by ilgoga
Just played my first game of this and thought I would share sme thoughts. I love civ games and and while playing I compared it to a few I played and the one that keept comming back as the closest one in my mind was FFG's Sid's Civ, a game I have played a dozen times and like (but not love), so I have made some fairly random comparisons between the two games (maybe not really a review so and if that bugs someone, I am sorry).
-Pieces: The sculpts for the military units in CoC are bit dull (were is my elephant!?! I played the game because there was a big elephant on the box cover!!!) and the details were not so good but they are still more fun than a bunch of flags. The settler wagon in Civ is awesome (ecspecilly if you have played the computer game from the start) but what really sets them apart are the cities, even if you have way more options in Civ the plastic cities with the add-ons are just too cool (wanna play with painted ones!). Clash Of Cultures
-The Map: One of two problems I have with Civ is the square maps, ecspecially in 3-player games, I can't make myself play Civ with 3 as the map looks so very ugly. CoC's hexagon sollution is nice and works for any number of players. The art on them is really good in both games but might be a little better in Civ but the square water looks wierd (and how the water ends up looks wierd in both games). Clash Of Cultures
-Technology: I love the pyramid techtree in Civ but I feel that you get a way better overview in CoC (for beginners the deck of cards i Civ can be quite daunting), the Civ way seems much easier to expand though. Tie.
-Resources: It's more satisfying to get a bunch of resources than a single one, and you can use them for more things in CoC so they are more fun to have (even if the hammers do similar thing in Civ). Clash Of Cultures
-Buildings: Only four in CoC and way more in Civ plus that they are upgradeable (and CoC has already got points for the look of them in Oieces above). Civilization
-Wonders: I only got to see 3 wonders in CoC (and build one) but my feeling was that the points were the main reason you built them and the abilities, while useful, was more gravy. The wonders in Civ seems more powerful and more gamechanging (and often something you really rush to get before other players) and so far I like them more. Civilization
-Military: Even though I don't mind the units in Civ I always somehow felt that they were the product of make the best dice-less combat system (as oppose the the best combat system, period). I liked the dice adding in CoC even though the game didn't seem to offer too much in military options. Tie.
-Barbarians: The barbarians in CoC can be aggressive and you have to take them in to consideration as oppose to Civ were they just sit around a wait to get killed, but the rewards in Civ are way more exciting then the ones in CoC (yey random reward!). Civilization
-Diplomacy: Not much in either game, some cards that allows for some pacts, most diplomacy will be the table talk and how you try to influence other peoples choises (as in most multiplayer games). Civ has the trading so I think it has the edge here (even if in our games that is rarely used). Civilization
-Gameplay: The most important one. I really liked the action system in CoC, you get to do three things, you wanna move, that's one of your things, you wanna research, that's one of your things and so on. It felt more fluid than the set turn in Civ somehow. I liked the hard choises that if you wanna do anything something else would suffer (as oppose to Civ were you always get to move and research when that part of the turn came). You do have to make tough decisions in Civ as well but this felt different. Clash of Cultures
-Playing time: I feel that CoC should play a bit faster than Civ (even if our first play was a little over 4 hours with three players)but after one play I can't really be sure. Tie?
-Winning: Here is one of parts were Civ really shines, the different victory conditions is really different and are all viable (depending on what civilization you get, some more than others) and fun as oppose to CoC that has a "lazy" VP system which isn't bad but is victory points and it is in almost every game. Also the objectives seemed a little bit too random for my taste (that is you could get some late in the game that you already had "done" for easy points and you could get ones that you had made no progress towards and had no real way of completing). Civilization
-Variaty: This one is my biggest question for CoC, will it be fun in the long run, I have just played one game and I had a blast, but will the lack of "unique stuff" in the game make it boring after a bunch of plays? Civ has the different civilizations and more wonders and unique great people and special places (yeah I it has an expansion advence on CoC) and the distinct different ways of approaching each win condition. (An expansion with unique civilizations for and/or leaders for CoC might be interesting?) Civilization
So this was just some very arbitrary categories where I compared my feelings of the two games as I felt them to be similar to each other while playing (accually I almost kind of felt like I played an updated version ov Civ while playing CoC). If this will prove to the shiny new syndrom or if it will have real staying power we'll see but for now if I wanna play a civ game with a map I gonna try to get Clash of Cultures played.
Note: Please keep in mind that I only have played Clash Of Cultures one time (and not read the rules myself) and that english is not my native languish.