[Moogs]

Looks like a pretty substantial improvement. Since we're not likely to get any love on the Black Ops or MOH Tier 1 tip, I might give up the FPS genre for a while.

http://www.civilization5.com/

[AsLan^]

I'm definitely looking forward to playing Civ V but I promised myself that I wouldn't buy it until I had a job lest I never find one.

[Kraetos]

I bought it the day it came out and played it incessantly for about a week. Initially, I was really impressed.

- The graphics are great
- The resource system is streamlined
- 1 Unit Per Tile (1UPT) gets rid of "stacks of doom" and theoretically opens the door for more tactical options. In fact, combat in general is much better, with actual ranged units and a great promotion and upgrade system.

But as I played it more and more, I realized the game was flawed in many ways. The other civilizations AIs are terrible, they either cower beneath you or believe they are completely superior. There's no middle ground.

The ratio of hammers to beakers is way off. In the early game, it takes forever to build units and structures, because the tiles simply don't yield enough hammers unless you spam lumber mills and mines.

In the late game, units remain expensive, but tech becomes way cheaper. The result is that from the late mid-game onwards, your units go obsolete before you get a chance to build them.

The civs are incredibly unbalanced. Japan is extremely overpowered. The Greeks and the Siamese can also abuse city states in a way which completely unbalances the game.

City states are interesting but they provide mechanics which are easily abused. City states are single city civs which don't compete to win the game. Two per major civ are generated on the map. They are divided into three categories: militaristic, maritime, and cultured.

If you befriend a militaristic city state (which you do by taking on a mission or giving them gold) they give you a unit every 17 turns, which is basically useless compared to what the other types can do.

Cultured city states provide a good early-to-mid game culture boost but they become less valuable in the modern era.

But maritime city states, well, they just fuck everything up. Befriend a maritime city state and you will receive 2 food per turn in your capitol and 1 food per turn in every other city. In other words, for each city state you befriend, every city gets a free citizen and your capitol gets 2.

Befriend three or more maritime city states your city growth will skyrocket. Because you don't need the food, you can spam trading posts and lumber mills, which generate gold from grassland/plains and hammers from forests. The hammers let you get your production up to decent levels, and the trading posts provide the massive gold income you'll need to keep paying off city states. Because all your cities get the same amount of food regardless of tiles, you can spam cities in a tight grid to maximize the effectiveness of your improvements. This strategy is called Infinite City Sprawl and if you use it, you will win. Every. Time. The AI can't handle it. Except on the highest levels where the AI cheats like a motherfucker, you'll be generating more hammers, gold, and food than any other civ. It shouldn't be so easy to maximize the output of all of these resources.

Without any assistance, it is hard to keep more than two city states in good standing. However, Greece and Siam have unique abilities which let them get more out of city states. Additionally, there is an entire policy tree devoted to enhancing the effectiveness of city state relationships. Just one of these boosts is sufficient to sustain this strategy.

So, yeah. Right now, the game is pretty boring, because the AIs suck and "magical maritime food" breaks one of the most core Civ mechanics. In Civ V, city placement doesn't matter. Think about that for a second. It doesn't matter where you put cities because they all get the same amount of food and the improvements you need to sustain this strategy can be placed on any tile.

And if all that sounds too complicated for you, spam horsemen, one of the earliest units in the game. The AI can't handle highly mobile units, because the AIs units usually move in an uncoordinated blob. At the moment, the game is very broken, more broken than Civ games usually are at launch. I'm sure they'll patch it up but if you can wait, wait.

[Moogs]

Wow. You kill joy! So do you recommend for a Civ Noob like me to get Civ IV instead?

[Maciej]

Civ IV can be relatively overwhelming for a Noob, IMO.

[Moogs]

How does one version differ from the next in terms of objectives and gameplay? Example: with COD, one version might be in a different theatre of war than the next, or a different era. Does Civ target a different era or part of the world in every version, or just offer new ways to do the same things as the last version, and new graphics?

[scratt]

Originally Posted by Maciej Civ IV can be relatively overwhelming for a Noob, IMO.

I think Civ III is still probably the best, and the one which you can get lost in most, and can be most overwhelming for a n00b.

Civ IV I found a huge huge disappointment, and too simple.
Civ V, from what I have read, has gone further the same way. But I am still game to give it a try. Or was, before I read what Kraetos had to say.

Originally Posted by Moogs How does one version differ from the next in terms of objectives and gameplay? Example: with COD, one version might be in a different theatre of war than the next, or a different era. Does Civ target a different era or part of the world in every version, or just offer new ways to do the same things as the last version, and new graphics?

They are all pretty much remakes of the same game. Just updated for each generation of hardware.

So overall the UI has improved. But the gameplay has been dumbed down.

As I said just above Civ III was the peak IMHO.

I was hoping that Civ V went more the way of Civ III than Civ IV. But that seems not to be the case, in either stability or scope.

[Kraetos]

Originally Posted by Moogs Wow. You kill joy! So do you recommend for a Civ Noob like me to get Civ IV instead?

I would recommend you wait. Civ4 BtS is just about the most complicated mainstream strategy game in existence. Once CiV gets patched up, it will be a much better choice for a noob.

In fact, you could go ahead and buy it now. The ICS exploit doesn't effect you as a newbie (if you want me to explicitly explain how to build an ICS Civ, I can. Sometimes it's fun to be the superpower by such a wide margin you are effectively king of the world ) so really only the diplomacy is really going to piss you off.

I recommend you try an ICS before it gets patched, because it's actually a good insight into the game mechanics if you do it once or twice. Problem is, ICS is crazy easy to pull off if you know what you're doing, so until it get's patched away, I'm pretty bored with the game.

Also the, horseman rush is just as effective as ICS for dominating the game, except faster. A successful horseman rush can win you the game before 1000 BC

Originally Posted by scratt I think Civ III is still probably the best, and the one which you can get lost in most, and can be most overwhelming for a n00b. Civ IV I found a huge huge disappointment, and too simple. Civ V, from what I have read, has gone further the same way. But I am still game to give it a try. Or was, before I read what Kraetos had to say.

Civ III sucks! It's a glorified calculator with dated graphics. Seriously, the way to beat Civ III is with an Excel spreadsheet. It's booooooooring.

Civ IV rocks. If you look around the CivFanatics forums (these guys know Civ) the common consensus is that Civ IV BtS is the pinnacle of Civ. Simple and BtS do not belong in the same sentence. Ever. That game is ridiculously complex.

They are all pretty much remakes of the same game. Just updated for each generation of hardware. So overall the UI has improved. But the gameplay has been dumbed down. As I said just above Civ III was the peak IMHO. I was hoping that Civ V went more the way of Civ III than Civ IV. But that seems not to be the case, in either stability or scope.

Each Civ game has brought very worthwhile enhancements. The biggest things in Civ III were borders and culture. Civ IV replaced the outdated, boring attack/defense combat model with a promotion based one which is way, way better. CiV brings us 1UPT which is revolutionary for Civ and also rejiggers the resource model in a manner that makes it a lot easier to understand and micromanage.

Don't get me wrong—with a dozen or so patches and an expansion, CiV will be the pinnacle of Civ, hands down. But it's not there yet—no Civ since the original realized it's potential until a few years after release. The first 12-months of any new Civ game is basically a paid beta.

I don't think I would say the gameplay has been dumbed down. It's certainly been streamlined, but that isn't the same thing. The resource model from past games was needlessly complex and I'm glad it's been simplified. On the other hand, once the AI kinks get worked out, combat will be more complicated than it was in any past Civ game thanks to 1UPT.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Civ III. I would argue that Civ III is the single worst Civ game, because it's so predictable. I can't go back to the "attack/defense" combat model after Civ4, it's just too much of a step backwards.

CiV will get there. But it's not there yet. Civ IV was pretty meh for it's first year or so. I remember buying it the day it came out. It brought my 1.7GHz P4/Radeon 9700 system to a crawl, it was buggy as hell, and it was significantly less complicated than Conquests was. But it was patched and expanded into what is now widely accepted as the best Civ game to date.

tl;dr Buy CiV if you want to, it will be fixed eventually and the current problems won't be visible to you as a newbie. Civ III sucks, Civ IV BtS rules.

[scratt]

You and I must mix in different Civ circles.

Sure Civ III is dated graphically.

And I have not even played Civ V yet. So I can't really comment there.

But Civ IV is seen by just about everyone I know who likes Civ games, and has been playing them since they first came out, as a victim of the console generation. Boring. Option limited. Could be played by a monkey. And the easiest to beat. *yawn*

If flashy graphics == game play for you then that's great.

[Kraetos]

Originally Posted by scratt But Civ IV is seen by just about everyone I know who likes Civ games, and has been playing them since they first came out, as a victim of the console generation. Boring. Option limited. Could be played by a monkey. And the easiest to beat. *yawn*

Interesting. My Civ "circle" is the CivFanatics forum and ever since CiV came out, it's been a giant circle-jerk about how fucking great BtS is and how they'll never play CiV etc. etc.

The Civ subreddit has the same sentiment. I don't know anyone who's played BtS and walked away thinking they don't have enough options. In terms of sheer things you can do, BtS blows Conquests out of the water.

You're not talking about vanilla Civ IV, are you? Because then I would agree. Both CiV and Civ III: Conquests are better than vanilla Civ IV. I might even agree that vanilla Civ III is better than vanilla Civ IV.

That's actually exactly my point: new Civ games are never fully fleshed out. Civ always needs a few patches and an expansion before it's better than the previous iteration, so I hope you're not comparing vanilla Civ IV to Civ III: Conquests because that's not a fair comparison at all.

But, geez, "option limited?" That's the absolute last thing you can cay about BtS. BtS has options out the wazoo. The reason Firaxis went with a super-streamlined approach for CiV was because they knew themselves that BtS took "options" just a little too far.

If flashy graphics == game play for you then that's great.

Actually, I'm still playing Civ IV BtS because the gameplay is much better than CiV at the moment.

I remember this same debate for every single version of Civ. Lots of people preferred Civ II to Civ III until Conquests came out, and lots of people preferred Conquests to IV until BtS came out. V will be no different. Five years from now when Civ VI comes out, people will be circlejerking over "Civ V: Nuke The Whales" or whatever they decide to name it. I know this will happen because it happens for literally every version of Civ.

I've heard people argue that Civ III is the best Civ before. Civ III is the best vanilla Civ, but it's not the best Civ, period. The best Civ is BtS.

Shit, even Civ II was kinda meh until the MP Gold edition came out with both expansions bundled. Civ is all about expansion packs. Vanilla versions of Civ are not a good way to judge Civ games.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by Kraetos Interesting. My civ "circle" is the CivFanatics forum and ever since CiV came out, it's bee a giant circle-jerk about how fucking great Civ IV is and how they'll never play CiV etc. etc.

Well that sounds vaguely familiar. Isn't that just normal geek angst around upgrade time.

Originally Posted by Kraetos The Civ subreddit has the same sentiment. I don't know anyone who's played BtS and walked way thinking that IV is "option limited." You're not talking about vanilla Civ IV, are you? Because then I would agree. Both CiV and Civ III: Conquests are better than vanilla Civ IV.

More or less, yes I am. I am aware of the various packs and upgrades. But most people just play the originals.

When you compare Civ IV to Civ III in that context I am glad to see we're on the same page. Phew. Thought I was going mad!!

Civ IV was so damn awful when it first came out I could barely play it. In some ways pretty much the same reaction you've had to Civ V.

Originally Posted by Kraetos But, geez, "option limited?" That's the absolute last thing you can cay about BtS.

You could say the same thing about Fallout 3. Not being able to level up after 20 was a critical flaw in the original game. And until you bought an expansion pack that was just something everyone had to put up with.
How many people out of all the people who bought Fallout 3 got the expansion packs, or even knew that?
Simple example. But I hope you see my point. Which in some ways similar to the point you made above about early releases almost being Beta releases for Civ.

Originally Posted by Kraetos Actually, I'm still playing Civ IV BtS because the gameplay is much better than CiV at the moment.

Perhaps it's time for me to dust off and upgrade my copy of Civ IV?

Overall for me, to date, Civ III is still the closest thing to a top down real world war game on a big table with little models you move around. It's just the one that clicked for me. And because of that I see through the graphics, because the gameplay is there for me. I was able to play games on Civ III that lasted weeks... Admittedly quite a lot of that time, towards the end particularly, was waiting for the computer to move!!

With Civ IV I just felt that the eye-candy had become the focus. And too many of the options and nuances were gone.
And that is pretty much the general consensus that I have got back from people who play it too.

Likewise the new limitations in V with how units can be stacked, and arranged. And a lot of the new stuff to do with the location of new cities etc. which have no real strategic bearing on the game whatsoever. But perhaps those issues, and the way some nations are predictably strong, and others are predictably weak in Civ V are all just "new release" issues - as you say - and will get tidied up?

Only a month or two ago I tweeted about my feelings on the Civ franchise overall and got a chorus of replies about Civ III being the one that everyone wanted V to try and get back to. Same response in the gaming media circles I frequent. Most people felt that Civ IV was dumbed down and disappointing. So I guess we are all basing our opinions on the "wrong" version!

So please, take me by the hand, and show me what I have to go get to make Civ IV good, and I'll give it a try (and report back).

[Capella]

Newbie interjecting into the conversation: if I wanted to get into Civ (preferably as cheap as possible until I decide if I like it), where should I start? My only even semi related gaming experience was I once had Age of Empires and I used to build maps for my novels with it, but I didn't actually play campaign mode. So assume I will have nooooo idea what I'm doing.

[Foj]

What I want to know is, can you still attack tanks with catapults??

[Kraetos]

Originally Posted by scratt When you compare Civ IV to Civ III in that context I am glad to see we're on the same page. Phew. Thought I was going mad!! Civ IV was so damn awful when it first came out I could barely play it. In some ways pretty much the same reaction you've had to Civ V.

I agree completely. Vanilla Civ IV was shite for exactly the reasons your citing. Civ III gold edition (i.e. with both expos) is way more fun than vanilla IV.

How many people out of all the people who bought Fallout 3 got the expansion packs, or even knew that? Simple example. But I hope you see my point. Which in some ways similar to the point you made above about early releases almost being Beta releases for Civ.

Yup. Civ is strange in the sense that a Civ game isn't really complete until it's been patched, expoed and modded for two or three years. They are simply too complicated for the designers to get everything right on the first pass.

Civ III was an anomaly. The vanilla version was respectable and the expos were meh. Every other version went the other way.

Perhaps it's time for me to dust off and upgrade my copy of Civ IV?

Absolutely. Civ IV gold (Civ IV + both expos + Colonization) can be had on Steam of $40. I think you'd like it a lot (and I think you would hate CiV in it's current form, I'm not that fond of it either.)

With Civ IV I just felt that the eye-candy had become the focus. And too many of the options and nuances were gone.

Yeah, new Civ games always have fewer "options and nuances" because if each Civ game was more complicated as the last one, Civ would be Dwarf Fortress by now. The point of integer Civ releases is to cut down the cruft, and the point of expansions is to selectively re-add important things that were stripped (and usually some new stuff as well.)

CiV is the most extreme implementation of this strategy to date. That's why the backlash is so strong. But there's no doubt in my mind that once everything is tidied up CiV will live up to its name, because after playing the shit out of and going back to Civ IV, I've decided that CiV potentially has the strongest foundation of any Civ game to date, it's just severely lacking in the depth department.

Likewise the new limitations in V with how units can be stacked, and arranged.

Actually I think that 1UPT is the greatest thing to ever happen to Civ. No more "stacks of doom," and good riddance. CiV is the first Civ that actually forces you to apply tactics as well as strategy. Because in Civ II/III/IV, combat consists of "start the musket mill, boys! We're goin to war!"

It just sucks that the AI is so craptastic. It couldn't fight it's way out of a paper bag, which makes this new tactical combat system worthless.

And a lot of the new stuff to do with the location of new cities etc.

Oh god, don't get me started. Tile yield in CiV is beyond fucked up. Farms are worthless until the medieval era, and even then their meh when compared to Magical Maritime Food. Hammer yield is terrible as well, so you have to constantly spam golden ages if you want respectable production at all until you get to the modern era and can start cranking out factories.

Of course, by the time you get there, the beaker/hammer ratio is so fucked up that your units go obsolete before you can build them.

MMF+ICS dominates everything in CiV. I typically play on Warlord, but with MMF+ICS I've managed to utterly dominate a 10 Civ game on Emperor, and it wasn't even that hard. The problem is that the AI has no idea how to execute or deal with MMF+ICS. CiV needs serious patching before we can even talk about expos, but I'm sure it'll get there eventually.

Only a month or two ago I tweeted about my feelings on the Civ franchise overall and got a chorus of replies about Civ III being the one that everyone wanted V to try and get back to. Same response in the gaming media circles I frequent. Most people felt that Civ IV was dumbed down and disappointing. So I guess we are all basing our opinions on the "wrong" version! So please, take me by the hand, and show me what I have to go get to make Civ IV good, and I'll give it a try (and report back).

Civ IV Gold Edition is all you need.

[scratt]

Brilliant. Thank you. Great reply.

I now understand where I am getting it wrong.

When everyone is getting excited about Civ (latest release), what you should actually be doing is downloading Civ (last release : Gold Edition)!!!

I must dust off III and see if I was playing the Gold Edition all that time. Which would explain an awful lot.

So by about 2013 Civ V should be worth a punt, right?

[torifile]

Steam had Civ iv complete on sale for $10 last christmas. I suspect they'll do a similar deal this year.

[JohnnyTheA]

Has anyone played civ for the iPad? I was thinking about getting it..

[scratt]

I've got the iPhone version.

It's not a bad diversion. But on the iPhone I found that the screen was too small, and the icons too big, so that even pinch zooming seemed to not be very effective.

There is plenty to do. And it is fun. But it's certainly more of a diversion than a fully blown strategy fest.

I got it for free. And it's a nice little diversion for a short plane flight, or fairly long bus ride. Not sure I'd pay $12 for it though.

[scratt]

Originally Posted by Capella Newbie interjecting into the conversation: if I wanted to get into Civ (preferably as cheap as possible until I decide if I like it), where should I start? My only even semi related gaming experience was I once had Age of Empires and I used to build maps for my novels with it, but I didn't actually play campaign mode. So assume I will have nooooo idea what I'm doing.

Seems like a cheap Civ IV end of year deal, like torifile mentioned, might be the way to go.
Certainly a pretty game, even the crippled release version I played.

All of them have a fairly good tutorial system.
I got into each without ever reading a manual, and simply learning as I went.

And you can scale all the various campaigns from mini-maps up to very large ones, and they normally have difficulty ratings from Chieftain up thorough War Lord. So start small... and eventually aim for world domination and / or Civ fanaticism.

[AsLan^]

I've only played Civ I, Civ Rev (iPhone), and Civ IV. Perhaps I'm in the minority but Civ IV vanilla seems better than BtS to me. BtS seems kind of hacked on and I don't really like the espionage or understand the corporation aspects. The future war scenario is very nice but I didn't really like any of the others.

From Kraetos' description it seems that the hardcore Civ fans like BtS but perhaps these additional aspects didn't poll well with more casual players and that's why they weren't included in Civ V (and hence even the existence of Civ Revolution).

If anyone is new to the Civ franchise and considering getting in to it why not go straight for V, it's going to be updated eventually and I'm pretty sure these showstoppers really only apply to the kinds of people who hang out on Civ forums and crunch the numbers for different strategies :P

Civ IV Gold sounds like a good deal but it's not really 4 games unless you play all the scenarios in all the expansions (which I certainly haven't done). I pretty much just bounce between vanilla and BtS. The features of Warlords are rolled into BtS and I haven't actually tried Colonization yet because it doesn't really sound too interesting and I don't think it has any new features.

When I bought Civ IV Gold in September I didn't know Civ V was right around the corner, if I had known I would have waited and bought Civ V instead just to be a part of the new hotness and to enjoy the atmosphere that goes along with that.

BTW Great analysis Kraetos

[Kraetos]

Originally Posted by Capella Newbie interjecting into the conversation: if I wanted to get into Civ (preferably as cheap as possible until I decide if I like it), where should I start? My only even semi related gaming experience was I once had Age of Empires and I used to build maps for my novels with it, but I didn't actually play campaign mode. So assume I will have nooooo idea what I'm doing.

I'd still say Civ IV, even though I've been explaining how complicated it is the whole thread. CiV's problems are technical as well. My rig is pretty beefy and it slows to a crawl in the late game. I don't think this is graphics, I think it's the AI, because it doesn't spin my GPU fan up, it spins my CPU fan up. It wouldn't surprise me if the AI was sloppily coded given how terrible it performs, as if it was an afterthought. Just stick with the tutorial and it should make sense.

Originally Posted by scratt So by about 2013 Civ V should be worth a punt, right?

Sounds about right The first expo will probably make it respectable, the second will make it great.

Originally Posted by JohnnyTheA Has anyone played civ for the iPad? I was thinking about getting it..

It's a very, very simplified version of Civ. I don't like it that much, but as you can tell, I like my Civ games as complicated as possible

Originally Posted by AsLan^ I've only played Civ I, Civ Rev (iPhone), and Civ IV. Perhaps I'm in the minority but Civ IV vanilla seems better than BtS to me. BtS seems kind of hacked on and I don't really like the espionage or understand the corporation aspects. The future war scenario is very nice but I didn't really like any of the others.

Basically, every integer Civ release nerfs espionage hard. So the fans bitch about it until it comes back in an expo. Corporations are basically late game religions, but Sid's Sushi is really overpowered.... it pretty much provides the same benefits that MMF does in CiV, but you can't get more than 2 extra food per city, unlike MMF which is only limited by the number of city states you can find.

Tangent: I am glad that CiV axed religion. I hated religion. Unless you played as a spiritual Civ (and none of the spiritual Civs really appeal to me) you had no shot at getting the two super early religions (Hinduism and Buddhism, I think?) which meant you either had to a) beeline for one of the other religions, which could seriously fuck up your tech build, or b) decide early on that you're going to submit to someone else's religion, which sucks because if you ever need to go to war with that Civ, you're screwed.

Corporations were just religions with benefits ranging from useless to ridiculously overpowered. I'm not surprised they got axed either.

From Kraetos' description it seems that the hardcore Civ fans like BtS but perhaps these additional aspects didn't poll well with more casual players and that's why they weren't included in Civ V (and hence even the existence of Civ Revolution).

Yeah. CivRev and BtS are on the exact opposite ends of the Civ spectrum. I'm not a fan of CivRev at all.

Overall I like the direction that CiV is headed in. I'd rather them take too much out than leave too much in. There are already mods that can fix most of the problems.

If anyone is new to the Civ franchise and considering getting in to it why not go straight for V, it's going to be updated eventually and I'm pretty sure these showstoppers really only apply to the kinds of people who hang out on Civ forums and crunch the numbers for different strategies :P

Things like the ICS exploit? Yeah, you have to be pretty into it to think about the games in those terms.

But on the other end of the spectrum, the AI behavior would be even more infuriating for a newbie than for a vet. Seriously, all the leaders in CiV are god damn schizophrenics. Some are worse than others. Alexander, for example, is pretty easy to get along with, but don't even get me started on Gandhi. What a fucking asshole.

Plus, there are a bunch of technical problems, crashing, crazy lag, fans spinning out of control, etc... I know I've waffled back in forth in this thread, but after thinking about it this way I really cant recommend CiV to anyone until they fix the technical problems and improve the AI at least a little bit.

Civ IV Gold sounds like a good deal but it's not really 4 games unless you play all the scenarios in all the expansions (which I certainly haven't done). I pretty much just bounce between vanilla and BtS. The features of Warlords are rolled into BtS and I haven't actually tried Colonization yet because it doesn't really sound too interesting and I don't think it has any new features. When I bought Civ IV Gold in September I didn't know Civ V was right around the corner, if I had known I would have waited and bought Civ V instead just to be a part of the new hotness and to enjoy the atmosphere that goes along with that. BTW Great analysis Kraetos

Colonization is weird. I've never actually played it but I know what it is. It's the same engine and mechanics, but it has a few novelties to make it fit the time period and the entire game takes place in a few hundred years, instead of six thousand.

Unless you really wanna check out CiV, it's a tough sell on the technical problems alone, which I imagine would be even worse in Mac OS X.

And Thanks! If anyone ever wants to talk Civ.... well, you guys know where to find me

[scratt]

Originally Posted by Kraetos Unless you really wanna check out CiV, it's a tough sell on the technical problems alone, which I imagine would be even worse in Mac OS X.

A couple of people I know have pulled down the Steam copy for the Mac, as it was free because they already had the PC version. Both of them tweeted a few hours later that it is indeed unstable as hell on OS X, and even more buggy. So they are sticking with Boot Camp and the PC version.

[curiousuburb]

Great insights Kraetos. Even without playing all the expansions, I know what you're on about.

But.... no love for Alpha Centauri? Old School FTW!!

I've been planning to dust off my Civ IV, but have been distracted by Galaxy of Fire 2 on iPhone and then am tempted to play X3 (although I've seen a combo box of all the X series that I might run via BootCamp if I can be bothered).

I've seen X3:Aldrin Missions in the local Apple store, and a few Mac OS X versions with a couple of the games on Steam, but not the complete bundle I could pick up for Win... and I'm curious if it's worth starting from the beginning to get the full space opera... buggy releases, Boot Camp and all.

Anybody tried them?

That is... unless Santa distracts me with something else.

[scratt]

X2: The Threat I thought was awesome.

Buggy as hell, crashes a lot. But save files are always good.
And it was immersive.

X3 unfortunately had so much eye candy, but no real draw depth, preferring to fade stuff in when it got close, and that ruined the immersion for me. Plus they took away options to dock manually and stuff.

So, even though I've bought them all, I have barely played X3 out of the first few systems. I was that disappointed.

All X games hammer your hardware. So a decent copy of X2 could probably be maxed out around now on current HW and would play really nice.

I wouldn't bother with any X titles before that though these days. They were good for their time...

There are also a few versions of X around on Cider and stuff for OS X, but I would expect playing PC versions in Boot Camp would always be better. I did some of the early testing for X2, and the company and coder behind the ports was pretty sloppy IMO.

[Capella]

Civ IV sale!

Steam has Civ IV basic for $4.99, or a complete pack (Sid Meier's Civilization® IV, Civilization IV®: Warlords, Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword, Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Colonization) for $6.24. I'm trying really hard to save all of my money for textbooks this year, because they are a ripoff, but at that price I don't think I can pass it up. If anyone else in this thread doesn't have C4 yet, I hope I haven't just ruined your break :P

edit: and it shows both the Windows and Mac icons!

[Yontsey]

I'm definitely gonna pick this up as soon as Steam allows me to create a profile. Been trying to do it for the last couple hours.

[Kraetos]

FYI, the most recent CiV patch nerfed magic maritime food and improved diplomacy (specifically, you can now see why other civs feel the way they do about you.)

So, that said, I think that CiV is now suitable for newbs. Vets will still be disappointed, though.

[Maciej]

Damnit! I missed the news of the patch. I've been holding out on getting CiV until the "magic patch" arrives, and I just saw it for sale last night but decided to wait...

[Moogs]

Kraetos I dub thee, CivMaster. Lots of good info. I think I'm leaning towards Civ IV uber-pack. By the time I tire of that Civ V uber pack will be available probably.

[AsLan^]

Well, I ended up breaking my promise to myself and bought CiV when it was 25% during the Steam sale. So far I've played 88 hours and I must say I really like it.

I do have a few niggles though...

As other have noted, the tactical AI is quite poor and gets absolutely slain by artillery, it also tends to put lots of high cost units in the water without any sea units to protect them making it easy to mop up a large portion of the enemies force before it even reaches my shores.

The diplomatic victory is too easy to be satisfying (so I don't like doing it) and I just lost my last two games (on King difficulty) to the AI claiming diplomatic victory. Has anyone tried playing with diplomatic victory disabled? I intend to do this on my next game but I thought I'd ask.

Due to the high cost of units and the low power of early units when compared to starting cities, I don't seem to do much warfare in the early game which is a bit of a shame, I have yet to build a catapult or capture a city with swordsmen (longswordsmen are a different story). I've been waiting until I have either cannons or artillery before attacking anyone which has been a pretty successful strategy but it would be nice to have more combat in the early game.

Just to reiterate, I've really enjoyed CiV so far, I just wanted to bump the thread and ask if anyone else has tried playing with diplomatic victory disabled and if it makes a significant difference