Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Mechwarrior 3 > 4 because the pulse lasers were cooler
Which Civ is superior?
- Thread starter kochman
- Start date
Disgustipated
Deity
My order of ranking (I'm omitting civ1 because I never played it)
Civ4>Civ3>Civ2>Civ5
Civ4>Civ3>Civ2>Civ5
CrazyScientist
Those crazy scientists...
Of the versions I've played.
Civ2>=Civ4>Civ1>=Civ3
So far, similar to the case of Star Trek movies, the even numbered civs have been the best incarnations. Each has dramatically improved on it's odd-numbered predecessor.
Civ2>=Civ4>Civ1>=Civ3
So far, similar to the case of Star Trek movies, the even numbered civs have been the best incarnations. Each has dramatically improved on it's odd-numbered predecessor.
Disgustipated
Deity
Can I also rant about how bad Civ5 is here? 
Although I don't know exactly why it's bad. But as a builder, it just isn't fun. There are too many restrictions on building things. Road maintenance really pisses me off. Because it makes my empire look like crap graphically. What kind of empire has only one road connecting their cities? My cities only have one way in and out of town. My empire looks completely barren. It hardly looks like an advanced civilization. The road system is what really breaks this game. Yes roads do cost money to build and maintain, but over the long run they do improve commerce (why is commerce not in this game?) Civ2 had it right. Roads=commerce. Building maintenance is annoying as well. Yes buildings do cost maintenance, but most buildings improve commerce. Even government built structures can stimulate the economy by providing jobs. Civ5 is just penalty after penalty.
Civ5 is a game where your empire is in the stone age even in 2050. Your units have to move through the wilderness because they cannot use roads because they are either too expensive, or you can't have more than one unit a tile. What kind of modern nation moves their military through the wilderness without roads? Ridiculous.
Although I don't know exactly why it's bad. But as a builder, it just isn't fun. There are too many restrictions on building things. Road maintenance really pisses me off. Because it makes my empire look like crap graphically. What kind of empire has only one road connecting their cities? My cities only have one way in and out of town. My empire looks completely barren. It hardly looks like an advanced civilization. The road system is what really breaks this game. Yes roads do cost money to build and maintain, but over the long run they do improve commerce (why is commerce not in this game?) Civ2 had it right. Roads=commerce. Building maintenance is annoying as well. Yes buildings do cost maintenance, but most buildings improve commerce. Even government built structures can stimulate the economy by providing jobs. Civ5 is just penalty after penalty.Civ5 is a game where your empire is in the stone age even in 2050. Your units have to move through the wilderness because they cannot use roads because they are either too expensive, or you can't have more than one unit a tile. What kind of modern nation moves their military through the wilderness without roads? Ridiculous.
I don't understand the lack of love for Civ3, but I'm biased for it given that it was my first Civ.
sophie
Break My Heart
CIV is the only one I've ever actually put serious playing time into.
Overall though, I think I'd take Paradox over any of them.
Overall though, I think I'd take Paradox over any of them.
Disgustipated
Deity
Civ3 was pretty fun for the time period. It had armies which I loved (too bad the ai didn't use them). The last expansion had some fun scenarios which I really enjoyed. I actually think I enjoyed Civ3 scenarios more than Civ4. In Civ4 I preferred playing the base game (no scenarios), and I enjoyed the Earth map more. Civ3 was a step up from Civ2. It had borders iirc, and the settlers couldn't settle within your borders which I used to hate in Civ2 (actually Civ2 had no borders). I couldn't go back to Civ2 after Civ3 was released. That's how good Civ3 was.
That rule isn't true for Trek movies anymore. It works if you count the 2009 movie as 11 and change the rule to "movies with even digit sums are the good ones"
It's like MoO3, lots of tedious micro for a result which is predictable and not enjoyable to arrive at.
Disgustipated
Deity
The 2009 movie sucked 
This is so hard to answer!
But, if I have to I have to...
Civ V, Civ IV, Civ II Test of Time, Civ III, Civ I
- Civ I was awesome in that it began this franchise but honestly it's aged rather poorly though I still find myself playing the very rare game of CivNet.
- Civ II Test of Time and it's multi-layered maps and what I personally think was the sweet spot on graphics (though Civ III wasn't terribly overboard yet) and the HP/FP combo was great.
- Civ III was nice with its attempt at border control but it wasn't really just right yet....loved the armies though.
- Civ IV was mind blowingly great in so may respects...but they went way overboard with the silly graphics.
- Civ V let's you blow off the graphics and play strategic mode so WIN WIN there, and I enjoy the different game dynamic with the one unit/hex...oh, and hex finally! I've really found myself thoroughly enjoying it, though it's so different I almost don't want to really compare it to the others.
But, if I have to I have to...
Civ V, Civ IV, Civ II Test of Time, Civ III, Civ I
iii > iv > ii > i > v
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
I think it has a badly done watercolour of Mao's Red Guard no matter what victory and nothing else.
I picked 4 as it's the best of the base games I've played (3 to 5). 3 got me suckered in (even if I was bad at it for a long time) but I realised it was really badly finished, but with good ideas and some well executed mechanincs.
I pretty quickly realised that 5 was 3 without good ideas or mechancics.
Of course if we were including mods etc. I'd have to go for FfH2. It is incredible fun.
Narz
keeping it real
So when is Civ 6 coming out?
So when is Civ 6 coming out?
Considering what happened to V, I don't think it's going to be a major event.
I avoided V because of the reviews, but I didn't know it was THIS unpopular. II is beating it handily! I'm now not going to buy it unless something major happens. Maybe I'll try to find II somewhere. It'll be cheaper for sure.
III is a much better game if you mod out pollution - that's just a pain in the rear. I'm not sure about modding out corruption, though, that's pretty central to the game.
I prefer IV but III is a very good game. I'm actually happy it's doing fairly well in this poll.
Well my vote is tallied on the poll but I'd say IV and III are both pretty good. I like IV better but III has a bit going for it, I never quite understood the III to IV animosity nor felt it was justified in full. V is really low on the list obviously, especially when giving 1 and 2 credit for their times and vision anyway even though I never really played them.
Heretic_Cata
We're gonna live forever
I don't check the civ5 forum, so i might as well ask it here.
Is there ever going to be a civ5 expansion or are they just going to spew DLCs instead ?
Is there ever going to be a civ5 expansion or are they just going to spew DLCs instead ?
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
civ5 wasn't bad, it just wasn't great. I liked the feel of it a lot but the gameplay got a little boring and the multiplayer didn't have the capabilities that civ4 did, like rejoining if someone lagged out.
civ3 had really cool industrial era world wars that civ4 just didn't have.
civ3 had really cool industrial era world wars that civ4 just didn't have.
Similar threads
