What is your favourite Version of Civ

[digger760]

Now that we have had time to soak in Civ4

[digger760]

Personally I choose Civ3, i would choose Civ2 and Civ1 as my 2nd and third choice. Civ4 annoys the hell outta me

[socralynnek]

I vote Civ4, it seems more strategically balanced and interesting, Civ3 is following close, but for me it's often more autopilot.

[Darkness]

It's close between 3 and 4, but I don't play 3 anymore so I'd have to say 4...

[akots]

Voted Civ3, Civ4 is very annoying.

[grs]

I like the micromanament in civ3 better.

[Socrates]

Voted Civ4, though I'm still not used to the game. The benefits of changing the game engine at last are there : the game is fresh with new ideas, which nicely replace some micromanagement stuff. One thing I didn't like in Civ3 is how all your cities look the same and I had the feeling it was just, well, now I'm thinking of it it becomes obvious, a factory of cities. [mischief] In Civ4 cities get colourful, are more different from one another... And anything that stops the exploits of yesterday (either Civ1, Civ2 or Civ3) is good in my book, and Civ4 was built around that idea.

For me it's simple : Civ4 > Civ3 > Civ2 > Civ1. Hence why I'm still playing the game these days.

[Kemal]

Agree with grs that mm-ing was more fun in civ3 (for those that get a kick out of it), but overall I think civ4 is better in every aspect (even mm-ing, since few people like that).

[barbu1977]

For me it's civ 2. I don't know why, but I just liked it better.

[Tubby Rower]

I voted civ4 .. mainly because it's more fluid and not as robotic like civ3. In civ3, you always go for republic, you always try for hoovers, you always can trade a ton of techs and play the AI for fools. in civ4 if you can't change your plans you'll die. the graphics and eye-candy aren't that big of a deal to me, but actually prefer civ3 over civ4 in that category because it's simpler.

I've never played 1 or 2.

[Socrates]

quote:Originally posted by Kemal

Agree with grs that mm-ing was more fun in civ3 (for those that get a kick out of it), but overall I think civ4 is better in every aspect (even mm-ing, since few people like that).

I might be amongst the very rare group of players who actually enjoyed MMing in Civ3 a lot, but now prefer Civ4 even with less MMing, ie. MMing in Civ4 is more fun and better for me.

quote:Originally posted by barbu1977

For me it's civ 2. I don't know why, but I just liked it better.

Played that one too much, and grew old of the numerous exploits and badly implemented features, plus all the civs being the same and the conquering of the map consisting in settling in dozens of grassland areas looking much the same was kinda boring. Too streamlined.

[Matrix]

Very tough decision. The modability of Civ3 was absolutely great, although graphically too hard for most people. Civ4's World Builder sucks, actually. That's the reason I still haven't made my scenarios (http://www.straland.com/Civ3scenarios.html) "Now" and "Alicia Silverstone" for Civ4.
I still think that it's ridiculous that you need such a heavy video card for it. It decreases gameplay tremendously.
I still prefer attack and defence values instead of these promotions...

Civ4's advantages are multiplayer and game mechanics (=the game core).

Give me Civ with Civ1 graphical style (top-down view, square tiles instead of diamonds), Civ3's editor and Civ4's game mechanics (except unit stuff), and you'd make me a very happy man. :)

[Shabbaman]

I voted civ4. I think that I spent a lot more time with civ2 than I ever could with civ4, but that was a long time ago. Since I prefer to play civ4 now, I'd say that I prefer it over the other civs.

[Socrates]

quote:Originally posted by Matrix

The modability of Civ3 was absolutely great
[hmm]

quote:I still think that it's ridiculous that you need such a heavy video card for it. It decreases gameplay tremendously.
Fail to see the connection between gameplay and graphics. Graphics are just a way to display gameplay, but both are independent in a strat game. But I agree about the gfx card needed.

quote:I still prefer attack and defence values instead of these promotions...
Ridden for good. Made no sense. Promotion is more dynamic, lively. And you can have a mod with attack and defense values if you want. Which brings me to...

quote:Civ4's advantages are multiplayer and game mechanics (=the game core).
And, and, and... modding. [eek] The new Warlords patch (announced today) features some AI tweaks made by a fan (name : Blake). Feel the power of modding up to the high sphere of Firaxis !

quote:Give me Civ with Civ1 graphical style (top-down view, square tiles instead of diamonds), Civ3's editor and Civ4's game mechanics (except unit stuff), and you'd make me a very happy man. :)

You're a difficult man to please. :( :D

BTW, I'm quoting you just to have a bit of a debate, otherwise it's just a thread where everyone gives his answer and that's it.

[BCLG100]

civ 4, then its a tie between 2 and 3

the only thing i dislike about civ4 is how crappy it runs on my comp.

[Matrix]

@krys: Civ3 had an editor outside of the game. Now you have to load Civ4 itself first. Plus you could set up a lot more in there than in the World Builder of Civ4. And the WB doesn't work properly.

Needing a heavy graphics card makes everything move so damn slow/catchy. Compared to Civ1&2 it takes forever to move a single unit. Sure, Civ4 looks nice, but that's inferior to gameplay.

Units: Alright, matter of personal preference.

Modding: Yes, a lot more is possible for Civ4. But plain simple things, like creating a scenario, or making small graphical adjustments, are already way too hard! This is a paradox: the more beautiful the game gets, and the more 'moddable' it becomes, the harder it is for an amateur to mod/create. IMO, with Civ3 they were on exactly the right spot in the balance; in Civ4 they've gone too far.

I'm not difficulty to please. [:P] This is optimalisation. I think the Civ1/Civ3/Civ4-mix I mentioned is the ideal Civ-game and will be appreciated the most by most people. But I fear Firaxis isn't searching for an ideal (as far as that exists), because that would leave no room for a future Civ-version...

[Kemal]

Civ1 graphics be appreciated by most people? ;)

[IglooDude]

Civ4, hands down. I'm not a modder (nor do I even play mods), I just play the vanilla game over and over again. And with 4, those games vary a lot more than they did in 3 (or 1, way back when).

And the cherry on top is that with 4, I'm actually playing against other people via PTBS.

[Matrix]

quote:Originally posted by Kemal
Civ1 graphics be appreciated by most people? ;)
I'm not saying we should go back to 320x200. [:P] But the top-down view, and cartoon-like graphics are really the best, if you ask me...

[Kemal]

Well, I do agree that I think the "real 3d" models used in modern pc games look out of place in games such as civ, so in that respect I'll admit I slightly preferred previous incarnations of civ.

[Whomp]

I've really enjoyed the PBEMs I've played in both c3c and civ4.

The major difference is I prefer C3C for SG's and SP games but MP (pitboss rocks!!) in civ4.
I found it really difficult to manage a large empire (flying screens [eek] in the civ4 SG's I've played in and communications even more onerous.

[Pastorius]

Civ 2 got me hooked. Civ 3 proved that I could handle the civ universe in an ok manner.

Civ 4 could have been interesting, but my computer is fucked, so I dunno (only played a handful of games on my desktop till it "broke down")

Civ1 I also had much fun with - but unlike civ2 I seldom go back to play it.

[RegentMan]

I haven't played Civ II in months, perhaps years. That was the game that got me hooked (I can not tell you how long I played that game since I was ten), and I still would like to play it. But I'm cutoff from my CD; college and stuff. [sad]

I love Civ III, and Civ IV is great as well. So I can't vote in the poll.

I never really played Civ I. I played one game once and thought it was cute; I can see how it started the sensation.

[mauer]

quote:Originally posted by grs

I like the micromanament in civ3 better.
This would actually be my reason for voting for Civ4. I like the diplo much better than 3, and I like the MP better as well.

[ProPain]

Civ3 for me

[Matrix]

Well, Civ3 has got as many votes as Civ4 at present. That's food for thought. Normally when a new version comes out, you'd expect that at least the majority would favour the new game. Clearly they've disappointed a lot of Civ-fans.

[Shabbaman]

We're getting old and conservative. I guess that we didn't get an influx of new members when civ4 was released, compared to some other site (at least when civ3 was released). Like I said it's pretty much been civ4 for me, but I was getting tired of civ3 anyway. Still, I like colonization better. But compared to the raving reviews I'm still a bit disappointed in civ4. I think I need to play more multiplayer, but I'm getting tired of civ4 as well so that's not really going to work.

Time for civ5.

[Socrates]

I remember a thread where Matrix feared that CDZ may lose its soul through a massive influx of members with Civ4. Well, nothing of that at all. ;) I was also getting tired of Civ3 and its old engine, and Civ4 managed to start things anew pretty well for me. :) I also need more mutliplayer, I haven't even scratched the surface of MP with Civ4.

[grs]

If you need more multiplayer, feel free to challenge me!

[Beam]

Voted Civ III because of gut feel and it is what I've been playing most in the past weeks (essentialy completing all Conquests on Emperor level which is some kind of challenge). I guess Civ IV is the better game but still many people seem to have troubles running it unless they invets in new HW and another guess is this means the community for PBEMs is much smaller as it was with III.

[Socrates]

quote:Originally posted by Beam

Voted Civ III because of gut feel and it is what I've been playing most in the past weeks (essentialy completing all Conquests on Emperor level which is some kind of challenge). I guess Civ IV is the better game but still many people seem to have troubles running it unless they invets in new HW and another guess is this means the community for PBEMs is much smaller as it was with III.

Oh my God, you're back !!! [eek] [eek] [goodjob]

[barbu1977]

Thinking about it, I said civ II because the one more turn syndrome hit me harder in civ II than the other versions. (but maybe it was my age and interest in videogames)

Also, with little internet, in civ II you did not have other choices but to develop your own tactics and not only learn how the others exploit the game on the net.

[Markstar]

I voted for Civ2, although I also played a lot of Civ3 I always missed a lot of things from Civ2 (Diplomats, smooth MP, Supermarkets, etc).

Although I bought cIV, I never could warm up to it, probably mainly because I just don't have any time nowadays. :(

[Sir Eric]

Civ III is still my favourite. (I still play it on the work laptop).

[col]

I think I had the most fun in the early days of Civ3.