On-Topic Off-Topic Forum Thread: Rate'em! Civ's I-V

[Ben Kenobi]

2-1-4-3-5

[Donegeal]

So you're saying you didn't like it cause it was easy to win via conquest. The war mechanics were broken. So your saying its not so much a war game as a builder game.

Since I'm really not one to 'Go bash some skulls', this actually seems like a nice feature. Someone gets uppity while I'm building away, I quickly go bash them then get back to my building.

[The Mad Monk]

Culture

What was your problem with culture?

[snoopy369]

Nothing in that post - which I'd read around the same time as this thread - says Jon thinks 1UPT was a bad idea. It says he thinks he didn't do a very good job of implementing it; and he thinks it would be hard to implement well. That's very, very different from saying it's a bad idea, or a mistake.

Quite honestly, even if I agreed it didn't work, I don't think it was a mistake to try it. Civ's tactics was always its weak point; giving a go at making 1UPT work was worth the effort, even if it meant Civ5 wasn't as good as it should've been. You don't accomplish anything without failing ... would Civ4 have successfully broken ICS without Civ3's valiant efforts? I don't think so.

Krill, you can't judge the game objectively. It's not something you can judge that way. Might as well try to judge a Picasso objectively. It's art; it either is fun or it isn't. You can judge how many people enjoy it, or how you personally enjoy it; but overall it must be primarily subjective.

[The Mad Monk]

So you're saying you didn't like it cause it was easy to win via conquest. The war mechanics were broken. So your saying its not so much a war game as a builder game.

Since I'm really not one to 'Go bash some skulls', this actually seems like a nice feature. Someone gets uppity while I'm building away, I quickly go bash them then get back to my building.

It works well for that. It also supported 31 sides at once, with 512 max cities, so you could expand a lot if you were so inclined.

[Donegeal]

3's horrible corruption system which made most of my cities useless.

There are ways to deal with this. Courthouses, civ traits, specialists, Governments, Forbidden Palace (it's all about where you build these things and what order you build them. Makes you think about city placement more than just your basic ICS as with II) and about 3-5 other city improvements in the Rise and Rule mod I talked about earlier. Besides, it you have a strong enough economy, you can just rush bye what you need at the corrupt city until you get it under control.

[snoopy369]

So you're saying you didn't like it cause it was easy to win via conquest. The war mechanics were broken. So your saying its not so much a war game as a builder game.

Since I'm really not one to 'Go bash some skulls', this actually seems like a nice feature. Someone gets uppity while I'm building away, I quickly go bash them then get back to my building.

Civ3 was broken as a builder or as a conqueror. Until they fixed the production corruption mechanic (two expansions later...) it was pretty hard to play as a builder OR a conqueror. ICS was a superior strategy whether you are building or conquering.
I don't think Civ3 was a bad game - just like Civ5, it had some interesting new ideas, and some things that didn't work so well. Every game in the Civ franchise has been worth playing; it's just a matter of relative ranking for me (and hard to do, as a result, as I played each as they came out, thus in their proper time relative to other games). For many people I think it's common for the favorite civ game to be the one you started with, because what its strengths were is what brought you to the franchise.

Plato specifically was referring to the fact that it's fairly easy to win. Civ(n) is generally pretty easy to win - some more than others - but a lot of people, myself included and I'm guessing you as well, don't play just to win, but for the immersion or the simulation. That's good also

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

What was your problem with culture?

Having your entire invading force flipped because they were unfortuantly in some crappy nowhere burg you just took over was complete BS. It necessitated complete take over of another CIV and not small skirmishes more likely to happen. All in all a horrible mechanic.

[The Mad Monk]

There are ways to deal with this. Courthouses, civ traits, specialists, Governments, Forbidden Palace (it's all about where you build these things and what order you build them. Makes you think about city placement more than just your basic ICS as with II) and about 3-5 other city improvements in the Rise and Rule mod I talked about earlier. Besides, it you have a strong enough economy, you can just rush bye what you need at the corrupt city until you get it under control.

It's also easy to mod, so if that's ruining your fun you can always go into CivIII Edit and turn the corruption slider down.

[The Mad Monk]

Having your entire invading force flipped because they were unfortuantly in some crappy nowhere burg you just took over was complete BS. It necessitated complete take over of another CIV and not small skirmishes more likely to happen.

Again, easy to mod, it's just a couple values. You can change the expansion of borders and the strength of culture independently of each other, making borders big but soft, which makes flipping very hard to do.

[Guynemer]

4, 5, 2, 1, 3.

5/2 is awful close; Civ2 probably sucked more of my life away than any other piece of media, but it just doesn't hold up to the modern innovations of the newer games.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I'm a purist. I play patched versions straight up. The game should work as is out of the box (assuming normal patching as required) no modding necessary.

[The Mad Monk]

I'm a purist. I play patched versions straight up. The game should work as is out of the box (assuming normal patching as required) no modding necessary.

I feel the same way about suits, they should fit perfectly right off the rack, no tailoring necessary.

[regexcellent]

Brainless MM is bad. So very, very bad. What you're describing would effectively make gameplay into work, or at best introduce road upkeep costs in a rather circuitous manner by forcing the player to build and pay maintenance for extra workers. Assuming you could automate road repair--if you couldn't, ugh.

Yes, my road maintenance scheme is to force people to pay for workers. However, the way I imagine it, there's a little button "fix existing roads" on workers and roads don't require tons of maintenance, just enough that you need a lot of workers to road the **** out of everything.

Though, then again, it might not be necessary to have road maintenance if you had enemies able to use your roads; that would be incentive in itself to only build roads where you can guard them.

[Hauldren Collider]

I think everyone is forgetting that Civilization Revolution is AAHZ's civ of choice. Doesn't his opinion carry weight around here?