How's civ5?

[Dustin2128]

I really always preferred TBS to RTS, since I prefer a better thought out strategy and I suck at managing troops during battles in real time. How's civilization 5? It looked pretty good.

[bash]

I really always preferred TBS to RTS, since I prefer a better thought out strategy and I suck at managing troops during battles in real time. How's civilization 5? It looked pretty good.

Civ 5 is mostly like Civ 4 which was mostly like Civ 3 which was mostly like ...

I haven't played Civ 5 yet but I played the previous ones. From what I've read Civ 5 is a lot it predecessors: The core game mechanic is pretty much the same, polished even closer to perfection, though they tried themselves at a couple of bigger changes. The most noteworthy change probably is the switch from square fields to hexagons. If you're curious what is new and how those features fare, here's a pretty detailed review:

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/09/statecraft-as-entertainment-ars-reviews-civilization-v.ars

All in all I think if you like TBS, have played previous Civ titles and enjoyed those, there really isn't much you can do wrong with this game. Oh and it seems to work pretty well in Wine [1].

[1] http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=21492

[drawkcab]

I can't go near civ4 because, if I do, I'll sit and play it all weekend.

That said, I'll probably check out civ5 when I can get it a little cheaper.

My favorite is still civ2 and, to be honest, I hated civ3.

[Dustin2128]

right, used to hex based systems thanks to battle for wesnoth. I think I'll get it when the price comes down (and if I ever get bored with the elder scrolls).

[Paqman]

Civ 5 is mostly like Civ 4 which was mostly like Civ 3 which was mostly like ...


Well, veeeery broadly. The evolutionary changes between the versions mean that Civ5 is a very different game from Civ3.

I like Civ5. Most of the changes are good (UI tweaks, switch to hex map and no unit stacking) and the game is generally a lot more flexible. You're not forced into such a strict style of play. Earlier incarnations of Civ pretty much mandated an "expand or die" play style, but Civ5 is playable with a small, focussed empire. You can in fact play a good game with only one city, something that would have been unthinkable on earlier versions.

I never really liked Civ4. It lacked the depth of Civ3, and the interface and focus wasn't quite right. I tried to like it, but went back to Civ3 and stayed there. Civ5 however has got me hooked. The combat system in particular is really, really good, which has always been a bit of a weak point in Civ games, right back to the original.

[blueturtl]

Didn't they dumb the series down a notch? I read that Mr. Meyer found players didn't like losing battles where the odds were in their favor, so now brute force practically always prevails.

[Dustin2128]

Didn't they dumb the series down a notch? I read that Mr. Meyer found players didn't like losing battles where the odds were in their favor, so now brute force practically always prevails.
yeah, all of those people couldn't figure out why their tank was loosing to a roman phalanx, so they (civ team) 'fixed' the 'problem'.

[Paqman]

Didn't they dumb the series down a notch? I read that Mr. Meyer found players didn't like losing battles where the odds were in their favor, so now brute force practically always prevails.

Nope. I'm a wargamer from way back, and I think the combat mechanics in Civ5 are a huge improvement over earlier versions. The "stack of doom" is gone now, which makes you think a lot more about deployment and manoeuvre.

There is still a random element in battles, but tbh combat in Civ is very often between units with uneven capabilities, so it's always been fairly obvious who should win a specific engagement. If you haven't got better weapons than the other guy, you're doing it wrong! ;)

[Dustin2128]

Nope. I'm a wargamer from way back, and I think the combat mechanics in Civ5 are a huge improvement over earlier versions. The "stack of doom" is gone now, which makes you think a lot more about deployment and manoeuvre.

There is still a random element in battles, but tbh combat in Civ is very often between units with uneven capabilities, so it's always been fairly obvious who should win a specific engagement. If you haven't got better weapons than the other guy, you're doing it wrong! ;)
I always did like nuking roman legions...

[julio_cortez]

My favorite is still civ2 and, to be honest, I hated civ3.I've spent countless hours, days, weeks, probably MONTHS on Civilization II.
It's actually the only game (apart from Virtua Striker, probably) that I suffered Tetris Effect from (e.g. after playing Civ II after dinner I always dreamed of being an emperor :P)

Looking forward to Civ V, even if I didn't play Civ IV at all :D