Civilization V Compared to Past Games

[Wojciech Rodzik]

My quick opinion here:
1. CIV 1 - loved that one. Played on Amiga. Every playtrought took like 2 weeks (micromanaging settlers, every city queue, etc). I was like 12 when I lost that game, managed to recover disks after 2 years!
2. CIV 2 - lost some magic, but let's face it: it was CIV on steroids: BIGGER, BETTER.
3. CIV 3 - bleh, hated it.
4. CIV 4 - nice... Very nice. I was very afraid of that game, because I hated CIV 3 so much. Played only after it got all expansions. Liked it very much.
5. CIV 5 - finally they used my ideas! When I was a kid I was dreaming of one unit per tile rule, ranged combat, nice siege mechanics (CIV 4 - never liked sieges). Managed to get CIV 5 just after release. Hexes + combat - awesome. Rest - mediocre at best. My friend even said that this game is for morons. After G&K I was happy with the game. After BNW - I am even more happy
Still some features are missing, and 4 cities strategy is still looming over that game, but it is great.
One more expansion (let's move tradition to information era, it should require Great Lighthouse and Terracotta Army, also adopting it should require having 20 units of aluminium and uranium).

 

[paulcarri]

I started with civ I and was fairly addicted to it, though i hated losing tanks to spearmen etc

Civ 2 was brilliant, played more of that than anything else.

Civ 3 i actually didnt play as much

CIV 4, god did i play that to death

Civ 5, to be honest its the first time i havent got hooked, i am not sure why really?

It may be rose tinted spectacles, but i miss the real fuss over victories and wonders, little touches from past games (leader dress changing over time etc)...

Ahh well my partner is happy i dont play much civ anymore.. so every cloud...

 

[Peng Qi]

My personal ranking:

V, II, IV, I, III

Oh, and go play SMAC.

 

[paulcarri]

My personal ranking:

V, II, IV, I, III

Oh, and go play SMAC.

funnily enough i was having a clear out a few weeks back...

and found the disks to smac and to alien crossfire

 

[Kizo]

Few games ever fully overwhelmed me the way II did. I know it's only nostalgia speaking, but however many hours more I've sunk into other games since, I still feel like I've played II more than anything else. It was magnificent, and relative to its era, I consider it easily the best in the series.

After that, it's V, then the rest. I came into the series at II, so I can't comment on I; III didn't impress me, and IV was soul-crushingly boring.

 

[Depravo]

SimCity, SimCity 2000, CivNet, Civ 2, Alpha Centauri, Imperialism 1, Settlers 1 and Europa Universalis 1 have been the only times in PC gaming I felt something great had been achieved. Everything else has either been lacklustre or an unexceptional development on a venerable foundation. That none of the games I listed is less than 10 years old has partly to do with getting older and more jaded. The best game I own released in the past couple of years has been Unity of Command.

 

[Mudrac]

For those complaining about the absence of sliders in civ V

Spoiler :

 

[Wojciech Rodzik]

Where is this SS coming from?

SimCity, SimCity 2000, CivNet, Civ 2, Alpha Centauri, Imperialism 1, Settlers 1 and Europa Universalis 1 have been the only times in PC gaming I felt something great had been achieved.

EU 2 was waaaay better than EU 1

 

[Mudrac]

Where is this SS coming from?

Victoria II

http://www.victoria2.com/

 

[Depravo]

EU 2 was waaaay better than EU 1

Yes, but it was an evolution not a revolution.

 

[WillisNYC]

The rub is that even with the SOD that you speak of prior to WWI, you still had battlefield management tactics to employ so that smaller stacks often beat larger ones, depending on their deployments and the skill of their troops. The deployments are poorly represented in stacks of Doom. Even if the scale is all wrong in the Civ 5 early battles, tactics are important throughout warfare there, just as they always have been throughout history. Victory or defeat at Waterloo depended far more upon your tactical deployment rather than what troops you brought to the 'vicinity' of the fight! A good game's battlefield results should be judged on how it realistically forces the 'commander' to make decisions at least somewhat like the actual historical commanders did. Covering flanks with cavalry, scouting with cavalry, using infantry to 'screen' archers or trebuchets, paying attention to terrain. These are all basics that commanders have had to pay attention to since time immemorial. SOD barely paid lip service to these basics while the 1UPH in Civ5 makes you pay attention to it as you should!

 

[Depravo]

The rub is that even with the SOD that you speak of prior to WWI, you still had battlefield management tactics to employ so that smaller stacks often beat larger ones, depending on their deployments and the skill of their troops. The deployments are poorly represented in stacks of Doom. Even if the scale is all wrong in the Civ 5 early battles, tactics are important throughout warfare there, just as they always have been throughout history. Victory or defeat at Waterloo depended far more upon your tactical deployment rather than what troops you brought to the 'vicinity' of the fight! A good game's battlefield results should be judged on how it realistically forces the 'commander' to make decisions at least somewhat like the actual historical commanders did. Covering flanks with cavalry, scouting with cavalry, using infantry to 'screen' archers or trebuchets, paying attention to terrain. These are all basics that commanders have had to pay attention to since time immemorial. SOD barely paid lip service to these basics while the 1UPH in Civ5 makes you pay attention to it as you should!

That would be well and good if war in CivV reflected historical battlefield tactics in any way.