Why do you play Civ ?

[King Flevance]

I like the simplistic terrain design for resource management and city placement.
I like the tech tree unlocking new features in the game as it goes.
I like that there are multiple paths to victory that require different strategies.
I enjoy the concept of being able to forge relations with other empires, though most titles have stumbled on this.

Civ really does have a good formula due to its simplistic design. Some of the entries to the series have been able to pull some seriously versatile strategic depths out of these simple mechanisms. Each entry always offers big innovations to the series as well, which can be viewed as good or bad based on your tastes. I feel in love with Civ with the first game when I was like 13 so the simple mechanics certainly helped. I had played Bandit Kings, Rot3K, and Nobunaga's Ambition but Civ seemed so much easier to grasp and seemed to progress at a much faster pace also.
Civ 2 added so much, Then 3 added totally different stuff, and so on. Now, here we are on 7 and they are still tinkering with the formula. We do have some stuff like culture that will probably be here to stay permanently. I am hoping to see a return of commerce as a resource that can be funneled into research, gold, culture, etc. But I am also interested in the influence resource coming up. So I play Civ for its basic formula but I also do like the innovation attached to the series. Innovation can be a double edged sword for sure I just hope FXS tempers it well in the future.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I play Civ 5 without Districts also like historical empire simcity. I play on lower difficulty, sometimes with mods, just chilling, building an empire iakin to simcity/sims but instead of city/house, I'm building an empire and its history. There's nothing too deep in that Just my way of playing.

Oh I see... I may borrow your philosophy during some games, actually I already played some "Prince games" in Civ6 but I got bored quickly every time. I prefer Civ5 too. (even in Settler difficulty to get all the wonders, Shoshones are good for that as you can pop out settlers in that difficulty out of goody huts and create cities with the right requirements, like being coastal or near a mountain. When I saw the same challenge on YouTube but in Civ6, and in DEITY, I was like meh. The video I watched, the guy was at his 8th try, but still. You have to have so much luck that at that point I don't see the point) Thing is once I've done a challenge I feel like it's unlikely I will do it again. (well I've done the Settler all wonders several times and I might begin over) I might try the invasion of another continent in Prince or something too. (I always played Pangaea)

 

[vorlon_mi]

@King Flevance , your mention of Nobunaga sent me on a quest. I wasted a *lot* of time in 1990-91 playing Nobunaga's Ambition 2, when I should have been studying. I remembered the name, but had to search the different games to find the one with graphics that I remember. I started playing Civ II relatively soon after that, having found it in the discount bin. Best $10 I ever spent!

 

[Smellincoffee]

I've been obsessed with history since I was a kid, and I like the storied drama that grows from games -- which is probably why I stick to the simpler iterations like Civ 3.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I've been obsessed with history since I was a kid

Wow, the luck ! Personally I wasn't interested in History lessons when I was a kid (so I missed up on all of my country History, not listening at all), that's far later with Civ that I got into it. Trying to fill the gap with books and TV shows, but none of them is didactic enough to my taste. Maybe I should buy some lower school manual or something. But with Civ I got interested in various phenomena of History, and dream they are reproduced in Civ series ! Like the colonization, it's on good tracks with Civ7.

and I like the storied drama that grows from games -- which is probably why I stick to the simpler iterations like Civ 3.

You think Civ4-6 are not enough dramatic ? Maybe not 5 or 6 (more on board games side IMO) but Civ4 kept this notion, but sure it's far more complicated than Civ3 and below. (never won a Deity game, maybe Emperor at best, and still I'm not sure)

 

[Smellincoffee]

Wow, the luck ! Personally I wasn't interested in History lessons when I was a kid (so I missed up on all of my country History, not listening at all), that's far later with Civ that I got into it. Trying to fill the gap with books and TV shows, but none of them is didactic enough to my taste. Maybe I should buy some lower school manual or something. But with Civ I got interested in various phenomena of History, and dream they are reproduced in Civ series ! Like the colonization, it's on good tracks with Civ7.

You think Civ4-6 are not enough dramatic ? Maybe not 5 or 6 (more on board games side IMO) but Civ4 kept this notion, but sure it's far more complicated than Civ3 and below. (never won a Deity game, maybe Emperor at best, and still I'm not sure)

The problem with the later games is that I don't know them well enough to relax and get into storytelling and even role-playing to some extent. I have to concentrate and that breaks the immersion a bit.

 

[Naokaukodem]

The problem with the later games is that I don't know them well enough to relax and get into storytelling and even role-playing to some extent. I have to concentrate and that breaks the immersion a bit.

Yeah in Civ4 the AI is frightening. Even in lower difficulty levels wars are not that easy. But I understand your point for the later... I had to watch a LOT of YouTube videos to beat Deity in 5. And I have not so much fun with 6 no matter what... however I remember Civ3 being quite the thing in Deity too. (lots of micro with tons of units to wage wars)

 

[SnowKomodo]

Introduction: I used to watch this guy 2BCProductions, a hockey YouTuber who played EA Sports NHL, and he did a Civ 5 let's play and it looked so intriguing. He wasn't particularly good at the game, in fact he kind of sucked at it, but it introduced me to the series, and he had a storytelling quality to his empire builds.

Start of love affair: So I bought the game. Then back when I used to smoke a ton of a certain green stuff - the music and visuals and immersion took me to another planet

I'll never look back: Then on these forums I was championing for Indonesia (Majapahit or Srivijaya mostly) to be included in some capacity and so when they added Gajah Mada to Civ 5, then Gitarja to Civ 6, I became a locked-in fan. It felt great to see my country's history be represented so well. No complaints at all with any choices. They did their research!

Overall: But really it's just an addictive game, imagining you're creating this kingdom and exploring the unknown map. And I absolutely love seeing different cultures' artistic interpretations by the team, especially when they're from Asia

 

[BackseatTyrant]

The music.

 

[NickTheGreek!]

Pretty much all the thing already mentioned but also like to, sort of, create a parallel universe and play it through. Earth maps with true start would have been appealing but map size does not allow for a good representation of the earth imo(at least from what i have seen). Anyway, for that reason i pick a "chunk" and more or less pick the civs that are on that chunk (Europe for example) and sort of "live through" the alternative history (i only play the largest map size available on marathon). Explore the map, see which Civ got what part of the map and who conquered his neighbor while i was building up. Then maybe try to roleplay a bit and conquer Civ X with Civ Y (btw vassalisation was interesting, dont know why it is no longer a thing in CIV anymore) and eventually reach a point where i either go for domination or (if i like what i built so far and want to see it developed) sort of minmax with a specific win condition goal. The endgame has unfortunately always been the weakest part of a CIV game but the start, full of the unknown and uncertainty is always thrilling.

 

[Bast]

I've bought Civ II, III, IV and VI and played II, IV and VI a lot. I do'nt know why but I never bough V. I like the aesthetic of the games. I like how you are reliving history but in a manageable way and also guiding along how you want to build your civilization. I like the wonders, I like how you can micromanage and build cities.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I've bought Civ II, III, IV and VI and played II, IV and VI a lot. I do'nt know why but I never bough V. I like the aesthetic of the games. I like how you are reliving history but in a manageable way and also guiding along how you want to build your civilization. I like the wonders, I like how you can micromanage and build cities.

You missed the best one!

Although if you liked Civ 4 and Civ 6 a lot, maybe you wouldn't have enjoyed 5. People on this forum (at least the vocal ones!) rarely seem to enjoy all three of those!

 

[Disgustipated]

I enjoy all 3, but 5 the least of them. Didn't like 5 at all upon release. But Brave New World did good things for that game. Civ 5 upon release just had so little to do. And one reason I play civ is to have interesting things to do in terms of gameplay.

 

[Bast]

You missed the best one!

Although if you liked Civ 4 and Civ 6 a lot, maybe you wouldn't have enjoyed 5. People on this forum (at least the vocal ones!) rarely seem to enjoy all three of those!

I think I played 4 too much and was so used to the game that I didn't like the look, the feel or concept of 5. I was probably also busy with life during those years and when 6 came out, I liked the changes in made and was particularly intrigued by the civs and the civ leader and civ abilities. It definitely felt different to 4 but also familiar. I was skeptical about 7 at first but I'm warming up to the idea of switching civs because I think it does offer a replayability that's going to be completely different to previous games.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

This also sums it up: From Finding Nemo.

Mine Mine Mine

 

[Stoic]

For those who like history and politics, civilization is the best. The legendary sid meyer created an immortal game. Starting from antiquity to the future era has a certain charm.

 

[Core Imposter]

We have though reached the very point that when we arrive there needs to be someone there. We play to find them, and we start new games to find them and we are looking so long we are very tired.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Starting from antiquity to the future era has a certain charm.

A certain charm ? I would call it amazing, at least at the beginning. (granted we grew accustomed to it, hence the need to make it feel newer and different, something to underlines more the pass of time, something that makes the story renewed, underlined and re-hatched - I don't think putting an emphasis on eras, especially with civs flat choices, do nearly as much enough for it, I would even say that splitting the game like so has the contrary effect : too much min-maxing in my soup*)

We have though reached the very point that when we arrive there needs to be someone there. We play to find them, and we start new games to find them and we are looking so long we are very tired.

What do you mean ?

* : How would I do it ? By making numbers more realistic maybe, like instead of 10 pop it would be 1 million, things like that, and by making the size of cities particularly less linear, with deceases and migrations more important.
I would shift apart the center of the world, from Africa, to Mesopotamia, to Greece, to Rome, to Europe, to America, to globalized ideology blocks and after the fall of USSR emergent superpowers like China and other "dictatures" that doesn't encompass the Western way of thinking. Of course this is terrible in the perspective that "all people are equal", and that there is life elsewhere than in those "centers" (that, therefore, are disputable, where goes Persia, India, Egypt, Medieval/sooner China ?), but after all you don't have/can't be them everytime. Maybe culture and tourism would be a way to exist in the "half" world. (as to the tier world, they could try alternate paths like in Africa, if we let them be) Something like that, potentially. (centers could be totally different compared to reality, but we need a firm mechanic that simulates this, like Golden Ages always tried to achieve, or unique units for warfare. But those golden ages should be rarer and lot more powerful) Obviously that's still a Western point of view, when we are obsessed with world supremacy, but Asia often fought for unification that was a goal in itself, and that also could be a mechanic that is shared by everyone. (like conquering neighbors culturally linked, with religion-like cultural expansion early and converting everyone around to our culture, that we, that said, have appropriated from someone else. Conquering a city/camp/tribal village/town with our culture would grant advantages.)
(I don't know if the paragraph above makes for a "re-hatch" of global history though. Meh I wrote it so I let it there)