Civilization V

So different, so much more of the same greatness, so addicting...

Anyone else hooked? Thoughts about the extreme changes?

I love civ 5. While I've always been one for massive armies, having to use them far more strategically is pure sex.

In fact, I'm going to play a game right now. perhaps I will put it on "Marathon" mode. See you in a month or three.

Please describe the following:

1. In what ways is it better than Civ IV

2. In what ways is it worse than Civ II

Cmon this is SOP for Civ threads.

The pro and con comparisons are going to bleed over between Civ IV and Civ II, since a lot of the changes are ones to mechanics that had stayed the same from Civ I clear through Civ IV (yes, I played Civ I way back in the day, although I was really too young to fully get the game).

Better than Civ IV:

• New hexagonal grid opens up strategic options not available with square grid.
• Inability to stack units and only 1 garrisoned unit per city make individual units more precious and prevent the extreme bog-down at the end of previous Civ games where a billion units ask for orders every turn.
• Now there are tangible benefits to keeping empires small, meaning that continuous expansion and finding as many new cities as possible isn't necessarily the best stratagem all the time.
• The conversion of almost all "intensive" factors (i.e. those that are city-specific) to "extensive" factors (i.e. those that are empire-wide) makes different numbers of cities with different population distributions more feasible: i.e. having a small number of huge cities is as feasible as having a large number of small cities, without running into problems associated with too too little happiness in the city, too little health, etc. (Only food and hammer production affect only the city producing them now.)
• The interface and in-game tutorial messages make it much easier to get into Civ V for either completely new players or those who are familiar with previous Civ games.
• etc.
  
  (One notable con compared to Civ IV:
• Lack of "Baba Yetu," something that pansy-ass liberals can really jive to.)

Ugh I don't feel like completing this post right now.

I haven't played any Civ games before Civ 5, but as a newbie this game is a lot of fun. A decent learning curve to be sure, but not hard to get into if you've played an RTS like Age of Empires or Warcraft before. The only thing that really annoys me is that it is not a RTS, because it is turn-based. That has it's positives and negatives I guess, but leads to a much slower pace and games that take 10+ hours easily.

will probably get it this paycheque

Ok well then I will download it illegally and never play it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Scarf

I haven't played any Civ games before Civ 5, but as a newbie this game is a lot of fun. A decent learning curve to be sure, but not hard to get into if you've played an RTS like Age of Empires or Warcraft before. The only thing that really annoys me is that it is not a RTS, because it is turn-based. That has it's positives and negatives I guess, but leads to a much slower pace and games that take 10+ hours easily.

---

There are a decent number of RTS(huhu) that are turn based.

Lords of The Realm
Lords of Magic(I think that was the name) etc etc

and me being able to name 2 off the top of my head shows something....cause I don't play RTS much, other than AoE2

...not to mention the entire HoMM series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

...not to mention the entire HoMM series.

---

that is a pretty kickass series

Lords of the Realm was ACTUALLY a turn-based RTS.

Heroes was never RTS at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmoscheer

Lords of the Realm was ACTUALLY a turn-based RTS.

Heroes was never RTS at all.

---

neither is civlization