Civ Follow

F'ckin hell, cool stuff...

I'm tempted to play again, but i got so little time these days

Civ2? I don't think they even sell that in the bargain bin at Goodwill anymore.

As for playing that game, I lost interest.....again. I keep thinking that each new Civ will be more engrossing, but it turns out to be less and less so.

I think Civ 4 has become my favorite of the series, beating out Civ 2 by a hair

That's another one of those Sid Meier games, right? Is it anything like Alpha Centauri, where you race around claiming land, colonizing, building tech, fighting off other competitors who have somehow miracuously managed to avoid civil unrest in their towns?

I swear that guy keeps churning out the same game, just with different locations and settings.

Totem

Closer.

Civ3 and 4 were not much different in my opinion. Both induced "F'uck that! I have a f'ucking rifle and he has a spear. How the f'uck did he kill me??" screams.

Personal favorite? Watching barbarians hold hands with my competitor's scouts as they made a beeline for my provinces.

Yeah. Just ask the British how that feels... ;)


Seriously, the differences between Civ3 and Civ4 are *huge*. Vast changes to the combat system (Reducing the benefits of the "stack of doom"). Wonderful improvements in the maintenance costs (in Civ3, you literally could not expand beyond a specific number of cities without it costing you more then you gained). Tweaks to the culture flip rules to make it not be ridiculous anymore (trust me in civ3, it was ridiculous). Changes to war weariness so that that's no longer ridiculous either (nothing more annoying then being attacked out of the blue by an enemy, defending yourself for a few rounds, and then having your cities all go into disorder because you had the audacity to try to take the fight to the enemy).


Civ3 made some silly assumptions about how populations respond to actions by their leaders. Guess what? If my population is warlike and expansionist, they shouldn't get pissed off like a bunch of whiny liberals at a "I hate George Bush" event when their government expands via warfare. Civ4 addresses this by breaking up the different forms of government into 5 different categories. You get to pick and choose each aspect of your society, which is also a significant improvement.


Adding religions, and completely changing the way money is managed are also huge differences between the two games. Honestly, civ3 was the worst of the civ games so far IMO. It introduced a number of new concepts, but didn't manage them very well and so resulted in a frustrating game experience. Civ4 is much much much better. :)

Yeah, I pretty much agree with all of that

He should post in the Asylum.

I did, and it's pretty cool. It doesn't change the game fundementally, but the new units, new civs and some tweaks in gameplay were pretty cool, from what I remember. Not game breaking, but I wouldn't want to play without it once I got it.

I can't pass up on Civ expansions though, I'm a complete sucker for them.

If you get past how incredibly buggy that game is. I have yet to figure out why the Beyond The Sword expansion disc will not load. I've damn near doubled the system requirements but still doesn't work properly, the game is extremely laggy. On my other machine it inexplicably crashes to the desktop, despite my sincerest efforts, I have been unable to troubleshoot the various problems that game generates.


It's a fun game, but it was horribly tested.

Did you ever get the patches that fixed the bugginess??

Got the patches, but still did not fix general slowness and slowness in unit response.