Best version of Civ EVER.

[Roxlimn]

Guardian_PL:

Total nonsense. Nappy or I think Toku couldn't care less about your warring, especially if they're not direct neighbours. If you're winning however, gaining cities and points etc increases your demographics and THEN they'll inevitably get and declare/get hostile.


I don't deny that peaceful game in Civ5 is a possibility, but honestly it never happened in my games while I can assure you that I'm not a horsemen-rush-mop-my-landmass player.

You can read numerous posters telling us that when asked by other AI to join war and agreed a few turns later said AI cancels all deals because it "couldn't overlook your warmongering". Like you said - if you're wiping only units you're not gaining so much in points/production/land etc so the AI's are not annoyed. Then as soon as you'll start doing it "I'm playing to win " kicks in and ensues.

If you can't get the AIs to behave properly, then you're obviously doing something wrong. You don't know how to correct it because you cannot even perceive what it is you're doing wrong. This is a failure of AI feedback, but it amuses me that this is usually a more common complaint among players who are supposedly good at the game - ie, players who play at Immortal or Deity.

I don't play at those settings, but I don't have a problem with insane AI. Even when I'm winning, a declaration of hostilities is not inevitable, even when I'm dealing with Alexander or Nappy. I don't know what I'm doing right, but that's what's happening. I figure it has to do something with the Immortal settings, or what Immortal players tend to do - that is, conquer everyone ruthlessly.

 

[Generals3]

Guardian_PL:



If you can't get the AIs to behave properly, then you're obviously doing something wrong. You don't know how to correct it because you cannot even perceive what it is you're doing wrong. This is a failure of AI feedback, but it amuses me that this is usually a more common complaint among players who are supposedly good at the game - ie, players who play at Immortal or Deity.

I don't play at those settings, but I don't have a problem with insane AI. Even when I'm winning, a declaration of hostilities is not inevitable, even when I'm dealing with Alexander or Nappy. I don't know what I'm doing right, but that's what's happening. I figure it has to do something with the Immortal settings, or what Immortal players tend to do - that is, conquer everyone ruthlessly.

Tbh its not a matter of leaders even Ghandi is one hell of a warmonger and Montezuma is actually "normal" to the civ V standards. I've played from prince up to emperor and in each difficulty the AI are *********** . No matter how many deals we have , no matter if i give them everything they ask all there is needed is close borders or destroying a civ and everything goes wrong. The most pathetic is still that when you declare war to someone because an AI asked you to and destroy it that AI will hate you. You'd think what you did would please him , but nope , AI's in Civ V are brainless and simply never happy.

The only way to have a "peaceful" game is being put an island alone and always do what the AI wants you to without actually conquering anything. But if that's the only peaceful option than something went truly wrong.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

No Rox, i think that on lowest levels it is more acceptable because our perception of the Ai is is based on the assumption that it should actually be more stupid than in the higher levels. So it's a distortion of the usual behavior that it has on every level, from the lowest to the highest.... More players on high levels perceive it in its true form, where it was supposed to be a challange... They see that it is not challanghing at all, like on the lowest, where it was somewhat acceptable, as i stated before...

 

[YoHo]

I voted Civ 2.

I loved Civ 3 and 4 and I'm enjoying 5 and of course I loved the original, but Civ 2 is the game that was out when I was in College and had free time to play Video games, so I logged the most hours with it. Plus, the Advisors were frackin awesome.

Don't get me wrong, I love Civ IV and even Colonization 2. and I'm enjoying Civ V, though I haven't played enough to really say much about it, but Civ2 was the right game and the right time for me.

 

[eviltypeguy]

I can't believe that Civ5 has more votes than 2. Of course these forums are now full of 10 to 14 year olds after the release, but still....
There is just no logic to that vote at all. Shame. Shame for them.

I guess most of us have our memories of Civ II coloured by Call to Power.

Maybe it was the horrible windows version I played?

Either way, I don't have fond memories of Civ II. Civ I, IV, and V are my favourites of the series.

 

[Guardian_PL]

I guess most of us have our memories of Civ II coloured by Call to Power.

Maybe it was the horrible windows version I played?

Either way, I don't have fond memories of Civ II. Civ I, IV, and V are my favourites of the series.

To each their own (is that a corect phrase? Help me here, I'm not a native speaker xP).
I remember many sleepless nights and exams passed on the fly (like studying on the day of the exam ) at the uni because of Civ2. It was a VERY good game. But when I've started Civ4 Warlords (by vanilla release I was still playing C3C) it has blown me away and I've never played any earlier civs since then.

Civ4 is the best game ever, and I was (damn!) certain that Civ5 will be even better. Nope, no luck, they've made CivRev2 on PC's instead. What a disappointment...

 

[SuperJay]

To each their own (is that a corect phrase? Help me here, I'm not a native speaker xP).

Yep, that's correct. (Sometimes we say "his own" or "her own" but it's interchangeable.)

- Grammar nerd signing off.

 

[Skwink]

I can't believe that Civ5 has more votes than 2. Of course these forums are now full of 10 to 14 year olds after the release, but still....
There is just no logic to that vote at all. Shame. Shame for them.

Maybe some people have a different opinion......

 

[fantsu]

Maybe some people have a different opinion......

opinions, schlopinions.

they aren't entitled to those.

 

[shozum]

As someone who has enjoyed each and every entry into the franchise that's listed on these polls, I would have to say Civ II holds the title of Best VANILLA Civ Game. The advisors still make me smile with how well the actors did and I find myself qouting them often, years after I've even touched the game.

Civ IV was perfection w/ BtS but Vanilla was straight well, poopy. Glitches out the wazoo, WAY OP artillery type units, and the initial game felt as if was missing something, very similar to how Civ V feels at the moment. Warlords fixed most of the combat and multiplayer issues while BtS filled in everything else and made it Civ IV Complete.

Civ III was fine and it added a whole bunch of new civs and it had the best Civopedia to date. Out of the box however it was barebones but fared better than either Civ IV or V has done for a vanilla version. Civ III Complete was just crazy fun in single and multiplayer but nothing like what BtS was.

Civ Rev is your Civ quick fix. Like a junky who just needs another hit to get him through the day, well, that's where Rev comes in. In that aspect it was fine and although I rarely turn to it I am comforted knowing that should I ever want to play a Civ game with my non Civ-experienced friends and family, it's there for me.

Civ I, oh how I enjoyed thee. There is still things about this game that I feel should be implemented. I wanna puke when I remember the graphics and lack of complex concepts but whenever I remember my Civ splitting due to civil war a smile creeps up on my face. That game was so unpredictable.

 

[Roxlimn]

No Rox, i think that on lowest levels it is more acceptable because our perception of the Ai is is based on the assumption that it should actually be more stupid than in the higher levels. So it's a distortion of the usual behavior that it has on every level, from the lowest to the highest.... More players on high levels perceive it in its true form, where it was supposed to be a challange... They see that it is not challanghing at all, like on the lowest, where it was somewhat acceptable, as i stated before...

I highly disagree. This is the sort of usual elitist crap you see spewed by players here and it's one of the things which makes me avoid this place sometimes. Seriously, dude, being able to play a game at a high difficulty setting is not a big accomplishment, unless that game is Starcraft and you're making a 6 figure salary off of it.

To think that designers would balance this game at the most extreme difficulty setting is just absurd. Very few players will play at those settings, so it makes no sense to create the game for that setting or to test those settings preferentially.

The AI's "true form" is, like or not, likely on Prince, where the game's difficulty is listed as "normal."

This was true in Civ 4 as well. You had to play in very specific ways to defeat Deity in Civ 4, and I would not in a million years say that that is how Civ 4 was meant to be played.

 

[El Caballerion]

I still don't like CIV V diplomacy. There's not enough options, and I still don't understand it when an AI attacks me, and I begin to attack their cities, that other CIV's declare war on me for being a 'warmonger'.

 

[Sphinx]

This is vanilla vote.
Civ4 vanilla was terrible compared to the version it is now(+exp packs that is).

 

[klokwerk]

Civ 5 hands down

 

[Cyde Weys]

I voted for Civ I because it was revolutionary; the other entrants in the series, despite being very good, are merely evolutionary.

Plus, there's a childhood nostalgia factor heavily at play here. When Civ I came out I was only 6, and I couldn't beat it at the higher difficulty levels because my strategic skill simply wasn't developed enough yet. But I have so many amazing memories from that game that are colored by childhood nostalgia that I will never be able to replicate with any future game ever again.

Holy crap, I still remember the first time I got to Gunpowder (it was a big accomplishment for me; up until that point I was getting stomped before then, but still having fun with it).

 

[Afforess]

Lol Civ2 is beating out Civ3. Civ3 fans crack me up...

 

[Swissdictator]

I've been playing since Civ I, and I do have many fond memories of one.

I remember Civ II coming out and my sitting down with my dad to play our first game! It was a lot of fun, and we both got in trouble as I stayed up late to play Civ II with him.

I remember Civ III coming out and it was bought just for me. The editor was fantastic, and didn't leave me tempted to cheat in the game. The big things for this over Civ II: competent automated worked who didn't consume food from your city. As odd as that sounds, it made it much more enjoyable. Borders as well, the diplomacy screen was a vast improvement, and on and on. Out of the box I probably had the most fun with Civ III.

Civ IV has a lot of strong merits too. I do remember memory leaks being an issue with Vanilla. It was very close between Civ III and Civ IV for me. I would say the patches really helped Civ IV, but out of the box I think III was stronger. As a final product it may be Civ IV.

I primarily play IV, but I do play III quite a bit still. I guess I just have the most nostalgia and fond memories of III, as it came out late in high school for me so it was also my first "personal" Civ game too.

 

[hussar]

Lets settle the Great Debate.


So, lots of you hate Civ V, and some of them didn't like civ IV either. Now that we've all played V, (well MOST of us...) which Civ is best?

I vote III.

Agreed Civ 3 ftw, love that instant railway travel from coast to coast, so broken so much fun. yea Civ 5 is terribad, I haven't played it since a week after release. Sid mier has taken the george lucas road. Sid mate you're a sell out. Lets see, civ 4 warlords, TERRIBLE, CIV Colonization, GOD AWEFUL, CIV 5 Winner of the 5 star worst letdown in PC gaming history, EVER. beyond the sword and Civ 4 vanilla are the only 2 saving graces in the last 5 releases. Civ 2 was great too.

 

[Sadan01]

Agreed Civ 3 ftw, love that instant railway travel from coast to coast, so broken so much fun. yea Civ 5 is terribad, I haven't played it since a week after release. Sid mier has taken the george lucas road. Sid mate you're a sell out. Lets see, civ 4 warlords, TERRIBLE, CIV Colonization, GOD AWEFUL, CIV 5 Winner of the 5 star worst letdown in PC gaming history, EVER. beyond the sword and Civ 4 vanilla are the only 2 saving graces in the last 5 releases. Civ 2 was great too.

No matter how much I may sympathise with your sentiment on Civ V, AFAIK, Sid Meier had very little to do with Civ V. Someone else would have to confirm but I suspect he probably had nothing to do with Civ V.

Maybe this is what is missing from the franchise? Firaxis need to bring Sid back to working on Civ?

 

[Psyringe]

AFAIK, Sid Meier had very little to do with Civ V. Someone else would have to confirm but I suspect he probably had nothing to do with Civ V.

Maybe this is what is missing from the franchise? Firaxis need to bring Sid back to working on Civ?

Sid's actual creative involvement in any of the titles after Civ1 has been kept a mystery. He definitely isn't involved in the day-to-day dev work (i.e. he isn't there when the dev team meets as he isn't part of the dev team), but as the studio's boss and the founder of the series, he certainly gets reports, plays the early builds, and makes suggestions.

I don't think that "more Sid" would have created a better Civ5 though. Civ5 is pretty much in line with how he wants games to be. If you listen to his GDC 2010 keynote speech, you'll hear that he sees players as unable to grasp simple mathematical concepts, unable to deal with setbacks, and unable to appreciate a "smart" AI - hence he advocates gameplay with simple "all or nothing" rules, no setbacks, and an AI that doesn't try to do anything clever. It's a bit heartbreaking to listen to to be honest.