Civilization IV, worth getting?

[acheron]

Originally posted by: Dorkenstein
Rhye's and Fall mod any good? Was looking at this a week or so ago.

I tried it but didn't get very far and went back to the regular game. Some people love it though.

 

[ElFenix]

i enjoyed it. played a lot of hours of civ 4 bts.

 

[SKC]

Originally posted by: Abel007

Civ4 works fine under Vista 64.

thanks!

 

[Dorkenstein]

Is there ANY way to get better at the game than pouring over dozens of pages full of math at Civ Fanatics? I love the Civ games but reading all the guides is killing my brain. Damn ADD.

 

[minmaster]

haha yeah there was a time when i was reading at civfanatic forums more than playing the actual game. amazing how much some people have figured out this game.

 

[fivetiger]

Does BTS add anything significant to gameplay that makes it a must have? I don't care so much about having even more leaders, or even more units.

 

[Chriscross3234]

Sorry to go a little bit off topic, but I feel it's appropriate to ask in this thread. If I fully enjoy Civ IV (including Warlords and BTS) is there any reason at all I should try and play the previous Civs? Do they offer anything different/better than Civ IV, other than the obvious graphical differences?

 

[sandorski]

Civ2 is still the best in the series, but Civ4 comes in as a close second best.

 

[imported_Champ]

Originally posted by: fivetiger
Does BTS add anything significant to gameplay that makes it a must have? I don't care so much about having even more leaders, or even more units.

I think so...there are corporations, adjusted civics, new techs, new wonders, they changed some of the leaders too (different specializations) more custom map options

I think its worth it

 

[fivetiger]

Originally posted by: Chriscross3234
Sorry to go a little bit off topic, but I feel it's appropriate to ask in this thread. If I fully enjoy Civ IV (including Warlords and BTS) is there any reason at all I should try and play the previous Civs? Do they offer anything different/better than Civ IV, other than the obvious graphical differences?

I played the hell out of Civ2 and have played Civ4 somewhat. Although, I loved Civ2, it's impossible for me to say that it's better because there is always the emotion involved with nostalgia. I suspect that if I had played Civ4 years ago, and only now played Civ2, that the better game would be more obvious.

I do know that many, many people regard Civ4 as the most polished version.

However, I miss the throne room in Civ2. My favorite was to fancy up the room as much as possible, but never upgrade that stone seat that you start with. It just looked so out of place.

Wait...or was that Civ1? Uh-oh...I can't remember.

 

[acheron]

Civ 1 and 3 had a palace, Civ 2 had the throne room.

I think early pre-release versions of Civ 4 had a palace too, but that was cut.