pholkhero
Deviant Mind
How else to judge the non-inclusion of an SG subforum...might have to show that SGs are just as viable today as they were years ago
I have to agree. Civ5 never really had a good variety of strategic (well economic) approaches unlike civ4. Yet another reason many SG players never moved to 5.I loved reading and playing Civ 4 SGs. BTS had so much depth and opportunity for interesting plays that enabled such legendary games as Cultural Extermination, Espionage Economy Space Race, No Civics Immortal, No Tile Improvements , and a host of others that featured excellent analysis and gameplay by the usual suspects of high level play.
Civ 5 lacked this strategic depth, and was quite simply a boring game (especially vanilla). The expansion made it playable but still nowhere near BTS in terms of strategic quality. I don't need to list all the areas that 5 was inferior to 4. No interesting SGs came out of Civ 5, so its no surprise they fizzled out fast.
Fortunately, I have great hope for Civ 6 from my first playthrough nearly completed. The strategic depth feels like its back, with district choices and city planning, the double tech trees, the eurekas (love this mechanic), and opportunity for large empires without brutal hamfisted-feeling penalties. I feel like there is a ton of opportunity for an SG team to wring out awesome gameplay stories and explore unusual paths to victory. Hopefully the mods add the subforum back, otherwise lets start some games here! I'm happy to play on any team.
How else to judge the non-inclusion of an SG subforum...might have to show that SGs are just as viable today as they were years ago