Screw Halo Reach... (Civilization 5)

[Army of GOD]

The conflict gameplay is so different. Like, now, cities have their own defense and don't necessarily need anyone in them (I think...unless the game I'm in (WHICH I MOVED UP TO PRINCE DIFFICULTY) the barbarians just like going back and forth right next to my city).

It's still really addicting though. GET IT BBS SO I CAN PWN YOU

[Juan_Bottom]

I'm gonna have to google this "CIV 4."

Also, my cousin just started playing REACH today. He's never played any HALO games and has no idea what to expect. He knows nothing about it.
I am jealous of his ignorance.

[Army of GOD]

Civ 5*

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm considering building a computer for civ5. I'm having my friends buy computers, seeing which one works best, and just buying the same parts and building it (and I guess slightly improving it).

ABOUT A WEEK, Army of NOOB

[Army of GOD]

FUCKING GERMANS GOD DAMMIT

[Army of GOD]

Anyone else who has this game wanna play? It would be fun to get a bunch of CCers to play in a large game.

[mviola]

If I had it, or any time whatsoever, I'd join you in it. f*ck college.

[tkr4lf]

I wish I had it, I would totally play you. I miss playing Civ 4. I don't have the game anymore. To remenisce: Civ 2 was my favorite. I loved that scenario pack "the conquerors" or something like that. Had a ton of scenarios to play, pretty much all of them warfare based. the crusades, ww2 in the pacific, the civil war, the revolutionary way, you name it, they had it. even an apocolypse and alien invasion scenario. such great fun!!! Also, I'm drunk.

[Army of GOD]

I wish I had it, I would totally play you. I miss playing Civ 4. I don't have the game anymore. To remenisce: Civ 2 was my favorite. I loved that scenario pack "the conquerors" or something like that. Had a ton of scenarios to play, pretty much all of them warfare based. the crusades, ww2 in the pacific, the civil war, the revolutionary way, you name it, they had it. even an apocolypse and alien invasion scenario. such great fun!!! Also, I'm drunk.

Despite you drunkenness, I agree with you on Civ2. I love it so much. I played the f*ck out of it. I never played the scenarios really though.

[Caleb the Cruel]

I've got Civ 5. It's pretty neat, but like all have said I remember Civ II being the best. To be honest, the city-states in Civ 5 kind of irk me. But I really enjoy learning the new hex pattern, and the better ranged combat.

[ViperOverLord]

Civ I - I don't know if ever even played it or not.
Civ II - Probably the best one!
Civ III - Sucked. They tried to improve upon Civ II so A for effort.
Civ IV - It cleaned up all the crap that went wrong in Civ III and I know people that like it more than Civ II because of some of the extras; but it still never seemed to be as fun to play to me as Civ II.
Civ V - I didn't know it was coming out; but I look forward to your analysis!

[Army of GOD]

I've got Civ 5. It's pretty neat, but like all have said I remember Civ II being the best. To be honest, the city-states in Civ 5 kind of irk me. But I really enjoy learning the new hex pattern, and the better ranged combat.

They are obnoxious...I don't get what happens if you're friendly to any other city-state other than the Militaristic ones (I know they give you units)...

[Army of GOD]

Civ II - Probably the best one!
Civ III - Sucked. They tried to improve upon Civ II so A for effort.
Civ IV - It cleaned up all the crap that went wrong in Civ III and I know people that like it more than Civ II because of some of the extras; but it still never seemed to be as fun to play to me as Civ II.

I completely agree. Civ I was basically a poor man's Civ II. The concepts were basically all the same, just the graphics looked like someone died on your computer and spilled blood everywhere and they tried to clean it up with grape soda and some grass they pulled out of their lawn.

Then again, we had it for Windows 95...

[Iliad]

Civ I - I don't know if ever even played it or not.
Civ II - Probably the best one!
Civ III - Sucked. They tried to improve upon Civ II so A for effort.
Civ IV - It cleaned up all the crap that went wrong in Civ III and I know people that like it more than Civ II because of some of the extras; but it still never seemed to be as fun to play to me as Civ II.
Civ V - I didn't know it was coming out; but I look forward to your analysis!

civ 1-didn't play
civ 2-didn't play
civ 3- was the first one I played so obv liked it
civ 4-awesome. Not only improved graphics by a shitload but added new features and made it way better. best one in my opinion
civ 5-unless this one will be.

[nagerous]

Haha, I played the original civilisation to death when it first came out, classic game. There were less choices on the original, just one leader for each nation - used to be Lincoln for the Americans, occasionally Genghis Khan for the Mongols if I was feeling aggressively. Really got me into history.

Since then only owned Civilisation III and played that heavily too, the culture thing was pretty cool from what I remember.

As for Civ V, I wish I had the time and money now to own it (and also the computer spec) as I would play it to death, bet it is awesome.

[tkr4lf]

So, with Civ V, I have heard that they removed the religon out of it....is this true? I haven't really read much about it, but I remember reading or hearing that somewhere. I hope not, I thought it was pretty cool. It gave an extra incentive to get those technologies, so that you could build those Great Religion buildings, shrines, whatever they are. My memory sucks. Either way, what are some of the newer features? You guys have been mentioning city-states....what's up with those? I could go read about it but I'm lazy right now and would rather read about it here. So, anybody got a personal review for me?

[Army of GOD]

Ya, they kinda took a step back and got rid of it. They have "Piety" as a "Social Policy", but it's not the same really...I'm irked too.

[BigBallinStalin]

oh well! back to being "chump change" for those techs!

"HEY, SHAKA, I won't attack you if you give me all those lame techs!"
Shaka: Deal.

...

(**B-B-B-B-BUH-DUH-DUH**)
BigBallinStalin declares on Shaka!

BBS: LOL!

[tkr4lf]

Ya, they kinda took a step back and got rid of it. They have "Piety" as a "Social Policy", but it's not the same really...I'm irked too.

That sucks. I guess they didn't wanna offend people eh?

I liked the "social policies" relating to religion in Civ IV. Theocracy,Freedom of Religion...etc. Provided for some interesting play. Oh well, I guess not offending people is more important to them. Losers.

[BigBallinStalin]

Ya, they kinda took a step back and got rid of it. They have "Piety" as a "Social Policy", but it's not the same really...I'm irked too.

That sucks. I guess they didn't wanna offend people eh?

I liked the "social policies" relating to religion in Civ IV. Theocracy,Freedom of Religion...etc. Provided for some interesting play. Oh well, I guess not offending people is more important to them. Losers.

I don't see them removing religion just because it offends people. Maybe there was conflict in the game balance when they brought other things to play and they decided to remove it. Or maybe that aspect left something easily exploitable thus ruining gameplay. There's all sorts of reasons...

[tkr4lf]

Ya, they kinda took a step back and got rid of it. They have "Piety" as a "Social Policy", but it's not the same really...I'm irked too.

That sucks. I guess they didn't wanna offend people eh?

I liked the "social policies" relating to religion in Civ IV. Theocracy,Freedom of Religion...etc. Provided for some interesting play. Oh well, I guess not offending people is more important to them. Losers.

I don't see them removing religion just because it offends people. Maybe there was conflict in the game balance when they brought other things to play and they decided to remove it. Or maybe that aspect left something easily exploitable thus ruining gameplay. There's all sorts of reasons...

But, I mean what about the religion thing was exploitable? it granted absolutely no bonus, aside from being able to build the main religious building, and once building that, collecting "tithes" from all cities with that religion as a majority religion. There doesn't seem to be anything to exploit about it. I guess it could be due to a balance issue, but that would just take ironing some things out, maybe removing the "tithes" part. No need to remove it completely just for a balancing issue in my opinion. Not saying it has to be to avoid offending people, that was just my assumption. I just don't see what could be exploited or how it was or could be unbalanced. It added a fun addition to the game, which was sorely lacking in all the previous iterations. I mean, religion is a big part of civilization, after all.

[BigBallinStalin]

Perhaps founding a holy city, spreading the religion through missionaries, and collecting hte money from that interferes too greatly with the civ 5 system. Honestly, I've no idea how civ 5 works, so all I can offer is speculation upon speculation, and I'm not too happy about it being removed either.

[Army of GOD]

The Social policies are a lot different than IV though. You get to upgrade each one once you get enough culture, it has nothing to do with technology really. But the bonuses are better with these than the Civ IV civics.

And religion was an awesome part of IV. It was always a race to Hinduism.

[tkr4lf]

The Social policies are a lot different than IV though. You get to upgrade each one once you get enough culture, it has nothing to do with technology really. But the bonuses are better with these than the Civ IV civics.

And religion was an awesome part of IV. It was always a race to Hinduism.

Oh, okay. Well that sounds interesting, if not a little counter-intuitive. Seems like tech should still play a part in it, but whatever. I need to get this and play it, but I highly doubt this 5 year old laptop is going ot handle it.

On a side note, have any of you guys played Civ Revolution? It was a pretty simplified form of civ...but lots of fun for the xbox (or PS3 I suppose, If you're into that.)

[Army of GOD]

They don't, really. Once you get a certain amount of culture, you get to either choose a new social policy or upgrade one that you currently have. Some of the policies are contradictory and you can only have one (like liberty or freedom [they're two different ones] and autocracy). The only way technology plays a role is when you get a new tech that allows a new building that gives you culture, or like when you discover the tech that allows you to build the Oracle, which gives you 1 free Social Policy.

That's one thing that I loved about Civ II and not so much IV and V...the importance of wonders. Like, in II the Pyramids would give you a granary in every city...that's huge. Now, they just make your workers work 50% faster (granaries got worse too...instead of halving the amount of food needed for a population increase, they just give you +2 food)...

My 1 year old laptop can barely handle it...it's really laggy and some of the pictures seem glitchy.