No, it can’t. 
Our three computers at work were having issues so I had some time to kill in the back room with the antiquated busted up computer that for some bizarre reason had Civ 2 on it.
It was still fun.
That’s what makes a classic.
no no no NO NO 1000X NO!
civ5 is way worse than civ4, it brought exactly nothing new except a flash movie that you cant stop easily
Naw, I just press the spacebar and the movie cuts out everytime.
I like it a lot so far, though this is my first time playing a Civ game. Is it just me, though, or is Alexander always a dick? I’ve yet to play a game vs. Greece where he doesn’t eventually insult and denounce me for no reason. Eventually I just smack him a bit. And I love the Polynesian DLC, but then I’ve always had a weakness for islands.
I’m much more a fan of settling cities than I am fighting, and I don’t know why they put in both Incan and Aztec empires.
There’s no Inca in Civ V.
I agree, assuming we’re only considering the “fight to the death” combat style of civ 4, especially since ridiculous unit numbers were standard. When you bring three stacks of 20 units each to invade someone, you’re bound to see absolutely fucked up strings of unlucky combats that make you want to tear your hair out. In civ 5, they fix this by reducing the number of units, removing the loss=death combat style, and limiting the degree to which combat will vary from predicted results. I’ve never seen a combat deal more than 2 damage difference from the prediction result in civ 5, but in civ 4 i’ve seen critical combats of 99+% victory chances lose two or three times in a row, on more than one occasion.
The thing to remember: Something like a stone-age spearman defeating a tank should be really, really rare in reality-- Like, the kind of thing that might only happen once in the entire history of the world. But that means that you should expect it to happen about once per game of Civ, since one game is once through the history of the world.
Yes there is (in one of the DLC).
Can’t get it to run. It is very beyond annoying spending more than 50 bucks for a game that won’t play.
Also, can someone explain to me what the hell Steam is? Why must I download and join crap I don’t want and don’t care about in order to play a game on my computer?
Steam is the Ticketmaster of games. I don’t know how they inserted themselves into the game playing experience but they have managed to do so. I imagine developers like it because they think - probably correctly - that digital acquisition of games is the way to go in the PC market, though why that means you need Steam clogging your computer I don’t quite get.
That said, they offer crazy low prices on many games, which is nice.
Yeah, twice a year they have a huge sale that offers sometimes 90% off games. I absolutely love them.
The steam client does authentication, it’s their way of doing DRM. It doesn’t really “clog up” your computer - it’s well coded and lightweight, and has a lot of cool features. You can see what your friends are doing on the friends list, join their games directly from there, see who’s recently bought what, who’s played what, news about game releases and updates, use their voice chat, share screenshots, store game options between computers on the cloud, acess to the steam overlay - it offers a lot of functionality besides just being a games list. I put games I buy in other places on the steam client through shortcuts just so I always have it.
I think this is a much better (and more accurate) description of Steam. It annoyed me when I first encountered it many years ago, but it really is a good programme and IMHO the closest thing to “Fair” DRM as well as actually being useful (automatically updating your games etc). And their sales can be pretty impressive, too.
Alexander has been a dick in all Civ games. In every Civ, there’s a civilization that is constantly hostile whatever you do. In the first, it was mostly the Zulu, I dont recall in the second nor the third, but for the fourth that was the Japanese. And, right after the Japanese, you had Greece. Which would always betray you and attack you with no specific motives but for the sole sake of conquest. Fortunately the Greeks were badly programmed in the fourth, and most of the time, it was downright cool of the Greeks to provide some opportunity to raise the XP levels of your troops (you’d need that to build the West Point building).
I dont have the fifth, but apparently the game tradition of having the Greeks be giant dicks has continued. One of the lead programmers of the game must have suffered some truly shitty holidays in Greece that he had to make them pay over several games…
I often wonder why there is more than one European civilization available as well.
Or why there’s an “American” Civilisation for any reason besides obvious issues of appealing to that market, for that matter.
In Civ III, Japan and Aztecs were the “make war with everyone at the drop of a hat” civilizations. The AI had five levels of aggressiveness, and those two were the top. IIRC, it went something like
5: Japan, Aztecs
4: Germany, Zulu, China
3: Rome, Greece, America, Russia, Persia, England
2: Iroquois, Egypt, Babylon
1: India, France
In addition, Persia would often end up disproportionately aggressive in the ancient era, since they would find themselves controlling a very powerful military, due to their unique unit being an improved-on-offense swordsman (this also happened some with Greece and Rome, but defensive power is given less weight in the calculation than offensive power). But as long as you kept them away from any source of [del]testosterone[/del]iron until swordsmen were obsolete, they’d be fine.
Actually, Aztecs and Japan weren’t too much of a problem, either: You’d just have to make sure to bribe them to fight someone else before they attacked you. I’ve had many a war where I spent the entire duration cowering behind Montezuma, and letting him do all the bleeding for me.