What is your favorite Civilization game?

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Master of Magic. I still don't get why noone try to make MoM2...

Louis,

[Geezer57]

Master of Magic. I still don't get why noone try to make MoM2...

That was a great game, so you're not alone in your opinion. I keep an old Pentium II DOS box around just to be able to play some of the old classics like MOM, the original MOO, XCOM, etc.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

i dont play Civ. what's so good about it? is there any battles?

[Kekvit Irae]

That was a great game, so you're not alone in your opinion. I keep an old Pentium II DOS box around just to be able to play some of the old classics like MOM, the original MOO, XCOM, etc.

I want a remake of MoM. Nothing flashy or fancy, just better updated to run on the newer Windows versions without having to resort to DOSBox.

i dont play Civ. what's so good about it? is there any battles?

Combat yes, battles no. Nothing like MTW or RTW. Think along the lines of a board game like Stratego or Risk. The part where Civ really shines is the city building and empire building

[The Spartan (Returns)]

Combat yes, battles no. Nothing like MTW or RTW. Think along the lines of a board game like Stratego or Risk. The part where Civ really shines is the city building and empire building

sounds pretty interesting...

[econ21]

sounds pretty interesting...

One of the best things about Civ-type games is the AI - it tends to be pretty competitive. There's often a frisson of excitement when you first encounter Shaka or Ghengis. The AI is often very aggressive and what's more, often aggressive "in character" - meeting Ghandhi does not lead to the same fear. The AI threat is often backed up by lots of AI resource bonuses, tech cheats etc but the cheating is not that obvious. TW could learn quite a lot from civ in terms of creating a single player challenge and modelling AI personalities.

The combat is heavily stylised, but that in Civ4 is pretty neat and involved (units get special powers, can be upgraded to higher tech, there's a rock-paper-scissors thing going on, there's a tension between stacking and being dispersed, terrain plays a role, inner lines of communication - especially railways - are a major advantage etc etc).

The main weakness, IMO, is the end game can really drag on and on. You can have long periods where nothing happens but you tweak your build orders etc. and war, far from livening things up, often slows it down even more.

[English assassin]

Units would just beam from anywhere to anywhere else. That ruined the fun for me and apart from that I have only played some demos but never bought a game.

I don't know, it introduces a new element just when things can drag, and it models, abstractly but nicely, total war in modern states. It also strongly favours the defence over the attack, but that is no bad thing. Generally Civ III massivly toned down the benefits of being aggressive (no more looting tech, citizens of different cultures, etc). Possibly its toned down a bit too much, but then I generally find I get bored of a game of civ some time around the beginning of the modern era and give up, so it doesn't actually make that much difference to me. I'm not sure if have ever played a game to the end. Once you've done the land grab and got a competitive empire the interesting challenge is over.