I plan to code a civ2 clone: shameless self-promotion

[Hail]

since nothing is happening yet, there is a thread on civfanatics.
I expect it will be locked because of blasphemy sometime in the future.

any interest around here in civ2?

P.S. mod(s) can move this thread (topic) if this subforum is deemed inappropriate.

[T-hawk]

You're on topic, don't worry about that. But I don't think there's much interest around here in Civ 2.

And like the CFC thread says, Freeciv already exists, and it would seem far more feasible to mod/fork that rather than build your own from scratch. It's an enormous amount of work. Each real Civ game is tens of man-years of developer labor and who knows how much in art.

[DaveV]

I, for one, played a lot of Civ 2, but was never able to go back to it after playing Civ 3. Civ 3 had its own flaws, but it did fix several of the things that bothered me most about Civ 2 (black clicking and "peaceful" AIs able to move unimpeded through your territory, for example). The bar has been raised since Civ 2; if you produce a faithful clone, anyone who has played one of the more modern iterations will notice the lack of some of the newer features (religion, culture, improved diplomacy, collateral damage). If you're planning to make substantial changes to the game's systems, where do you stop?

I guess I'm wondering what is the goal of this project? As T-hawk pointed out, there's already a working, moddable clone of Civ2.

[Hail]

And like the CFC thread says, Freeciv already exists, and it would seem far more feasible to mod/fork that rather than build your own from scratch. It's an enormous amount of work. Each real Civ game is tens of man-years of developer labor and who knows how much in art.

you underestimate the power of the Dark Side of the Force.

I, for one, played a lot of Civ 2, but was never able to go back to it after playing Civ 3. Civ 3 had its own flaws, but it did fix several of the things that bothered me most about Civ 2 (black clicking and "peaceful" AIs able to move unimpeded through your territory, for example). The bar has been raised since Civ 2; if you produce a faithful clone, anyone who has played one of the more modern iterations will notice the lack of some of the newer features (religion, culture, improved diplomacy, collateral damage). If you're planning to make substantial changes to the game's systems, where do you stop?

what is black clicking?

I am not planning to make substantial changes to game mechanics. the civ2 clone I envision is as if civ2 was released in 2016. but the game will feel very different. civ2 even does not have a fog of war!

the bar was permanently raised multiple times and keeps raising. mechanics like FoW, overflow, rally points, borders, build queues, notifications, etc. streamline the game, reduce mundane tasks, and generally increase enjoyment of the game.

I guess I'm wondering what is the goal of this project? As T-hawk pointed out, there's already a working, moddable clone of Civ2.

the goal of the project is to complete the project.
I find your lack of faith disturbing.

[HansLemurson]

So you're thinking Civ2 ruleset, modern interface?

One thing that I felt Civ2 did better than most other games in the series is to make navies feel useful. Armored warships were more powerful than their contemporary ground units, and so units and cities on the coast were vulnerable to attacks from the sea. In Civ3 and Civ4 navies felt pretty wimpy. (Don't have any experience with Civ5 naval warfare, since conquest seemed to have minimal reward.)

The biggest problem I have with Civ2 though is the stack-death mechanic and how it made all warfare fundamentally devolve into who could get the first strike. If it's your turn and you have an attack force in range of the enemy, you will generally wipe them out. It feels very satisfying when you do it, but if you leave your army in striking range of the enemy, you see the other side of the coin.

[ReallyEvilMuffin]

So you're thinking Civ2 ruleset, modern interface?

One thing that I felt Civ2 did better than most other games in the series is to make navies feel useful. Armored warships were more powerful than their contemporary ground units, and so units and cities on the coast were vulnerable to attacks from the sea. In Civ3 and Civ4 navies felt pretty wimpy. (Don't have any experience with Civ5 naval warfare, since conquest seemed to have minimal reward.)

The biggest problem I have with Civ2 though is the stack-death mechanic and how it made all warfare fundamentally devolve into who could get the first strike. If it's your turn and you have an attack force in range of the enemy, you will generally wipe them out. It feels very satisfying when you do it, but if you leave your army in striking range of the enemy, you see the other side of the coin.

Combat engineers - build a fort on a tile you are sieging a city from was my plan.

[Bobchillingworth]

Or just build railroads across the map and alpha-strike everyone into oblivion. Cultural borders were the best thing to ever happen to the franchise.

[ReallyEvilMuffin]

Or just build railroads across the map and alpha-strike everyone into oblivion. Cultural borders were the best thing to ever happen to the franchise.

Zones of control were a bit silly, with planes or spy's allowing you to sneak armoured divisions along without any issues.

[HansLemurson]

So you're thinking Civ2 ruleset, modern interface?

One thing that I felt Civ2 did better than most other games in the series is to make navies feel useful. Armored warships were more powerful than their contemporary ground units, and so units and cities on the coast were vulnerable to attacks from the sea. In Civ3 and Civ4 navies felt pretty wimpy. (Don't have any experience with Civ5 naval warfare, since conquest seemed to have minimal reward.)

The biggest problem I have with Civ2 though is the stack-death mechanic and how it made all warfare fundamentally devolve into who could get the first strike. If it's your turn and you have an attack force in range of the enemy, you will generally wipe them out. It feels very satisfying when you do it, but if you leave your army in striking range of the enemy, you see the other side of the coin.

Combat engineers - build a fort on a tile you are sieging a city from was my plan.

Only works after you've researched explosives. But yes in theory you can march (or land) a Stack of Doom in enemy territory with relative safety, so long as the terrain doesn't use up the movement points of your engineers.

From what I've read about advanced Civ2 and FreeCiv play, the go-to strategy for warfare is unloading a ship of fast-attack units which can attack and overwhelm the target city. Mobility and first-strike rule the day.

Or just build railroads across the map and alpha-strike everyone into oblivion. Cultural borders were the best thing to ever happen to the franchise.

Zones of control were a bit silly, with planes or spy's allowing you to sneak armoured divisions along without any issues.

I just listened to a "Three Moves Ahead" podcast from 2011 (#143) where they had Brian Reynolds and Soren Johnson on talking about Alpha Centauri. In discussing innovations the game had, Reynolds said that AC basically invented territorial borders, and that Zone of Control had existed previously for the sole purpose of being able to stop foreign units from marching at will through your lands. If they had thought of Borders back then, they wouldn't have even bothered with all the confusing ZOC rules!


BUT ANYWAYS...
Which aspects of Civ2 did you like the best that inspired you to want to make a Civ2 clone of your own?

[Hail]

So you're thinking Civ2 ruleset, modern interface?

yes. some mechanics must be tweaked though, like caravan spam and rapture growth.

BUT ANYWAYS...
Which aspects of Civ2 did you like the best that inspired you to want to make a Civ2 clone of your own?

nostalgia & simplicity. never liked civ3. civ4 is too complex for my tastes. civ5 just plain sucks and civ6 is civ5 v2.0