Civilization 5

[ub3rman123]

There's better combat systems? My method in Civ4 was to hope that combat percent chance for victory showed up (It usually didn't), and then throw piles of people at them if it was more than 5%.

[Chaosblade02]

I purchased this the day before yesterday for around £20. I've had the full Civ IV collection on my PC for a while and haven't played it too much as it felt outdated and combat wasn't really tactical or relax so to speak. However I am thoroughly impressed with Civ V, both visually and gameplay wise - it feels new and modern, though it also does away with some of the pointless features, but throws in some awesome new ones such as the redesigned combat system which makes things far more tactical.

 

To be perfectly honest, I disagree about it being taxing and I would say it is fairly well optimised, I run it on the following at the highest DX10 settings at 1600x1200.

 

CPU: AMD Phenom II 1055T hexa-core @ 2.8Ghz

RAM: 8GB of Kingston Hyper-X Genesis 1600MHz DDR3

GPU: ZOTAC Nvidia GeForce GTX285 1GB VRAM, Overclocked/AMP! edition

 

I also have several things running in the background such as HWMonitor, Firefox (usually 5-6 tabs aswell as downloads going), Spotify, Windows Live Messanger, ESET Smart Security, Steam (obvs) and I never see more than 25% of my system resources used.

 

Well of course its optimized for you, with that machine you have you should be able to run anything. Not everyone is willing, including me to drop 1000+ dollars in a PC just to play a mediocre strategy sim game and get no lag/slowdowns. And I would argue that this game is only tactical when you and your opponent have a similar tech level, if one side out techs the other, example Longswordsmen + Crossbowmen vs Riflemen + Cannon, the Longswordsmen + Crossbowmen don't have a chance in hell of winning. On the higher difficulty, part of the strategy in the game is keeping research agreements active so they don't get too far ahead of you tech wise, King + difficulty, its basically impossible to out research them by yourself, if they out tech you, then start to attack with endless waves of superior tech units, there is no strategy in the world that will get you out of that mess.

[Gishank]

As stated whilst my rig can be considered high-end, it doesn't use hardly any resources along with several other programs running in the background. So in theory, it shouldn't be resource consuming on systems that run it on the lowest settings and exceed the minimum specs. I have a friend who plays it and has a rig that doesn't meet the minimum specifications but it runs fine on the lowest settings.

 

 

@Keanumoreira;

 

I purchased it retail for £19.99, and activated it on my Steam account.

[Paxan_1]

I will buy it too because i've a big fan of this game. Have bought all since Civ 1 so i need to have it :)

 

At the moment i'm not sure if it is a good idea to have no religions or companies like in civ4. Hopefully they haven't put it into a combat game. My way to play Civ is very friendly without war, i want spying and try to expand my empire with culture and money :)

[evilneko]

All of Civilization's sequels suck IMO. :laugh:

 

CivDOS Forever! :thumbsup:

[Keanumoreira]

I'm getting rid of it.

 

I can't even play it, and Steam is slowing down my computer. That's what happens when stupid game designers don't know how to make the game run properly for every user. I'm just going to switch it out for Dead Rising 2, smile, and forget the entire thing as I kill thousands of undead on the computer that can actually support it with reliable prefrences :whistling:...

 

My 360, something Civ designers fail to achieve.

 

They have offically ruined the series for me; good job heros. :down:

[Salamander8]

It's hard for me to judge this one to be honest. They've simplified some aspects to the point of making the game a bit dull in some ways. It's not outright bad, but I prefer the original Civ and Civ II. I never liked 3 and 4 was good, but the first 2 look like they shall remain my favorites, even though I don't have the original anymore as my old roommate from the 90s stole it. :verymad:

[GiraffeMonster]

It sounds like a great game, one of my friends has it. I myself have Civilization III, and I'm happy with it. If I wanted to get Civilization V though, first I'd have to buy a really fast computer. My hardware is below Civ V's minimum specs. Just how resource intensive can a game be? Other than that however, it looks like a well made game. It would be one of the first games I would buy if I had a really fast gaming PC.

 

Also, what's so wrong with steam? I can sort of remember people complaining about Empire (or Napoleon): Total War requiring steam too. I'm asking this because I have not used steam as of yet.

[brokenergy]

Here

 

http://www.thenexusforums.com/index.php?/topic/232376-fallout-new-vegas-uses-steam-but-why/

 

Pretty much stream hate central