Are there any HardCore Civ fans who like CiV?

[Ahriman]

I'm just curious if there are any hardcore civ fanatics who actually thinks civ V is a fantastic game.

Yes. Combat is more fun, it looks nice, civs encourage different playstyle because their unique abilities and units are powerful, social policies support different playstyles, city states are fun.

Is it perfect? No. But neither was any previous Civ game, particularly out of the box.

You have to play at Immortal or Deity to get any kind of challenge though.

 

[the streak]

Same here, and I like Civ 5. If the AI was better, I'd love Civ 5.

 

[hclass]

I consider myself "hardcore civ player". You must understand that joining date means nothing!

Not true!

Even though someone who join this forum today might actually have started playing Civ since 15 years ago, but bear in mind that someone who claims so could be lying... who knows?

This forum's join date at least set a upper bound for how much one can lie about how early he has started playing Civ.
If I join in at 2003, I must have played (or at least known about Civ) at 2003 or earlier... so the join date definitely means something!

 

[ZXTT]

I was eagerly anticipating Civ 1 back in the day (back when you had to read a magazine to find out about coming games), and so I've played them all, including SMAC and CivRev. From my point of view, Civ had just become too much by IV.

III seemed to be missing something, maybe because of the corruption and the silly building in circles to minimize growth problems.

IV seemed wonderful, rich and the like, but as I learned the strategies and executed them I became disenchanted. Too many extreme strategies, like chopping/whipping/spamming religion/Sid's Sushi. The unfun spy feature. Bizarre exploits, like constantly stealing tech from my ally's one-city vassal. In the end, I would get excited about starting a new game, then visualize all the work and not bother.

CivRev was interesting. I was excited by the way they removed stuff, and it reminded me more of the fun I'd had playing Civ1. I didn't quite like playing on the console, and it was a bit too simple, but it was nice to see a Civ experience that didn't heap more onto the game.

I'm excited by V. I haven't played much, and clearly it needs improvement, nothing new for a complex PC TBS game where balance and AI are important and number-crunching bugs are obvious.

Finally, I don't think it's fair to define hard core by time spent playing, number of features desired, more posts, and then imply that everyone else is some kind of casual gamer newbie console lover who has no right to see Civ evolve as they would like.

 

[Jharii]

The only thing I would add this comment is that it's been 16 years for me if I've got the arithmetic correct; and as you can see I've joined the fanatics rank well before 2010.. Being a silent follower for quite sometime, I had to break my silence and login again after this many years, just to counter the extreme pessimism regarding the game. People like me do exist, though I admit that we seem to be outnumbered.

About the same here, as far as my Civ involvement. I remember combing the manual of Civ I and its strategy guide tweak my playstyle to a finely tuned instrument.

Soon after was Master of Magic... *reflective sigh*

THAT game was a masterpiece.

 

[Seanirl]

I'm not yet sure... I haven't made up my mind yet... and there are certainly things I hate (which is unfortunately true of every new Civ that comes out... bah) but for now I still have an open mind.

Mostly I just don't like
- No tech trading.
- No map trading.
- The strange lack of information.
- Other little things that I hope will be fixed in coming patches.

 

[Jediron]

I play CIV from the start, and i think CIV 5 is the worst CIV ever.

My background:
Played CIV 1 till 4 on very high difficulties (hardly Deity, that's is just over the top; aldo i played some and won too, thnks from the stragegie/tips etc. -but playing like that ain't my idea of fun)
-Played all better Wargames from the last 20 years, you name it, i played it. (ecxept the really STUPID wargames)
- i loved Panzer General and Steel Panthers.

And as such, you would expect i should be thrilled with Civ 5, which i am not. Far from it and it has 100% to do with, not only the poor battle -AI and manouvring; but just as much with all the unbalancing issue's in the game.

The last thing could and should be fixed, fixing the Battle-ai will be alot harder is my belief and i am very sceptical they are gonna fix that with Civ V.

And while 1 upt have it's charm, i still believe it doesn't fit on a stragical level; which CIV 5 is(was is the better word, while they have crippled it in V).
Tactical movement en battle you play on a tactical battleground, and CIV is in it's soul a strategical game and so is it's map.

 

[Aristos]

Not true!

Even though someone who join this forum today might actually have started playing Civ since 15 years ago, but bear in mind that someone who claims so could be lying... who knows?

This forum's join date at least set a upper bound for how much one can lie about how early he has started playing Civ.
If I join in at 2003, I must have played (or at least known about Civ) at 2003 or earlier... so the join date definitely means something!

well, for a smart person, the joining date points to many key clues... it may be not definitive, but more often than not it portraits the long term committment to the game and the community pretty well...

If you were not looking for an Internet community or forum after Civ2 was launched, and "only" joined after civ4 or civ5, well, I'm sorry but allow me to put your "civ fanatism" in doubt... heck, I joined Apolyton after civ2 (if I remember correctly) and this fine community after civ3, shortly after it was founded in 2000... the community wouldn't probably exist anymore if it weren't for such "early birds", so give me a break! Of course the joining date means something!

 

[Louis XXIV]

Fantastic game? I don't know. Solid and fun with potential, at least. Am I hard core? I've been a regular player and poster since Civ2. But I stopped micromanaging and optimizing strategies for the highest difficulties after Civ3. I found that, with Civ4, it was fun to just play for fun. Civ3, I analyzed the hell out of things and would micromanage everything every turn. It was intense, but not ultimately as rewarding.

 

[Haggbart]

The only thing I would add this comment is that it's been 16 years for me if I've got the arithmetic correct; and as you can see I've joined the fanatics rank well before 2010.. Being a silent follower for quite sometime, I had to break my silence and login again after this many years, just to counter the extreme pessimism regarding the game. People like me do exist, though I admit that we seem to be outnumbered.

Been playing for 16 years, Civ 1 -4 (incl expansions). Not played Civ Rev ever.
Agree with all of the above. Since I do not agree with OP I would probably not be considered hardcore enough.

I rate Civ V better than vanilla Civ IV but slightly below BTS. I am, however, optimistic

And I do believe the haters should shut up and get one of the many great alternatives to Civ V instead, like for example.... errr... and.... errr...

 

[Charvel1]

well, for a smart person, the joining date points to many key clues... it may be not definitive, but more often than not it portraits the long term committment to the game and the community pretty well...

If you were not looking for an Internet community or forum after Civ2 was launched, and "only" joined after civ4 or civ5, well, I'm sorry but allow me to put your "civ fanatism" in doubt... heck, I joined Apolyton after civ2 (if I remember correctly) and this fine community after civ3, shortly after it was founded in 2000... the community wouldn't probably exist anymore if it weren't for such "early birds", so give me a break! Of course the joining date means something!

Amazing.

 

[Jediron]

As if i was here to Lie. Lol. Give me a break.

What would be my motive ? I loved all CIV's and i surely would like to Love CiV V also. But i don't. Call me a lie-er, fine by me

Anyway, he should experience it himself. Because in the end, it is all personal preferences. Some can live with Civ V habbits, some don't.

And I do believe the haters should shut up and get one of the many great alternatives to Civ V instead, like for example.... errr... and.... errr...

Napoleon: Total War
And i don't hate it, i dislike it right now and am very disappointed. I wonder the day they bring out a game that is more or less "balanced" straight away. That would be worth something.

 

[Frasco]

Played civ1 to cIV... already won once and shelved ciV... Back to playing NWN2 until they bring out those awaited fixes. Maybe I'll give it a try then.

 

[Louis XXIV]

well, for a smart person, the joining date points to many key clues... it may be not definitive, but more often than not it portraits the long term committment to the game and the community pretty well...

If you were not looking for an Internet community or forum after Civ2 was launched, and "only" joined after civ4 or civ5, well, I'm sorry but allow me to put your "civ fanatism" in doubt... heck, I joined Apolyton after civ2 (if I remember correctly) and this fine community after civ3, shortly after it was founded in 2000... the community wouldn't probably exist anymore if it weren't for such "early birds", so give me a break! Of course the joining date means something!

Hopefully my March 2003 join date, participation in the PTW, C3C, Civ4, CivBtS intersite demogames, participant here, at Apolyton, at CDG/EVG/Strategamer, at CGN (intersite demogame, Jon Shafer was another part of the team incidentally), and GCA are a good indication. Of course, Poly is a shell of what it once was and I think the others are all dead, so maybe not.

 

[SuperJay]

Yes, of course there are. I'm not one of them, but yes, obviously there will be "hardcore" fans who like Civ5.

*points to join date* And my street cred is impeccable.

 

[Celevin]

well, for a smart person, the joining date points to many key clues... it may be not definitive, but more often than not it portraits the long term committment to the game and the community pretty well...

If you were not looking for an Internet community or forum after Civ2 was launched, and "only" joined after civ4 or civ5, well, I'm sorry but allow me to put your "civ fanatism" in doubt... heck, I joined Apolyton after civ2 (if I remember correctly) and this fine community after civ3, shortly after it was founded in 2000... the community wouldn't probably exist anymore if it weren't for such "early birds", so give me a break! Of course the joining date means something!

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

I highly doubt that Civ 5 has more code than some of the highly polished console games such as Oblivion or indeed some of the Playstation 3 games that are 20 gigs +.

I think your point should be 'Welcome to PC gaming'

Yeah, it's true, and it just has to be accepted with PC gaming. There's three reasons:
1) There's so many different configurations that need to be accounted for. There's no way to find every last one.
2) The Civ series are normally very full games where having "more stuff" is important. Balance and bug issues erupt due to this.
3) Since they can, they do. We should be taking full advantage of patching for both bug fixes, and content that should be added. There's no better testbed than the player base, and we will uncover stuff ten times as fast as their team. Yes it's an inconvenience, but I'd rather this than waiting another half year.

 

[Frasco]

-Played all better Wargames from the last 20 years, you name it, i played it. (ecxept the really STUPID wargames)

You're lying blantly!!! You've played ciV, so that surely counts against the bolded sentence...

 

[NwabudikeMorgan]

I've played every Civ game, since about 1994, so that should be long enough. I'd say out of the box Civ 5 is my favourite except maybe Civ 2, 3 never really grabbed me, though i played it for a few years, and 4 was good. i feel that the mechanical changes in 5 greatly outweigh the problems, and most of those seem to be getting fixed in the upcoming patch. So to answer your question: yes there are hardcore civ fans who actually like CiV

 

[Jediron]

You're lying blantly!!! You've played ciV, so that surely counts against the bolded sentence...

With playing i mean, played from start to finish, more then once
So i am not ly-ing

ps: why does the "quote" button won't work for me, i keep getting blanc page

 

[Peng Qi]

I highly doubt that Civ 5 has more code than some of the highly polished console games such as Oblivion or indeed some of the Playstation 3 games that are 20 gigs +.

I think your point should be 'Welcome to PC gaming'

Oblivion? Highly polished? Lulz.

Anyway, played since Civ1 here. Loved 1, loved 2, hated 3, liked 4 OK, liked BTS a lot (but not as much as 2), and love 5. I can't see myself ever going back to 4.

The combat is far more interesting; even if it is broken AI-wise at the moment it's still miles ahead of the stack-of-doom. I also like that the AI actually tries to win the game now instead of meandering about aimlessly. I do wish there was a "roleplaying mode" I could flip on to make the AI more interested in making friends and punishing enemies, but that's a minor complaint.