Which Do You Play Mostly:Civ:1, Civ:2, Civ:3, Civ:4 or Civ:5

[Takhisis]

As for the 1UPT, I kind of like it.

VADE RETRO! VADE RETRO! In the name of Sid, I banish thee, foul fiend!

 

[uat2d]

VADE RETRO! VADE RETRO! In the name of Sid, I banish thee, foul fiend!

I kind of understand him: if Civ5 was my first and only civilization game, I'd also say that Civ5 is the one from the games above that I play and like the most.

 

[CaptainF]

I kind of understand him: if Civ5 was my first and only civilization game, I'd also say that Civ5 is the one from the games above that I play and like the most.

...except Civ5 isn't my first Civ game. I've been playing since Civ2.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Eastern Europe '39 showed how pointy sticks don't work anymore.

I'd love to hear how this was reasoned.

The allies defense in WWII wasn't exactly done without military. Pointy stick approach fails when others have pointier sticks but it's been used successfully by most leaders. The trick is knowing when and when not to use the pointy stick approach. Which is one of the things I love about Civ.

Edit: I agree with Zelig. It's very sub-optimal in Civ not to use war. More so in III than IV.

 

[Takhisis]

I'd love to hear how this was reasoned.

The Eastern Europeans charged into a lot of tanks with a lot of cavalry.

The allies defense in WWII wasn't exactly done without military. Pointy stick approach fails when others have pointier sticks but it's been used successfully by most leaders. The trick is knowing when and when not to use the pointy stick approach. Which is one of the things I love about Civ.

Yes, I meant 'pointy sticks' literally. Loaded guns beat pointy sticks.

I agree with Zelig. It's very sub-optimal in Civ not to use war. More so in III than IV.

Yes, in III it's nearly impossible to play a game without ever declaring war. It is impossible t win it if you don't fight at least a defensive war or two.

 

[W|M]

Yes, I meant 'pointy sticks' literally. Loaded guns beat pointy sticks.

The barrels of guns are pointy metal sticks.

Yes, in III it's nearly impossible to play a game without ever declaring war. It is impossible t win it if you don't fight at least a defensive war or two.

I've heard of a game where someone built absolutely no military and won in Civ III.

 

[Godwynn]

Civ 2

Sometimes I'll play Civ 1.

 

[uat2d]

The Eastern Europeans charged into a lot of tanks with a lot of cavalry.

Cavalry was used in WW2 but it's a myth based on German propaganda that Polish cavalry charged versus Panzer divisions, specially with "sticks".

From wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_cavalry#World_War_II

Although the cavalrymen retained their sabres, after 1937 the lance was dropped and it was issued to cavalrymen as a weapon of choice only. Instead, the cavalry units were equipped with modern armament, including 75 mm guns, tankettes, 37mm AT guns, 40mm AA guns, anti-tank rifles and other pieces of modern weaponry.

 

[jtb1127]

Still, the cavalry were not very effective.

 

[W|M]

It wasn't cavalry that was used, it was dragoons.

 

[jtb1127]

Aren't dragoons cavalry?

 

[W|M]

Dragoons are mounted infantry - They ride into battle, but don't fight on horseback.

 

[jtb1127]

Ok, you win.

 

[BuckyRea]

Civ 3 mostly. I've tried Civ 4 a bit, but I've not been able to put in the time to learn to play the game well yet. I can't keep my big cities happy, but building settlers just seems to take forever, compared to Civ3. All the harsh reviews early have spooked me away from Civ 5, but when/if they ever put out v6, I'll probably jump on board.

 

[Bei1052]

Mostly CiV IV. Once in a while I'll play Civ II. Never played Civ III and I just can't get into Civ V. I know it's been discussed to death, but the IUPT thing (among other things) really kills a lot of gameplay, least because the computer sucks at it so bad. In Civ IV, I'd be slightly worried if an AI DOW'ed me 100 turns into the game; on Civ V I kind of laugh.

 

[DavidPBacon]

Mostly Civ IV, BTS Rise of Mankind. Awesome. Tried Civ V, but can't stand it's boredom. The idea of beating a Civ of 20 some cities with two handfuls of units is too much for me. A war should be fought with huge armies and won by the one that can put out more soldiers, with better tech and better logistics. This is historical and interesting. This talk of putting the bigger stack of doom is sub optimal. For example, I never put a stack bigger than 10 units, usually having between 3 or 4 of them atacking in mutiple fronts. I must say don't usually lose wars. Btw, I play in Monarch, normally.

 

[Truthy]

Mostly Civ IV, BTS Rise of Mankind. Awesome. Tried Civ V, but can't stand it's boredom. The idea of beating a Civ of 20 some cities with two handfuls of units is too much for me. A war should be fought with huge armies and won by the one that can put out more soldiers, with better tech and better logistics. This is historical and interesting. This talk of putting the bigger stack of doom is sub optimal. For example, I never put a stack bigger than 10 units, usually having between 3 or 4 of them atacking in mutiple fronts. I must say don't usually lose wars. Btw, I play in Monarch, normally.

The idea of combining units to make armies would be interesting for Civ V.

 

[kiwitt]

The idea of combining units to make armies would be interesting for Civ V.

Which is one of the aspects of Civ IV that I did not not like.

I decided that I would like to have Army Groups/Fronts, Armies, Corps and Divisions in my mod. What was represented did not feel "realistic" enough for me. So "guess what" ... I used the Civ IV modibility and changed it.

 

[Optical]

I play Civ4 for the most part.

 

[Civ_Rock]

For me, currently, Civ4