Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You commie!

EDIT: Or does Catherine the Great make you an Imperialist?

Jeez. I told me roommate about this story, and he started playing Civ5 again yesterday...and I'm going to download it tonight after work...Looks like my friends won't be seeing me for a few days

LordofHats wrote:You commie!

EDIT: Or does Catherine the Great make you an Imperialist?

I think I'm just an all round bastard. I obliterated 4 of Englands major cities, including London, in a surprise nuclear strike before conquering them and just nuked Istanbul to force the Ottomans to back down from a war they declared against me (after I had conquered four of their cities of course).

So the USA kind of got off lightly by being conquered before I got the Bomb.

Actually, this reminds me more of 1984 than Warhammer 40k

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Actually, this reminds me more of 1984 than Warhammer 40k

We are allied with Eurasia and at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

(Two months later)

We are allied with Eastasia and at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

Civ IV is the best. V is spank.

Testify wrote:Civ II is the best. V gets an honorable second. IV sucks.

Hat Approved

Anyone know how to get Civ2 to work on win7 64bit without a virtual PC? I'm willing to have a shot at it.
Is there a dosbox version?

This reminds me of my conquest-only game recently for Civ5... I eventually won, but goddamn were there nukes and missiles flying everywhere before the end.

Thank the Emperor for Titans, I mean Giant Death Robots. I managed to get the tech for them before anyone else and used them to absolutely screw over my enemies, by the time they got the GDRs I was already well on my way to steamrolling them...

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Anyone know how to get Civ2 to work on win7 64bit without a virtual PC? I'm willing to have a shot at it.
Is there a dosbox version?

as much as Id hate to say it, the illegal games sharing community might be your best bet, those guys can do anything (I know this from experience)
they could make your computer turn itself inside out and put itself back together again, they can make games that are DECADES old work like brand new Civ II shoudnt be a problem for them

(or civ III I know that one works for windows 7 64 bit

I doubt anyone cares about Civ II's copyright anymore.

Melissia wrote:This reminds me of my conquest-only game recently for Civ5... I eventually won, but goddamn were there nukes and missiles flying everywhere before the end.

Thank the Emperor for Titans, I mean Giant Death Robots. I managed to get the tech for them before anyone else and used them to absolutely screw over my enemies, by the time they got the GDRs I was already well on my way to steamrolling them...

Goddamn Giant Death Robots.

I would have liked, if they're going to add futuristic units, to see futuristic aircraft and infantry and artillery and ships rather than GIANT DEATH ROBOTS EVERYWHERE RAARGH.

I wonder if Gods and Kings will be any good. I kind of miss a lot of the features in Civ 3 and 4, though they had their own problems.

I agree, we needed more future units. Not just a single one.

Melissia wrote:I agree, we needed more future units. Not just a single one.

Also the Giant Death Robots should be able to carry nukes. If you're gonna put a Metal Gear in the game then you might as well go all the way

LordofHats wrote:Same. Me and the Broskies doing Civ5 coop XD

Civ 5 isnt really Civilisation any more.

lord_blackfang wrote:Hm, compared to this Civ V is really bland and gamey.

Definitely, a big game into it and I stopped playing and went back to Civ4. I think they tried to make the game more accessible, but at the same time removed some of the fun elements. And, let's not talk about the AI!

I think Gods and Kings is released tomorrow - apparently it has re-introduced religion and espionage into it, as well as tweaked the AI, so it might well persuade me to give Civ V a try again.

I got my Civ II up and going the other day and am well on my way to wiping the floor of those other poor civilizations. Interestingly my 9 year old now wants to learn how to play so my global conquest may now be cut back due him taking up computer time.

I had also forgotten how annoying the Barbarians were.....and still are.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Melissia wrote:I agree, we needed more future units. Not just a single one.

Also the Giant Death Robots should be able to carry nukes. If you're gonna put a Metal Gear in the game then you might as well go all the way

Looks more like a Battletech construction than Metal Gear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dark Scipio wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Same. Me and the Broskies doing Civ5 coop XD

Civ 5 isnt really Civilisation any more.

Trololololol


My only (ONLY) complaint for Civ5 is the lack of unit stacking.

Agreed. But even that isn't such a massive loss. It does force me to actually plan positioning to attack cities now much more than before since I can't just pile everyone in on the same square.

well, I lied. My other complaint was the fact that the map editor wasn't integrated in to the game, but that's a minor complaint really.

Holy crap, this guy has recreated the Imperium of Man!

More like a nuclear 1984.

Yeah, why does everyone keep comparing this to the IoM? They are nothing alike.
Its more like 1984...but with nukes. Come to think of it, didn't they have nukes in the novel as well? I mean, it was written in 1949, a few years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so by then nuclear weapons would have been common knowledge.

Melissia wrote:well, I lied. My other complaint was the fact that the map editor wasn't integrated in to the game, but that's a minor complaint really.

Really? Can I ask if you played Civ 4, and spent much time with it?

The reason I say is that while the overall presentation of Civ 5 and combat is a bit better, quite a lot got cut out of the later game. Although they are coming now with the expansion, both espionage and religion were missing (both of which gave an alternative way of succeeding in the game), and the economic system is poor and lacking in depth. The lack of random events, and things such as alterable environment (global cooling and warming) while only small things, were also noticeable by their absence. Put perhaps the biggest problem, and the reason I found that Civ V just doesn't have the replay value of its predecessors, is the poor AI of computer players. Either that, or the game programmers had a really cynical view of political science - there is no diplomatic way to play the game, and while the combat is fun, on anything other than the easiest difficulty settings being forced to fight a near endless succession of attacks from crazed neighbours (who were best of friends with you the turn before) gets extremely tiresome. It means that the only way to play is to take on the offence - if you don't, then you usually end up with a couple of massive neighbours who have conquered everyone else on the map, and then finally turn on you.

Of course, a 'conquest' victory is fun from time to time, but it's not when you are forced into this route time after time. Civ IV allowed you to play the diplomatic, cultural or economic route. Some of my best memories of the game were making a theocratic, scientific stronghold on an island state that kept good relations with all neighbours. I maintained a strong navy and air force just for protection, but in the meantime became extremely wealthy from my network of religious centres throughout the rest of the world which gave me a cultural victory. In another game, while again smaller I had massive corporation control of resources, and effectively stopped anyone else from making the Alpha-Centauri craft. These are just 2 examples (I'm sure there are many more) of ways to play Civ IV that did not pass to the sequel - each game was an organic experience, and you weren't shoe-horned into having to just try and conquer everything every time you played the game. With Civ V, it was almost like they were so proud of the new battle mechanics that they made sure that you saw as much of them as possible, and the rest of the game has suffered as a result.

I will of course refer my final judgement until after I've given Gods & Kings a thorough play test, and I'm hoping it will become now the kind of game it should have been since launch.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Yeah, why does everyone keep comparing this to the IoM? They are nothing alike.
Its more like 1984...but with nukes. Come to think of it, didn't they have nukes in the novel as well? I mean, it was written in 1949, a few years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so by then nuclear weapons would have been common knowledge.

IIRC the neverending war in 1984 wasn't one of annihilation. It was just something the super nations did, probably to keep the economy going. There was an general understanding between them to keep it contained to the middle east and Afrika so no important people get killed.

Pacific wrote:

Melissia wrote:well, I lied. My other complaint was the fact that the map editor wasn't integrated in to the game, but that's a minor complaint really.

Really? Can I ask if you played Civ 4, and spent much time with it?

Yes.

According to Steam, I've played 44.2 hours, not including the many unrecorded off-line hours. And 57 hours of Civ5, again not including the many unrecorded off-line hours.

Civ4 wasn't really as enjoyable as Civ5 has been. Mind you, Civ2 was probably better than both in many ways... even Civ3 was in some ways as well. The lack of religion I found was actually rather nice (They were all identical in Civ4 anyway and were replaced with the Piety social policies anyway), and espionage, while useful, sometimes actually got in the way of an enjoyable game.

I don't understand the love for Civ2. Civ3 invented the border and it was the greatest thing ever. No more of other people plopping down a city in the middle of your country. Also, you actually control your Nation: stupid senate.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Yeah, why does everyone keep comparing this to the IoM? They are nothing alike.
Its more like 1984...but with nukes. Come to think of it, didn't they have nukes in the novel as well? I mean, it was written in 1949, a few years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so by then nuclear weapons would have been common knowledge.

IIRC the neverending war in 1984 wasn't one of annihilation. It was just something the super nations did, probably to keep the economy going. There was an general understanding between them to keep it contained to the middle east and Afrika so no important people get killed.

Yes it was just a war to keep the focus of the people within the country away from the actions of government. Every so often the allies and enemies would switch, and the previous records would be erased and forgotten about, and replaced with whatever the government wanted to say at that time. But, I don't think the directive was for victory by any side.

Melissa wrote:Yes.

Well, horses for courses and all that!

I quite liked the war-blocking senate in Civ2, you had a lot of positives from playing a democratic system in terms of money and trade, but that was a strong negative if you wanted to wage war indiscriminately. Personally, I would like to see something similar again, and why not take it further? For instance, bring back corporations, and if you have a really strong metals or oil corporation presence in the country they can then force you to declare war on another country if they have that resource?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Yeah, why does everyone keep comparing this to the IoM? They are nothing alike.
Its more like 1984...but with nukes. Come to think of it, didn't they have nukes in the novel as well? I mean, it was written in 1949, a few years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so by then nuclear weapons would have been common knowledge.

IIRC the neverending war in 1984 wasn't one of annihilation. It was just something the super nations did, probably to keep the economy going. There was an general understanding between them to keep it contained to the middle east and Afrika so no important people get killed.

I know that...actually, yeah, that's a good point.
A Nuke would have been a bit too much and might have actually changed the balance of power.
Silly of me not thinking of that

I had a game of galcivs 2 that was sort of like that, except with star destroying superweapons instead of nukes...