I really need to dig out my old OS/2 disks. I bet on OS/2, TurtleBeach MIDI and AmiPro, instead of Windows, SoundBlaster and Word.

Why did the best 3 options back in the 90s all lose out to inferior products is beyond me

Coming from you that's illuminating .... I just might try it again with all the updated packs. I got Civ 5 and Pack 1 - but I did a runner at that point, it was driving me crazy and I had been a "Civ Guy" from and including Civ 2.

Having got that far with Civ5 (Pack1 incl), I feel deflated after the huge success of Civ3 & Civ4 - especially the latter,

I still play Civ 4 (great game).

Personally I think all the 'hate' for Civ5 is really over-rated. They implemented hexes and 1UpT which were pretty gigantic changes in terms of the gameplay from previous titles. Not like moving 'stacks of doom' across the map in civ4 was 'strategic'. Definitely with the newest BNW expansion the game is pretty good.

Did I understand you correctly that you left features from GCII because you had no tooltips?

I'm hoping it means that, like LH and FE, we'll get to see more show-us-the-numbers effects of our actions especially with improvements that have a % effect.

Civ V was just boring. The AI was dumb as rocks, to the point that if the AI didn't have more than a 2:1 unit advantage the outcome was a foregone conclusion. One game I took out an entire AI invasion with just two cities, an archer, and a spearman (and I simply bought the spearman when the AI declared war). Why? Because the AI kept walking between the cities with melee units and I'd simply kill them with no risk.

Civ IV's combat system is a lot simpler with the stacks of death, but the AI understands how to play it. That matters a LOT. The AI never really understood how to fight in Civ V before I got bored of it.

Also, their multiplayer implementation sucked compared to IV, with diplomacy not working right (the AI would never contact you) and unit animations being removed entirely.

I don't think these complaints are accurate anymore.  It's a good game with the expansions.

So.. between you and me, did you wanted to have carriers in GalCiv II? 

CivV is a fantastic game. It tried to recreate Civilization without changing its core aspect, and I believe it suceeded. Its tactical gameplay is soooo better than Civ4's stackofDOOM. 

CivV's early gameplay (like, immediately after the release) wasn't optimal. But it didn't took too long to be tweaked and optimized.

Not optimal ..... rofl .... freeking nightmare!!

I canned it after Pack1, and I had been an avid Civ fan from Civ2 inclusive onwards.

.... but .... Brads comment acknowledging earlier hassles, but ending "Civ V today is pretty fun I think", has already convinced me to give it another go with all the  latest packs loaded.

Loading up this weekend - we shall see, what we shall see ....

Gods and Kings really made the CivV experience a marvelous one to  me. I had so much fun with it; the religion mechanics were AWESOME.

Brave New World? Blew me out of the water. CivV has by far become the single best Civilization game to me. I believe CivV's problem was that people compared its initial coming out (with all the bugs, unbalances etc..) to Civ4's final state, with 2 solid expansion and years of tweakings.

CivV final state vs. Civ4 final state is a clear win for CivV, in my opinion.

Get Brave New World, and play as venice. Really flips the entire game on it's head which is really interesting.

In terms of what has been said previously, yeah the multiplayer has been pretty terrible with civ5 unfortunately and the AI isn't all that awesome. But in my view civ4 was effectively the culmination of civ1-3 into what really was a polished game using those core mechanics. Civ5 is a 'reboot' of those mechanics. And yes it is inferior in some ways since it hasn't had 3 games to 'tweak' out stuff. But I think it's something that had to be done. And I don't think anyone would have really be happier if they just had Civ5 be "Civ4 in THREE DEE" which would have been the easy cop out.

I agree the sentiment.

Unfortunately Civilization has been hijacked by Corporate types, who live in an In-Year fantasy world that's driven by the In-Year Salary Bonus, thinking games fans will follow like lemmings just because its the better option for Shareholder balance sheet. The latter is not true, never will be - they live in a Fantasy World of In-Year Bonus driven dreams.

I hope Sid still has sufficient control left over the Civilization Franchise, that he can fight back with Civ6 and regain Civilization's reputation. Millions used to buy Civilization "sight unseen" ... no chance now .... the bad blood left behind by the meddling of Corporate Types with Civ5, seeking to maximum in year profits to enhance the personal annual Bonus with an Industry Icon, has wreaked havoc with Civilization's reputation.

I hope Sid can salvage the reputation with Civ6 and get back to traditional numbers in the fan base. It may not be feasible due to the effort that's going to be needed, because he has a right to a Life like anyone else, and he's not getting any younger.

One thing is for sure, Civ6 will need to be something freaking amazing right out the Starting Gate to repair the damage done by the Civ 5 debacle.

Civ5 debacle? What the fuck are you talking about? CivV sold way more than Civ4 ever did.

tbh the real kicker for most 'hard core' people was the multiplayer aspect that was pretty terrible at launch. I mean there are plenty of mods for civ5 and the workshop makes using them totally a snap. but without the multiplayer i think most hard core civ fans felt really bummed.

I think if civ6 just has a devoted multiplayer team and comes out with hotseat/pitboss WITH a separate server and expands on civ5, I think it would be a win for everyone.

Also Sid hasn't really designed a Civ game in ages.

And I guess we should get back on topic too? As the title of th theead says, we should "Keep it GalCiv" huh? I hope the team isn't as easily distracted by shiny objects or... Oooh look at those clouds.....!

Gets my vote

Comments like this were understandable in the days and weeks after Civ V's launch.  But now they sound kind of ridiculous.  Civ V with it's expansions is fantastic.  Remember, Civ IV wasn't perfect until it was tweaked with expansions (warlords, BTS)...

Plus, people complaining about the AI of CivV don't understand that the very reasn Civ4's AI was great in comparison is, in part, the same reason GalCiv2's AI was great: simplistic combat.

There's not a lot of coding to do when the only strategy you need to win is gather 30 units and send them against your units. Compared to do a strategy using infantry, ranged, cavalry and siege weapons combined; using the terrain to your advantage, flanking manoeuvers and outlaw stacking of units.

Which is why, in my opinion, the GalCiv3's devs are so reluctant in adding tactical combat. The AI will always be at a disadvantage against an intelligent player when it comes to tactical combat.

I'm sure devs know what they are doing.  One thing, please don't make the game look to cartoonish! 

Don't understand it? I flat out said it.

But that doesn't excuse Civ V's launch. The AI was simply not capable of playing the combat system they created, and when I bailed at Gods & Kings it wasn't really much better (though at least it'd learned how to build ships). In a game focused so much on the single player experience, making a combat system that you can't build an AI for is stupid.