Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by earthguido, Aug 13, 2016.
And time. Far more valuable.
It's been a long time since I could play a Civ game( Civ 2 on PS1)
Should I be starting my Civ obsession with Civ 6 or go for the earlier versions
You can picky civ 5 cheap on steam, I have played 1200 h of it, it's a great Game, and a lot more alike civ 6 Than civ 2
Welcome to the forums!
Civ II was an excellent game. I have fond memories playing that.
Civ III and IV were also excellent. Civilization 5 with the Vox Populi mod is decent.
You certainly could play any of these or just jump right into Civ VI. Playing the others is not strictly necessary. There is a lot that has changed thankfully so everyone will be on some form of a learning curve.
You haven't played since II?
Wait two more months and have your mind blown.
I'd agree with this. At this point, there is no sense in playing anything in between. The changes in the series from II through V are so massively significant that you might as well wait for 6. It's funny though, I can sit here and list all kinds of changes in my head, but Civ is still essentially the exact same game as it was back then.
Completely agree. Get 6 in 2 months.
Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
Welcome back! please enjoy the hype train. I also agree, you may as well go straight to 6.
Now it's just the waiting game lol.
I suggest giving IV a try if you're into more deep complex game systems than those in V. V, while fun, consists of much pressing of "next turn" and fewer meaningful decisions, though it is prettier.
Moderator Action: Merged "New here and it's been a long time" into the main thread on this topic
I won a copy of Civ V vanilla in the 2K twitch chat today. It's yours if you want it Earthguido.
Earthguido already bought a copy; anyone else here need CiV vanilla?
It really depends if you're more of a builder type or a conquest type player. If you're a builder, Civ 5 with all DLCs might be lots of fun for you, and you can probably pick it up cheap. Try playing on quick speed for start, even on larger maps, because you'll need time getting used to Civ2 levels of "waiting for the AI" and way less panels and numbers to look at.
I played Civ until the N (next turn key) wore out on my Commodore Amiga so I've been around for a long time. I loved CiV and played it more then any other single game in my Steam library. I was ecstatic to see the back end of stacks of doom for a start and never reinstalled CiIV. So I'm a little biased much like those who go on about how bad V was.
For you though it comes down to - is it worthwhile buying CiV to play for a month or so? At the moment I would say no. While they may have some similarities I think you would be better off waiting for CiVI and learning on the job.
Yeah already bought it and currently playing. Wife already left me and kids say "who is that bald guy always next to te computer?"
Even up to this day, Civ V still holds a place among top 10 most played games on Steam. Considering its age, that is quite an achievement
As someone who's played from II through V, I'd skip it and go with VI.
I've eventually adjusted to V, but it took a long time.
The 1UPT is cumbersome. I enjoy the tactics it has brought into the game, but there is no way to group units together to move them; not even if they're a settler or worker who needs protection! If you end up in any protracted war, the game will take you twice as long as IV did, just in moving units around, and that is not fun.
Civ VI at least allows you to group worker units with military ones, so you can send them long distance without managing every step along the way.
I think that IV got the balance right between making sure that infinite city sprawl is a crippling tactic, but still allowing you to have a good empire.
V is overkill on this. You can go larger...but many plan their strategies in V around having four cities! As an empire builder, that's just not my cup of tea. Many national wonders cannot be built unless you've built, say, a library in every city you have. Meaning that you cannot expand to a new city until you've completed all the libraries, and the relevant national wonder. Not fun at all.
Civ IV had local happiness & health. Civ V global happiness; which was much harder to manage. Civ VI has ditched global happiness in exchange for amenities, which seem to place a more natural caps on population growth.
The AI in V reacts like it is a game. Do not expect to have any good relationships late in the game if you're ahead. I guess that reflects multiplayer better; but many of us play Civ to enjoy a kind of immersive experience re history, in which you would get on very well with some foreign leaders.
I have no idea yet how this will quite play out in VI. The AI will have two objectives - one known which historically fits the character; the other unknown drawn at random to keep us on our toes. The diplomacy seems much more layered and complex, and you'll have some leaders who do like you when you're doing well in some areas, so I suspect that immersive feel will return a little more, even as the competition stays.
V does bring some great new additions in. The trade routes being attack-able makes the game much more realistic for me. Even on a continents or Pangaea map, you need a navy as a result.
Religions no longer give you as much an idea of who your allies or enemies are in V as they did in IV. Once again, IV's way was more immersive, but in some ways that was a bit of a game breaker...
So if you're anything like me, I think skip V which I rate as being no better than IV and possibly worse; and go straight to VI. If the issues I have raised aren't thing's you'd focus on, then you may as well get V at a bargain price, and come back to VI later on.
But I do think VI is going to be the best one yet
I have read these forums and applied the knowledge gained to my Civ games for many years. I recently completed my first full-length Civ V game and felt frustrated. Your link to sullla's review have released the bottled up feelings I had about Civ V. I feel understood. Well done sir. My personal pet peeve is back in the fanchise: Why does the AI reject peace in the face of total annihilation? To me, it is the struggle with desire to subjugate but forced by the game mechanics to destroy, that makes the game difficult emotionally. It makes me build nukes, it makes me burn continents - but I do not enjoy becoming the destroyer of worlds. I want to be recognized as superior and have diplomacy move accordingly. I understand that the franchise and the casual gamers do not want more Civ IV. As Angry Joe says: the previous civ games were just too stacky to give a try. Along with Homm3, I consider Civ IV peak game for me.
Uhm, not sure if you're aware, but you just necro'd a two year old thread.
Also, AI does go for peace in VI, and you can get very advantageous peace deals on occasion. As in, all their gold, all their gold per turn and all their luxeries advantageous, and in the past even most of their cities, though they're less likely to give them up now because in the past it was just too easy.
Separate names with a comma.