I think Sulla concludes this thread. Even if Naokaukodem plays civ II now, he may still like it because it will refresh his childhood memories. I used to play Keen commander 13 yrs back. When I played it again 2 yrs back I still found it to be fun because I had played it as a kid & loved it.
For example, city catching was funnier, according to me, in Civ2 :
1. You could take a city with only one attack, provided it was not defended. That made more a feel of simplicity and in consequence, a more direct, epured aggressive feeling.
I prefer having the city able to attack/defend itself, I have to say. You should need a dedicated force to take a city, given how important cities are to gameplay. And a city without a garrisoned unit in Civ V won't last long, certainly not in early eras with low population and not many defensive structures. It removes the element of being forced to create garrison units at the earliest opportunity, allowing you to focus on early development or expansion instead.
First notice, the more time advanced, the less I appreciated the Civilization sequels.
I started with Civ 1, and find the same. However, both IV and V engaged me more than Civ III, which I can now barely even remember. One thing that put me off was actually among the most trivial changes; the way Civ III introduced resource clustering. It made exploring the map, for me always the best part of the game, too predictable.
Here, we can see that the Civ series has never been shaped with the objective to keep a fanbase.
That's exactly what it was designed for - people who wanted the same game with better graphics and added detail, not people who wanted a different or intrinsically better game.
I prefer having the city able to attack/defend itself, I have to say. You should need a dedicated force to take a city, given how important cities are to gameplay. And a city without a garrisoned unit in Civ V won't last long, certainly not in early eras with low population and not many defensive structures. It removes the element of being forced to create garrison units at the earliest opportunity, allowing you to focus on early development or expansion instead.
I started with Civ 1, and find the same. However, both IV and V engaged me more than Civ III, which I can now barely even remember. One thing that put me off was actually among the most trivial changes; the way Civ III introduced resource clustering. It made exploring the map, for me always the best part of the game, too predictable.
That's exactly what it was designed for - people who wanted the same game with better graphics and added detail, not people who wanted a different or intrinsically better game.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree. Personally I would order the games like this: IV>II>III>V
Civ IV I think, was a great refinement of all of civ's concepts. With mods it is the greatest strategy game I've ever played. I think you are also wrong that players are immersed in a world of numbers, If I wanted to play really well then sure, but I personally play for the feeling of building an empire, of watching history unfold before me. Civ IV really had this feeling, it was not perfect but it was great.
I also disagree with most of the other posters here I think civ II has aged quite well, just because it's not as feature heavy doesn't mean it's worse. Of course, this from the guy who still plays the original Prince of Persia, and MOO games.
Noakaukodem: I would suggest you try civ IV with RoM:AND or RFC/RAND, they both change the game up considerably and improve it greatly.
You just described exactly what I love about this game. It's not just a matter of building lots of units and throwing them at the enemy, you need to think about how you use them. A much smaller well balanced army that positions itself well will beat a much larger one that doesn't. You have to consider terrain in combination with your units promotions, how to advance over that terrain without breaking up your formation (like is it worth it to rush that melee unit out over the open terrain to get to a kill a ranged unit, but leaving your own ranged units vulnerable with no protection?) and how to position your ranged units so that they are close enough to hit and have LOS to do so without leaving them vulnerable.I mean, taking a city in Civ5 is a whole story of unit placement, micromanaging, and you feel the mechanic with its grains of sand. It's not smooth. I have even to say, that sometimes it really annoys me to have to move and place all those units. I already stopped games because i had too many units to replace, and particularly move from one place to another with 1UPT which made it a real pain. You will then not be too much rude towards me when I'm thinking back to Civ2 city catching when it happened that you could take underfending cities only by mousing over your unit into the enemy camp.
If it was a flat map with no terrain and no need for different troop types having to work together to cover each others weaknesses and no strategic resources, I'd agree. It's not though, so I find the mechanic awesome. For example, positioning yourself to strike at your enemies strategic resources on the first turn of a war can have a huge impact, just like sneaking a nuclear sub up behind an enemy to get the nuclear missiles in range of things that would normally be out of range. Same goes for getting a first strike on the hostile nukes, preventing them from being used against you, or figuring out the best way to get as many units as possible in position to fire on a hostile city as fast as possible to reduce losses taken from the ranged attacks. For example in my current game, the Aztec cannons garrisoned in their cities would cause a lot of damage to my samurai, usually killing a unit or 2 per city if I just marched up on it with the default formation (samurai in the front line, crossbows and trebuchets behind) and then started closing it around the city while in range of them, but I could avoid losses by positioning myself so that I could go from being out of range to having a melee unit in every tile around the city and crossbows in range and firing their first volley on the first turn, while getting trebuchets in range. That meant that on the second turn the city was already weakened by the crossbow fire on the first turn, and all my crossbows were ready to fire again with trebuchets able to set up and fire at already at that point and 6 melee attacks to finish it off ensuring that they didn't get to fire again. That left me with no units killed.And i'm not interested in the mechanics here. Indeed, one could say "but you prefer a no brainer to what is something you have to think out?" First I don't see unit placement as a brain stormer. I see it more like Tetris, but with an horrendous and very slow playability. Second, I favor ten times a feeling over a mechanic. I don't play games for mechanics. "Transparent" come back here.
Uh huh, so if people disagree with you they're unreasonable cockroaches? Very nice of you to stay objective rather then resorting to personal attacks.The same game with better graphics and added details are for not too much demanding and too much focused fans and who are comforted with limited changes which appear big to them. I mean, those fans are like cockroaches that enjoy the game like book-keepers. They are not reasonnable and forgot why and how they got hooked by the game. They are imerged in a universe of numbers and mechanics that would be repulsive for the normal player.
That's what happened when "fans" complained about the so-called "unbalancing" of Civ2 wonders, the infinite settler spawning bug or the absence of borders with nothing.
It may also please to totally new players : same big fat qualities.
That's exactly the point of a strategy game, lots of different ways you can do things and it's up to you as a player to figure out which one is best based on the current situation rather then something always being the best. If that's NOT the case, it's an imbalanced game that will quickly get very boring because you do the same thing over and over again.There's also the way gameplay were put, with redundant gameplay choices that never prooved themselves to be superior or inferior to each others. (specialists/workers economy) It was like everything have been put so you couldn't say which choice is better. That said, it's true that sometimes there's a better choice over others, but I felt it was limited to really insight players who had a better view of the game than I could ever have. That I could ever have ! Like when I see a little japanese genius playing a manic shooter/rythme game in highest difficulty level without losing a single life. Those things, are just not for me, the more when I tend to play video games not for my personnal glory in front the Big None, buy only to kill time.
Yes, I myself concentrated on mechanics in 4, but it was because there haven't been new flavor.
You just described exactly what I love about this game.
If it was a flat map with no terrain and no need for different troop types having to work together to cover each others weaknesses and no strategic resources, I'd agree. It's not though, so I find the mechanic awesome. For example, positioning yourself to strike at your enemies strategic resources on the first turn of a war can have a huge impact, just like sneaking a nuclear sub up behind an enemy to get the nuclear missiles in range of things that would normally be out of range. Same goes for getting a first strike on the hostile nukes, preventing them from being used against you, or figuring out the best way to get as many units as possible in position to fire on a hostile city as fast as possible to reduce losses taken from the ranged attacks. For example in my current game, the Aztec cannons garrisoned in their cities would cause a lot of damage to my samurai, usually killing a unit or 2 per city if I just marched up on it with the default formation (samurai in the front line, crossbows and trebuchets behind) and then started closing it around the city while in range of them, but I could avoid losses by positioning myself so that I could go from being out of range to having a melee unit in every tile around the city and crossbows in range and firing their first volley on the first turn, while getting trebuchets in range. That meant that on the second turn the city was already weakened by the crossbow fire on the first turn, and all my crossbows were ready to fire again with trebuchets able to set up and fire at already at that point and 6 melee attacks to finish it off ensuring that they didn't get to fire again. That left me with no units killed.
Uh huh, so if people disagree with you they're unreasonable cockroaches? Very nice of you to stay objective rather then resorting to personal attacks.
That's exactly the point of a strategy game, lots of different ways you can do things and it's up to you as a player to figure out which one is best based on the current situation rather then something always being the best. If that's NOT the case, it's an imbalanced game that will quickly get very boring because you do the same thing over and over again.
In the end, they've done exactly what you're asking for. They've kept the original civ building that is the core of the game, but expanded the combat part of it. The "problem" is that the direction they chose to go in doesn't fit your particular taste, while it fits others perfectly. Since discovering civ 5, I've played exactly 0 other games.
Stopped reading right there, found your problem. If you hate strategy, strategy games are not for you.I hate strategy.
Stopped reading right there, found your problem. If you hate strategy, strategy games are not for you.
The problem is that Civilization has never been a strategy game for me. I would more say a civilization simulation game.
Of course at some point there must be strategy in nearly every bit of game. But for me it must be transparent, nearly invisible. Strategy is a mean, not a goal.
I, for one, hope it never becomes anything other than a first-and-foremost strategy game. These concerns are only a problem for you.
Since you MUST require strategy to be transparent (AND not even a goal) and that requirement isn't met I suggest you find another game to play. There are plenty of simulators that aren't "hindered" by a victory condition, they just aren't civilization simulators.
These concerns are only a problem for you.
Since you MUST require strategy to be transparent (AND not even a goal)
That's it, strategy is NOT a goal. Or shouldn't be.
Yeah, you won't see the strategic options and the difference they make unless you're good enough to understand them, that's kinda the point. You have to understand how a decision will affect you long term in order to make decisions based on it.
Civ is not about that. [...] Civ is about to discover a new game and to roleplay a civilization.