1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

What is the best game for a new player

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by buylow12, Mar 10, 2012.

  1. buylow12

    buylow12 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1
    Hello Everyone,

    I just recently had a chance to play Civilization IV for the first time and it seems to be a really incredible game but with a lot of nuance. Reminds me of risk, which I loved as a kid, on steroids. I have never played any of the series except the first one when I was a young kid and didn't really understand it. My question is which of the series would be the best to start with? Should I go with the first one for simplicity or with V because it is up to date or something else for whatever reason. I don't plan to play online and couldn't care less about the graphics. I am just looking to learn the game mechanics and learn some strategies. Should I consider any expansion packs? Let me know what you think. I appreciate your help:)
     
  2. tdy99

    tdy99 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    Messages:
    303
    Location:
    The Capital of the Confederacy
    There's really no reason to start with I, II, or III.

    CivIV is generally regarded as superior to any of the older versions. If you're going to invest the time to learn to play, it might as well be IV.

    Some might say V, but most of the reviews I've read have been pretty critical of V.

    Overall, IV the complete edition is old enough to have had a few good expansion packs and patches to fix initial problems and round out the game, but still recent enough that it doesn't really seem dated or anything. I and II seem very, very dated today. III isn't so bad, but most people seem to prefer IV over III.
     
  3. s.bernbaum

    s.bernbaum Mostly lurking

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,606
    Location:
    The wilds of Montana
    The mechanics vary from with each game from Civ I through Civ V, so there is no need to start at the beginning. I would choose Civ IV (or more commonly called CIV here). It has the most nuances and complexity. Most people play the Beyond the Sword (called BTS here) expansion pack. The Warlords pack adds nothing that BTS does not also incorporate. The plain CIV (called vanilla here) is also nice to play. It has fewer options than BTS but some folks don't like some of the options and choose vanilla for that reason. Although I would like to not have one or two of the BTS options, I find that overall the benefits outweigh the detriments, so I play BTS. Most of the threads here on the forums will be dealing with BTS. So, if you plan to frequent the forums, BTS is a good choice. I highly recommend frequenting the forums, both for the camaraderie and because the manual for CIV leaves out most of the details, which you can learn here. If you do decide on CIV BTS, then I highly recommend downloading the BUG Mod from the downloads section of the forums. BUG stands for BTS Unmodified Gameplay. It will not change the mechanics of the game at all. What it does it give you a much improved user interface (or UI). I think it is the UI that the game should have shipped with.

    However, if you do decide on CIV, play the tutorial game in vanilla. That is the only version that has the tutorial. It is very basic but will give you an understanding of the way the game operates, to serve as a basis for learning more.

    Civ V seems to be a dumbed down version that the marketing department of Firaxis felt would sell more copies because it is less complex. Some people like it. If you want their opinions and why, you should ask on the Civ V forum. You will find little love for Civ V here on the CIV forum.

    And welcome to the forums! :band::banana::dance::banana:
     
  4. Seraiel

    Seraiel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    7,948
    Gender:
    Male
  5. stoferb

    stoferb Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    296
    No need to start with another game in the series. They are too different. For instance in civ 2 which I have played alot back in the days, it was all about neverending expansion, establishing foreign trade routes and abusing the population booming effects in republic and democracy. In civ 4 expansion cost you money, trade routes are established automatically and there is no way to boom your population.

    In civ 2 Early barbarians were not such a problem, you could bribe them off if you had the money or just let them take the city and then bribe the city back with a diplomat and get two or more strong units for a bargain price. (I often did let barbarians take a city so they could produce cheap legions for me for a while). Civs declaring war on you early were no problem either, you just parked a warrior on a strategically placed fortified mountain and the opponent would occasionally suicide his troops at it. (or lacking mountains and being too close, just devote the closest city to defence). In civ 4 the opponent will actually bring enough troops to take a poorly defended city. If you were above in power you could demand tribute and it wouldn't diminish your reputation, in civ 4 the opponent will remember it as a transgression until the end of time. Finally, in civ 2, at the year 1750 AD everybody would suddenly decide to gang up on you, in civ 4 you can remain friends indefinitely.

    It's just isn't the same game and you cannot use the same strategies. I could certainly teach you some tricks in civ 2 but if you want to get good in civ 4 it's civ 4 you should play.
     
  6. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,615
    Gender:
    Male
    I can't play any of the older civ games, because you have to move units with the keypad. :S Or maybe I just never figured it out. :p

    Also, Civ III looks kinda bad for a 2001 game...
     
  7. Manco Capac

    Manco Capac Friday,13 June,I Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    8,051
    Oooh. This makes me remind of the monstrous micro of moving stacks in CivIII before Conquest. On modern times, it was abominable.
     
  8. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,615
    Gender:
    Male
    Did the expansion make the interface better?
     
  9. Manfred Belheim

    Manfred Belheim Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3,870
    I would agree with all of that EXCEPT I really wouldn't bother with BUG if you're new to the game. It just bombards you with EVERYTHING on the screen at once rather than having it tucked away in various sub menus and things. Most people seem to like it, I don't, but either way I just think it will be utterly confusing for a new player. You'll want to learn what all those details are and what importance they have through play, until you do it'll just make it even more daunting. The default interface is more than adequate for learning the game with. Once you understand the game a bit better you can make an informed decision about whether you want to install extras like BUG, but there's really no urgency to do so before you've even learned the game or decided if you like it.
     
  10. gps

    gps Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2007
    Messages:
    885
    The Civilization IV Complete or Ultimate package these days should be the cheapest and easiest way to get in touch with a Civilization game. It includes all the Expansion packs plus the Civilization Colonization remake, and I'd say this should give you enough gameplay for the next couple of years. The older ones - except Civ III Complete - should be very hard to get these days. And as the others allready pointed out: there's no need to start with anything elese than IV.
     
  11. twansalem

    twansalem Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    272
    Count me as one of the few like you who doesn't like BUG. Maybe I'm just imagining it, but in addition to just making the interface look messy, I think it also contributes some to late game lag. I suppose that doesn't really matter to the immortal/deity players here who win all their games by 1500 AD, but is very significant for a prince/monarch builder type like me who tends to go space race or cultural more often than conquest/domination.

    For a beginner, I certainly agree that BUG is just too much at once.
     
  12. s.bernbaum

    s.bernbaum Mostly lurking

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,606
    Location:
    The wilds of Montana
    I think that it is just a matter of personal preference with regard to BUG. I, too, usually go for a culture, UN diplomatic, or space victory and commonly play out the entire tech tree. However, the deciding factor for me to choose BTS over vanilla was BUG. Without BUG, it was a toss up for me whether I liked the vanilla or BTS version better. With BUG, BTS won hands down. Whether or not it slows down the late game, I don't know. I got a new computer at about he same time that I started using BUG. The new one is so much faster than the old one that I haven't noticed the slow down you speak of, since it is still so much faster than my old computer. FWIW, I also play with all graphics set to the lowest settings and all the sounds off, which speeds things up a great deal.
     
  13. ajsciri4

    ajsciri4 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    156
    Civ V is more about eye candy; the graphics are, of course, excellent, but the mechanics are simplified compared to Civ IV. I guess you can say it's mainstream now.

    If it means anything to you, the first Civ I played was Civ V. On these forums, I saw a lot of people preferred Civ IV over Civ V. I went and bought Civ IV. After I got through a game of Civ IV, I couldn't play Civ V again.
     
  14. Nials

    Nials Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    582
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denmark
    V is probably going to feel more accessible to a new player and will be easier to pick up.

    With that said, it seems like V has more "hard and fast" rules of thumb, whereas IV is a more dynamic game. This is purely anecdotal though, and I may be completely wrong.

    At any rate, I have played every game in the series, and IV is my favorite :king:
     
  15. RD-BH

    RD-BH Human

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    818
    Location:
    Formerly: Missouri, USA
    Uh, chutes and ladders is a pretty good introduction for someone who has never played before.
    How old is this "new" player?
    ... err, oh ... you mean new to Civ.

    I suggest SMAC/X.
    Who doesn't like mind worms?

    Okay, new, you say ... Civ IV is a good place to start simply because of the available knowledgebase.
    You can almost always find the information you need to play it well.
     
  16. Mec AntiKythera

    Mec AntiKythera Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    980
    I was also new to the Civ series and started with version IV Vanilla. Then I moved to Warlords and was glad I had started with Vanilla. Vanilla is complicated enough for someone just starting out, throw in more Civs, traits, UBs, and worst of all, Vassals, and it could be a bit much for someone who has never played before. BtS adds even more features making it that much more complicated. But maybe the biggest reason that I am glad that I started with IV Vanilla is that I can move to the expansion packs adding more treats and renewing my interest in the game. Each expansion is like getting a new present. If you start with BtS you are missing two years worth of Christmas mornings.
     
  17. s.bernbaum

    s.bernbaum Mostly lurking

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,606
    Location:
    The wilds of Montana
    Mec AntiKythera has some good points there. I enjoyed playing on vanilla for a long time before switching to BTS.
     
  18. west india man

    west india man Immortal

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    8,897
    Location:
    Brazil
    Start with Civ III on Deity difficulty, it's a very shallow learning curve. :mischief:
     
  19. Mec AntiKythera

    Mec AntiKythera Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010
    Messages:
    980
    Wow, I'm amazed. Usually people don't see the value of playing anything but BtS because it is the latest (well, not any longer) and greatest. Interesting to see that someone else sees the value in a Vanilla beginning.
     
  20. Ambidexter

    Ambidexter Edjumacated Idjit

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    388
    Location:
    Connecticut
    I started with vanilla, then Warlords, then BTS, then various mods (I'm playing a Rise of Mankind: A New Dawn game right now). Each time I learned something new, but I wasn't overwhelmed because I already understood all the old parts.
     

Share This Page