Hey MC, RE: Civ

[redandguilty]

I was looking at screencaps of Civ 4 and I'm interested. But should I get Civ 4 or go straight to 5?

 

[Mitchrapp]

Civ4 = More micro management and better diplomacy.

Civ5 = Better Combat and Graphics.

Probably a true statement, but IMO (not that you asked) is that Civ4 is the way to go.

 

[redandguilty]

Civ4 = More micro management and better diplomacy.

Civ5 = Better Combat and Graphics.

Probably a true statement, but IMO (not that you asked) is that Civ4 is the way to go.

I'm glad to get a 2nd opinion. I asked MC 'cause he's the one that just repurchased it.

 

[redandguilty]

Look at that, I thought I was buying Civ 4 with all expansions, but I actually got Civ 3 + Civ 4 + all expansions.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Christmas comes early..

 

[Michchamp]

Look at that, I thought I was buying Civ 4 with all expansions, but I actually got Civ 3 + Civ 4 + all expansions.

haha, I got the same one. I had no idea it also included III when I ordered it. sucks it didn't come with the booklet, tech tree, or any of that stuff.

my thoughts:

I've never played 5, but from some of the things I read, they essentially tried to fix things that were never broken, and in doing so, added some absurd results (bows and arrows can be shot as far as modern artillery? come on.). IV gets closest to the perfect game.

III was sort of limited. some of the concepts in II which were absurd were partially fixed by III... but dealing with the AI, the way other Civs acted toward you, the diplomacy, etc. were limited. It was ridiculous sometimes the sort of hardball they'd play with you... like you'd have to be on the verge of exterminating their entire people before they'd be willing to negotiate on an even basis for things. IV actually goes a long way toward fixing those, both in terms of diplomacy, the borders between civs, terrain & resources, etc. all are a lot more realistic. there are still a couple features I'd add to make the diplomacy more realistic, but I can't complain.

In III it was almost inevitable that you'd end up in fights to the death with your neighbors. In IV you can often find ways to co-exist and/or pick your fights.

IV is just such an immersive experience, with the level of graphics, and the way you can zoom into different levels that you can't beat it. plus, I love Leonard Nimoy's voice acting, the way they introduced the concept of religion, the influence of culture and all the different ways to play.

you could play III if you're curious, but it will be hard to stay interested after playing IV.

 

[Michchamp]

Civ4 = More micro management and better diplomacy.

Civ5 = Better Combat and Graphics.

Probably a true statement, but IMO (not that you asked) is that Civ4 is the way to go.

Yeah, I'd agree. I can't really judge V until I play it, but I like IV so much that I have no inclination toward getting accustomed to a whole new game.

 

[Michchamp]

there's a whole website and community (Civ Fanatics) dedicated to the game and strategy.

there are people who go so far as to mod the whole game, which is little too involved for me. I've also never played real life opponents, but I'd like to. I need to find time when champette is busy doing something else for 6+ hours... she's already started to get annoyed with me sitting there. I didn't explain what the game was or that I ordered it.

in the earlier days of III and IV, the graphical needs of the games and some other bugs would crush my laptop into oblivion but people on that site were able to provide software patches.

 

[redandguilty]

First impressions: It's different, but I'm not sure yet if it's more or less complicated than age of empires. It's plenty complicated; more than I can absorb in one sitting. (I played the tutorial last night - no fighting.) The ability to put workers on auto-improve lowers the bar dramatically for getting started. I imagine as you learn how things work, you'll want to micromanage every move.

Wife caught on to the fact the I was playing something like ages right away. I'm sure she not enthusiastic to see it. I got her to spend 10 minutes trying to understand SpaceChem and I think it burned out her tolerance for geeky games for a year or so.

 

[Michchamp]

First impressions: It's different, but I'm not sure yet if it's more or less complicated than age of empires. It's plenty complicated; more than I can absorb in one sitting. (I played the tutorial last night - no fighting.) The ability to put workers on auto-improve lowers the bar dramatically for getting started. I imagine as you learn how things work, you'll want to micromanage every move.

Wife caught on to the fact the I was playing something like ages right away. I'm sure she not enthusiastic to see it. I got her to spend 10 minutes trying to understand SpaceChem and I think it burned out her tolerance for geeky games for a year or so.

I never use auto-improve, as i find they end up doing things I didn't want, or neglecting bigger strategic improvements. You can set their future moves up in advance though, so at least you don't need to give them directions every minute.

 

[mhughes0021]

i have 4 with the expansions....although im not to sure how warlords and beyond the sword really differ. they seem to be the same. colonization im not a big fan of. fun game to kill time. im starting to like some facebook games to kill time. Stormfall: Age of War is fun and Wartune keeps you busy lol.