Civilization V

[Delterius]

Ok, tried BNW. Someone invented the Printing Press and then THE UNITED NATIONS APPEARS.

Does this sort of thing happen in other Civs? I only really played the very first one.

 

[tuluse]

We could debate a lot of things concerning how I disagree with your statement (like the fact that I think #4 is the best Civ closely followed by #2), but you suggested playing 3, so I think the gap between our understandings is simply too wide to cover.

Also Irenaeus: recommending cIv over cIIv has got to be the definition of being a hipstering poser

Civilization II is probably one of the most clear examples in gaming history of a sequal that basically improved on the original in every aspect. Even fucking Skyway seems to think so, lol.

Hmm? The point is to play them in order to see the progression of ideas.

At this point, 5 is probably a better game than 2 or 3 (I don't care enough to do direct comparisons), but it was the first time in the series I played one of the games and felt like it was 2 steps straight back. Every other game was at worst one step back one step forward.

Edit: also 4 with Beyond the Sword is quite a complex game to handle. Playing them in order gives you a baseline to deal with it.

 

[Grimlorn]

Can't get Civ 2 to fully work on my PC. I would recommend going with 4. I don't remember 3 being particularly good at all.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Civ I is like HoMM I - it's interesting as a history lesson, but not much point sticking for longer.

I'd say start with II and then go to IV. IV is a very good game with great mod support if that's your thing.

III and V certainly aren't the worst games in existence, but they're both safely skippable.

I don't know if you're looking to get into 4X in general or Civ series specifically. If it's the former then imo sf 4X Alpha Centauri and Master of Orion 2 are both more enjoyable than any of the Civ games.

 

[Absinthe]

Civ I was all about rushing Great Pyramids and laughing your ass off. Civ IV I've never played, but if it has Civ V's culture trees, I'm already not impressed.

For Civ V the only expansion you really need is Gods & Kings. That's where the game gives you more opportunities to obtain happiness which is frankly used to punish players from doing anything too well (conquest hurts happiness, going too wide hurts happiness, going too tall hurts happiness, and negative happiness cripples your faction), adds religion as an extra progression path for faction upgrades (you should really rush a Great Prophet for this; if you're not using religious buildings then just rush the Liberty for the free Great Person instead), and a weak espionage system (which is still an upgrade from no espionage, but a massive downgrade from earlier Civ games). Without G&K, Civ V is a dull fucking experience, waiting for techs and culture policies to pop, and unable to do much of anything quickly without happiness stomping your face in.

Brave New World mostly adds a bunch of random features no one really cared about. But if you can get a Complete Civ V edition, just get it anyway.

 

[oscar]

It's rare a game is too harsh on conquerors but Civ5 managed it.

 

[tuluse]

Civ IV I've never played, but if it has Civ V's culture trees, I'm already not impressed.

Well prepare to be impressed then.

Culture in Civ4 is a number that goes up over time for each city and your empire as a whole. When city culture reaches a certain threshold your borders expand. If you are touching an opponents borders a complicated calculation involving the cities' and empires' cultural values is compared and see if you can expand into their borders (you can also flip cities this way). If you have it turned on, you can win a cultural victory by being the first Civ with 3 cities reaching 25k culture (I believe, don't remember the exact number now).

I believe culture also has an effect on spreading religion and maybe even diplomatic dealings with computer controlled Civs.

Civ I is like HoMM I - it's interesting as a history lesson, but not much point sticking for longer.

I'd say start with II and then go to IV. IV is a very good game with great mod support if that's your thing.

III and V certainly aren't the worst games in existence, but they're both safely skippable.

I don't know if you're looking to get into 4X in general or Civ series specifically. If it's the former then imo sf 4X Alpha Centauri and Master of Orion 2 are both more enjoyable than any of the Civ games.

Man, I love some MoO2, but I'm not sure you can say it's more enjoyable than Civ. It lacks all the elegance, the AI is even worse at playing the game, and it features some really unbalanced things.

Civ3 had some really neat ideas like armies, but I suppose you're right it could be skipped.

 

[Absinthe]

My main problem with culture trees is that courtesy of shit like Great Pyramids in Civ 1 and SMAC I am just very accustomed to flipping around my government to deal with the present needs of the game. The ability to shift gears strikes me as rather important. Culture trees are a one-way street. Once you've made your choices, you're stuck with them. So you can't for instance flip into a warmonger out of a builder. You can only hope to add warmongering power to your builder. Playing Civ V was a pretty bad experience in that regard. Hell, Brave New World doesn't even let you reassign its special trade routes for some damned reason. You have to wait for them to expire in 30 turns or declare war on the player to be able to reassign them. It's fucking ridiculous.

It's rare a game is too harsh on conquerors but Civ5 managed it.

A lot of players just raze cities to get rid of the happiness penalties (conquered city penalty, extra city penalty, extra city's population penalty). In Brave New World with a decent religion you can have some pretty strong happiness to absorb cities. In Civ V vanilla though I used to go Persians in the Honor tree and just warmonger some poor bastard, get redundant great generals, and pop them for golden ages (which negate happiness penalties in addition to their benefits) and this way my golden ages basically wouldn't expire as long as I was in war. With Chichen Itza wonder (+50% golden age length) and the Persian Unique Ability (another +50%) you have double length golden ages and Persian unique ability also gives +15% combat strength and +1 movement during a golden age (in addition to the usual gold, culture, and production bonuses) so you are just a monster warmonger in a golden age in addition to the happiness-ignoring bit. So if you were playing Persians it was possible to go Honor tree and just warmonger everyone into the ground while pretending happiness doesn't exist. In general, playing Persians with an endless golden age strategy (not necessarily warmonger strategy) was the way to go back then because you just eradicated happiness from the game, plus you get your golden age bonuses.

However these days golden ages no longer negate your low happiness penalties and I'm not sure if that's just the expansions or a patch.

 

[Monocause]

Civ5 with all the expansions is a good game. I believe most people who bash 5 never really played it with all the expansions.

In terms of comparing 4 and 5, I'd say it's a take your pick thing. 4 is the more elegant, refined one. 5 has a fair few issues and annoyances, but offers more depth in return. Personally i've grewn to prefer 5, particularly after having a really good time playing MP. One thing i definitely can say is - avoid Beyond Earth for now. It's not bad per se and you might really enjoy it if it's your first Civ but if you were a series' veteran you'd find it a major disappointment. Need to wait until Firaxis releases an expansion or two and a few patches to add some meat to the game and weed out major annoyances and then grab it in a bundle.

Why would anyone suggest getting Civ 2 or 3 over 4 and 5 - this is completely beyond me. Apart from a history lesson these offer nothing that either 4 or 5 wouldn't do better.

 

[Kalin]

Everything after SMAC is steaming turd country.

 

[Tigranes]

Just play Civ 4, or SMAC.

 

[tuluse]

Civ5 with all the expansions is a good game. I believe most people who bash 5 never really played it with all the expansions.

In terms of comparing 4 and 5, I'd say it's a take your pick thing. 4 is the more elegant, refined one. 5 has a fair few issues and annoyances, but offers more depth in return.

I seriously doubt it has more depth, as far as I can tell there are a couple strategies and you pick one at the beginning of the game and just stick to it. While 4 offer both more viably options and more fluidity switching between them.

Why would anyone suggest getting Civ 2 or 3 over 4 and 5 - this is completely beyond me. Apart from a history lesson these offer nothing that either 4 or 5 wouldn't do better.

They're simpler and easier to learn.

 

[tuluse]

maybe Call to Power games.

What? no.

 

[baturinsky]

Civ4 is a sim, Civ5 is a board game.

 

[tuluse]

They do have some interesting concepts, I only played the first a bit tho

To borrow a phrase, they're cargo cult Civ games. It's like playing a mod where someone said "let's just put everything in" with no rhyme or reason for why they did so. Like the game had 5 different lead designers and they each got to do whatever they wanted without talking to any of the other 4.

 

[Monocause]

I seriously doubt it has more depth, as far as I can tell there are a couple strategies and you pick one at the beginning of the game and just stick to it. While 4 offer both more viably options and more fluidity switching between them.

Hm. Not from my experience. I had to adapt and change my long-term strategy quite a few times in my Civ5 games, or mix and match. You do need a direction you're headed, but whether you'll actually reach the destination is an entirely different thing altogether. Thing is - you can't just do everything well, you need a focus or you suck; but early-to-mid game there's plenty of things that can turn your focus not really viable so you also need something up your sleeve to be able to switch gears if needed.

Been a while since i played Civ4 but from what i remember on higher difficulties the same rule applied there. If you didn't focus you were likely to die. I think the clarity in this is actually an advantage of Civ5 and I enjoy it.

They're simpler and easier to learn.

Civ games are all quite simple and easy to learn really, compared to many other 4X games. Whatever Civs 4 and 5 add to the pile due to more complex game mechanics when compared to 2 i feel they give back thanks to UI improvements, better tooltips and more transparent game mechanics.

I mean, my GF's experience with strategy games was pretty much limited to HoMM3 and she's picked up Civ5 in two days or so and at that point was familiar with all the relevant game rules. She wasn't a good player yet but she knew what she was doing. Speaks quite a bit of how accessible it is

Also: I don't know if it's the been-there-done-that factor but nowadays Civ2 feels extremely limited and boring for me. Tried to play it and quit it after fifteen minutes; so basic it hurts.

 

[Absinthe]

To be fair, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri can make just about any TBS look like a steaming turd. I still rate SMAC as the greatest game of all time. I feel compelled to add that if anyone here does decide to play SMAC, they should play it in Classic mode first, not Alien Crossfire. The Alien Crossfire expansion was not made by the original team and it shows. The balance and plot (yes, SMAC actually has a solid plot/worldbuilding; it's proper science fiction) both suffer in the expansion, and you're left with a lower quality experience overall.

I agree with baturinsky that Civ V feels more like a board game. The vanilla in particular left me with that impression as I felt like I was just waiting for my turn to move units across tiles and collect upgrades as I sloowly inched my way towards victory thanks to slow production and happiness speed bumps (unless of course, Persians).

I have to echo Monocause on playing it online. I actually have not played Civ V offline as it bores me to tears. I consider the AI trash, and I expect it hasn't become much more competent over the expansions (at least AI relations are more predictable now and you can actually see relation modifiers - originally designers considered "mysterious AIs" to be the shit and left you with erratic fuckers who were always going to randomly declare war on you). Plus, like the happiness system, the AI will hate on you if you decide to build up too many cities or too much of anything. Civ V shines much more in multiplayer, at least until it crashes (which has become rather infrequent after all the patches). If you do play multiplayer, please note that your multiplayer lobbies will be localized to your steam download region (seriously) so you may want to set the steam region to some populated area if you want more games to appear. Or you could just go PBEM (like the Giant Multiplayer Robot).

Also, back to the subject of low happiness warmongering, there's a fun strategy where you rush Piety for the Heathen Conversion reformation belief (your missionaries automatically convert nearby barbarian units to your faction) and put your cities in open revolt (-10 happiness or lower) so that barbarian rebels at your tech level spawn every turn. You collect a ton of free units this way. It's pretty damn strong.

 

[tuluse]

Civ games are all quite simple and easy to learn really, compared to many other 4X games. Whatever Civs 4 and 5 add to the pile due to more complex game mechanics when compared to 2 i feel they give back thanks to UI improvements, better tooltips and more transparent game mechanics.

I've seen people really overwhelmed with Civ4 BTS.

However, think about this more, you could definitely start with Civ 4 sans expansions and then upgrade to BTS.

 

[Lady_Error]

I really like Civ 5 with all the expansions. I play it only in the top-down map mode, not the isometric perspective. When Civ 2 came out I remember that I also really disliked the switch from top-down to isometric.

I'm interested in what civs you usually prefer to play. My usual choice are the Egyptians because of the 20% wonder production bonus, the early Chariot Archers and the Burial Tomb, which also comes in quite handy. This has been my favorite for quite some time.

 

[Kane]

poland

 

[Beowulf]

So ... While Civ 5 is on some kind of sale, what would you recommend for a person with time only for one 4x at a time, Civ 5 or SMAC?

 

[Luka-boy]

So ... While Civ 5 is on some kind of sale, what would you recommend for a person with time only for one 4x at a time, Civ 5 or SMAC?

That must be one of the easiest questions to answer I've seen in a while. Get SMAC. Do it. Now.

 

[JoKa]

I'd rather buy SMAC than play CiV for free.

 

[Absinthe]

So ... While Civ 5 is on some kind of sale, what would you recommend for a person with time only for one 4x at a time, Civ 5 or SMAC?

I think we've established by now that SMAC is in a league of its own.

 

[Duram]

It's worth playing but you can't compare it to Civ4.