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

[Uncle Sparky]

II - I still have it on an old laptop and fire up scenarios.
IV - Still play it.
Civilization - I have it on both SNES & PC and wasted many happy hours in the '90s.
III - Least of the ones I played.

I haven't bought V because I don't think I'd like it.

edit:...and I'll agree with Molly - ToT and some of its scenarios were great fun.

[DaShi]

I've only played the good two: 4 and 2.

[self biased]

1 Unit Per Tile.

Stack of Doom (where players shove their entire army on one tile. It works against he AI because the AI is dumb. Do it against (competent) humans are you get destroyed).

i really just don't like how untidy the map gets with a sizable army in civ 5. the designers traded in road spaghetti for unit meatballs.

[Hauldren Collider]

If you want to fix stacks, you could simply create higher upkeep for too many units in one tile at a time. Not sure what gameplay advantage that would confer though. The stack system is fine.

As for roads...yes, adding upkeep for roads is probably a good idea. The notion being, unless it is providing a valuable trade route, it's a bad idea to have it.

[Elok]

Why exactly do roads need to be discouraged? Aesthetics? The main reason to build extra roads beyond city connection and resources is defense; if you want to disincentivize that, you can just remove the "can't use enemy roads" restriction so they're a double-edged sword.

[giblets]

Make the game more of a PITA to play because you're too lazy to design road spaghetti that doesn't look bad. Brilliant!

[Hauldren Collider]

Actually I think it's because creating the road network is just annoying and forces you to have a lot more workers, and then when your network is finished, to have a whole bunch of workers sitting around doing **** all.

[Tupac Shakur]

Obviously, it's V > III > I > II > IV.

[MRT144]

Obviously, it's V > III > I > II > IV.

Contrarian.

[Elok]

Actually I think it's because creating the road network is just annoying and forces you to have a lot more workers, and then when your network is finished, to have a whole bunch of workers sitting around doing **** all.

I seldom have this problem, at least before the end of the game (unless I'm going for a more peaceful victory option, which I find boring anyway). The AI is forever building worthless crap that needs to be fixed once you conquer their territory, along with repairs to plundered territory. Add on the need to build infrastructure for newly built cities and create new improvements as they become available, and you can almost always find something for workers to do. If not, cack 'em or put them to sleep if they aren't causing undue maintenance and they might be handy later.

[Tupac Shakur]

Contrarian.

That's the charitable description.

[self biased]

i can see how the notion of connecting a resource with a road has fallen out of favor. i mean look at the **** we used to do in adventure games back in the mid nineties for the sake of gameplay. [use][rubber chicken with a pulley in the middle][on]

[self biased]

Why exactly do roads need to be discouraged? Aesthetics? The main reason to build extra roads beyond city connection and resources is defense; if you want to disincentivize that, you can just remove the "can't use enemy roads" restriction so they're a double-edged sword.

oh look, there goes Elok again, being all aggressively reasonable. i'm sure Tripp wanted his cake and to have it massaged into his testicles too. because panzer general.

[Aeson]

Can anyone conceive of a way to make 1upt workable?

Easy ...

Pawns: Workers
Rooks: Cities
Knights: Knights
Bishops: Missionaries
Queen: Game Designer
King: Sid

[notyoueither]

Actually I think it's because creating the road network is just annoying and forces you to have a lot more workers, and then when your network is finished, to have a whole bunch of workers sitting around doing **** all.

Roads and workers could be solved other ways.