Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Eurik, Dec 16, 2016.
Because we, the people voting for IV, have mentioned that we played VI?
That's because IV Beyond the Sword plays differently than IV and V Brave New World plays differently than V.
Some want to include Beyond Earth, Colonization and SMAC in the list. Others want to exclude the expansion packs. I just followed the list on Wikipedia, thinking it would be relatively reliable.
I can understand that considering the present game is only in its early days, but what is quite noticeable is how poor Civ 5 is doing in comparison.
Every person that voted for IV did that?
No, but the same could be said of anyone who voted for any version other than VI. You can't single out IV voters alone.
Well, neither Conflicts in Civilization nor Fantastic Worlds had changes to the base game (they were scenario only expansions). They each included what was the latest patch to Civ II on the CD, but the patches were available from other sources (such as usenet.)
Civ III: PTW: This expansion did add a few civilizations to the base game; but didn't really change gameplay in it; that was Conquests.
I didn't Mustakrakish did, go re-read the thread
Yeah it's difficult to compare. Even though I voted for BTS, when comparing say Civ4 to Civ6 I was comparing base games. And yes, I am one of those people who liked Civ4 base game. It wasn't the mess people said it was.
And I put SMAC in that list because it is essentially Civ2 in space. It's a hugely significant game that introduced concepts like borders and better diplomacy. For the record I feel vanilla SMAC is better than the expansion which I didn't care for all that much.
My list again:
While I have Civ3 pretty low, I still found it an enjoyable game, and I liked the army feature in that game.
BtS was simply the best. Not perfect, mind--espionage, random events and corporations all needed some finetuning. But the systems weren't just buckets waiting to be filled, but rather interesting and impactful decisions at every turn, even in the late game when cities and developments had sprawled significantly. I liked how important improvements are (DON'T PILLAGE MY COTTAGE YOU NASTY SPIES), the sense of humor was balanced with gravitas in each quote (unlike Civ VI, riddled with fake quotes and misfiring attempts at humor), the music through the ages (though the civ leader music was overall inferior to that in V or VI, there was more medieval/Renaissance/Industrial/Modern background music, whereas in VI it's all other civs' main themes or your civ's ancient background music).
Also, the wonder movies (esp. Rock and Roll) were nicely stylized and interesting, and the victory movies, Hall of Fame, and Civilopedia all showed great care overall (well, compared to V and VI anyway). Furthermore, IV had the best scenarios and modding overall (the scenarios that came with BtS in particular were very impressive due to the sheer diversity of scenarios--from tactical zombie squad combat to space Civ to fantasy civ to simulations of historical battles/wars).
No game since IV: BTS has matched its keen ability to make every turn feel impactful, and none have diplomacy that comes close to the reasonable and relatively logical system of IV.
Really? Civ2 was Win game, not Dos game. And DosBox runs only Dos games as far as I know...
Yes, the "a bit" overpowered armies were fun to play with. But did the AI players ever use this feature??? Looking back, I can't remember that happening.
Yes, the AI would use the armies in Civ 3. Now, you might find an infantry, warrior, horseman combo or something equally awful... but at least it was used.
Hmm I don't remember armies in civ3, I am likelly mixing the version numbers. What civ# had the the vortex evolution start, palace building, city buildings screen, cute animations when its conquered with soldiers marching through and the research lady. Was it 2 or 1 ?
Civilization III introduced armies, yes. They were rather overpowered, as the AI almost never had enough combat strength to engage them, and as such, almost never did. And an army is extremely unlikely to die from a random attack, so you had a more or less invincible unit in your hands.
Palace building was a thing from Civilization I to III, and I also had the conquer animations (unsure about II, but III and onwards didn't), so you'd mean Civilization I.
Allow me to hop on this runaway band wagon and chime in with my support for Civ4Bts. Long live Sid Sushi.
??? I remember 3 of the same units. E.g. 3 cavalry units tied together and attacking as 1 unit, using ALL the HP of the first, then ALL the HP of the 2nd and then maybe the half of the 3rd. Retreat and the whole army of 3 cavalry units survived. You had a rather more than less invincible unit in your hands. I supposed back then, that the AI code was omitted in this detail.
[edit: I mean the AI players building and using an army!]
Long live Sid. Long live Sid! (Though Sushi together with the first available, mining?, were only fun the first time ...)
Did what? Mention that they played VI? Why? Do they have to? Just because they vote for IV and not VI, they have to mention to you that they did play VI also? What is your agenda here? I'm not not following.
"What makes you think people voting for Civ IV have played Civ VI?" This was your question, you just ask in general why one would think people voting for IV have played VI... and it has been answered. Now you change your question... which is totally fine by me, but what is the point? What are you trying to say here? What next? You'll ask how could you be sure we're (voters) not lying?
To answer your real question (I think it is), no I don't believe everyone who voted IV played VI (just like I don't think that everyone who voted V or VI played IV), but seeing as this is VI section I'd say it's a safe bet about 90% did. Still not seeing the point of all this though.
I guess: people, who haven't played civ6, don't know it and / or shouldn't be allowed to vote for civ4? (or at all??)
I voted for civ4 and from what is told in this forum enough (for me to understand), I am sure, I'd not enjoy playing civ6 as much as I want to (in the current state).
So I prefer to wait, read and wait ...
And one day _I_ decide, that it will be alright and I buy civ6. And it will be alright. So long I prefer to vote for 4.
Voted CivII because a poll on my 'favourite' will always be the one that introduced me to the series. I play Realism Invictus on CivIVBtS almost exclusively, but all my best Civ memories will be in the Rome scenario that shipped with the base CivII game.
There is apparently a lot of "mis-remembering" regarding Civ 3 and armies. You could load 3 units (and 4 at a certain point), but the units could all be different. Adding a calvary to some would give an extra movement point. In the original Civ 3 the leader would be used to either create an army or rush a wonder, so if there were wonders to be rushed I think that the AI would prioritize that (not sure, seems reasonable). The army itself would be a composition of attack/defense/movement of the units inside, so for example adding an infantry with calvary would slow down that army but give it better defense (and the same attack, 6).
All you have to do is go back and play the game if you don't believe me....
Separate names with a comma.