User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/2/2012 11:21:42 PM EDT
[#1]
You speak of strange things of which I know not. This confuses and frightens me, so therefore you must be killed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2012 11:23:33 PM EDT
[#2]
I'm down with Civ 5. I've been playing it way to much lately. My chores aren't getting done. Friend keeps trying to get me to buy the Gods and Kings expansion. But I keep spending the money on gun parts and ammo.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2012 11:43:04 PM EDT
[#3]
Meh. Tried to play LAN game and it was almost unplayable due to unit lag. Otherwise it seems pretty fun.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 12:00:45 AM EDT
[#4]
They've nerfed the military options once again. Total war is difficult unless you use cheese and exploits. Most wars are limited (one city). Overall, not as good as Civ 4 IMHO. It also lacks the scenarios that you can get with the Civ 4 packs. If you haven't played Civ 4, I'd recommend that before Civ 5. You should be able to get a gold edition with both major upgrades for cheap. I especially recommend the Charlemagne scenario. I loved pwning the mooslims with my Franks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 12:04:05 AM EDT
[#5]
I play and rule the f'in world.
Right now I'm Attila the Hun conquering a mythical world... its fun. I like playing on the continents map and maps other than Earth, makes me feel like a space man who's found a new planet. Its also the biggest diversion from this shit hole here |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 8:01:35 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
They've nerfed the military options once again. Total war is difficult unless you use cheese and exploits. Most wars are limited (one city). Overall, not as good as Civ 4 IMHO. It also lacks the scenarios that you can get with the Civ 4 packs. If you haven't played Civ 4, I'd recommend that before Civ 5. You should be able to get a gold edition with both major upgrades for cheap. I especially recommend the Charlemagne scenario. I loved pwning the mooslims with my Franks. I've played Civ 4 pretty extensively in the past, I liked it, but I can say I like Civ V more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 8:05:03 AM EDT
[#7]
I much prefer Civ IV.
So many hours gone ... so many ... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 8:07:08 AM EDT
[#8]
I like it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 8:09:25 AM EDT
[#9]
I have spent more hours than I care to admit playing that game.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 8:12:32 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
They've nerfed the military options once again. Total war is difficult unless you use cheese and exploits. Most wars are limited (one city). Overall, not as good as Civ 4 IMHO. It also lacks the scenarios that you can get with the Civ 4 packs. If you haven't played Civ 4, I'd recommend that before Civ 5. You should be able to get a gold edition with both major upgrades for cheap. I especially recommend the Charlemagne scenario. I loved pwning the mooslims with my Franks. I've played Civ 4 pretty extensively in the past, I liked it, but I can say I like Civ V more. Same here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 8:15:44 AM EDT
[#11]
I'm playing a game of it currently. I have yet to declare was and its almost 2000ad. I'm trying so fucking hard not to curb stomp the french right now.
Normally I am a warmonger but I figured I was play the peace route this game. Its been interesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 8:18:13 AM EDT
[#12]
I've played them all.
I was very good, II was the best, III (and Alpha Centauri) was very good, IV was very good, V is probably the weakest but it's still fun to play afaik, some of the earlier civs are Abandonware and are available free from the net |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 8:22:28 AM EDT
[#13]
It's pretty good, but until they patched it the AI turn lag made it unplayable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 5:24:57 PM EDT
[#14]
I still prefer Civ II.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 5:35:21 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
You speak of strange things of which I know not. This confuses and frightens me, so therefore you must be killed. With a limp cucumber stuffed full of Civ 2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 5:38:07 PM EDT
[#16]
I was so addicted to Civ I & II. I sat in a dorm room playing Civ I as the wildest most decadent party I've ever attended in college raged around me.
When it started, the room next door had a tub of Purple Jesus that was nearly full. When I'd come out every now and then to hang out, I could see it got progressively lower, and things got progressively crazier and nakeder.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 5:40:44 PM EDT
[#17]
I have HUNDREDS of hours playing Civ5.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 5:41:28 PM EDT
[#18]
lags bad, not sure why. I've heard it's due to the language it was programmed in
I'm still going to have to say I liked Civ 3 better than 4 or 5, especially when played with the rise and rule mod glad I got 5 on sale |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 5:42:37 PM EDT
[#19]
Civilization 2 is still superior. I still play it often just to watch the Wonders of the World video. Hoover Dam is always my favorite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5719RoAMi-I |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 6:02:44 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: Civilization 2 is still superior. I still play it often just to watch the Wonders of the World video. Hoover Dam is always my favorite. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5719RoAMi-I Civ 2 was the most realistic, in that you could gain technology like the Romans did, by conquest. They've progressively nerfed the military in order to make the other victory types more viable. That's o.k., but I think they overdid it in Civ 5. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 6:14:33 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Civilization 2 is still superior. I still play it often just to watch the Wonders of the World video. Hoover Dam is always my favorite. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5719RoAMi-I Civ 2 was the most realistic, in that you could gain technology like the Romans did, by conquest. They've progressively nerfed the military in order to make the other victory types more viable. That's o.k., but I think they overdid it in Civ 5. They did things right with not allowing stacking units though. Also I liked how mountains were impassable until later stages, which made it more realistic and forced you to defend and hold strategic passes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 6:31:16 PM EDT
[#22]
If Leonard Nimoy was the narrator in Civ 5, it would unquestioningly be the best of the series.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 6:57:45 PM EDT
[#23]
Gentlemen, I present to you the year 3991....
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/06/decade-long-civ-ii-game-mired-in-1700-years-of-nuclear-war/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 7:07:18 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Civilization 2 is still superior. I still play it often just to watch the Wonders of the World video. Hoover Dam is always my favorite. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5719RoAMi-I Civ 2 was the most realistic, in that you could gain technology like the Romans did, by conquest. They've progressively nerfed the military in order to make the other victory types more viable. That's o.k., but I think they overdid it in Civ 5. They did things right with not allowing stacking units though. Also I liked how mountains were impassable until later stages, which made it more realistic and forced you to defend and hold strategic passes. I like a lot of the mechanics changes to game in 5. But for the life of me, I'll never understand why 2 was the first and only one with a video gallery of advisers. I loved those guys! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 7:12:26 PM EDT
[#25]
I played I thru III for hundreds of hours.
I still have III installed on my Windows 7 machine - runs great, like lightening fast, but only at some really lame low resolution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 7:17:35 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Civilization 2 is still superior. I still play it often just to watch the Wonders of the World video. Hoover Dam is always my favorite. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5719RoAMi-I Civ 2 was the most realistic, in that you could gain technology like the Romans did, by conquest. They've progressively nerfed the military in order to make the other victory types more viable. That's o.k., but I think they overdid it in Civ 5. They did things right with not allowing stacking units though. Also I liked how mountains were impassable until later stages, which made it more realistic and forced you to defend and hold strategic passes. If the units represented armies I would agree with you. But they don't, so not.allowing stacking is idiotic. Nobody has a cavalry squadron out there on its own. And mountains are always impassable, you cannot get.over them.until you can fly. Which is silly for.anything less than the Andes. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 8:04:55 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Civilization 2 is still superior. I still play it often just to watch the Wonders of the World video. Hoover Dam is always my favorite. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5719RoAMi-I Civ 2 was the most realistic, in that you could gain technology like the Romans did, by conquest. They've progressively nerfed the military in order to make the other victory types more viable. That's o.k., but I think they overdid it in Civ 5. They did things right with not allowing stacking units though. Also I liked how mountains were impassable until later stages, which made it more realistic and forced you to defend and hold strategic passes. I like a lot of the mechanics changes to game in 5. But for the life of me, I'll never understand why 2 was the first and only one with a video gallery of advisers. I loved those guys! because that was when CDs were fairly new and every game tried to have full motion video I always liked the one at 2:40 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 8:08:06 PM EDT
[#28]
It sucks dick.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 8:08:25 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: because that was when CDs were fairly new and every game tried to have full motion video I always liked the one at 2:40  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzHOhIdTpw0I love the medieval guy when he is happy. Skip to :41 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/3/2012 8:19:40 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
lags bad, not sure why. I've heard it's due to the language it was programmed in I'm still going to have to say I liked Civ 3 better than 4 or 5, especially when played with the rise and rule mod glad I got 5 on sale +87 3 FTW |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2012 7:36:27 AM EDT
[#31]
Civilization III
Test of time (with cities) or Balancer Reloaded mod. If I was stranded on a deserted island and could take one game with me, it would be that one. Never played 5 because I disliked 4 so much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2012 8:51:46 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
They've nerfed the military options once again. Total war is difficult unless you use cheese and exploits. Most wars are limited (one city). Overall, not as god as Civ 4 IMHO. It also lacks the scenarios that you can get with the Civ 4 packs. If you haven't played Civ 4, I'd recommend that before Civ 5. You should be able to get a gold edition with both major upgrades for cheap. I especially recommend the Charlemagne scenario. I loved pwning the mooslims with my Franks. How do you figure? Game I was playing earlier this week as the Americans saw me unleash utter hell on the other two civs who had the audacity to claim land in the traditional borders of the USA. Now granted, I didn't try to annex their cities which you might be talking about... But I did two civs did get to see total war waged on their faces. The Canadians, er Iriquois in central Canada saw their 3 offending cities burnt to the ground and the other six turned into a puppet nation... The Aztecs had 5 cities leveled, 3 puppeted. Civ 4 with the Total Realism mod was great until someone git a hair up their ass and decided you couldn't start as the Americans or any other non-ancient civ. I can see why they made that change.. would've just been nice if they'd made an alternate scenario to accomodate those of us who liked the system they were building but still wanted some choice. In regards to the programming, sometimes it seems this laggy bitch is coded in JAVA. Frown. Should've coded the logical structre in C++ and used assembly for all the functions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2012 9:33:14 AM EDT
[#33]
Who else besides me can beat this thing on Immortal or Deity levels? Then again I've put enough hours into Civ V that it's probably my second part-time job...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2012 9:44:10 AM EDT
[#34]
Civ 5 is a game which many don't understand compared to the other civs. People got so used to stacks of doom that they think that anything but a stack of doom means that the combat is dumbed down or there just aren't as many options. Truth is, the new tile shape coupled with one unit per tile makes for actual decision making. Of course, you're still going to win if you have better tech or more units, but that's 99% of strategy games.
Economically it's not as interesting as previous civ games, but that's ok. The other games had a ton of needless complexity when it came to economies, commerce, food, etc. It's fairly straight forward here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2012 10:41:03 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Civ 5 is a game which many don't understand compared to the other civs. People got so used to stacks of doom that they think that anything but a stack of doom means that the combat is dumbed down or there just aren't as many options. Truth is, the new tile shape coupled with one unit per tile makes for actual decision making. Of course, you're still going to win if you have better tech or more units, but that's 99% of strategy games. Economically it's not as interesting as previous civ games, but that's ok. The other games had a ton of needless complexity when it came to economies, commerce, food, etc. It's fairly straight forward here. I'd enjoy it if I could actually play over LAN or online. I'd tell a unit to move and ten seconds later it finally would. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2012 11:13:36 AM EDT
[#36]
Still playing Civ III
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2012 11:19:51 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
I much prefer Civ IV. So many hours gone ... so many ... I'm a IV guy too. Very awesome game. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/4/2012 11:20:31 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: Quoted: Civ 5 is a game which many don't understand compared to the other civs. People got so used to stacks of doom that they think that anything but a stack of doom means that the combat is dumbed down or there just aren't as many options. Truth is, the new tile shape coupled with one unit per tile makes for actual decision making. Of course, you're still going to win if you have better tech or more units, but that's 99% of strategy games. Economically it's not as interesting as previous civ games, but that's ok. The other games had a ton of needless complexity when it came to economies, commerce, food, etc. It's fairly straight forward here. I'd enjoy it if I could actually play over LAN or online. I'd tell a unit to move and ten seconds later it finally would. Ouch, that sucks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2012 10:29:31 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: How do you figure? Game I was playing earlier this week as the Americans saw me unleash utter hell on the other two civs who had the audacity to claim land in the traditional borders of the USA. Now granted, I didn't try to annex their cities which you might be talking about... But I did two civs did get to see total war waged on their faces. The Canadians, er Iriquois in central Canada saw their 3 offending cities burnt to the ground and the other six turned into a puppet nation... The Aztecs had 5 cities leveled, 3 puppeted. Two key nerfs IMHO. 1. The requirement of a special resource per unit. It used to be that once you found iron, you could build all the iron-requiring units you wanted. Now if you want to have three, you have to have three iron. 2. The expansion penalty is extreme. I've had several games where large swaths of fertile ground lays fallow because no one wants to take the happiness hit to settle it. That's unrealistic. It's also a hard check to make up for the AI, which is cheesy IMHO. Also, the expansion penalty nerfs your units combat effectiveness. Another unrealistic nerf meant to be a hard check on the player's expansion to make up for the AI. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2012 11:05:26 AM EDT
[#40]
I liked Civ III with the Double your Pleasure mod.
Sadly I can't find it again. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2012 12:19:10 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
I liked Civ III with the Double your Pleasure mod. Sadly I can't find it again. probably in here some where, but it's 190 pages http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=19742 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2012 12:31:53 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Civ 5 is a game which many don't understand compared to the other civs. People got so used to stacks of doom that they think that anything but a stack of doom means that the combat is dumbed down or there just aren't as many options. Truth is, the new tile shape coupled with one unit per tile makes for actual decision making. Of course, you're still going to win if you have better tech or more units, but that's 99% of strategy games. Economically it's not as interesting as previous civ games, but that's ok. The other games had a ton of needless complexity when it came to economies, commerce, food, etc. It's fairly straight forward here. I was glad to see stacking gone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2012 8:54:13 PM EDT
[#43]
Does Civ 3 work on Win7 ?
this verision |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2012 9:00:13 AM EDT
[#44]
Hadn't played since II !
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2012 9:02:51 AM EDT
[#45]
Is that the Sid Meier game?
Someone gave me his early (first ?) version years ago. I loaded it up and played the damn thing all night. I was a wreck the next day and swore it off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2012 12:00:05 PM EDT
[#46]
Well, this thread inspired me to give it another try. While I still don't like several of the game mechanics, I found that these mechanics are actually endlessly exploitable against the AI. In particular with happiness rather than corruption being the limiting factor for growth, you can create huge, unstoppable empires by having one or two mega-cities and for the rest use Infinite City Spam (ICS), small filler-cities which are happiness-neutral. Also, the AI absolutely cannot handle the one unit per tile combat system. Place your cities as close together as possible and garrison them with ranged units. The AI will then walk into your interlocking fields of fire and get slaughtered. Then you can go on the offensive and take their virtually undefended cities.
Anyways, I found all these tactics here: http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/civ5SP.html Apparently this guy is somewhat famous in Civ circles. His criticisms of Civ 5 are a gold mine of exploitable tactics to use against the AI (one of his big complaints is that the AI is too exploitable). His single player campaigns are also a good read of how to whomp the AI. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2012 12:23:10 PM EDT
[#47]
I've been addicted to Civ V for a few months now. Enjoying the new mods, but ultimately don't enjoy it as much as II Or III.
But I really miss II. Is it truly considered abandonware now? And if so, can somebody let me know where to find it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2012 2:52:05 PM EDT
[#48]
I keep playing Civ 3
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
