Midgard Eagle
Warlord
Civ 4 all the way. Civ 5 had too many issues and doesn't work on my laptop anyhow, and Civ III just made no sense.
Which Do You Play Mostly:Civ:1, Civ:2, Civ:3, Civ:4 or Civ:5
- Thread starter Ahovking
- Start date
kiwitt
Road to War Modder
This is my experience with Civ
Civ II > Civ II Tot > Civ III > Civ II tot > Civ III ptw > Civ III cqs > Civ IV > Civ III cqs > Civ IV war > Civ IV bts > Civ IV own mod > Civ V > Civ IV own mod
bold is when I reverted back, so I suspect I may go to Civ V when a new expansion is released. But I will check the later reviews "here" this time.
Civ II > Civ II Tot > Civ III > Civ II tot > Civ III ptw > Civ III cqs > Civ IV > Civ III cqs > Civ IV war > Civ IV bts > Civ IV own mod > Civ V > Civ IV own mod
bold is when I reverted back, so I suspect I may go to Civ V when a new expansion is released. But I will check the later reviews "here" this time.
![[c3c]](/images/smilies/c3c.gif "Civ3 Conquests [c3c]")
.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
What I don't understand is the love of II.
It's been so many years since I spent any time with 2 that I don't recall it all that well. But I played it a lot back in the day.
Aquila SPQR
King
When I bought Civ IV I've never returned to Civ III. And when I bought Civ V... I've returned to Civ IV after few days.
And I never touched Civ V again.
And I never touched Civ V again.
Perfection
The Great Head.
I don't need the benefit of the doubt, I am obviously righteous.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
II was great on it's own, though I think where it really shone was scenarios. You could say the same about IV, but IV looked really stupid, what with it's square tiles and tiny maps.
jtb1127
Deity
What do you mean tiny maps?
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Compared to Civ III, Civ IV maps were very small. By default you are zoomed in more to see the greater detail of each tile, but the number of tiles the game could handle was far less.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
The maps always seemed significantly smaller than those for Civ II or III. That, and the city upkeep (while an amazing mechanic), meant you couldn't really get big sprawling empires in the same way, at least without conquering it.
Oohforf
Praise loud, blame soft.
It used to be Civ 5, now it's back to Civ 4. Been enjoying it far too much with AND to even touch Civ 5.
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
The SNES version suffers from not having a mouse, so you need to replace movement and clicking with longer sequences of button presses. Turns tend to drag out (for a civ game), and ???? help you if you lose track of which units have moved. There's also no goto.
Verarde
Pondering Wearing A Hat
I play Civ 3 and 4 equally. I don't have any others.
dusters
Emperor
Civ 3 nowadays. I rememeber having 30+ hour marathons of Civ 1 though. Although I like graphics and game mechanics of civ 3 , I never get the same feeling as I did in my childhood years when I spent countless hours with civ I. Seeing *tech researched* screen in Civ I and bashing AI with catapults just felt glorious.
bestrfcplayer
Steppin' up!
My first Civ game was 4. Then I bought Rev (played for about 2 weeks), went back to 4 (BTS), then got 5 (played for about an hour), and then I've returned to 4 (which I've been playing ever since).
Alright then. But through your righteousness it appeared you were attempting to resurrect the argument of console vs PC.
