What is your favourite Civilization game?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Eurik, Dec 16, 2016.

Tags:
?

What is your favourite Civilization game?

Poll closed Jun 17, 2017.
  1. Civilization (1991)

    7 vote(s)
    3.1%
  2. CivNet (1995)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Civilization II (1996)

    10 vote(s)
    4.5%
  4. Civilization II: Conflicts in Civilization (1996)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Civilization II: Fantastic Worlds (1997)

    1 vote(s)
    0.4%
  6. Civilization II: Test of Time (1999)

    4 vote(s)
    1.8%
  7. Civilization III (2001)

    2 vote(s)
    0.9%
  8. Civilization III: Play the World (2002)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. Civilization III: Conquests (2003)

    9 vote(s)
    4.0%
  10. Civilization IV (2005)

    3 vote(s)
    1.3%
  11. Civilization IV: Warlords (2006)

    3 vote(s)
    1.3%
  12. Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword (2007)

    101 vote(s)
    45.1%
  13. Civilization Revolution (2008)

    1 vote(s)
    0.4%
  14. Civilization V (2010)

    1 vote(s)
    0.4%
  15. Civilization V: Gods & Kings (2012)

    1 vote(s)
    0.4%
  16. Civilization V: Brave New World (2013)

    48 vote(s)
    21.4%
  17. Civilization Revolution 2 (2014)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  18. Civilization VI (2016)

    33 vote(s)
    14.7%
  1. Mustakrakish

    Mustakrakish In 'Node' We Trust

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,520
    Location:
    Grainvillage, Finland
    Because we, the people voting for IV, have mentioned that we played VI?
     
    Roald Amundsen and nzcamel like this.
  2. Eurik

    Eurik Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    55
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  3. youngsteve

    youngsteve Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    378
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    England
    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.
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  4. greygamer

    greygamer Feudal Lord

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,838
    Location:
    UK
    Every person that voted for IV did that?
     
  5. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,101
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    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.
     
  6. joncnunn

    joncnunn Senior Java Wizard Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    8,621
    Location:
    Missouri
    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.
     
  7. greygamer

    greygamer Feudal Lord

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,838
    Location:
    UK
    I didn't Mustakrakish did, go re-read the thread
     
  8. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,435
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    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:
    Civ4>SMAC>Civ2>Civ6>Civ5>Civ3>CivBE

    While I have Civ3 pretty low, I still found it an enjoyable game, and I liked the army feature in that game.
     
  9. Morningcalm

    Morningcalm Keeper of Records

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,116
    Location:
    Abroad
    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.
     
    @Rob76 and Roald Amundsen like this.
  10. mogilan

    mogilan Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    49
    Really? Civ2 was Win game, not Dos game. And DosBox runs only Dos games as far as I know...
     
  11. c4c6

    c4c6 Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2016
    Messages:
    462
    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.
     
  12. DizzKneeLand33

    DizzKneeLand33 Fall from Heaven 2 still rocks

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    570
    Location:
    Kansas City
    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. :mischief:
     
  13. Gub

    Gub Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2016
    Messages:
    94
    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 ?
     
  14. need my speed

    need my speed Rex Omnium Imperarium

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    2,213
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    European Union (Magna Batavia)
    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.
     
    Gub likes this.
  15. TraderInvader

    TraderInvader Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2016
    Messages:
    16
    Allow me to hop on this runaway band wagon and chime in with my support for Civ4Bts. Long live Sid Sushi.
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  16. c4c6

    c4c6 Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2016
    Messages:
    462
    ??? 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 ...)
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2016
  17. Mustakrakish

    Mustakrakish In 'Node' We Trust

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    2,520
    Location:
    Grainvillage, Finland
    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.
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  18. c4c6

    c4c6 Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2016
    Messages:
    462
    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.
     
  19. MikalJ

    MikalJ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
    Messages:
    33
    Location:
    England
    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.
     
  20. DizzKneeLand33

    DizzKneeLand33 Fall from Heaven 2 still rocks

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    570
    Location:
    Kansas City
    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.... ;)
     
    need my speed likes this.

Share This Page