Civ2 player returning, start with CiV?

[spoooq]

Get Civ4 if you've never played it. It is a true classic and deserves a go. This will easily tide you over for a year or so until the first expansion for Civ5 is released. You'll get the best of both.

 

[kossmikman]

If you like to be bleeding edge and willing to try something new (and maybe not quite finished), then go for civ V. If you want the most bang for the buck and like something tried and tested, go for civ IV.

BTW, you can get orion 2 working in vista (or almost any OS) with Dosbox.

 

[Hollow Man]

I bought Civ5 after dabbling in all the Civ games over the years, and so far quite enjoy it. I also ordered the Complete edition of Civ4 (I only own vanilla right now) because most people here seem to really like BtS. It was too cheap to pass up.

I think what it comes down to is that all the games are well done, and it just comes down to whether you can enjoy them for what they are (and NOT for what they're not).

I also managed to get my Moo2 (Windows version) working in Windows 7 64-bit, so it can be done on modern PCs.

Two posts in almost 9 years...yay!

-HM

 

[SomethingWitty]

Hardcore civ 2 fanboy here.

Civ V > Civ IV. Best civ experience since 2, IMO.

 

[timtofly]

Can someone who has played both the demo and the release explain to me is there a big difference in the first 100 turns between the two? From all those people who are complaining about 5, I am not getting their points.

 

[zonk]

IV - but yes, I'm amongst those that thinks V is the addled child of the Civilization lineage...

I think the easiest way to answer, especially given given you go way back to II --

What did you like and dislike about II?

Do you find individual city management tedious - or - a fun and important part of the game?

If you feel it was tedious and much preferred a streamlined, top-down, global-empire based approach, then V might be your game. If you managing your individual cities and agonizing over build queues was half the point -- then stick with IV for now.

Are you a warmonger or do you prefer to play peacefully/as a builder? Do you seek out the "rush this and swamp the AI to see how quick you can beat it" strategies, or, would you rather just have war be an inevitable part of history -- defending when necessary, occasionally conquering, but by and large --- you want to manage your empire?

If you're a warmonger, then I think V will eventually be your game (the AI is absolutely horrid at the moment)... but if you're a peaceful player/builder, then I think you'd prefer IV and fine V to be a lot of boring "next turns".

FWIW -- if you DO go with IV....

Be aware that your processor probably won't matter -- IV never really took advantage of multi-threading available under a dual core processor -- it was all about RAM and your GFX card.

I would HIGHLY suggest the BTS Rise of Mankind mod or the A New Dawn mod-mod (mod overlay for the original Rise of Mankind). The latest and last iteration of AND actually includes RoM itself.

It adds an absolutely insane amount of buildings, units, wonders, resources, and gameplay option -- and what's more -- I personally find it to be likewise more optimized than even BTS vanilla... at least on my machine, it runs even quicker than original, even with the mods.

 

[zonk]

Can someone who has played both the demo and the release explain to me is there a big difference in the first 100 turns between the two? From all those people who are complaining about 5, I am not getting their points.

I tried the demo after I bought (mainly to see if yes, I should have ditched the automated "it's Civilization, therefore buy it" way I previously approached Civilization) -- so maybe this isn't valid...

But here's why I don't think the demo would have helped.

The first 100 turns have a lot less "Next Turn" boredom -- mainly, because if nothing else -- at least you're exploring.

What I've discovered playing the real thing -- ESPECIALLY if you prefer the more peaceful gameplay where you prefer to build your empire, focus on city management, and warmonger only in defense and only when angered by another AI nation -- the game gets really, really boring once you're done with exploration and once the SPs begin taking longer.

There are literally wastelands of 50 to 100 or more turns at a time, where the only thing I'm doing is clicking next turn and watching my SP total accumulate.... or watching the slow countdown of a wonder build.

I actually stopped using the city build queues just to break the monotony and have something to do in between turns.

 

[bryanw1995]

I prefer Civ V. I played Civ I a lot, played a bit of Civ II. I bought Civ III and Civ IV (BtS) but I never got into them. Civ V is a reboot of the genre. Its closer to Civ I then Civ IV.

Civ III and IV added lots of stuf that may have made playing more interesting for the hard core crowd but I was always overwhelmed with the many options and choices. Civ V has less choices so I can concenrate more on interacting with the AI players and developing my empire. To each his own but for me Civ V is the beter game.

wow, 1 post in 2 1/2 years, another lurker!

I like ciV much more than civ iv right now, but I also played civ iv off and on for 5 yrs. I would spend the $13 or whatever now to get civ iv, then after mastering that come check out ciV. imho if you start with ciV you will never even experience civ iv, which was a great game in its own right.

 

[Ogrelord]

I guess we have to wait 4 years whether OP went for cIV or ciV

 

[MasterDinadan]

Posting maybe, but voting itself... that's just an anonymous click.

The only way to test your theory would be to see if a poll titled "Do you think Civ V is more complex than Civ IV?" and see if the reverse occurs.

There is almost certainly a strong correlation between voting and posting in the thread.
That is to say, almost everyone who posts in the thread voted. People are more likely to open the thread in the first place if they want to post in the thread than if they merely want to click on the vote.
Since people who want to post on the thread tend to be people who agree with whatever attitude was presented in the title, and people who post on the thread tend to vote much more often than people who don't, it follows that agreeing with the thread title makes one more likely to vote in the poll. And if these people agree with the thread title, it also follows that most of them will vote the same way.

 

[falconne]

There is almost certainly a strong correlation between voting and posting in the thread.
That is to say, almost everyone who posts in the thread voted. People are more likely to open the thread in the first place if they want to post in the thread than if they merely want to click on the vote.
Since people who want to post on the thread tend to be people who agree with whatever attitude was presented in the title, and people who post on the thread tend to vote much more often than people who don't, it follows that agreeing with the thread title makes one more likely to vote in the poll. And if these people agree with the thread title, it also follows that most of them will vote the same way.

Well that's certainly not the case for the poll in question. There are 1322 votes and nowhere near as many individuals posting in it. Perhaps 50 different people have posted.

 

[flp_ndrox]

While I kinda hate busting my once-an-Olympiad posting average, but since Ogrelord's curious, here's the update.

I played the CiV demo since someone suggested it. I played it for about 7 hrs, multiple games with only one crash to desktop. I realized I had quite a bit to learn, especially the new combat and movement systems. I got one working demo of cIV, but unfortunately I think it was for a mod that reminded me strongly of the MOOjr mod in Civ II MGE (which I never enjoyed). All the other demos did not play well with Vista.

I figure that I can wait for a big sale on Impulse to pick up cIV. I do want to play it, since I do prefer building to killing, y'all spoke so highly of it, and Sulla's walkthrough at http://www.garath.net/Sullla/civ4intro.html and the Let's Play at http://lparchive.org/LetsPlay/Civilization IV/ sound awesome.

I downloaded CiV last night before I went to bed. I should be playing it tonight.

Thanks so much for all your input. There's a reason I've been lurking here for as long as I have, and y'all are it.

 

[timtofly]

I tried the demo after I bought (mainly to see if yes, I should have ditched the automated "it's Civilization, therefore buy it" way I previously approached Civilization) -- so maybe this isn't valid...

But here's why I don't think the demo would have helped.

The first 100 turns have a lot less "Next Turn" boredom -- mainly, because if nothing else -- at least you're exploring.

What I've discovered playing the real thing -- ESPECIALLY if you prefer the more peaceful gameplay where you prefer to build your empire, focus on city management, and warmonger only in defense and only when angered by another AI nation -- the game gets really, really boring once you're done with exploration and once the SPs begin taking longer.

There are literally wastelands of 50 to 100 or more turns at a time, where the only thing I'm doing is clicking next turn and watching my SP total accumulate.... or watching the slow countdown of a wonder build.

I actually stopped using the city build queues just to break the monotony and have something to do in between turns.

So as Darius of Persia, if I have taken out Lizy by turn 50 or left her at two cities to my five or have gone through two golden ages, then the "real" game will play about the same? Or on immortal, Lizy takes my capital because she has 3 times as many troops as I do?

Thanks.

 

[Peregrine]

Similar situation here, OP. Continued to play CivII for years after CivIII release. Never purchased III. Few months back, bought CIV. Enjoyed it so much that immediately found BTS, and then patched it. Superb game; complex, challenging, and fun.

Personally, I found that CIV addresses most of the problems with CivII, particularly the unrealistic stacking vulnerabilities, but also added many more interrelated buildings/wonders/techs. Nothing is simple and therefore requires consideration every time it's played. The primary difference that I discovered was that CIV uses a MUCH more aggressive and adept AI than the MGE AI. Although the suprise attack once again seems to be the only real operational tactic that the AI uses, it implements that tactic more intelligently. I often get the feeling that the AI is watching, waiting for an ideal moment to DoW. I might be a little paranoid.

 

[AlpsStranger]

the fact is, polls at this point are completely inaccurate. At this point the forums are completely inundated with people that want to complain about Civ V. Any poll that is put up now will reflect that. The data is completely corrupt. People who like the game are, for the most part, staying away from the forum and playing, or hanging out in the strategy forum.

This is *definitely* true. I could sit around spamming about how I like Civ5 all day but... liking something doesn't lead to that kind of passion. The Civ5 haters are about a thousand times as motivated as those who enjoy the game.

With that said, I would start with Civ4 for several reasons. First, it would be a shame to miss out on Civ4. It is an amazing game that any Civ fan should play for at least a few hundred hours. Second, Civ5 has some truly bad bugs right now. I'm sticking to playing Civ4 90% of the time until Civ5 is less buggy. Enjoy Civ4 and then, once it is ready, enjoy Civ5.

I recommend BUG, BAT, and BULL mods once you are accustomed to the default UI.