Recommend
7 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

Clash of Cultures» Forums » General

Subject: Inevitable comparison with Sid Meier's Civilization rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Simon Quinn
New Zealand
Auckland
none
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For anyone who has played both games, is there a clear winner in terms of depth, fun, balance, etc?

I already own Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game and Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game – Fame and Fortune which I love but this game is difficult to ignore!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benjamin Schoenheiter
Germany
Heusenstamm
Hessen
flag msg tools
publisher
Also: GameDev&Editor
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Then don't!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Quinn
New Zealand
Auckland
none
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
benji_online wrote:
Then don't!


Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter :-)
18 
 Thumb up
0.50
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benjamin Schoenheiter
Germany
Heusenstamm
Hessen
flag msg tools
publisher
Also: GameDev&Editor
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
No seriously. It is a very neat and tidy game. Lots of depth and to me at least (I also have Civ + Exp) superior to Civ in terms of fluidity of gameplay. Almost feels "Euroish" in terms of victory path approaches. All in all: a very good game and vastly superior to MoM (design -wise)
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Lister
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slimo wrote:
For anyone who has played both games, is there a clear winner in terms of depth, fun, balance, etc?

I already own Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game and Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game – Fame and Fortune which I love but this game is difficult to ignore!


No clear winner as I think it comes down to personal preference. I love Civ games and have played both 7 times. CoC has some great 'Civ' touches - Ships are handled really well, 'Happy/Angry' cities and the Cultural influence action really give CoC a fresh civ. feel. I'd say you owe it to your self to try it.

However,I prefer the FF Civ game (and Through the Ages over that but that's another discussion ) because with FF's Civ. you can actually play with the great civilizations and historical personages.

Other advantages in the FF version (for me, personal opinion)

Defined winning conditions and different ways of winning - you have 4 ways of doing it and you can make some broad plan from the beginning. In CoC you need to react to objective cards and whilst this is fun I feel I have less control over my civ.

Elephants and horses. FF's version has more colour in terms of real civs, people, units, and progression through the ages.

The cards. In CoC its quite possible (seen it happen twice in 7 games) for one player to get an amazing sequence of action and event card draws whilst other players get things are useful 'later', or bad events, so that one player gets a real head start.

The opening moves in Coc feel a little scripted (wow betide the player who neglects Mtyhs , irrigation or Sanitation) - not so in FF's version


Wonders - the FF wins hands down because you can get them early in the game. I wish CoC had a series of wonders from cheaper to more expensive that helped differentiate the players Civs early in the game.

There are quite a few areas where CoC beats FF's Civ - the players play area is cleaner and better organised. The actual uses of ships is brilliant. And I am sure there are gamers who will give you good reason to prefer CoC and if FF's game did not exist i'd be more than happy with CoC







11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thanee
Germany
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Got both. Love both!

They are different enough to have both in your collection.

Bye
Thanee
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Reddish22
United States
Nampa
Idaho
flag msg tools
designer
the Yellow Sign?
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I like the smooth, elegant out of the box experience that Clash brings to the table. I played about ten games of SM Civ, and after that the game just felt like it required too much of me for how much fun it was. Does it feel more like the computer game? Sure does! But I wouldn't play SM Civ again. I do think there is room in a collection for both.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dennis Murray
United States
Quakertown
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I found the FFG game to be clunky and over-designed, with many systems (particularly combat, but also city building and a few others) to be flat out badly designed. I also felt the board was ugly and produced a map that was often counter-intuitive, and unrealistic. I'm a huge fan of the computer game and really wanted to like the game, but walked away disappointed.
Clash, on the other hand, is a straight-forward, simple design that makes sense in how most things work. Combat is simple but works, and the board is a huge improvement. Trade is neat, and the naval system in particular is very fun. The game looks nice as it develops, instead of the sprawling mess of cards, counters and squares in the FFG version.
There are a few things that I would like to see added...differentiation between starting civs, different unit types to add a little complexity, perhaps an additional era with more advanced units and techs to make it feel more epic. There is no real feel of moving beyond antiquity in Clash. Instead you get the core of a civ game, with city building, exploring and a tech tree that work better than other civ games but a shorter timeline. I can see myself wanting more after many plays, but the design is crisp, clean and well thought out.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Hoffman
United States
Vienna
Virginia
flag msg tools
Yes, shrubberies are my trade. I am a shrubber. My name is Roger the Shrubber. I arrange, design, and sell shrubberies.
badge
Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say Ni at will to old ladies. There is a pestilence upon this land; nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange & design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this period in history
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There have been a few threads on this topic already.

sorp222 wrote:
(wow betide the player who neglects Mtyhs , irrigation or Sanitation)


Sanitation only affects 2 Event Cards out of 38, so it has a very small impact. I'm pretty sure I've only taken it when I had the Construction Objective.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Lister
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
r0gershrubber wrote:
There have been a few threads on this topic already.

sorp222 wrote:
(wow betide the player who neglects Mtyhs , irrigation or Sanitation)


Sanitation only affects 2 Event Cards out of 38, so it has a very small impact. I'm pretty sure I've only taken it when I had the Construction Objective.


Awesum piece of analysis - it off ours came up twice in my last game which might be why I mention it
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Simon Quinn
New Zealand
Auckland
none
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dennis Murray wrote:
I found the FFG game to be clunky and over-designed, with many systems (particularly combat, but also city building and a few others) to be flat out badly designed.


There is something to be said for the innovative dice-less combat system of SMC:TBG though..
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jennifer Schlickbernd
United States
Santa Clarita
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
+1 on elegance and simplicity of design. Through the Ages may indeed be better but if you don't play all the time, then you forget what cards are coming out later in the game, and that can really be a game changer. I like CoC because everything you need to know in the game ever is out there on the table.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slimo wrote:
For anyone who has played both games, is there a clear winner in terms of depth, fun, balance, etc?

I already own Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game and Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game – Fame and Fortune which I love but this game is difficult to ignore!


I am pretty sure that CoC would unanimously win a vote here. For me and everyone I know who has played both, the answer is clear.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joseph Cochran
United States
Costa Mesa
California
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmb
slimo wrote:
For anyone who has played both games, is there a clear winner in terms of depth, fun, balance, etc?


I have to join the chorus of voices who claim that the clear winner is CoC. The things that SMC does interestingly (unique cultures, distinct victory paths, a fun tech tree, and wonders/great persons that evoke a feel of being more grounded in THIS world rather than just some generic place and time) are outweighed by the things that it doesn't do well (non-intuitive combat: even after a demo people just don't get the multiple fronts and the amount of investment in units that might randomly come out is not inspiring; clunky resource management: while the trade dial is good, the number of times you feel the need to recount your hammers/trades/columns is annoying; confusing building rules: once you get that a unit is a card and not a figure, that some buildings have stars and that means something, that upgrades flip buildings, that a city with 10 hammers can still make only one 4-cost army figure (which isn't actually used during combat but is only a hand size indicator: you still need to buy cards to fight better); coins... I don't know how many times people try to harvest coins no matter how many times you explain it), and after a few plays we just couldn't see devoting the time to it. I bought the expansion and have read that it helps improve things, but we just never mustered it back to the table.

There are some things that both do well in their own ways, most notably technologies. Both have their strengths there: SMC is a more fun tree to explore and evolve over the course of a game, but CoC is quick and easy to comprehend (you don't have to flip through decks of cards to see what your possibilities are: it's all in front of you) while still providing interesting choices.

And then there are the things that CoC just does well. It's smooth and quick: the resources are easy to track and keep up (the most confusing thing is the Culture/Mood marker vs. tokens), combat is quick and simple, and the turn structure is easy to run. It still provides the "dudes on a map" Civ feel that we all know and love, but instead of fighting the learning curve, players can get right to fighting each other within the first couple of games.

For me, this has completely replaced SMC. It's less overhead: this means that there are some places it's shallower than SMC, but I think that the overhead of SMC prevented it from getting to the table vs. other games, so we're able to get the Civ feel again, and that's totally cool in my book.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.