Your Favorite Civilization

[The Avatar 1,089]

There are a lot of Civilization players on this site, and I thought I'd create a poll asking for your favorite Civ from the series. (This also includes expansions, although I didn't include them in the poll. I might add them later on.) I have played every Civ game besides Civ I, but my personal favorite is Civilization III. However, with the knew Gods and Kings expansion for Civ V, this might change.

What are your thoughts?

[Follarch 326]

I've never played! I may be interested if it's relatively like Total War.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

I do love me some Civ. For a while I played nothing BUT Civ IV. I've played III and IV in the series, and will eventually try V out, although I have read some not-so-favorable reviews that discourage me from buying it. I think IV's added features, better interface, and nicer graphics make me want to play it more than III, but that's like saying I (hypothetically) like to drive my yellow Corvette more than my gray 911 because it's brighter: they're both fun and I enjoy each.

I haven't played Total War, but being turn-based is a big similarity. Civ is more empire management, and there are peaceful ways to win. While war is certainly fun, it's not the focus, and it spends more time emphasizing things other than battlefield tactics. Still, the games are super-fun and totally worth a shot, Archean.

[GMT 389]

none. don't like the concept.

btw, doesn't this belong into the strategy games aka civilization games forum?

[The Avatar 1,089]

none. don't like the concept.

btw, doesn't this belong into the strategy games aka civilization games forum?

I posted in this fourm because this is for discussing games, and this topic is about discussing people's favorite Civ game, not the game itself.

I do love me some Civ. For a while I played nothing BUT Civ IV. I've played III and IV in the series, and will eventually try V out, although I have read some not-so-favorable reviews that discourage me from buying it. I think IV's added features, better interface, and nicer graphics make me want to play it more than III, but that's like saying I (hypothetically) like to drive my yellow Corvette more than my gray 911 because it's brighter: they're both fun and I enjoy each.

You should really give V a try, especially after the Gods and Kings expansion is released. Among other things, it adds religion, one of they key aspects Civ V lacked and Civ IV had. I'm really looking forward to it!

I've never played! I may be interested if it's relatively like Total War.

PLAY EET! The whole Civ series is amazing, but I think you should start out with IV if you want to give it a try. Then once you've got a feeling for the game, if you find you like it, buy V. The graphics are really good.

  Edited March 28, 2012 by MamaLuigi945  

[BurroDiablo 222]

I started with IV and bought V because I thought it would more fun as it did away with the unit stacks of doom, but became bored with it very quickly. I've come to the conclusion I simply don't like Turn-based games, I love Fallout but I cannot stand the turn-based nature of earlier titles. I would say V an improvement on IV as it does away with the unit stacks of doom, but I much prefer Rise of Nations over Civ despite it being dated

[The Avatar 1,089]

I started with IV and bought V because I thought it would more fun as it did away with the unit stacks of doom, but became bored with it very quickly. I've come to the conclusion I simply don't like Turn-based games, I love Fallout but I cannot stand the turn-based nature of earlier titles. I would say V an improvement on IV as it does away with the unit stacks of doom, but I much prefer Rise of Nations over Civ despite it being dated

Being able to stack units was one of the things I wished they hadn't taken away in IV and V. Now, I'm not sure if I prefer being able to or not. It definitely makes sieging a city more difficult.

Rise of Nations... Hmm, never played that. It sounds like something I might like. I'll give it a try.

[jdenm8 362]

Also makes defending said city much easier and reduces the amount of time required for AI turns (And it could take AGES, I could go away and make a coffee and it still wouldn't be finished on my new rig), but it hasn't sold me on V. I tried the demo and disliked it greatly. The new grid reduces the options and makes it easier to be surrounded for a largely graphical gain and City States are REALLY annoying.

Also, I thought Civ V didn't have religions because the community hated them in IV? They're adding them back?

[BurroDiablo 222]

Rise of Nations... Hmm, never played that. It sounds like something I might like. I'll give it a try.

RoN is more compact and much faster paced than Civ, plus it's Real Time... immense fun though, would suggest getting the Gold Edition as it comes with the 'Thrones and Patriots' expansion which added in more stuff like Government structure.

I installed Civ V again actually, I haven't played it in over a year so I thought I'd pick it up again and see if I can have some fun.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

I think the main complaint about the religions in Civ IV was that it was REALLY easy to use them to manipulate the AI into friendship or war. Basically it was like, if you're the same religion as another country, you're going to end up buds almost all the time. But I saw some complaining that religion wasn't a feature for Civ V over at Civfanatics. I don't spend a lot of time on their forums, so I can't say anything for sure, but for me personally I thought it was a neat addition to IV.

[The Avatar 1,089]

Also makes defending said city much easier and reduces the amount of time required for AI turns (And it could take AGES, I could go away and make a coffee and it still wouldn't be finished on my new rig), but it hasn't sold me on V. I tried the demo and disliked it greatly. The new grid reduces the options and makes it easier to be surrounded for a largely graphical gain and City States are REALLY annoying.

Also, I thought Civ V didn't have religions because the community hated them in IV? They're adding them back?

Really? I was under the impression that most of the Civ community liked religions in IV. I thought they were a nice addition.

Yeah, they're adding them back, along with some other things: linky.

RoN is more compact and much faster paced than Civ, plus it's Real Time... immense fun though, would suggest getting the Gold Edition as it comes with the 'Thrones and Patriots' expansion which added in more stuff like Government structure.

Thanks! I'll try it out once I've got the cash. There are many other games out there right now I wish I could buy: Anno 2070, HoMM VI, AoE III...

EDIT: Has anyone else ever played Civ II or I? I remember when I was really young my dad would stay up late at night playing Civ II. Seeing him playing the game got me into the series, I think.

  Edited March 29, 2012 by MamaLuigi945  

[KevinBryan 0]

CIV IV.

Can't play the V, my laptop doesn't have the requirements. =<

[The Avatar 1,089]

@KevinBryan: That's a shame. I hope you can play it one day!

[MatlockMan 370]

Have played both Civ 4 and Rise of Nations. Liked Rise of Nations better as the realtime made it a real struggle to keep up/ get ahead of your rivals. Nuking your friends on multiplayer also yielded fun results (even if they were on your team ).

Civ 4 felt inferior even though it was newer and I bought it after I had played RoN, simply because of the turn-based gameplay and the stacked units making gameplay choppy and grinding.

[Cob92 360]

Also, I thought Civ V didn't have religions because the community hated them in IV? They're adding them back?

As far as I know the community liked the idea but disliked that they tended to break diplomacy and were too shallow in gameplay terms. From what I've heard so far, the new religion system is much deeper and allows your civilization to actually develop its own religion, with unique strengths and weaknesses, rather than simply slapping a cross/star-of-david/crescent on everything and calling it a day.

  Edited April 25, 2012 by Cobhris96  

[djrules5454 5]

4 was my favorite, simply because of the fact that turns didn't take nearly as long as they did on 3 because the scale on 4 was much smaller to make it drastically more manageable.

And I was under the impression that the fanbase didn't like religions simply because having control of as many religions as possible was a must in order to attain ANY of the win conditions on the higher difficulties.

[Rufus Honker IV 100]

I've made my peace with Civ V.  It was crap when it was released, but is now good.

[euverus 20]

Civ IV is an amazing game and was definitely my favorite, but now I like Civ V more. Even thought I probably played Civ II the most.

[mrbisonm 1,620]

I started with CIV I, enjoyed CIV II, was amazed with CIV III,  only liked CIV IV so and so, played CIV V a lot (like the graphics), but went back to CIV III now......

 

mrb

[The Avatar 1,089]

I started with CIV I, enjoyed CIV II, was amazed with CIV III,  only liked CIV IV so and so, played CIV V a lot (like the graphics), but went back to CIV III now......

 

mrb

 

Very similar to my experience with the Civ Series. I liked II, loved III and played it all the time, liked IV, and loved V, especially for the graphics and new tile system. I missed religions in V, but couldn't go back to IV after playing V because it seemed obsolete compared to it. I haven't played Civ III in a while, though.

[SpookyZalost 39]

Has anyone stated Alpha Centauri? it was created between CIv 2 and Civ 3 by Sid Meier, and is basically Civ 2.5 but with scifi elements being based on a planet around another star and all... personally that one would get my vote

[LexusInfernus 908]

Civ 4 Beyond the Sword definitely. 

 

Maybe I'll change my mind once I get the expansions for Civ 5 as Ive only played it vanilla. 

 

I also always liked Civ 2 a lot. Though mostly due to the easy cheat menu and nuke spam

[Rufus Honker IV 100]

I like Civ 5, but the randomly generated lands don't seem as random as they used to be.  It used to be you could find islands everywhere, and sending your ship around the world would be an adventure, but even setting Civ 5 for Fractal doesn't replicate the randomness of earlier games.

[jss77 0]

I originally played Civ 2 Multiplayer Gold edition, and it was awesome. America is the best country in that game. The gameplay was easy, though a bit repetitive and the AI was sometimes cold and ruthless. This is real life. I've played Civ 3 a bit and same for Civ 4. I'm looking to start Civ 5 and the reviews are in the mid-90's! Wow.

Call me nostalgic, but I'd have to tip my had to Civ 2 Gold.

 

Regards,

John

[Ocram's Razr 964]

It is pretty much a tie for me between Civ4 and Civ5.

--Ocram

[NielsC007 499]

Civ 5 gold + BNW is just great!

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Civ IV. I have lost hours playing that game as I tried to advance my nation as quickly as possible, and things become grimmer and more crazier as you approach and enter the Modern Age. Stacks of doom, nukes, global warming, airstrikes. I will say that I miss the stacks of doom which Civ 5 removed.

 

But if I were to be technical about I would argue that Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri is merely a continuation of Civilization -- since building the spaceship which travels to Alpha Centauri is one of the modes of victory in Civ games -- and furthermore the superior of all the Civ games

[AidanA28 17]

Is the civ app anything like civilisation?

[migamin 38]

CIV IV - i catually did not play vanilla - but FFH mod was awsome

Alpha Centauri was a nice game too.

Btw. i played all Civ Games but Civ 5.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I have to revisit my earlier statement. Civ V is for me now the best Civilization game ever. While the vanilla game was meh, with both expansions it becomes amazing. And it gets even better thanks to the modding community, who added some pretty cool extra civs, extra units, extra techs and other gameplay elements to the game.