I hate Civilization

^Story of my life

lol u just described ilx2
metazing on everybody so clever I hurt myself

I'll lob them up, you smash them back over the net eh?

I prefer Pirates

noodle vague you have to go make them get in wars and deal with scary cities and hang out with less sketchy leaders and shit, that way they get toughned up for reals! if they just sit around your capital and stagnate that is when they turn into fat lazy pedophiles with a penchant or asking their horses to shit on them at every given opportunity (or whatever brand of crazy they end up having).

Is xbox pirates fun

YES

xbox pirates is great, imo

Wow, $25! Question, is it better to buy that or to buy Civ IV for $15? I can't imagine acquiring a connoisseurship in all the different ones, so I guess what it comes down to is, is Civ IV the best Civ or do I want II or III?

lol paying for PC games

Civ IV is the purtiest.

But II or III have the most balanced gameplay.

I tried both Rome total war and Pirates and couldn't get through more than a half hour of either one. What kind of freaks have attention spans like this? I don't even have a long enough attention span for Sim City, though, so...

uhm, what version of Pirates? because the one I played was very simple

mongols just sacked my capitol

Not really feeling the DS version.

Jon was right, resources in 3 was great and added lots of strategic malice and hilarity.

Noodle is that after playing Civ Rev on another platform, or is this your first take on this? I have it on 360 and have ended up playing it a ton, and picked it up for DS too but haven't yet tried it out.

i liked the ds version a lot but it feels incomplete. kind of challop-y but III is my fav version. the only real flaw w/ it is the AI is completely broken and v. single-minded.

Only played it on DS. Don't know what I don't quite dig about it, something about the smallness of the screen and a lack of nerdiness maybe, it doesn't feel deep enough.

xpost yeah I think I might've liked 3 the most, I should get it again.

yeah I kinda dig the lack of depth, b/c it frees me up (psychologically) to take chances and go aggro rather than bunkering down as is my wont when I know the game is going to take 2 weeks to finish.

otoh just picked up Medieval War 2 Gold so I guess a new kind of depth awaits me

i'm playing II again now simply because i'm traveling and only have a laptop and its just too easy to game. despite my having just lost Washington i'm way ahead of almost everybody and i control all the wonders but two @ 1300 bc.

shit meant Medieval 2 Total War, you all know what I meant.

i need to get empire total war at some point. the other part of the reason that i'm playing civ II is that i'm jonesing for some tactical battle attack fun

of course i start playing civ and devolve into the same micro-mgmt trade and expansion style that i no works and have almost no units at all

has civ 2 been eroded from its position as 'the one classic example of this type of thing' yet? are the later versions generally rated above it?

i played civ 2 what seems like a 'lot' in high school but it seems like it takes some seriously epic playtimes to even think about developing a 'style', like multiple hundreds of hours

today i kind of wish it was a bit more guns-germs-and-steel-ish

like, you don't even HEAR about spain until your 352nd turn. and by your 354th you have been wiped out.

I like Civ Rev b/c it's so fast and so you can try out styles w/o a long grind.

Alpha Centauri 4 LIFE

YES, just reinstalled AC a few days ago

played civ 2 what seems like a 'lot' in high school but it seems like it takes some seriously epic playtimes to even think about developing a 'style', like multiple hundreds of hours

really? i would think it would take like a half dozen games above warlord @ most and you'd have at least a vague conception of what works for u what type of civ u like to create. i mean III asks u to do that b4 u have even started ~??~ '_'

i no wut u mean re: guns, germs & steel and i think that III and IV tried to do this, a little, both w/resources and map generation. like in III its relatively true that the stile of play u adopt should be dictated by the terrain your civ starts w/ what types of resources u have but i think most players will still lean towards certain methods. also the connection btw civ personality and starting location wasnt that strong (it was there but weaker than say diff lvl) so

I bought Galactic Civilisations II: Ultimate Edition last week, which is the shit if you are at all into 4X games. Civ II was my Civ-era, but the AI always sucked so bad. AI in GalCiv is great and the game is way more customisable if you want to simplify/streamline the gameplay. I bought Civ Rev a month or so ago for the DS but I haven't touched it yet.

I love Civilization and always have and always will!

As you should!

today i feel like finding a copy of civ ii and playing for hours and paying a bare minimum of attention to the outside world :|

Played it off and on for my entire 16 hour shift!

ok i want your job

ayo thomp ill play u a net game of civ II today if u want

i think real life is too much in the way today : / another time mb

today i bought civ iii on steam though

i noticed insofar as i have a 'style' it has changed: when i played civ ii a lot in hs i basically never, never attacked the other civs and tried to grab all the wonders and did caravan rushes to ensure that (which doesn't seem to be in iii?) - anyway today i kind of went 'ok i want all the sumerian cities, also all the russians'

after spending pretty much the entirety of the middle ages at war i own a whole continent and suddenly have 90% corruption rates under pretty much any govt. style

h8 u civ 3

civ 3 is like a broken civ 4 - i actually really like the corruption in 4, the way your over-expanded empire becomes a technological backwater feels historically right somehow.

in civ3 if you have more than 30 or so cities corruption will skyrocket. yes, this sucks.

civ 3 is the best imo ~ civ 4 isnt a v. deep game just a complex one and most of the best features of the game get sacrificed to a bunch of sliding scales ~~ theres a point where attempting to make a game "real" makes it less fun a game u no?

civ 2 strategies dont work v. well in civ 3 altho there are times and places. also i think u REALLY have to no what ure doing in order to play a democratic ostrich stlye game but i like that ur generally forced to become involved w/the world and typically its not wholly on your terms to easy to dictate even on the highest lvls in civ 2.

the ai in civ 3 is hella broken tho~ that more than anything breaks the game and limits potential strategies~ if only they couldve written a smart rather than just cheating ai then any trade/diplo start wouldnt completely fall apart above prince :/

oh and ilx user thomp basically up for any iteration of civ net battle ill even dosbox civ.net if u want altho i can break that game waaaaay too easy ^_^ just pm me ~ def be into it

I agree about what's being said about Civ 3. And it sucks because if you settle for a 30 city empire, then it's critical that your empire have all the resources you need, or else you won't be able to build tanks at the relevant time and then you're going down, despite your tech edge. If you lack that resource then you have to go war with shitty units, which is a tedious grind. Plus, if you have 30 cities only, the enemies will too, and so your end game will basically be grind war with all the other empires while you pull out one of the non-violent victories.

Civ:Rev, on the other hand, cuts out all the bullshit (and some of the good things too) and is totally fun for it.

nerd

lol

Last night I played Alpha Centauri, which I hadn't looked at since I was... 15? I was playing on Talent (the Prince equivalent). I remembered there was no corruption system, so I just built 324325 cities, squashed the nearest civ, looked at the score chart, and there was kind of no reason to play after that. It was just really striking how simple the algorithm was?

Anyway, it made me elevate Civ 4 even higher in my pantheon. It's the best game ever? Not my favourite or anything, but probably the best.

but... mind worms automatically puts AC above all the others!

i'm kidding, sorta - i think they should try the whole creating an original world/story/universe thing again... i never even bothered to pick up civ 3 or 4, it felt like the games were getting more and more needlessly complicated...

Yeah I mean, AC has a really delightful personality and later Civs have basically none - I'm not saying which I'd *rather* play? Just which is more of an achievement, I guess.

Also I think Civ 4 did something pretty unprecedented w/r/t difficulty - I dunno if deliberately or not? The difficulties in previous civs were a sliding scale, they allowed you to keep up the challenge/achievement ratio as you got better. #4 is much more like Nethack, Prince is the right level to play it on. Everything above is "now I will ascend with an unarmed human wanderer", everything below is the training game. I think the massive gap between warlord and prince really underlines that - if it's deliberate it's v brave.

played for the first time since Civ II tonight, set it way too easy (second or third difficulty level) and cruised, but it still took me 4.5 hours to win. I should have gone to war earlier, but I'm used to getting my ass kicked in strategy games when I decide to fight