- Sep 11, 2012
- 269
- 0
- 71
As the title says - I'm not trying to start a war here, I just fancy playing a 4x game and I have obviously heard great things about the series, which one should I pick? (Not played a Civ game before)
Note that the biggest criticisms of Civ V are before its expansion was out.
Looks like I will be picking up Civ IV then - presumably its worth getting the complete edition for a couple of quid more? - also they seem to have the dreaded Games for Windows live on the box art (like here - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sid-Meiers-...FICG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363439147&sr=8-1) does it require it?
I have the Civ IV complete edition and it didn't require Windows live even though it was on the box. Mine came with Civ IV Colonization also which was nice.
I did pick up the Gods and Kings exp on an Amazon sale for a few bucks, but haven't played it. The game was so foul the first time around, my motivation to try it again is pretty much nil. The jury is still out on the second expansion though, and I'm pretty sure they won't be correcting the deeper flaws with Civ5's mechanics, like 1UPT, civilization sizes, pacing, and whatnot.
wow. I get you like King Arthur, but hyperbole much?Don't bother with civ at all. It's horrible.
combat in V is much more satisfying. stacks of doom were lame.
I suggest King Arthur the Roleplaying game by Neocore games.
It's much better.
Civ IV and V I have played a lot. Basically, the games for me at least are about
1) coming up with some formula to test against game system.
For instance, let's get France and go down the Liberty tree (France has +1 culture per city) and also the religion tree
or
Let's do Rome, try to find iron, build as many legions as possible and attack enemy
or,
let's be Huns and early-rush a neighboring civ with battering ram + horse archers.
etc
then you basically babysit the experimental formula for 10 hours. And with Civ, basically the games are won about 1/2 to 2/3rds of the way through and the final playthrough is basically mopping up the rest of the map. Unlike previous versions, there are no scrambles to prevent say a diplomatic victory with the apocolipctic palace or a space race victory by capturing capital before reaching alpha centauri.
But uh, King Arthur the ROleplaying game is better. Much better. You have seasons. An interesting storyline. Genuinely cool artwork. Great tactical battles. Don't bother with civ at all. It's horrible.
wow. I get you like King Arthur, but hyperbole much?
I haven't played V so can't offer comparisons. But if you haven't played Civ IV ever that is a game you need to play anyway. Then if you're some kind of weirdo and don't like it; try V.
The OP wanted to know whether he should play Civ IV or Civ V. Your opinion on King Arthur the Role-playing Wargame (which belongs to a different genre, since it's a mix of RTT and RPG and doesn't have turn-based combat) is utterly irrelevant in this context.
Furthermore, Civ rules.
I haven't played Civ V enough to give an informed opinion, but I've spent about 300 hours with Civ IV; you really can't go wrong with it if you're into turn-based strategy.