Old timer's, what are your thoughts so far?

[AriochIV]

I really liked Civ III and the new resource and artillery mechanics, but it's true that the corruption insanity limited how long I played it.

 

[Felis Renidens]

resources were nice - but too few and always at a danger of running out. I had to cover half a continent and still will not be sure I have what I need.

artillery was fine, but I never managed to use it effectively - no kill, no effect on stacks...

too much corruption + sometimes disease.

I enjoyed it, and liked it's graphics better than 4 - but on many games only played to industrial age.

 

[Moxx]

I've played Civ 1/2/3/4/5 + all expansions fairly close to their release dates and I am very excited for the next version. I must be their right target audience since I enjoy every new version more then the prior version and rarely ever go back to play old ones. (Except BE - I avoided it because of the Colonization remake / mod and it sounds like it was a good idea)

Just a couple of thoughts I have on the info so far:

AI - Please just expect bad AI out of the gates. Especially around warfare. Anything better is just gravy. The AI in Civ1-3 is still terrible. Civ 4 was still bad after BTS but saved by that wonderful BetterAI Patch from the community and Civ 5 was pretty much the same as Civ4 even with BNW.

I prefer X unit per tile over stacks but it needs some tweaks:
- OP Units like Artillery that make warfare easy
- Annoying congestion and the poor design around it (IIRC in Civ5 units on auto move that just got their path blocked re-calced a (terrible) new route and continue to move
- More clear Air Defence - "Who just hit my bomber?"

I am pleased that City States are making a return but hopefully the interactions are more deep and provide a more interesting benefit. The vanilla Civ5 gold for influence for +4 Culture per turn was a bit silly. I would love to see the benefits with City States improve overtime and are good enough that there is a heavy incentive for a Civ to protect their long time city states. Likewise conquering City States should provide a decent enough benefit to encourage conflict. It was a death sentence in Civ5 due to the diplomatic hit with came with little rewards!

I am on the fence on districts because of the lack of info so far. They need to provide diverse enough benefits so the design in your cities isn't completely determined ahead of time. My glass half empty view sees this being reduced to something like first build is always City Centre because of granary growth followed by the "do I have terrain X then build district Y." process.

Tall Vs Wide. I didn't enjoy the artificial limits on wide empires in prior games (Higher Culture per Policy, Happiness Hits, Crazy Corruption etc) but in Civ 5 I did enjoy the lower number of cities. Playing with 15+ cities in Civ 1-4 that all build pretty much he same buildings, same units, produce the same resources is boring and a chore. I hope the question to find a new city will be based on thoughts like - "Is it a good time to build a settler? Can I defend the city? Is there a good spot to build left? What resources do I need?". My sweet spot for cities per Civ IMO is around 4-8 and I liked the idea of puppet cities in Civ5 that you conquer.

Roads. I loved that Civ5 changed roads to be more strategic and just not paint the map in roads. I hated in Civ5 that it cost GPT and it was ALOT of GPT - especially in the early game! Limit them somehow but make them not so costly that you avoid building them for anything but the key city connections or until late game when GPT wasn't an issue.

 

[bison21]

I find veteran commentary always really spot on. Are you excited again or has the civ5 format killed it for you?

I might have missed it but- 13 pages and no one picking up on that statement? The thread should be renamed into "people who didn't like Civ5 but loved Civ4, what do you think?" since this is really what this thread comes down to. Ultimately it boils down to Civ3 vs 4 and having to "admit" that one liked 5.

Seems to me that the "oldtimer" playerbase is really not as homogeneous as the OP is making it out to be. Plenty who never got into 5, plenty who did and found it was fine, plenty who ended up preferring it over 5.

 

[Felis Renidens]

I think those in favor of civ4 have some good points, and yet I still play CiV more. I think 1UPT is more interesting. I like cities defending themselves and not having to stack them with units. I like it that units eat resources. I like it that unit's base movement is 2 and not 1. I like religions not being the same and not being a tech race and being just something that helps you. I usually build more than 4 cities, I would probably not finish a game with 4 cities out of boredom - on lower difficulties it's not a problem.

But I see no point in arguing what is a better game. To each his own. So I just said that I enjoyed every single civ game from 1 to 5, and Colonization, and that bastard Master of Magic too. And I have high hopes for 6. And I will buy it. And it won't be everything the hype made it to be but it will be a good game and I will enjoy it.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

Been playing since the OG Civ, while Civ II holds a special place in my heart (was the one I first really sank my teeth into) they have gotten better with each iteration. I expect nothing less from this round. I am wary of cutting the tech tree so deeply, but everything else I have heard sounds amazing. I trust the team to deliver a great product.

 

[wiggawuu]

I might have missed it but- 13 pages and no one picking up on that statement? The thread should be renamed into "people who didn't like Civ5 but loved Civ4, what do you think?" since this is really what this thread comes down to. Ultimately it boils down to Civ3 vs 4 and having to "admit" that one liked 5.

Seems to me that the "oldtimer" playerbase is really not as homogeneous as the OP is making it out to be. Plenty who never got into 5, plenty who did and found it was fine, plenty who ended up preferring it over 5.

Do you really have to derail the thread?

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Played a little Civ 1 when I was a teen. I was very intrigued by the scope of the game back then. Skipped Civ 2 to deal with the real world. Purchased Civ 3 about year before Civ 4 hit the market and played some. Civ 4 is where I really sunk my teeth in. Enjoyed it immensely. Didn't buy Civ 5 until Gods and Kings. Learned how to mod and spent countless hours with my head buried in Modbuddy. One might call it an addiction.

Very excited about Civ 6 so far with everything I have read and seen.

 

[whyidie]

I've played Civ 1/2/3/4/5 + all expansions fairly close to their release dates and I am very excited for the next version. I must be their right target audience since I enjoy every new version more then the prior version and rarely ever go back to play old ones. (Except BE - I avoided it because of the Colonization remake / mod and it sounds like it was a good idea)

You and me both, and based on this thread we're not alone. Of all the games I've played, Civilization is the one that has stood the test of time. Considering the amount of time people put into each iteration, its one heck of an accomplishment.

I prefer X unit per tile over stacks but it needs some tweaks:
- OP Units like Artillery that make warfare easy

I liked the choice. Nothing more satisfying then getting to the premature game enders. Even those rare games where I reach artillery only to find I've been outmatched by bombers I tip my hat.

- More clear Air Defence - "Who just hit my bomber?"

Yes. On that note would be great if they let the logs linger for a bit if you have quick battle animations on.

Roads. I loved that Civ5 changed roads to be more strategic and just not paint the map in roads. I hated in Civ5 that it cost GPT and it was ALOT of GPT - especially in the early game! Limit them somehow but make them not so costly that you avoid building them for anything but the key city connections or until late game when GPT wasn't an issue.

Add in build time if you didn't go liberty/pyramids and I was thrifty with roads. Opening it up a bit more would be greatly appreciated.

I might have missed it but- 13 pages and no one picking up on that statement? The thread should be renamed into "people who didn't like Civ5 but loved Civ4, what do you think?" since this is really what this thread comes down to. Ultimately it boils down to Civ3 vs 4 and having to "admit" that one liked 5.

Seems to me that the "oldtimer" playerbase is really not as homogeneous as the OP is making it out to be. Plenty who never got into 5, plenty who did and found it was fine, plenty who ended up preferring it over 5.

Good catch. Its pretty clear from this thread that a lot of old timers enjoyed 5 just as much as other versions.

Been playing since the OG Civ, while Civ II holds a special place in my heart (was the one I first really sank my teeth into) they have gotten better with each iteration. I expect nothing less from this round. I am wary of cutting the tech tree so deeply, but everything else I have heard sounds amazing. I trust the team to deliver a great product.

Played a little Civ 1 when I was a teen. I was very intrigued by the scope of the game back then. Skipped Civ 2 to deal with the real world. Purchased Civ 3 about year before Civ 4 hit the market and played some. Civ 4 is where I really sunk my teeth in. Enjoyed it immensely. Didn't buy Civ 5 until Gods and Kings. Learned how to mod and spent countless hours with my head buried in Modbuddy. One might call it an addiction.

Very excited about Civ 6 so far with everything I have read and seen.

Old timer rally!

 

[stealth_nsk]

Some of my friends still play Civ3. It was quite good for it's time. The main problem is - it was released after SMAC and while Civ3 had better graphics and some new mechanics, it wasn't nearly as good.

 

[Spartan_X]

Seriousness aside ... another thought of mine is - damn, time flies quickly! I started playing civ I, 25 years ago, and now we are at number 6! I'm getting old

 

[Reboot]

I started playing Civ I when I was a kid. The flavour-text and manual was amazing. Too bad the industry doesn't do this anymore. Phalanx beat Cruisers. Democracy from Pyramids.

Civ II was played to death for me. I'd "O" the Himalayas into plains , try all kinds of mods, send my Chinese calvary into Europe and conquer the whole Euraisan+Africa landmass.

Civ III wasn't the best experience but it was trying to improve on the Civ experience instead of just re-iteration. ICS control was important but done poorly. Stacks of DOOOOM. Borders. Unique Units.

Civ IV (Baba Yetu~) was a reformed Civ game that redeemed what happened to III for me, and I loved it. Thank you for returning the Wonder-movies. Air units work the way I imagined it would (was someone from Firaxis lurking in some Civ forums when I explained what I thought they should be?). Roads that make more sense. Smaller empires.

Civ V had some of the most polish I've seen in Civ and overall I liked the changes introduced. Hex Tiles, Unstackable units, City States etc. Religion made more sense and that Art Deco style sings to my soul.

Civ VI is shaping up nicely so far. I like the expanded city idea and builders with expendable charges.

 

[4N4C0ND4]

- More clear Air Defence - "Who just hit my bomber?"

I'm curious about this: what isn't clear for you?
fighter with interception on and in range -> you get hit/have a % to get hit
anti-aircraft with all its movements and in range -> you get hit
Don't see anything else tbh

But it's true that, as someone stated, a combat log for airplanes (or units for that matter) especially with animations off would be great.

On topic, the first time I played Civ was at my friend's house, but I was so young I can't remember if it was CivI or CivII All I remember is that my friend rushed mathematics everygame to get some catapults and conquer whatever city was nearby.

After, an iteration was installed on my grand pa' computer but I need your help here: what Civ has the WWII scenario? Is it II or III? I remember playing Axis and Russia with it. Was such a good one

Then actually I started to play more "seriously" with CiV when it came out. I remember that I didn't have a, hmmm, very legal version at this time mischief and I was so frustrated because I couldn't play with the newest patches: imagine liberty without the free settler, no stone on grassland... I was so jealous

Not looking foward CiVI because I didn't finished my CiV achievements, nor all the scenarii

Still, bit worried about the artstyle. CiV had many flaws but graphics wasn't one of them imho.

 

[stealth_nsk]

But it's true that, as someone stated, a combat log for airplanes (or units for that matter) especially with animations off would be great.

Combat log is wonderful idea, especially with unit names. I assume even if developers will not have time for it, this could be modded in.

 

[Westwall]

Seriousness aside ... another thought of mine is - damn, time flies quickly! I started playing civ I, 25 years ago, and now we are at number 6! I'm getting old

I started with Civ 2 when I was about 12 and looking for porn on my uncle's computer. Little did I know at the time what I had set into motion just by clicking that innocuous little earth-pyramid icon.

 

[Felis Renidens]

Turn 136,

Our brave company 'The Royal Pikemen of Ninveh' got ambushed by some Aztec charioteers. A fifth of our forces killed or wounded. We gathered our forces and chased them away, destroying their chariots.

Or is it too verbal?

 

[gcm4738]

I started with Civ 2 when I was about 12 and looking for porn on my uncle's computer. Little did I know at the time what I had set into motion just by clicking that innocuous little earth-pyramid icon.

My anaconda don't want none if it ain't got SoD's hon

 

[4N4C0ND4]

I started with Civ 2 when I was about 12 and looking for porn on my uncle's computer. Little did I know at the time what I had set into motion just by clicking that innocuous little earth-pyramid icon.

My anaconda don't want none if it ain't got SoD's hon

Congrats, now I feel awkward

 

[Wizard-Bob]

Seriousness aside ... another thought of mine is - damn, time flies quickly! I started playing civ I, 25 years ago, and now we are at number 6! I'm getting old

Indeed - I was in my early 30's when Civ I released
I've played them all, and enjoyed them all. Greatly looking forward to CiVI

 

[TheRaven476]

I'd dabbled in Civ but didn't start going hard core until Civ 3. I remember running to the mall during the lunch hour of grade 12 on launch day and picking up a copy for myself and my best friend. Thinking I was all sophisticated playing Civ games now lol.

I was in the same boat as alot of veterans where I thought the franchise was getting better and better until Civ 5. Vanilla Civ 5 was disastrous for me. It shattered my faith in video games. I thought "All the series I like are terrible now. I guess I'm just done". Thankfully 2011 turned me around, but I just couldn't believe how bad Vanilla Civ 5 was. I just sat there and felt like I had no desire to do anything. There was no "Just one more turn" feeling because everything around the corner didn't feel exciting or was prohibitive. I never felt like building more cities (Until I found out the strategy in 1.0 was to build ALL THE CITIES with only a circus in them.......). Yeah, hated everything about it.

I bought the 2 expansions last year and thought "Allright, it's actually an allright game now", but this is Civ, it shouldn't take 2 expansions to be "Allright". I was happy to find out that the lead on Civ 5 left a while ago and that the Gods and Kings team actually had alot of great ideas. I was worried because I thought the Civ 5 team went on to Beyond Earth, but apparently that must have been a splinter group. If the team that made Civ 5 playable (A Herculean feat in my mind....) had almost 4 years to build Civ 6 from scratch, I'm excited!

So far everything I've heard sounds great. Technology sounds interest, the new attachments to military units sounds great, the terrain is awesome, the art style is fantastic and reminds me of 4. The new city changes are interesting, though so far I'm a bit sad that cities don't look like they're naturally "Sprawling outwards" but instead have satellite districts dotted around it, but whatever. I love that government types are back and how they work with the new card slots. The only thing I haven't seen that I want to is a return to Civ 4's "Wide and Tall" trade off systems. I really liked how the trade offs worked in Civ 4, it was easy to understand what your citizens needed for high population, and what the trade offs were building more cities. I kind of hope they put in a good system that makes me think "Do I have the resources to expand further outwards, do I have the resources for high population? What would it take to do that?".

Anyways I'm more excited for this than any other Civ game really.