Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
MeetyourUnmaker

The Civilization series of games on Steam.

Recommended Posts

I like it to an extent. I would play it hardcore once or so a year for a few days, then get burnt out. I think that was civilization 2. I remember feeling like I kept wasting time because I didn't play aggressive enough, so I'd play to lose essentially. I'd get bullied and that's all I need when playing a game to relax is to get bullied by other leaders, so I learned to be a dick before they were. It just turned into legitimate stress.

Share this post


Link to post
geo said:

I like it to an extent. I would play it hardcore once or so a year for a few days, then get burnt out. I think that was civilization 2. I remember feeling like I kept wasting time because I didn't play aggressive enough, so I'd play to lose essentially. I'd get bullied and that's all I need when playing a game to relax is to get bullied by other leaders, so I learned to be a dick before they were. It just turned into legitimate stress.


Never played It, I'll have to look Into It.

Share this post


Link to post

Civ 5 by itself is a broken game, lol. You need at least Gods and Kings to experience Civ 5 properly. Once I got Brave New World, I was addicted. BNW expansion pack for Civ 5 is the bomb.

I hear Civ 4 is the best game of the whole series, but I've never tried it. Civ 3 is heralded as being rather bad.

Share this post


Link to post
TheCupboard said:

I hear Civ 4 is the best game of the whole series

*sends mind worms at Cuppy's house* You meant to say Alpha Centauri, obviously.

Share this post


Link to post

A while ago I played some C-evo, which is a game heavily inspired by Civ2 (but not a straightforward clone). It is very well thought out, and pretty challenging, but a playing session can drag on for really long (at least, with my relatively modest experience in playing).

There's also Freeciv, which supposedly follows the first two games in the series more closely in terms of rules and gameplay mechanics. I haven't played it extensively though.

Additionally, awhile ago I discovered a Finnish freeware game called Great Nations, which is a very nice clone for Win32 and Amiga, primarily designed for multiplayer games. The authors planned to include the AI but abandoned development before this was implemented.

Share this post


Link to post

I've played all the games in the main series, and a couple outside of it. These days if I play any of them, it's Civ 5. It's been so long since I played any of the others that I've forgotten how to play them, and just haven't felt like relearning them.

Share this post


Link to post

I played lots of Civ games and lots of other 4x games.

Civ series is great and all, but what i didnt like is that in the end, there will always be war.

Galactic Civ 2 has much more reasonable AI, and I didnt manage to play myself that way, but i read some interesting AARs that showcase how you can interact with other factions and i always feel that all those options are there.

In Civ games it always feels like i have to win a certain race to tech or other things to be ready for the war.

In Galactic Civ it always depends for me. Might be i have a neighbor that is really agressive, but as long as that is not the case, i dont feel like sitting next to a bomb that is waiting to explode. I feel like options are always there.

And then ...

... then i got hooked on Crusader Kings 2, and there are not enough words to describe the experience once you know a bit how it works.

Share this post


Link to post

I've spent much more time playing Civ2 than Doom.
I still enjoy playing it: 7 civs, Deity + a few of my own special rules, such as no rush building, no bribery against AI, no peace treaties at all, etc. to make it harder.

Share this post


Link to post

I bought Civilisation Revolutions, or whatever it's called, for the Xbox 360. It was my first (and last) experience with a Civ game, given what utter bollocks it was. How does it take an army 300 years to advance across a continent? Do they all need walking sticks?

@ Vdgg - my friend still plays Civ2, it's the only turn based strategy game he likes.

Share this post


Link to post

I've been playing civilization since about 1993, when I got it for SNES. I play as Rome 90% of the time.

TheCupboard said:

Civ 5 by itself is a broken game, lol. You need at least Gods and Kings to experience Civ 5 properly. Once I got Brave New World, I was addicted. BNW expansion pack for Civ 5 is the bomb.

I hear Civ 4 is the best game of the whole series, but I've never tried it. Civ 3 is heralded as being rather bad.


From my experience throughout the years, 3 is regarded as the best; 4 was hated by the hardcore civ fans prior to 5. Honestly I've liked all of them since the first; but 5 took a while to mature after various updates/expansions.

I'm Emperor Giulio, on civfanatics.

Share this post


Link to post

I liked Age of Empire II. Build shit and throw numbers at your enemy to win. None of this turn based stuff.


Also, Masters of Orion II. A bit different, but still....

Share this post


Link to post

Age of Empires 2 was pretty fucking awesome. When that game came out, it felt like a game-changer, like RTS would never be the same. However, I sort of gave away my disc and just stuck with playing Stronghold / Stronghold: Crusader.

One advantage of turn-based strategy games is that they allow more leeway for roleplaying since you have more time to analyze your moves as well as your enemy's. In RTS, shit just starts to happen and you might not be clicking fast enough or building things in the correct order, and that basically explains your victory or failure. Sure, you can roleplay a bit to make the game more challenging for yourself, once the game's original maps gets too easy.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm interested in seeing how Civilization VI turns out. I hope they go back to stacking units, instead of the approach that was taken in V. Perhaps, even combining both systems, like being able to stack 5 units into a single tile. This seems more reasonable to me.

Here's an article featuring the former lead developer of Civilization V, Jon Shafer. In it he heavily criticizes his own work.

http://www.pcgamer.com/jon-shafer-criticizes-every-decision-he-made-in-designing-civ-v-explains-how-at-the-gates-will-differ/

Also, I hope they re-introduce other game play mechanics like nationality. Once you conquered a city in Civilization IV, you had to contend with its foreign population by cultural conversion or extermination/razing/forced-labor.

I really liked the Vassal system in civilization IV as well. Instead of having to take over the entire country, you could just force them to capitulate, and serve your empire.

Civilization IV definitely had more BALLS than the others, in terms of concept. However, it was very... ugly, in terms of aesthetics. Though there were several mods that fixed that.

Share this post


Link to post
Kontra Kommando said:

I'm interested in seeing how Civilization VI turns out. I hope they go back to stacking units, instead of the approach that was taken in V. Perhaps, even combining both systems, like being able to stack 5 units into a single tile. This seems more reasonable to me.

Here's an article featuring the former lead developer of Civilization V, Jon Shafer. In it he heavily criticizes his own work.

http://www.pcgamer.com/jon-shafer-criticizes-every-decision-he-made-in-designing-civ-v-explains-how-at-the-gates-will-differ/

Also, I hope they re-introduce other game play mechanics like nationality. Once you conquered a city in Civilization IV, you had to contend with its foreign population by cultural conversion or extermination/razing/forced-labor.

I really liked the Vassal system in civilization IV as well. Instead of having to take over the entire country, you could just force them to capitulate, and serve your empire.

Civilization IV definitely had more BALLS than the others, in terms of concept. However, it was very... ugly, in terms of aesthetics. Though there were several mods that fixed that.


It was not that bad, just the general landscape looked too bright.

Share this post


Link to post
MeetyourUnmaker said:

It was not that bad, just the general landscape looked too bright.


Another small complaint I had was the mini-world map. I really disliked how it represented boarders over the seas. Sometimes after conquering, I like to survey the extent of my empire. I hope Civ 6 will display a nice world map, that will allow you too view the entire known planet. Civ 5 doesn't give you an option like this. That is, until the very end when they show you the history of your game.

But another issue i had with the aesthetics, was the size of the units; they were huge. Though there were some good mods that allowed you to scale them down to your liking.

There were a lot of great mods for Civ4 that made the game look better. For example I remember there was one that gave each civilization its own unique armor/uniform/skin-tone according to each individual civilization. Instead of just generic troops that all looked the same with the exception of their banners.

Share this post


Link to post

I played only Civ 4 and 5. Overall I prefer a lot more the 4th, though of it I have all the expansions while for Civ 5 no. Civ 5 has some interesting changes but imo after a while it gets a lot more stale than Civ 4.
Overall I like more how Civ 4 is more customizable and how the maps are, both in balance and appereance. Also Civ 4 is plenty of cool mods, and it load really fast being a pretty old game.
For those who have the expansions for Civ 5, do they actually improve the game?

Share this post


Link to post

Civ 5 is like a tutorial to 4, unfortunately. I was excited when they hyped it, then they released it, and then I played it. Loved the new battle system, but the AI is horrid, and they totally fucked Diplo. No more can you have a one world order like you could in 4, rushing all religions and semi-dictating countries in shadow....in 5 you could hardly do squat diplomatically and the AI would just randomly turn against you. They concentrated on War and everything else was neglected, but the AI especially, as it couldn't even use its troops effectively.

Which is a shame, because it could've been great. The base game is so full of shit I never bothered buying DLCs. However if you have a few friends to play against it's fantastic.

Share this post


Link to post

I've played Civ V and IV plus their expansions. Both have their strengths, both have their weaknesss. IV's ultra-awesome diplomacy and micro-management is the ultimate game for those who thrive on detail and complexity. It's certainly, in my opinion, the more difficult game. That said, its combat was lame and its interface sucked complete ass. Going back to it after V's was extremely hard to adapt to.

Civ V needs BNW to be worth a damn. Vanilla and G&K both lack a lot of what makes it work. Religion is implemented in a vastly superior way, the combat is more strategic and thought-based, and again, that interface. Late game ideologies are also a much-welcomed addition from the vanilla game. Hex-based maps is another nice touch that gets overlooked quite often.

Honestly, these days I pretty much stick to Civ V but I probably still racked up more total time playing Civ IV as it harkened back to my college days of infinite downtime. They're both great, but Civ V is only really worth the price when they do a total sale on Steam so you can get both expansions for basically the cost of the game, which it all should be worth to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×