Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Idle Games

Gamer Keeps Civilization II Game Going for 10 Years 219

Posted by samzenpus
from the lots-of-spare-time dept.
Have you ever wondered what a game of Civilization 2 would look like after running for 10 years? According to one gamer it's a "hellish nightmare of suffering and devastation." "Lycerius" says that he's been playing the same game of Civ II off and on for over a decade. Some highlights of the marathon session include: 1700 years of war, the ice caps melting over 20 times, constant guerrilla uprisings, and "Roughly 90% of the world's population has died either from nuclear annihilation or famine caused by the global warming that has left absolutely zero arable land to farm." It's too bad you can't build the Hanging Gardens more than once.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gamer Keeps Civilization II Game Going for 10 Years

Comments Filter:
  • by Schezar (249629) on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @11:40AM (#40297181) Homepage Journal

    He must be a pretty crappy gamer if, in all that time, there are still other civilizations in his way with which to have constant nuclear warfare. If he'd actually eliminated the other civilizations, he could easily rebuild everything.

    Also, how on earth did he have so much global warming? That can really only be the effect of poor decisions or poorly waged nuclear war.

    • Well, why don't you try it then? Play until the year 4000 and tell how your civilization is doing!

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @11:54AM (#40297429)

        I did that once with the original Civ. Played through until about the year 6000 AD. It was a long, hard battle at the start, but as the game progressed I eventually won out. By around 2000 AD I had virtually the entire planet and the AI had one civilization with two cities. In that situation the AI simply won't attack because you're too powerful, so the game continues peacefully virtually for ever. It gets boring pretty fast. Soon everything was covered with railroads and irrigation, the planet was effectively terraformed, all the technology was discovered, the climate was stable because there was no need for production and neither side had nucs. Almost all the cities had masses of happy people, it was basically a very boring utopia.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @12:32PM (#40298089)
          Hold on, I'm going to submit your comment as a slashdot story now.
        • Did you overheat the world before settling it fully? I remember that global warming eventually turned every land square into a swamp, and you could turn those into grasslands with your settlers. Since grasslands gave the most food, global warming was good if you wanted a large population.

          • by Anomalyst (742352)

            global warming was good if you wanted a large population.

            A passle of 200Kg settlers /shuuder

      • by Pope (17780)

        I did something similar with the original Civ for DOS. I was playing Prince level on the world map, and managed to wipe out every other country of the planet, except for the Aztecs, who had replaced the Egyptians when I wiped them out early on.

        The Aztecs had one city going *somewhere*, but I hadn't come across them yet. So I kept on my merry expansionist/scientific ways, railroading everywhere I could and making super caravan cities and parking the caravans off on railroad sidings until I needed them. I eve

        • by lord_mike (567148)

          I had a friend do that with the original Civ as well, except that he surrounded the one remaining civilization with mechanized infantry. It was incredibly boring, but he wanted to see how high of a score he could get. He basically ended up building then selling city walls in most of his cities, since most of the world was occupied. Each turn took him literally hours near the end. After a few weeks, he finally finished the game and got the ranking of King Solomon or something close, and that was the end

      • I've played it - as a despicable player (as the game describes me for doing it in cheat mode). Actually, under the more honorable scenario mode. What I do is create enough units, and beseige and blocade every one of my enemies, w/o killing them, and cheating and giving myself 30k of money (the limit in the game) and all the technologies. I then change my government to fundamentalist (where I'll be flush w/ both cash and stability, but my research suffers, which doesn't matter since I know everything), cr

    • by jythie (914043)
      I am guessing the latter. Once the computer players get nukes they tend to use them heavily.

      I think this would have been more interesting if the game had been modded to remove the time cap and we were talking about a hear 40,000 game instead. A game intentionally played so as to not end and keep some balance (so leaving other civilizations fairly intact) and running the simulation long past its designed ending point.. could be kinda neat.
      • Make it into a MMOG, with groups of players forming "governments" to run specified countries in the game, that'll be even more fun
        • by jythie (914043)
          I am picturing someone mashing up EvE and Civ... it took me to a happy place.
          • My vision of the apex of massive multiplayer gaming is a mash-up on a far wider scale - some players with an inclination towards strategy gaming do the big strategic decisions on a "Civ"-scale of things, others play more micro-management heavy strategic/tactical levels below that, and whoever feels like it, hops into any vehicle available or grabs a gun and jumps into a current battle as an ordinary grunt. Every decision on a high level creates missions and goals for the lower levels.
            • by jythie (914043)
              Well, that is kinda what CCP is trying to pull off with EvE+Dust. It remains to be seen how well their experiment will go though.
              • by tibman (623933)

                I wish Dust was available for PC

                • by jythie (914043)
                  If it does well I imagine they will port it to multiple systems. For their first foray into console gaming through it makes sense to limit it to a single platform.
    • by StefanJ (88986) on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @11:54AM (#40297443) Homepage Journal

      Deny it exists and do nothing to stop it?

    • by XiaoMing (1574363) on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @11:57AM (#40297479)

      He must be a pretty crappy gamer if, in all that time, there are still other civilizations in his way with which to have constant nuclear warfare. If he'd actually eliminated the other civilizations, he could easily rebuild everything.

      Also, how on earth did he have so much global warming? That can really only be the effect of poor decisions or poorly waged nuclear war.

      Considering how his biggest gripes are when other countries violate ceasefires, as well as his reluctance in switching away from democracy, it looks like he was trying create an actual society that co-inhabits the world with other societies, rather than just play king of the resource mountain.

      • by rastilin (752802)

        A lot of historical societies dealt with these kinds of problems by being "king of resource mountain". If you get your ceasefire broken once, that makes you a victim of betrayal, but the third time it happens you're just being gullible.

        • by XiaoMing (1574363)

          If you get your ceasefire broken once, that makes you a victim of betrayal, but the third time it happens you're just being gullible.

          Why does that logic sound so familiar [childdevelopmentinfo.com]?
          Ah yes, ages 4-7:

          The child has an intuitive grasp of logical concepts in some areas. However, there is still a tendency to focus attention on one aspect of an object while ignoring others. Concepts formed are crude and irreversible.
          Perceptions dominate judgment. In moral-ethical realm, the child is not able to show principles underlying best behavior.

          Once again, display of maturity and an attempt to build an actual society.

    • The story talks about a long game. Not a good game.

    • by alvinrod (889928) on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @01:16PM (#40298701)
      Here's a Reddit post describing the situation [reddit.com] made by a guy who started the game.

      Apparently, there are three main super powers left and they have been locked in constant war with each other for the past thousand years or more. Every time someone moves beyond the relatively stable front lines, their armies just get nuked into oblivion so no one can really push the attack too far beyond a set border. Spies constantly plant nuclear devices in cities, wiping out the population and spreading pollution. Engineers are generally kept busy building roads to keep moving troops to the front lines so there's not really enough time to clean up the pollution or improve the terrain.

      Basically it's reached a point where it's almost impossible to gain an advantage. Everyone is armed to the teeth and nuclear weapons will demolish just about any army in the field that gets to far across the lines. Everyone is also so committed to the war effort that there's not enough resources to devote to fixing things up and anytime something does get fixed up, it's generally just nuked back to oblivion.

      Sounds like a really fun game of Civ II.
    • by CAIMLAS (41445)

      Why does the ultimate goal have to be to eliminate all competition?

  • by Pecisk (688001) on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @11:45AM (#40297273)

    I knew it! Those developers are damn liberal hippies! :)

    Seriously though, life defining game series.

  • 1984 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by David89 (2022710) on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @11:51AM (#40297381) Homepage
    This reminds me of 1984 actually, right down to there being three superpowers left in the world. For those who haven't read it, perpetual war is fought over border zones that constantly change hands, with each power too strong to ever be defeated.
    • Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @12:11PM (#40297759)

      Or at least that's what the government tells you...

      • Re:1984 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SAN1701 (537455) on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @12:59PM (#40298485)
        Mod parent up, IIRC there's no reason to believe there's an actual war between the 3 superpowers in '1984' book, apart from the totalitarian government propaganda.
        • by Talderas (1212466)

          1984 does have a seen with the soldiers of one of those nations. Granted that's not entire proof positive of the war. The three nations, if they exist, could come to various accords. In the end, it's much simpler to assume that the three nations do exist but their wars are predetermined and planned in order for all three nations to keep their populaces stupid.

        • Re:1984 (Score:5, Interesting)

          by LordLimecat (1103839) on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @03:16PM (#40300289)

          Actually, IIRC theres good reason NOT to believe that there is a war. As I recall there are several clues point to the fact that there simply isnt any war, and that the entire thing is a hoax to keep the people under control.

          • by Cow Jones (615566)

            Actually, IIRC theres good reason NOT to believe that there is a war. As I recall there are several clues point to the fact that there simply isnt any war, and that the entire thing is a hoax to keep the people under control.

            I agree, that's how it feels when you read the book. But if true - why switch enemies periodically, only to cover it up later and deny it ever happened? The system would work just fine, and even save some trouble (altering records and disappearing people), if the enemy was always Eurasia.

            • by khallow (566160)
              Considering the scenario of three totalitarian superpowers, I'd say that they probably are always at some level of war with each other just because they're all total bastards. It also gives a valid pretext for getting rid of populations you don't have a use for. Grind them away on the Eastasia front.

              But if true - why switch enemies periodically, only to cover it up later and deny it ever happened? The system would work just fine, and even save some trouble (altering records and disappearing people), if the enemy was always Eurasia.

              I think the powers that be were also switching enemies just because they could. They aren't in the least interested in saving trouble. I think it was part of the intended environment of fear and control. Forcing

        • by DarkOx (621550)

          Citizen we have always been at war with Eurasia. Now stop spreading nonsense and get to your junior anti sex meeting.

    • by jythie (914043)
      Oddly enough this is what often bothered me about Civ. I actually found it pretty hard to end up in a stalemate situation in the game, either I overwhelmed the computer players and wiped them out over a fairly short course, or some computer player lept out in front and crushed me before I was ready.

      Real history though has countries fighting back and forth, often finding the cost of finishing the job to be too high (indigestion absorbing new territory, economic costs of prolonged war, etc)... and I kept
      • I agree, I've played Civ since the very first version and it will always end up with me bring crushed or me crushing everyone (or at least the potential to do so). I'm kind of envious of his 'balance' he has going on. The most balance I ever saw was an ongoing battle I had with an enemy that lasted several centuries...I had more tech he had more units, it was an interesting war with me finally winning, but that scenario only ever happened once.

        And don't get me started on the AI...
      • by alvinrod (889928)
        The later versions of Civ, at least Civ IV, did better in these regards. If you were at war for prolonged periods of time, the unhappiness made it difficult to keep things perfectly stable at home. Additionally, even if you managed to capture enemy cities, the amount of culture that the enemy exerted over them was sometimes enough to cause the cities to revolt and revert to their control after a few hundred years.

        I remember one game where another super power and I were essentially fighting a giant proxy
      • The Europa Universalis series might be for you (And they tell me that Hearts of Iron series are quite similar in a WW2 Setting)

  • So that's what our future looks like...
  • Virtual machines (Score:5, Interesting)

    by scorp1us (235526) on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @11:53AM (#40297421) Journal

    First, I thought this was about a continuously running game... And my fist thought was dang, I bet he wish he started it in a VM, because he could have kept moving it to new hardware, rateh than keeping that old Pentium IV around. But I guess there's a save-game feature.

    • by couchslug (175151)

      You can convert conventional Windows installs to VMs.

      Google it. It's been an option for several years at least.

    • by asylumx (881307)
      Ya, I thought that too. It got a lot less interesting when it turned out to just be a guy played the same saved game every once in a while over a decade.
    • by jd (1658)

      Load FreeCiv into a virtual machine, define a really really large map and a very large number of initial civilizations, and leave running for 20 years.

      For added fun, hack the code to allow a civilization to split (as per the Roman Empire) if unhappiness levels get too great, where the scion AIs use slightly modified parameters a-la genetic coding.

  • Now we know whom not to vote for in the next election. Such mismanagement never happens in my games...

  • So that's what it leads to?
  • 7,338 tanks destroyed by phalanxes

  • by bunyip (17018) on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @01:13PM (#40298651)

    Wow, this guy has some serious management skillz! Maybe he should be running Spain or Greece or the US?

    • by snowgirl (978879)

      Wow, this guy has some serious management skillz! Maybe he should be running Spain or Greece or the US?

      Dude, the guy has let the entire world crumble underneath him. I don't think that's management skills. Rather, I think people like him HAVE been running Spain, Greece, and the US...

  • by ftobin (48814) * on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @01:36PM (#40298977) Homepage

    I wouldn't be at all surprised that if in 10 years we'll have some people playing the same Minecraft worlds as well. It would even be more interesting, since your "history" would be remembered as you moved from camp to camp.

    • by Twintop (579924)

      I run a Minecraft server with/for a small-ish group of friends and family (~25 people whitelisted). The problem we've faced is that as Mojang adds more features, you have to do a reboot of your map if you want to have access (or easy access, I should say) to them if you're playing in Survival mode. Because of this we've already rebooted once, since we ran one map from ~1.2 beta through the 1.0.0 launch (to get NPC villages, Fortresses+The End, etc), and now are facing a second reboot because of Emeralds bei

    • by Bucky24 (1943328)
      That would be amazing, but sadly I've never found a server that goes longer then a few months before refreshing the map (either due to upgrades or because people kept destroying the area around spawn).

Support bacteria -- it's the only culture some people have!

Working...