekend if I could get the players and the time. I really liked the trading system, where a lot of times you knew you were getting hosed, but you needed the card anyway.

This is a game of tremendous historical import. In fact, I would state that it is every bit as significant as D&D and Cosmic are. In some ways, this was he game that broke hobby gaming away from the more consim-ish wargames and moved it toward multiplayer concepts that were more dynamic, multifaceted, and layered. It was also, as far as I can tell, the first game where the entire concept is based on progressively increasing capacities and limitations, which of course perfectly describes the theme of advancing civilizations. This is the game where you have X and spend Y so that you can have X+1.

The trading remains brilliant- its highly formalized, structured and compelling. The 1:1 combat is simple, it never becomes the focus of the game, and it also works perfectly with the progression concept. The population increase mechanics are also brilliant.

The is so much great about this masterpiece that it is almost painful to say that it is not really worth playing today beyond curiosity, academic interest, or "just to say you did". Other than the epic length- which does feel necessary to some degree- there are more modern designs that take Civilization's best elements and couches them in more accessible and less cumbersome designs. If I never play it again...I'd be OK with that. I had some great times with it in the 80s, 90s and even into the 2000s.

But I would still rather play it than Through the Ages, Twilight Imperium, and most other civilization games. It's simpler than you'd expect it to be...very direct, logical, and without embellishment. It's just that procedurally, it takes too long to play at this point.

I think that Civil War card has caused more real anger at a game table than anything else over ever seen.

Michael Barnes wrote: It's just that procedurally, it takes too long to play at this point.

One of the reasons why I'm interested in the game is that I've heard that it can be played by 5 players in 5 hours, which is very doable for me at this point. I was under the impression it took 10-12 hours per game but, apparently, that's only true of Advanced Civilization not the original.

I can also get the Spanish release (which has old, but workable components and the Western Expansion map) for cheap. Or I might build the redesign because I have fun doing this stuff and I would have Advanced Civilization too.

I played half a game (time constraints) of Advanced, and my take-away was that whoever is the loudest, most assertive at trading will win because the upgrades are essential and if you're slow or quiet at the table you lose out. If you fall behind, it's a snowball from there.

Basic Civ in 5 hours is possible, but I think then you are looking at 5 veteran players that know how to not waste time and understand the processes really well. The later turns can REALLY drag on, especially with new players. But what really makes it feel long is that it's really pretty abstracted, processional, and there really aren't any "mod cons" so to speak. It feels very different than playing a more multifaceted game with more of a 4x setting.

Reflecting on it, the system of progressive, selective discounting- indeed, the "tech tree"-is one of the like, top three gameplay concepts _of all time_. It is as significant as dice-based resolution and variable rule-breaking powers. It's a design concept that has ancestors everywhere, both in video games and on the table.

But I'd still rather play Mare Nostrum or Clash of Cultures today.

I've played more Advanced Civ on the PC than IRL. The last time I played all of civilization was laid to waste by a cat...about 8 hours into the game.

I know that a lot of the 14 or so different phases per game turn can be simultaneous. Increase your people, pay for boats so you don't get hosed by taxes, pay your taxes, etc.

As an example, Clash of Cultures is far prettier and the tech tree is much deeper than the prototypical Civilization tech tree. Civilization is definitely old-school.

To be honest with myself, I'd be a little scared to play Civilization today. I don't want to ruin the good memories of the game by finding out that older isn't necessarily better.

I've played it 3 times in the last 4 years, without having ever played it before or having any nostalgia for it. It still holds up, but everything else these guys are saying is true. I had played the original Sid Meier's Civilization back in the early 90s as a little kid that was still learning to read, and it really expanded my understanding of the world, so there was definitely some curiosity from that standpoint. If you try to play your first game of it with a bunch of 20-somethings who've never played before, I expect it to bomb. There are some online versions that you can play asynchronously, or maybe you can find some older folks locally who will play a game- those might be your best avenues to at least get a good feel for it. I played with some 5-6 older guys that I knew through one of my game groups, and playing a full game of Adv Civ took ALL day. Like 11-11.

What really surprised me was how simple the game was. The rulebook is long, but most of it is describing the calamities and their effects, which nowadays would be written up on cards. The core mechanics, aside from the 14-step turn (which would probably be condensed or made to look like fewer steps now) are actually very simple, probably just a couple steps up from something like Catan/Small World/Acquire. If you could find some solid player aids (I'm sure some exist on BGG). There are far fewer chits and shit than any modern Euro. All of the stuff you think of in computerized civ games, like building specific buildings or military units and a heavy focus on combat or whatever, simply do not exist. It is at its core a trading game with a map, with some set-collection math that feels like it inspired every German family or auction game made from 1995-2005.

It's definitely worth playing at least once. It's kind of like going to see live Shakespeare or a symphony. Very culturally relevant to our little board gaming world, but not something I'd try to do every weekend.

The last time I played CIV was at least 20 years ago. The game started off fast, and I thought it wouldn't take that long, relatively speaking. But as the game wore on , with more trade cards in play and more cities, play slowed and I think it took almost 12 hours, it was a full 7 player board. I can't remember if it was basic or Advanced. I think it was the latter, which I prefer. The basic version limited both the number of cards you could buy as well as how many of each type was in play, forcing everyone to aim towards buying the same optimized set of cards if they wanted to win.

About ten years ago I was at a con and some friends played a 6 player game in about 7 hours. They put a time limit on trading and had numerous play aids downloaded from BGG which helped cut down the card purchase phase considerably. They also don't fuck around or get engrossed in diplomacy, which some players take to an extreme in any multi player game they can which just drags out playing time.

With the right group, I'd play again, but I am not itching to do so.

It really is a remarkable design in a lot of ways, but I think it has been eclipsed by many other civ building types of games.

A few years ago a MEGA version was published, a distillation of some hardcore fan variants, rules tweaks, and most impressive of all, a board that can accommodate EIGHTEEN players. The map extends to the Far East . I think they make it more manageable by trading being broken down into 2 9 player spheres. I do see forum postings for cons where people get together to play it. I'd NEVER play a game like that with strangers, as one fucktard could ruin it for everyone. But to each their own - some people seek out "event" type games and this certainly qualifies. It also ain't cheap, around $200 I think.

Msample wrote: It also ain't cheap, around $200 I think.

Advanced Civ is super expensive too these days. A fair number of folks opt to just print their own since it's little more than some cards.

I haven't played Advanced Civ in 15 years now but we play Civ at least once a year. It's still awesome.

I played Civ last year, after not having played for quite a while. I played with several students from my game studies class - after I talked about how Civilization had done such and such so well, or first, or brilliantly, for the hundredth time, they finally just stopped me and said - "Why don't we play it?".

So we set up a Saturday and played it with the full seven.

I think it still really holds up, particularly if you use an online tool to assist with the Civ purchases, and have someone with clout (me, the teacher, in this case), strictly moving things along.

Not a game I'll play all the time, or even once a year. But it remains a landmark achievement in game design, with so much innovation and so many smart choices that it just makes my head spin.

Geoff

Michael Barnes wrote: Basic Civ in 5 hours is possible, but I think then you are looking at 5 veteran players that know how to not waste time and understand the processes really well. The later turns can REALLY drag on, especially with new players. But what really makes it feel long is that it's really pretty abstracted, processional, and there really aren't any "mod cons" so to speak. It feels very different than playing a more multifaceted game with more of a 4x setting.

What is a "mod con"? I have never heard that term before.

I saw cfarrel make some suggestions to keep the game at a good lenght and they seem very solid:

"Here is the way we play, which we can routinely get done in 5 hours:

- 5 players;
- "Short" game (from the rulebook), play to the last triangle on the AST and eliminate mysticism;
- Remove one Civilization card from each stack with 4.
- If Egypt and Babylon are in, use the Tom Lehmann house rule: they can build cities on flood plains for only 5 tokens.

From my little understanding of the game, his arguments are all sound specially concerning the number of civilization cards.

By the way, thanks for reminding me of the computer version, I think I'll give it a whirl. While trading with AIs sounds painful, the PC version of 1830 has one of the best AIs I've ever seen in a game. Seriously, that thing plays 1830 at a mid-high level. 1830!

Msample wrote: A few years ago a MEGA version was published, a distillation of some hardcore fan variants, rules tweaks, and most impressive of all, a board that can accommodate EIGHTEEN players. The map extends to the Far East . I think they make it more manageable by trading being broken down into 2 9 player spheres. I do see forum postings for cons where people get together to play it. I'd NEVER play a game like that with strangers, as one fucktard could ruin it for everyone. But to each their own - some people seek out "event" type games and this certainly qualifies. It also ain't cheap, around $200 I think.

I remember being a bit of a dick when it was first announced; I thought it was going to be the ultimate shelf toad for overeager gamers like 18OE was, which was kind of unfair.

Jexik wrote:

Msample wrote: It also ain't cheap, around $200 I think.

Advanced Civ is super expensive too these days. A fair number of folks opt to just print their own since it's little more than some cards.

I've been checking the files for the redesign and it seems easier than Dune to make a copy of the game. Maps are easy to make (even though my Dune map was just ok) and there are few cards, which tend to be very time-consuming. This only leaves the tokens (need thick cardboard for them).

I'll double-check but so far it seems like a cool next project.

I've played a few all-day games of Mega Civ which have been a lot of fun (Never played regular Civ or Advanced Civ). People talk about the 18 player thing, and yeah that's possible, but you wouldn't do that except to say you did. We've played from 5-9 people and it works fine. It's long, but fun, and the time goes by quickly.

I like that it feels genuinely civvy to me. It doesn't feel, as I've complained numerous times before, like "Risk With Grain". I like the fact that you can jostle for space, but if you decide on all-out warfare, you're going to lose. You can't fight your way to a civilization. I like how the events make the civs wax and wane in power. I like the feeling of getting a disaster in a trade and knowing you're completely safe from it. About the only phase that isn't simultaneous is the movement phase, and even that can be to some extent (if Joe goes after Mary, and they aren't anywhere near each other, Joe can go while Mary is going.)

In short, despite the length, I like that it's not just the History of Warfare, which I find incredibly boring. Take my view with a huge grain of salt on this forum; I hate Clash of Cultures.

My one experience with Mega-Civ was a literally all-day game that I bailed on roughly 16-17 hours in. We did have 18 players, which as Legomancer says is more of a thing to say you did than it is an actual good idea.

I would really like to try the original game. It seems like the version I'd enjoy best.