p55carroll
Chieftain
I've played Civ1, Civ2, Civ3 (+ Conquests), Civ4, and CivRevDS. Civ4 had problems on our computer system from day one; for a while I got it to run by disabling movies. Now I just got a Windows 7 notebook; and I tried to install Civ4 but ran into compatibility issues. So for now, I've given up and installed Civ3 + Conquests.
I've played it for the past three evenings, and it's starting to come back to me. I'm impressed with everything about it--how big and pretty and wonderful it is. I know I barely scratched the surface last time I played (however long ago that was). There are tons of things I could explore and experiment with--not to mention mods and such, which I haven't seriously even considered.
So, part of me is happy with Civ3. Another part is curious about Civ5.
Some random thoughts that might factor in:
1. I generally dislike 3-D graphics and animation, especially in TBS games. I put up with those things in Civ4, but for me they were not a plus.
2. I did like the customization options in Civ4--the way I could set up a small game to last a couple hours or a big one to last all week, and the way I could set aggression levels or get a continent to myself and avoid war if I wanted to.
3. I was impressed with the "streamlining" of CivRevDS. But I really hated the fact that every AI player (except sometimes Greece) becomes an aggressive enemy at some point, making diplomacy a joke. Eventually I got used to it and started playing it as a wargame, whereupon I did a lot better--even winning on Deity level once. But I don't like treating Civ as a wargame. If I want that, there are better ones around.
4. Back in Civ2, I used to often be rich later in the game, and I'd use spies to buy up enemy cities. Worked like a charm, but it felt wrong somehow.
5. I love the cultural borders in Civ3, but it's annoying that AI players don't often respect them. (Maybe instead of shooing them away, I should try declaring war.)
6. I've always had a love-hate relationship with Civ: it's the most compelling game I've ever played, yet there are features that greatly annoy me in every version. My biggest frustration is that I tend to fall into complacency, enjoying the exploring and expanding too much, for too long, and then AI enemies suddenly come out of the woodwork and rampage across my civilization. Makes me feel like a kid at the beach who spent all day building an elaborate sandcastle, only to have a bully run by and kick it down.
7. I have no patience for micromanagement. I automate settlers and explorers and everything I can, leaving just high-level decisions for myself. Late in a game, it often seems there are too many pieces to move, too many fussy little things to do.
8. I play single-player games only. I'm unlikely to ever play a multiplayer game.
I've played it for the past three evenings, and it's starting to come back to me. I'm impressed with everything about it--how big and pretty and wonderful it is. I know I barely scratched the surface last time I played (however long ago that was). There are tons of things I could explore and experiment with--not to mention mods and such, which I haven't seriously even considered.
So, part of me is happy with Civ3. Another part is curious about Civ5.
Some random thoughts that might factor in:
1. I generally dislike 3-D graphics and animation, especially in TBS games. I put up with those things in Civ4, but for me they were not a plus.
2. I did like the customization options in Civ4--the way I could set up a small game to last a couple hours or a big one to last all week, and the way I could set aggression levels or get a continent to myself and avoid war if I wanted to.
3. I was impressed with the "streamlining" of CivRevDS. But I really hated the fact that every AI player (except sometimes Greece) becomes an aggressive enemy at some point, making diplomacy a joke. Eventually I got used to it and started playing it as a wargame, whereupon I did a lot better--even winning on Deity level once. But I don't like treating Civ as a wargame. If I want that, there are better ones around.
4. Back in Civ2, I used to often be rich later in the game, and I'd use spies to buy up enemy cities. Worked like a charm, but it felt wrong somehow.
5. I love the cultural borders in Civ3, but it's annoying that AI players don't often respect them. (Maybe instead of shooing them away, I should try declaring war.)
6. I've always had a love-hate relationship with Civ: it's the most compelling game I've ever played, yet there are features that greatly annoy me in every version. My biggest frustration is that I tend to fall into complacency, enjoying the exploring and expanding too much, for too long, and then AI enemies suddenly come out of the woodwork and rampage across my civilization. Makes me feel like a kid at the beach who spent all day building an elaborate sandcastle, only to have a bully run by and kick it down.
7. I have no patience for micromanagement. I automate settlers and explorers and everything I can, leaving just high-level decisions for myself. Late in a game, it often seems there are too many pieces to move, too many fussy little things to do.
8. I play single-player games only. I'm unlikely to ever play a multiplayer game.
