Excuse me if there's already a thread like this, I didn't see one.

I got Civilization 4 Complete yesterday, and wanted to see if anybody else wanted to talk about it. Eh? Eh?

What's wrong with Civ 5? And if you want to fight someone really good at civilization games, then I know someone. . . My mom, seriously, she is really amazingly good at it,

Any game really. I have Civ 5, but Steam is being crappy.

And my mother is good at it too. Amazing.

I play Civ IV a fair bit, got it in the last Steam sale. It's really good but I svck at it.

:P

I get addicted to civ 4 from time to time. The game is great but it kind of annoys me that there is no substitute for force when trying to conquer another nation. I've tried the culture route where you assimilate other cultures just by being culturally superior, but to get anywhere with that, you have to pour alot of money into it which leaves your military protection lacking (if you sacrifice your military instead of the more important technology), and open to invasion. Maybe im just playing it wrong.

Anybody got Civ 4 Warlords?

That's because the other victory conditions don't involve conquering nations, but building up your own nation.

The cultural thing is very hard to do, but I try my best to keep the peace with everybody from day one so it's something I have quite a lot of experience with. It's very long winded though and I can't say it's generally worth it, wars are harder, but they're a damn sight quicker.

And I have both Warlords and BTS. I do like the additions both games made. I have Colonisation as well, but I can't get into it the same.

I missed the aerial view of the city from Civ 3 in number 4

That was one of my favorite things, along with the palace creator.

Wanna play online sometime?

I started playing this series with Civilization II and I loved it. I loved Civilization III, as well. I bought into Revolution and was sorely disappointed and, thinking IV would be better, I also bought it. It certainly preferable to Revolution, but I don't like, for some reason. I can't quite put my finger on it, but maybe it's because it seems there is less map space and are less total cities I can build or take (My favorite thing used to be watching my empire grow and staring in awe at the cities and map space I owned, but it seems there are less cities and land in IV to own, to me. :shrug:). I also dislike not being able to view my city and overall, I think the series I loved kind of died after III. I never bothered with V. Does anyone else feel the same way? I don't know. It just doesn't feel quite right.

I have Civ 4 on discs, but ugh I just hate installing discs these days. Why Steam, why won't you let me register it!!

I started with IV and while it's fun, especially cooperatively with at least one friend, that extremely restrictive diplomacy system (Really? I can be nice or be a jerk, and then I get a bunch of static trading options?) and the mandatory religion (With I believe like..six religions or so?) completely turned me off. It would have helped if the civs all felt completely unique, but in the end, Egypt barely felt any different from America. The only ones that truly differed were the ones that focused more on diplomacy and the ones that just conquered everything. Yay, two ways to play a strategy game. Two.

From what I've read about V, it has improved combat, but half asses everything else from IV, and I just explained why I felt IV wasn't all that impressive of an experience for me. :shrug:

Civ V fixes most of those problems. It's not as bad as people say it is, I like it a lot better than IV.