Which Do You Play Mostly:Civ:1, Civ:2, Civ:3, Civ:4 or Civ:5
- Thread starter Ahovking
- Start date
Yep. That's not going to happen with the millstone 2K Games around.
It'd be great if they can somehow convince Soren Johnson or Brian Reynolds to come back but like you said, it's a pipe dream.
Anyway, I voted cIV but I easily could have said Civ II as well. I loved Test of Time especially.
Objectively, the ranking of civ games, agreed upon by the consensus of the greatest minds CFC has to offer:
Civ4 = SMAC > Civ2 > Civ1 > Civ5 > Civ3
If you're not able to beat all of the above games at the top difficulty, without using cheese, your opinion is irrelevant to the matter.
Civ4 = SMAC > Civ2 > Civ1 > Civ5 > Civ3
If you're not able to beat all of the above games at the top difficulty, without using cheese, your opinion is irrelevant to the matter.
I play Civ IV (unmodded) almost every day right now. At first, it felt strange to not play the most recent game in the series, but then I realized that it's about having fun. Lately I've been trying to find some use for that worthless "protective" trait. 
And by the way, I don't get why so many people seem to enjoy Civ III. I always found it less exciting than Civ II, and the graphics made me feel like I was on a holiday in a tropical paradise. But the worst thing was the corruption. ICS was really the only strategy, but...The majority of your cities were useless. So you end up with 4-5 nice cities and 20 cities with 1-2 shields per turn. The only solution was to build FP, which often required warmongering since you would need that great leader to complete it.
And some things were just plain stupid, such as how the armies worked or the units with lethal bombardment.
Additions like culture and UU's were nice, but in overall, I felt that Civ II was much more fun and addicitive.
And by the way, I don't get why so many people seem to enjoy Civ III. I always found it less exciting than Civ II, and the graphics made me feel like I was on a holiday in a tropical paradise. But the worst thing was the corruption. ICS was really the only strategy, but...The majority of your cities were useless. So you end up with 4-5 nice cities and 20 cities with 1-2 shields per turn. The only solution was to build FP, which often required warmongering since you would need that great leader to complete it.
And some things were just plain stupid, such as how the armies worked or the units with lethal bombardment.
Additions like culture and UU's were nice, but in overall, I felt that Civ II was much more fun and addicitive.
Aquila SPQR
King
Not exactly. Civ V demo was quite good. I've played it, and I liked it. Unfortunately playing for more than 100 turns quickly revealed incredibly annoying things in Civ V. And multiplayer? One multi game with my friend, and we said "never again!" (and my shock when I saw no "save game" option for the first time
) and returned to BTS 
uat2d
ಠ_ಠ
I hate having to agree with this. It hurts! But computer games seem to go like empires - they rise, reach a pinnacle (CivIV), and decline. Based on what I'm reading, they're just going to try to milk the franchise. They might come out with 6, guessing (with reason), that any garbage they put out with the Civ name will sell. The marketing decisions with V sound like this is the case.
Oh, well, we have so many mods and scenarios to work with now that CivIV has grown away from its creators. As has CivIII.
I succeeded in doing that first try.
Ataxerxes said:
Some mods (like C2C for Civ IV) actually seem like different games themselves which are merely based on Civ.
A lot of the mods are like that, giving players a lot of variety for just the same game. Even something like RFC requires you to play a very different way than a standard BTS game. Even the CivIII mods often had different units and tech trees. I suppose, with just III and IV as the base, there's a lot of diversity just within those two games.
kiwitt
Road to War Modder
Agree my mod is like a different game, except it uses the Civ IV interface.
jtb1127
Deity
This thread is being used to argue why civ iv is better than civ v or why civ iii is better than civ v.
uat2d
ಠ_ಠ
Because Civ V sucks and the series are dieing and Civ III and Civ IV were so much better than the crap they're trying to sell us now!!!
jtb1127
Deity
I'd reply with just an angry face but that's against the forum rules. So now I'll put one: 
It's a civ v angry face because that's what I'm angry at.
It's a civ v angry face because that's what I'm angry at.
madviking
north american scum
jtb1127
Deity
I've taken cities but only a few times lost them. You'll lose them if their on a different continent and their right next to a cultural civ or you captured it from that cultural civ.
