Dumb website claims Civ is imperialist and excuses colonization.

[rah]

Try Colonization. You can go to Africa and buy slaves. Work them so hard that they sometimes escape and run away. You have to chase them down and recapture them to return them to the fields. You can also enslave some of the natives also. And guess what, they're always depicted as brown or black. A wonderful game.

[Elok]

I assume you're referring to a board game of the same name? Because I don't recall any of that from Sid's version. Which is funny, because you could oppress, murder and enslave the hell out of the natives, but it would be too indelicate to do that to imported minorities, I guess. Just for fun, I once worked out a plausible system in my head to simulate the pros and cons of a slave economy, but I can't imagine they'd ever put that in a game. You know, the same way you can have Stalin as a playable Civ leader, but not Hitler.

Or was this in a fan mod of the Civ4 Colonization?

[Ming]

That was in the Religion and Revolutions Mod...
Colonization without a mod didn't work and was no fun.
If you haven't tried it, I highly recommend it. It's a great game... it works... and they keep updating it... offering new experiences and game play
It sure beats the hell out of Civ 5 and any of the crap that came after it

[rah]

Colonization does come with the CIV IV complete edition. Which can be purchased for a couple of bucks.

[Lorizael]

It sure beats the hell out of Civ 5 and any of the crap that came after it

Civ 6, I think.

[rah]

Have you played VI ? I keep wondering if it will be worth buying when it's down to a couple of bucks.

[Elok]

I used to own Civ IV Complete (a version that sold without Colonization, for whatever reason), but had to uninstall it b/c it was eating too much of my life. I don't game much these days.

[Lorizael]

Have you played VI ? I keep wondering if it will be worth buying when it's down to a couple of bucks.

My brother's been playing and enjoying it. And he's been playing since Civ 1. But he also liked Civ 5, so...

[rah]

In all fairness, I played V until the day it was released. I even got "some" fun out of it. But the fact that I beat the game on deity level the very first time I played it was a really bad sign. The fact that they ignored almost every one of our complaints was the nail in the coffin. The game went from "one more turn" to "please no, not another turn"

[Dinner]

Civ5 wasn't as bad as Civ3 but it was pretty bad. I haven't even bothered with Civ6.

[rah]

People say that once they fixed the corruption problem with III it was a decent game. Unfortunately I had given up on the game before that. I may have to go back and try it.

[ZEE]

3 was good.

Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using Tapatalk

[Proteus_MST]

IV was better

VI also is good ... but I haven't played it much

Pity that there never was a "Call To Power 3" ... this type of Civ had lots of nice ideas that made it superior to SM Civ

[rah]

I keep hearing that VI is ok but wondering about the replayability aspect. I've played thousands of IV games. Will VI still be interesting after a dozen or so?

[Proteus_MST]

VI definitely is more rounded than V was ... and it has lots of differences compared to its predecessors.

For example your cities now aren't just a single hex, but instead you enlarge your tities, by building specialized districts ikn the surrounding hex tiles.
Those districts are also necessary to build certain buildings ... if you don't have a science district, for example, you cannot build universities or libraries ... if you don't have a commerce district, you don't have the abilities to build markets and so on. The districts also get individual boni, depending on the tile they are built upon (building a commerce dictrict in a tile next to a river, for example, gives you a bonus) as well as adjacency boni to othr districts.

This way each city is much more individually different than it has ever been in Civ before.