by Tjohei
Disclaimer: I have not played CoC, but I've studied the game and made up my opinions on it.Interresting read. But I have some comments. :)
ilgoga wrote:
-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
Disagree. I think that the fact that the barbarians can attack you far outweights the random reward in Civ.
ilgoga wrote:
-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
In CoC you're allowed to trade at any time...
ilgoga wrote:
-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
Again, disagree. The fact that you more or less have to decide how you want to win before you start the game is one of my biggest issues with Civ. Also there's the discussion on winning condition balance (economic win is easier), although that never became an issue in our group. And this is the thing that made Eclipse so great for me, the fact that you could change your strategy during the game, depending on what happens on the board. This I also see in CoC.