Civilization V

gunnut said:
Anyone getting this game? Anyone played it? Any good? Worth $50?
Click to expand...

I'm not a big gamer but I've been hooked on to the whole civilization series ever since the first one came out. I still enjoy playing them all, 1-4, each one has plus something, minus something from the other. Haven't played 5 but will definitely be getting it. At the end of the day, if you enjoy strategy games, i think its a pretty good series.
 
Nooooo must....resist...urge to conquer the world one hex at a time...
Civ4 was bad enough in the addiction game, Civ 5 is supposed to be way way better.
 
I love the total war series expect the last edition. I gave up on Civ4 completely, it was just not as good as Civ 3 (a classic) I will give civ 5 a try.
 
I prefer to do my world domination through Risk. Much simpler, and it has been and will remain a classic
 
I was in love with the Total War Series right until Empire. After that I passed on Napoleon, though I do have hopes for the next part which returns to Japan.
Also I recently found a total conversion mod for Total War: Medieval 2 called the The Third Age which transforms the game into a Lord of the Ring game. Instead of Europe you conquer Middle-Earth, and instead of England or France you play with Orc, dwarfs and elves (You can even lead Mumakil or a Balrog into battle).

Regarding Civ: There is a demo out now which you can try, or if you dont want to spend money at all, there is a freeware version called freeciv available.

edit:

If you like really complext strategy I would suggest the Hearts of Iron series from Paradox. You can play any nation (that includes Luxembourg or Tuga Tuva) in timeframe from 36-48 and control everything. From Production, Research, the Economy. You can play Germany and invade France. You can play Italy and invade France. You can play the Netherlands and invade France. You can play France and Surrender right away.
 
Last edited:
gunnut said:
Anyone getting this game? Anyone played it? Any good? Worth $50?
Click to expand...

I’ve always been a huge Civ game fan, and I’ve played them all. I have been playing Civ4 right up until Civ5 was released. I pre-ordered Civ5. It's not half the game Civ4 was (comparing Civ5 at release to Civ4 with all add-ons isn’t really fair though).

The combat is MUCH better in Civ5. This is the single best improvement over Civ4. Of course, hexes are better than squares. They took out espionage, corporations, religion, and wonder movies. There aren’t that many resources to fight over. The game has a bunch of bugs, but I’ve come to expect that these days. Hopefully they roll out the patches quickly. The good news is that the bugs I have encountered aren’t game breaking, like they were in Civ4 (crash to desktop and bluescreens), they’re just annoying. Some people are saying the game has been dumbed down. I guess I could agree with that. It has more of a “console game” feel to it now. Whether you see this as a good thing or a bad thing will of course depend on personal preference.

Overall I think it’s a fun game. It looks nice too. The combat is a huge step up. If I never played Civ4 I’d probably love Civ5. In my opinion they took out too much though. I miss a lot of what was in Civ4.
 
Thank you for the feedback.

I thought the corporations were a great addition to Civ 4. They provide an "end game" use for excess gold. They were extremely powerful too. Maybe too powerful. The "random events" in Civ 4 felt like a rushed add-on to the original game. Did Civ 5 refine it?

How is the combat in Civ 5 better? Does it require more micro management? I understand there's a stacking limit now on the tile. That's a good idea. It doesn't make sense to have 80 units on the same tile and be literally invincible.
 
Poor compared to civ4 and very poor compared to the classic civ3.
Combat is somewhat better but my fav stacks of doom are no longer possible.
After all the effort you put into wonders not even a movie and they dont even look all that good.
Artillery in the late game is still underpowered and under ranged. Nukes still dont destroy cities.
 
I'd have to agree that overall civ 5 is a step down, though it pushes the envelope in different directions. The lack of victory animations for endgame victories and wonders takes away a little bone I was looking forward to as I went down each path/ built each wonder. Text and a picture cannot make up for it.

Endgame turn time on larger maps is absolutely horrendous, moreso than I experienced in Civ 4.

Also there is no Baba Yetu, what heresy!:mad:

Like- new hexes, no stacks.

Hate- no wonder/victory animations, bad optimization

I'd also say its a bit more opinionated than I remember on certain civilopedia nation entries, which is not a change I appreciate.
 
i happened to like civ 4 best. civ 5 is remarkably buggy (even after one patch-- the developers are promising MULTIPLE patches, too).

it's also been amazingly dumbed down-- it looks more like the "civ revolution" for console than the old civ series. for instance, the "one unit per hex" idea sounds very interesting but the AI doesn't know how to play with it. for that matter, combat is boring because all you do is build about eight or nine units (each of which takes 20+ turns to build), the whole game (given the hex limitation there's no point in building a ton at once; you can't use them). you might build six, seven cities at most, too.

the AI is also incompetent in a million other ways; for instance, on "king" level (third-highest) i had modern tanks while the AI was still using spearmen and archers...

economy is also hard to control, and just revolves around getting more resources. and you don't get a good feel for the "age".

i'd suggest you wait another six months, and then it might have been patched up to the point where it might be fun.
 
Last edited:
for any of you strategy gamers out there, i'd second tarek's choice of computer game company (if not the game)-- paradox interactive.

HoI was a bit too confusing. i like europa universalis 3, and i'm currently playing victoria 2, which is what a strategy game should be-- deep, and models fairly well (although it needs another patch or two) the complexities of historical/political-economic development.

re: total war series, i liked medieval 2. the one with napoleon sort of sucked. traditionally the tw series is fun for the tactical battle map, and considerably weaker when it comes to the strategic battle map.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top