I don´t really understand all this hate towards Civilization 3. I find it much superior to Civ 2 which was just a deluxe version of Civ 1. Sure, the corruption was annoying, but everything else, the animated and Civ-specific military units, the strategic resources and the culture were just great! I think it was a brilliant game...
How many of you will play earlier Civ versions?
- Thread starter Akkon888
- Start date
Trystero
Deity
Since Civ4 was my introduction to the Civilization games, and I still find it challenging, I'm likely to play it for a while after Civ5 comes out.
cephalo
Deity
I've never looked back. I've always felt that each new one was an improvement over the last.
I bought the game the day it came out, played it for a couple months and then swore off Sid's games for all eternity (until Civ4 redeemed him). It might be that I was playing an unpatched game, but here's what I found that drove me bonkers.
- Borders were useless. In almost all of my games the AI would walk settlers into the middle of my territory and plop a city right beside a strategic resource.
- Strategic resource algorithms were stupid. In my third game I went from (I kid you not) gun powder units all the way back to practically nothing because strategic resources arbitrarily disappeared, only to re-appear within enemy borders. Just before I quit I heard it was programmed that way to ensure you traded with other civs. Lame.
- War was impossible to maintain. I lost count of the amount of times an enemy AI attacked, I ramped up the war machine, killed one of his units, then my Civ got too war weary and forced a peace treaty.... which the AI would frequently break a turn or two later. I could never keep a sustained (read: more than 10 turn) war going, but the AI could, no problemo.
- Tech Whoring was a game breaker strategy. AI's just lurrrrrved tech. So you get one tech ahead and you could stymie the AI. Sell your tech(s) for gold/turn to every civ on the map and you had the equivalent of everyone's income pouring into your coffers while they had no money to spend.
- The Infamous Knight vs Tank. By my 4th or 5th playthrough I was sure something was messed up so I started logging all my combats. Modern units lost fully 20% of the time when engaging middle aged units. Couple this with the fact that modern boats took substantially longer to build than wooden boats, and you're in for a boatload (hehe) of trouble. The 5 or 6 battleships I could crank out were never a match for the HUNDREDS of wooden vessels the AI threw at me once I left port.
- Interceptors didn't work. At all.
- Corruption was crippling, utterly arbitrary, and did not appear to phase the AI.
I started playing the franchise with ![[civ2]](/images/smilies/civ2.gif "Civ2 [civ2]")
and was hooked immediately. I played Call-to-power a bit and thoroughly enjoyed it. When ![[civ3]](/images/smilies/civ3.gif "Civ3 Icon [civ3]")
appeared I loved it and rarely played anything else. Once ![[civ4]](/images/smilies/civ4.gif "Civ4 [civ4]")
came out I pretty much stopped playing or any other video game for that matter. I'll have to see what Civ V has to offer, before I can say whether it will peel me away from [bts].
Honestly, I'm feeling pretty pessimistic. The hex tiling looks fantastic, but stripping out religion & espionage is a step backwards and the 1 unit per tile looks like epic fail. I have a feeling I'll keep playing [bts] until Civ VI comes out.
and was hooked immediately. I played Call-to-power a bit and thoroughly enjoyed it. When appeared I loved it and rarely played anything else. Once came out I pretty much stopped playing or any other video game for that matter. I'll have to see what Civ V has to offer, before I can say whether it will peel me away from [bts]. Honestly, I'm feeling pretty pessimistic. The hex tiling looks fantastic, but stripping out religion & espionage is a step backwards and the 1 unit per tile looks like epic fail. I have a feeling I'll keep playing [bts] until Civ VI comes out.
Gliese 581
Your average civ junkie
In my opinion every civ game has been a great improvement over its predecessor. I started playing Civ in 1991-92 and never looked back as I upgraded from one game in the series to the next. Assuming CiV follows the trend of improving more or less everything, which I'm confident it will, I don't see why I would play an older version.
The 5 or 6 battleships I could crank out were never a match for the HUNDREDS of wooden vessels the AI threw at me once I left port.
Isn´t this somewhat realistic though? I´m sure that if 6 WW2 battleships were attacked by huge numbers of 19th century warships they would be wore down and destroyed too...
eris
King
I am usually so busy trying to learn the new game that I put away the old version. However, I like BTS so much this pattern may change. It really depends on how well I can keep the two sets of game concepts separate in my head. That is a pretty big dependency.
Gliese 581
Your average civ junkie
The 5 or 6 battleships I could crank out were never a match for the HUNDREDS of wooden vessels the AI threw at me once I left port.
Isn´t this somewhat realistic though? I´m sure that if 6 WW2 battleships were attacked by huge numbers of 19th century warships they would be wore down and destroyed too...
I think that's quite unlikely, unless they ran out of ammunition and fuel. For one they could just stay out of range of the older vessels at the same time as they're bombarding them.
Same. I rarely ever buy a game that isn't loaded with expansions etc and usually 2-3 years after. I might be a little early with Bioshock 2 if my fiancee gets it for me for christmas.
