New Player to Civilization: 5

[Uncle Julian]

I'm thinking of purchasing this game from Steam (unless there's a 6 out?) I've never played any of the previous ones, but it seems like a mix of Age of Empires and the Settlers of Catan board game. Is this an accurate description?

Is the Civilization series likened unto strategy games as Microsoft's Flight Simulator series is likened unto flight sims? (like the best option for that particular genre....except their new free-to-play flight sim which is god-awful)

[jakeic]

civ5 has mixed reviews at best, long time fans of the series generally are not happy with the change in direction firaxis took civ5. i haven't played civ5, but civ4:bts is one of my all time favorite games.

[Dasffion]

Civ II and III were my favorites. The only major complaint I had about 5 though was you can't stack units on top of each other. This annoyed the ever loving shit out of me.

[Lazy Gecko]

Civ5 was the first Civ game I played since Civ2 back in the day. I didn't have too much trouble getting into the game and I think the series is as brilliant as ever. You have the ingame encyclopedia to refer to any time you're confused, and since it's also on Steam it has several community guides for newbies you can read.

Civ games get a lot of long-term support and they're gearing up for the second expansion right now.

[Orist]

Yea, I really liked Civ 5 and I actually find the combat way more enjoyable now that you cant make a stack of doom. Individual units have a bit more value instead. I DO think Civ4 (plus the expansions) is the best one, but Civ 5 is still a really good game imo if you're a fan of the genre

[Wilian]

Yea, I really liked Civ 5 and I actually find the combat way more enjoyable now that you cant make a stack of doom. Individual units have a bit more value instead. I DO think Civ4 (plus the expansions) is the best one, but Civ 5 is still a really good game imo if you're a fan of the genre

Stacks of doom pretty much stopped being a thing after all the expansions to 4th game had been released thanks to the many ways of dealing massive amounts of collateral damage.

Also considering that beyond the brand new combat system, Civ V is nothing but step back of Civ 4 I don't see any reason to switch over or get it over the other.

[ElderOrb]

Stacks of doom pretty much stopped being a thing after all the expansions to 4th game had been released thanks to the many ways of dealing massive amounts of collateral damage.

Also considering that beyond the brand new combat system, Civ V is nothing but step back of Civ 4 I don't see any reason to switch over or get it over the other.

Much agreed here. The problem with Civ V is that the most advantageous game play is almost always counter-intuitive.

[Drakos]

At first I found Civ 5 a bit too simplistic, but with Gods and Kings and the other DLCs it is a pretty solid game. The end of the stack of doom and improved naval combat are big selling points IMO.

[Itko]

I think for the most part I liked 5 better than 4 actually, I've always hated the unit stacking in 4, during the expansions as well.
Only real big downside to civ5 for me was the fact that it didn't really go into the future at all, I always like that. The AI isn't awesome but it has never been in any of the civ games so I don't really see what people suddenly had to complain about there.

Anyway, the OP didn't ask for a civ5 vs previous games comparison

It's not an end all-be all strategy game by any means, I'd even hesitate to call it strategy at all if it weren't for the new combat mechanics / no unit stacking thing.
I think your AOE-catan boargame analogy is more or less accurate if you've no idea about the game. But also add in that you have to create buildings in every city individually, improve the landscape around the cities and have a pretty extensive technology tree with which to find an ideal (for you) research-path.

Also, don't forget to play on marathon-setting, it's the only way to go

[Zdrasti]

I've played every Civ game, with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Civ 5 really needs Gods and Kings, but once you have that it's a very solid game. I honestly much prefer the new rules against unit stacking. It causes geography, positioning, and unit types to have much greater impact than in previous games. Collateral damage helped limit the "stack of doom" from previous games, but it never felt like the right solution. This feels much better.

With city states, diplomacy is a viable and much more natural part of your strategy. Religion even feels more natural in this version and can even be central to your strategy. It just feels like there are more avenues by which a civilization can be successful in this version of the game.

[jackofwind]

Civ 5 isn't worth it without Gods and Kings, but once you own the expansion it's easily my favorite game of the series, and from a more objective viewpoint I feel it is the best as well.

[SirRobin]

Meh... CivV was okay but CivIII, or maybe CivIV, were my favorites.

[Deleted]

Civ 5 for me was the best buy of the last few years. I bought it this summer, soon followed with the G&K expansion and the extra civs and wonders from the DLC, for a total of about 25 €, and I've since played about 700 hours with it.

The game is very much turn based strategy, but it's not necessarily a wargame. Under the right circumstances, you can complete entire games without doing any combat (In fact I did one a game this morning where I won a diplomatic victory without ever waging war, on Deity difficulty), but the choice of that is often in the hands of the somewhat annoying AI. Both Cultural and Scientific victory do not require any fighting either. Your strategy may be based on deterring the opponents from attacking (by making alliances, having a decent standing army, or paying AI's to wage war on eachother).

You usually manage each city individually, where you can assign which tile is being worked, what building, Wonder or unit is being constructed, and what specialists it should be using.

As far as turn based strategy, this is for sure one of the best games I've played.

Upsides:
- No military unit stacking. You use the hexagonal map as a tactical field for your units, making movement, positioning, unit types and bonuses and so on very important. You can easily win or lose a war by a single good/bad move if it's a tight battle.
- City States are "neutral" npc empires that you can gain favour with through quests and donations, or wage war with. Both have diplomatic consequences. Protecting them against aggressive AI's, or conquering them to prevent victory from an AI is often key.
- The tech tree in G&K (not so much in vanilla) is well thought out, in such a way that you can beeline to key technologies and use the units that technology provides to gain a distinct tactical advantage. At the same time the difference between units is small enough and there are counters for most unit types.
- The game is quite difficult at the higher levels and each Civ brings a unique experience to some extent.
- There is an enormous amount of depth to your decisions. This does mean that the best play is not always obvious at first, and the lower difficulties are extremely forgiving.
- The Social Policy talent tree provides for the option to "spec" your civilization to your liking. The more you invest in culture, the more social policy talents you get, but obviously this comes at the cost of not being able to invest in other things.

Downsides:
- AI is sometimes just really silly, the higher difficulties just require that you take advantage of these weaknesses to great extent.
- Naval combat, while much improved, can come down to alpha striking and be extremely unfair and unforgiving at times.
- Some aspects of the game need a lot of improvement in the upcoming expansion, namely: The Honor and Piety talent trees, Religion (random factor must be removed), AI, peace treaties, there are a few more