Civilization World

[or 1=1]

Free2Play
Facebook


http://www.facebook.com/civworld


this game is bad bad bad

[James]

Oh well.

Hey, do you still think tactical Civ5 placement is more casual than stacking 300000 units in one square?

[~DJ~]

hey hows sc2?? WHAT ZERG ARE YOUU??

fuck facebook games even sc is betar

[or 1=1]

Hey, do you still think tactical Civ5 placement is more casual than stacking 300000 units in one square?

I still think that filling half map with few units is not a good solution to one tile army.

[James]

hey hows sc2?? WHAT ZERG ARE YOUU??

fuck facebook games even sc is betar

Stop spamming please. We have enough problems with SC2 in other threads by people who actually know things about the game.

[or 1=1]

Anyway I think that Civ series is done. This game gave everything and Civ5 is the first signal of its decline.

[James]

That is still a confusing opinion because the game was made deeper, but okay. Surely this Facebook is just a long time planned spinoff like Civilization Revolution?

[or 1=1]

>Deeper LOL

this game feels like a console port

[James]

Civilization 5 or Civilization World? Civilization 5 has new mechanics and deeper/more customisable approach to how you play, disregarding early hickcups and confusing options re: game setup). The change is welcome in my eyes because they did the opposite of dumbing it down.

[UT]

MMOG? lol, what Sid Meier is doing.

[or 1=1]

I played Civ World for 3 days. You click on play, it brings you in the newest map generated along with some other players. Later what you have to do is develop your town (can't have more than 1) and play minigames and rage against people spending real money to get ingame currency. It does have nothing to do with previous games of CIV series.

About CIV 5

Time ago I tried to convince some of my friends to start play CIV3-4 so we could play togheter on MP but after they tried the game their answer was "too hard-don't understand this game at all-why did ghandhi nuke my cities" and I agreed with them when they was saying "it's hard".
I've started playing CIV2 when I was 8 so city\map improvements, workers\army\city micromanagement and combats wasn't a problem when I started play CIV3. If I had to start CIV3 from zero than it could take me several worlds before start to play the game at my best levels.

In my opionion CIV reached it's max complexity with CIV4 and its expansions. CIV4 is also the best game of the series.

You say it wasn't dumbed down? I say they took away all the worthy stuff from CIV4, thrown them away, added shiny graphics, innumerable bugs and some discutibile new things (1UPT for example) and released the game.
CIV5 is to TBS what COD is to FPS. Dumb game for casual players.

BTW World Wonders -> Big Ben and Louvre
AHAHAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[James]

Are you saying the Louvre isn't a major cultural wonder of the world? It is my favourite place on this planet. :O

[or 1=1]

A cultural wonder is a painting, a poem, a new kind of music. Not a building with a glass pyramid infront of it

[James]

That is very ignorant, the current building is 300 odd years old but the site and history of that area and previous incarnations of the building have existed since the 1200s as a fort and in the 1500s as a palace before being burnt down. There no other place in the world more fitting as a museum than the Louvre for it itself has rich history.

That building itself has always housed a collection of our finest arts, and boasts a huge collection of the Western hemisphere's history/mythos through those arts. You should respect that a little more, as an art museum it has effectively captured our creative life through thousands of the years.

[or 1=1]

The reason why Louvre is great it's because of its content. You don't go there to see the building itself but the paintings and collections inside it.

[James]

The building itself is lovely. I'm more interested in it than say, the pyramids. Theyre oversized tombs with men suffering to produce them. Civilian burial grounds in Egypt actually interest me more.

[~DJ~]

Stop spamming please. We have enough problems with SC2 in other threads by people who actually know things about the game.

Woah I was pretty sure it was spam, my bad.

Since I'm no facebook-gamer-type-person I'll stick out of here.. but seems like an okay game.

[or 1=1]

The building itself is lovely. I'm more interested in it than say, the pyramids. Theyre oversized tombs with men suffering to produce them. Civilian burial grounds in Egypt actually interest me more.

LOL I hope you're joking

[James]

Why is that funny? Are you surprised I find giant tombs made from blocks upon blocks that many people were sacrificed to pay tribute to monarchs less valuable than a collection of our creative history?
I like the civilian burial grounds, they seem more interesting because it shows of how citizens lived (even if a part of death), including memoirs left behind.

I guess I got burnt out of Ancient Egypt through medias and sick of seeing pyramids and shit.

Nevermind, you're like this a lot when people don't like the same things as you do. You've done it with Civ and C&C. You're unable to accept why people like the things you don't, or the other way around.

[or 1=1]

I'm unable to accept why people like something whic is not even by far as good as its predecessor. You probably have watched a sequel of a movie and found it crappy compared to the original while some of your friends said they enjoyed it and called it a masterpiece.

I feel in the same way now, confused by why people who watched the previous movie (CIV4) likes the new one (CIV5) whic is an absolute crap? Why people liked a movie whic was stripped down from interesting contents like Religions (whic gave more interesting diplomacy), espionage (one of the most funny things since CIV2), carriers packing before a battle, and added obscure diplomacy, retarded AI, easier micromanagement, no more taxes management, nation wide happiness system and dumbed down tech tree?

It moved from a strategic empire building game to a conquest game. Feel free to like this crap, I hope you'll enjoy controlling your few towns and your units while I'll play something less for the CASUALS GAMERS.

GAMES FOR THE MASSES ARE SO COOL. IF YOU'RE BORED TO PLAY CIV5 GO PLAY C&C 4. BORED OF BUILDING A BASE AND DEVELOPING A TACTIC? NO PROBLEM HERE'S A WHOLE BASE PACKED UP IN A GIANT ROBOT.

[James]

Oh we playing it like that?

CIV4 was a dumbed down CIV3 with weird options that made the game really bad such as religion and corporations. We've already went through this before. I think it came to a point where every Civ released under Sid Meier was been very much the same prior to CIV5.

With Civilzation 5 they ripped the gameplay apart with the hexagon system and made it closer to Risk, the gameplay has improved with changes to battle and city development. While I do miss what I feel are CORE elements to the gameplay such as espionage and taxes, the rest I would not miss like religions, awkward sea units (would be a nightmare in the bigger CIV5) and stacking. Thanks to the new systems it is now an effective game that requires strategetic input into battle and with more cities in a larger world it really makes for bigger more engaging games rather than stacking 10 units with siege in one tile...

One thing I'm not so sure about with Civ 4 vs Civ 5 is the policy perk system being better than the government system. I like socialism/communism policy mega expanding, you can do it with both, but you have to sacrifice a lot in Civ 4 for it - which I like compared to Civ 5.

p.s. none of the Civ games have good AI.

I suppose if you want your grand strategy you're looking at the wrong videogame, sorry, but that casual bullshit is nonsense. Please refer to your argument again after you play a spreadsheet called Europa Universalis III.

[Mastakilla]

Wether or not the core gameplay has been improved subjective.

End of discussion

[James]

Wether or not the core gameplay has been improved subjective.

I thought it was a better game overall except for the interface and some changes I miss. I'm bemused, that's all. Does this discussion annoy you?

[or 1=1]

CIV3 was an awesome game but it had its problems:
- AI building towns in the middle of the desert for apparently no reason. 50 turns later oil was popping out all arond that city
- AI going straight to attack the city with less defences. Never happened to you?
- Corruption system quite bad compared to the maintenance system of CIV4. In Civ3 you could have 600 cities where just 25 of the was actually producing something while the others where just "corrupted". In CIV4 that's not possible anymore and it requires more thinking at balancing expansionism and economy

Civ4 a dumbed down Civ3?
- Religions whic let you make better alliances than in any other CIV
- Better economics (maintenance system, no more corruption or costs for buildings)
- Better TechTree (more techs, not all need to be developed and most can be avoided unlike in civ3)
- Better combats (no more distinction against defending and attacking units. in civ3 spearman was just a defending unit to keep in town. in civ4 it is a good counter to mounted units and they're worth to bring in combat)
- Empire policy instead of Governments whic is a big step ahead instead of changing from democracy to monarchy if you want to go war in CIV3 style.
and so on.


About Civ5 I just don't feel it a good game.
It may be stupid but I loved sounds of footsteps, sounds of nature, wonder movies and graphs from previous CIVs. I prefered the maintenance system as anti expansionism measure instead of my own citizens going on rage if the empire is too big. Citystates just keep annoying you and ask you for attack another citystate wich previously asked you to attack a 3rd citystate whic asked you to attack the citystate whic is annoying you right now. What happens when you end a game? No ranking, no graphs, no replay... nothing.

Hexagonal tiles changed almost nothing. 1upt made combats a bit more strategic but quite fucked up the game.

CIV4 > CIV3 > CIV2 > CIV5 > CIV1

And yes, if I want play a strategic game I play CIV, much more strategic than any other RTS.

[James]

Civ 3
Caring about AI in Civ?
Hey looks like... removing corruption, CASUALISED the game?, right?, right?... right? Hahaha dumbed it down!!!!!!!! Go play any baby Command and Conquer if you like producing!!!
Corruption was never a problem for me. I miss that aspect.

Civ 4
- Religion was absolutely retarded, it poisoned the concept of espionage and had an cultural advantage that is seen as too friendly for the religion founder, especially early ones you've spread into late games.

- Better economics?, but what you just said was that it is simply easier?, isn't that why you hate Civ5?

- The tech tree has sorta improved in every Sid Meier Civ game, but units in 3 are more reasonable than Civ4's.

You see this is where Civ3 is a better game, the tech research in Civ4 is too quick, unlike all the other installments there's barely any time between eras of units and because of the really bad stacking combat there's a needlessly small window of opportunity for battle.

When Marathon mode in Civ4 was released in a patch it fixed this problem (more turns with units) but you really shouldn't looking to play marathon mode against real people - where I Civ is strongest.

- The combat mechanics themselves are better but it was quite rubbish until Civ5 by strategy game standards.

- Agreed.

Civ 5
The features:
The rankings I didn't care about, the lack of replays and graphs however are horrid.
Ignoring things that were missing (those damn options) and hiccups, the game under the customisation turned out to be better than other installments for me I eagerly await Civ6 in this similar direction but more refined.

Simple fact is that hexagon tiles changed everything, from city growth to unit movement.


Oh by the way, sorta ad hominem from me but still:

And yes, if I want play a strategic game I play CIV, much more strategic than any other RTS.

... Civ isn't an RTS. It is actually one of the most easy to play turn based strategy games on the market too, and it was far from deep until Civ 5.

edit: typo fixing

[or 1=1]

- Religion was absolute retarded, it poisoned the concept of espionage and had an cultural advantage.

It let you make stronger alliances with who was sharing your same religion and is one realistic element. World history was 90% about religion wars.

- Better economics?, but what you just said was that it is simply easier?, isn't that why you hate Civ5?

It was simplier in CIV3. You could expand as much as you wanted.

- The tech tree has sorta improved in every Sid Meier Civ game, but units in 3 are more reasonable than Civ4's.

You see this is where Civ3 is a better game, the tech research in Civ4 is too quick, unlike all the other installments there's barely any time between eras of units and because of the really bad stacking combat there's a needlessly small window of opportunity for battle.

When Marathon mode in Civ4 was released in a patch it fixed this problem (more turns with units) but you really shouldn't looking to play marathon mode against real people - where I Civ is strongest.

Never had any problem with Epic speed and I always found better to look for interesting researches and trade the secondaries technologies with other civs.

The features, the rankings I didn't care about, the lack of replays and graphs however are horrid.
Ignoring things that were missing (those damn options) and hiccups, the game under the customisation turned out to be better. I eagerly await Civ6 in this direction.
Hexagon tiles changed everything, from city growth to unit movement.

city growth is controlled by buying tiles, unit movement was incremented to 2 as minimum moves to counter the fact that now every tile has 6 and not 8 neighbour cells. What you got in the end is bigger cities and more movement BECAUSE you can't have a good number of cities BECAUSE your population keep nagging about it.

... Civ isn't an RTS. It is actually one of the most easy to play turn based strategy games on the market too, and it was far from deep until Civ 5.

I'm sorry if I wrote it wrong, I just translated from my native language to english. I mean that CIV requires more strategy than RTS games.

[James]

It let you make stronger alliances with who was sharing your same religion and is one realistic element. World history was 90% about religion wars.

Religion is nothing like that in Civ, the goal of religious play is to assimulate and use it to spy in other cities with the same religious culture.

Try playing http://www.europauniversalis3.com/ for how Religion should work in Civ.

Eco:
Yes but there were downsides to that, you still had to maintain it like other Civs.

Never had any problem with Epic speed and I always found better to look for interesting researches and trade the secondaries technologies with other civs.

Epic is nice but the same tech speed is ruthless when you're playing Civ4 properly, the multiplayer is supposed to be played at quick/normal too.
I think the worst moment of Civ4 is the medieval stage because you can get musketmen in a few more turns, haha.

Hexagons:
Bigger maps + bigger map tiles don't forget that.

[or 1=1]

Bigger tiles?

[Mastakilla]

Wether or not the core gameplay has been improved subjective.

I thought it was a better game overall except for the interface and some changes I miss. I'm bemused, that's all. Does this discussion annoy you?

It doesn't.

[James]

Bigger worlds, more tiles* sorry.

Wanna play CIV5 sometime?

It doesn't.

then shut up???