yes, certainly some good points made. As the AI is the most important element of any strategy game its good to know a lot of work has been done on it (Not that the GC1 AI was poor).
Despite all the replies in this post defending the game, no one has answered the simple question im asking. What has changed in this 'sequel'? As for CIV4, it changed some of the very fundamental strategic concepts of the game (religion, great people, city specialization, civics), which make it new and interesting. I was rather hoping for a new game rather than an update of a game that’s fun but I had exhausted years ago.
Could you define what im missing? Thanks for your intelligent input.
The AI is quite impressive, but my point is really relating to game content. What appart from the minor changes to combat and the few relating techs has changed in this game? Do these minor changes really justify charging $45 and releasing it as a whole new game?
I have completed my first game, played a standard sized map on normal level. Won by cultural conquest after 3-4 hours of playing. Have to say I was quite disappointed. The game was pretty much the same as the first GC. The tech tree, is also pretty much the same as GC1 appart from the three types of attack and defence. It has the same trade goods and galatic wonders for example. Fundamentally the game has not changed, I have
GalCiv2 Forums