Never played Civilization - where to start?

[bhavv]

Differences announced so far in Civ 5:

- No Religion (Will probably be implemented in an expansion).

- No Tech trading. Instead you form tech pacts with AI that boost both yours and their research output by 15%. This is meant to reduce the incentive to simply trade all an opponents tech and then attack them, as attacking means no more 15% bonus.

- Hexagonal tiles and only one unit per tile. also cities now defend themselves.

- Civilizations will have truly unique bonuses like in CivRev, rather than the two minor improvements they get in Civ 4.

- Minor civs will be on the map and can only have a single city. You can take over the city, but appeasing and defending them will give you more rewards. They also add tension between normal civs - one major civ might favor a minor civ, another might hate it, and this relationship with minor civs will transfer over to affect diplomacy between major ones.

 

[pingwing]

4 is the best so far and can be had on dvd with all the expansions for a tenner (though i got it on release for £30 as i love it)

3 also got a lot of time from me too, though its a bit more random when it comes to war and so on.

2 is amazing from the classic movies but the rules make less sense... (and 1 is a good game too)

but OMG!!!! FIVE HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED!!!!!!

 

[bhavv]

This game and Elder Scrolls are the only games that I buy all the titles and expansions for on release day for full price.

 

[linwelin]

never really liked civ games, but the screenshots for the new one actually look pretty good

 

[FoxEye]

Differences announced so far in Civ 5:

- No Religion (Will probably be implemented in an expansion).

- No Tech trading. Instead you form tech pacts with AI that boost both yours and their research output by 15%. This is meant to reduce the incentive to simply trade all an opponents tech and then attack them, as attacking means no more 15% bonus.

- Hexagonal tiles and only one unit per tile. also cities now defend themselves.

- Civilizations will have truly unique bonuses like in CivRev, rather than the two minor improvements they get in Civ 4.

- Minor civs will be on the map and can only have a single city. You can take over the city, but appeasing and defending them will give you more rewards. They also add tension between normal civs - one major civ might favor a minor civ, another might hate it, and this relationship with minor civs will transfer over to affect diplomacy between major ones.

This sounds great to me. Something completely new and different. I'm glad they didn't simply go for a prettier, slightly re-worked civ4.

 

[snowdog]

Differences announced so far in Civ 5:

- No Religion (Will probably be implemented in an expansion).

- No Tech trading. Instead you form tech pacts with AI that boost both yours and their research output by 15%. This is meant to reduce the incentive to simply trade all an opponents tech and then attack them, as attacking means no more 15% bonus.

- Hexagonal tiles and only one unit per tile. also cities now defend themselves.

- Civilizations will have truly unique bonuses like in CivRev, rather than the two minor improvements they get in Civ 4.

- Minor civs will be on the map and can only have a single city. You can take over the city, but appeasing and defending them will give you more rewards. They also add tension between normal civs - one major civ might favor a minor civ, another might hate it, and this relationship with minor civs will transfer over to affect diplomacy between major ones.

In that case I think I'll stick to civ 4, sounds like going backwards again like from 2>3 ...

Especially the no tech trading, 1 unit per tile annoy me a lot. This was even possible in the first civilization, and in all the sequels ( unless my mind is acting up, I haven't played 2 a lot and can't recall that much of civ).

Also cities being able to defend themselves, means players will probably neglect military even more .


They should be adding features and complexity, not removing it .

 

[FoxEye]

In that case I think I'll stick to civ 4, sounds like going backwards again like from 2>3 ...

There's nothing to stop you playing and enjoying civ 4 for years to come. I still fire up Alpha Centuri.

But it's pretty unreasonable to expect that all future civ games would have to retain all the features of previous civ games. You'd be completely stuck in a rut, and at some point, future civ games would have absolutely nowhere left to go.

 

[snowdog]

Well, it doesn't sound good from what I've read so far, the hex system is simpler ( eg. less directions to attack from), the research becomes less of a challenge, the military bit is made easier for peacekeeping players ( cities defending themselves ), no more religion to play with and use as a political tool.

Of course, it may yet be my best game on the year and I'll love it, but I don't like the sound of all of those things they gave away about. It certainly makes me look less forward to it. I'd rather have another civ 4 expansion now adding more features, techs, units, more diversity between civs, programmable automatizaion ( for bigger games, so micromanaging is less of a pain and the ai doesn't do stupid things like assign spies or prophets when you want great engineers or scientists or merchants ) etc. than civ5.

 

[I_M_Weasel]

I remember when I first played civ4 that I hated it because the stratergies I used in Civ3 no longer worked but I'm glad I didn't give up on it, as its a great game thats stole far too many hours from me, just one more turn.....

I'm not liking the look of civ5 at the moment but I'm sure i'll end up loving it.

To the OP play civ4 now, there's a difficulty level for all players and forums like the one at www.civfanatics.com will help you out if you're stuck on anything.

 

[bhavv]

The whole point is that they try and make something different as opposed to just Civ 4 again with different graphics.

I still play Alpha Centauri and Civ 2, theres nothing wrong with playing the older ones, but Civ 5 is meant to be trying something different, theres nothing wrong with that either.

Oh, I forgot - Strategic resources only let you train 5 units per resource that use it. For example, each Iron resource would allow you to train 5 swordsman per each one, this makes going to war over resources much more important.

 

[shmacks]

I still play Alpha Centauri and Civ 2, theres nothing wrong with playing the older ones,

Indeed, those are the two that kept me going back for more. Found that they lost their replay value a lot in the civ3 ones and later. Either that or my patience for the game wore out faster.

 

[bhavv]

I really like Call to Power 2 as well, I with there could be a new Alpha Centauri and Call to Power with nicer graphics.

 

[4p]

Anybody else love the Call to Power ones? Trade links and ocean cities etc, was quite good at the time.

 

[jimmy_lazers]

I wouldn't look on civfanatics, there's too many spoiler tactics that are more fun to discover for yourself, that's why its great a new one is coming out! Then I won't be tempted to read spoilers from 17 year old, autistic, Hungarian maths nerds.

 

[Lunatic Dreyfus]

I liked religion in Civ 4, and tech trading has always been a core part of the game, when the AI agreed to it that is...

I won't be sad to see the end of the Stacks of Doom however and perhaps the new system has potential. This of course depends on if the AI actually understands how to deploy armies on the map...

Anybody else love the Call to Power ones? Trade links and ocean cities etc, was quite good at the time.

I remember playing one of them on the Mac many years ago. I loved the future aspect of the game, playing up to the year 3000? and all the the funky new wonders and ideas. It just never felt as 'tight' as kosher Civ and squeezing the vast span of time meant every era felt rushed, even in an epic game.

It was probably a tad ambitious for the time, but I did like its darker edge.

 

[Nate--IRL--]

............still waiting for Alpha Centauri 2...........

Nate

 

[Lil old me]

............still waiting for Alpha Centauri 2...........

Nate

Me too! No matter how much I play civ 4 I cant help but wish I could play an updated version of AC instead

 

[4p]

I remember playing one of them on the Mac many years ago. I loved the future aspect of the game, playing up to the year 3000? and all the the funky new wonders and ideas. It just never felt as 'tight' as kosher Civ and squeezing the vast span of time meant every era felt rushed, even in an epic game.

It was probably a tad ambitious for the time, but I did like its darker edge.

Just found Call to Power 2 lol

Yea the future stuff was great in CoP, the game seemed to go on forever instead of that 'future tech 1/2/3' you get in Civ. Loved it but it needed a few improvements, wish they would make another.

 

[shmacks]

Anybody else love the Call to Power ones? Trade links and ocean cities etc, was quite good at the time.

Was not really a huge fan of the call to power ones at all to be honest. I played them a fair bit but just remember it didnt have the same feeling as the civs. The late game space play and sea cities didnt really do it for me and i just ended up going back to play Alpha Centauri. I still remember when i got both games on the same day i had such a smile on my face.

Oh chairman yang how you toyed with my emotions and turned on me the moment i couldnt you offer me anything else making me feel used . University of Planet for life!

 

[bhavv]

They should have integrated Alpha Centauri into Civ by now. After you finish a game of Civ, you go to play Alpha Centauri

But EA retained the rights to SMAC and wont give them back to Firaxis / 2KGames, so its either have a different team under EA create Alpha Centauri 2, or wait untill they buy out Firaxis again :x

Heres the news on that:

http://www.totalvideogames.com/Sid-...039d-Love-To-Make-Alpha-Centauri-2-12792.html