Civ Iv

[Mircoslavux]

Hi, I have read some articles about CIVILISATION IV,

Does somebody have some experiences with the game?
please post it here - positive and negative too.

nice day :go:

[Helen]

didn't even know it's out yet ....

[RoadRunner]

Here is some reading for you: http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=144

[Dobber]

It is turn based so I won't be bothering with it!

[NaVatar]

Don't like turn-based games Dobber?

I have a moderate interest at Civ, I have played it couple times but never became addictive about it as many others out there have done. But I always welcome new games and maybe i will try it someday.

[Dobber]

Don't like turn-based games Dobber?



Don't believe in them, I want my games real time!

[RoadRunner]

Three months ago, I had the same opinion, Dobber. Up to then, I only played one single turn-based game, and I did not like it too much. Then, I found Civilization III on a computer games magazine CD, and I gave it a try. And... I liked it - for me, Civ III is really addicting. Right now, I am fascinated by X², but I think I will soon play Civ III again.

So, if you see Civilization III (a Gold edition would be the best, I think) as a budget version (today, it should not cost more than $10), you should try it...

[Dobber]

Civ II was the one I had tried and didn't like, and somebody told me it was the worst of the Civ games and recommended Civ-Call to Power so I got it and didn't like it either.

[Helen]

Civ II was the one I had tried and didn't like, and somebody told me it was the worst of the Civ games and recommended Civ-Call to Power so I got it and didn't like it either.

I've heard the opposit, Civ II was better then 3rd.

I've only played Civ III so can't compare it to the others, but I love it. so far I've heard about Civ IV is it's more easier for "beginners", who's never played the game before.

[FrankishHero]

It goes like this: Civ I > Civ II > Civ IV > Civ III . Civ III is the worst. I don't know why, but Strategy Games usually get worse with every sequel (Age of Empires II > AoE I > AoE III)

[Dobber]

I don't know why, but Strategy Games usually get worse with every sequel (Age of Empires II > AoE I > AoE III)


But Age of Empires got better from 1 to 2!

[Dobber]

And "Civilzation-Call to Power" is an offshoot of the Civ games or what?

[Richard]

I got Civ call to power and I liked at first, but then became boring. Dobber I don't know if it is a sequal to Sid's civilization

I also got Civ III and it got boring after a short while. The thing I hated the most is that you could only attack/move with 1 unit at a time and the only way to fight with more than 1 unit you needed an army, which could only be adquiered by a victorius unit or making the wonder. At times it became too confusing and I allways ended up forgeting to move to a certain place or where to attack. It became a mess lol.

[Shane]

I've always liked Civ II, and almost everybody says it's far better than Civ III, which, though still fairly good, is more on class with Civ I, and the predecessor, Colonization. In these games, (except Civ II), a pikeman, for example, could sometimes beat a tank. In Civ II, that would never happen, and the game's a lot more realistic. And I've had many, many hours of gameplay. Civ II was really revolutionary, and Civ III is just adequate, from what I've heard, and playing it over a friend's house.
I like rts, and turn-based. Heroes of Might and Magic II, III, were good. Warlords I and II were good. Battle for Wesnoth (Wesnoth site (http://www.wesnoth.org) , is one of the best, and it's freeware (made people in their spare time, and distributed online for free). Active community, too.

[the knightly sword]

Basicly it has the same contents as civIII. Slightly better options + graphics, otherwise same old civIII.