I heard about civ 2 online

>I heard about civ 2 online
>People said it is the best
>Went to install it
>Play it
>It is a better and faster CIV game.
>Has more strategy than CIV 6
>Is Fun
Civ 2 thread. I have a disc copy of civ 4 with the dlc laying around should I install that as well?

Attached: civ2.gif (800x598, 223K)

Alpha Centauri is even better, but you are absolutely right that Civ 2 is the best mainline Civ game.

2>4>1>5>6>3

What’s wrong with 3? That’s my favorite.

Freeciv worth investing time in?

People hate 3 for some reason... 2 is series peak though.

I'm absolutely not playing something with a square grid when hexagonal options exist. And no I'm not some zoomer I'm a GURPS player.

Try to find Test of Time, pretty good sci fi and fantasy versions of Civ 2

No Civ before 5 is worth mention. If you want old-ass civ games for some reason just play this.

Attached: 4702-1.jpg (800x1109, 241K)

if you retarded are, have i asked

>3
Fite me

The majority of Yea Forums was born after Civ4 released.

4 was peak for me.

>teacher gave me her copy in elementary school
>said i was a smart kid and would enjoy the game
>still is my favorite version of Civ to date
>would still fuck the shit out of my old teacher

bump

I love when tanks lose to spearmen

what an eyesore of a game

You have been visited by Vixen Dyatlov.

This thread is currently reading 15 replies (not great, not terrible).

Attached: Laura.jpg (1275x637, 107K)

>people complain about stacks of doom
>if one unit inside your stack loses a battle when being attacked the entire stack dies
>none of the civ developers have ever played civ 2 to know of this
>so they get rid of stacks entirely instead

Civ 3 is kind of a middle ground between the older and newer mechanics where nothing works particularly well. Corruption/waste mechanics are the worst among the first four games, and they got rid of zone of control but didn't implement properly functioning borders until the next game. Other new mechanics like strategic and luxury resources, dependance on fresh water for irrigation, and advanced diplomacy were also better implemented in Civ 4. Basically everything Civ 3 does, the other games do better.

If you want an old style Civilization game where you spam cities and irrigate/terraform entire continents, go for Civ 2; if you want a more meticulous game with better diplomacy, more complexity and more weight behind each decision, go for Civ 4. Alpha Centauri gets a special mention as an advanced version of Civ 2 style gameplay. Civ 3 is just this oddball on the side that doesn't stand out in any good way, aside from possible nostalgia value (which is what causes me to go back to it once a year or so.)

I think the thing I hated most in Civ 5 was global happiness. You win a war, and not only do you suffer all the standard production and research penalties for being a larger empire, but your Capitol roots. Like holy shit how dare you win this war that was declared on you.

Then they had civs designed around the idea that you'd have one city all game.

Anyone played open civ?
How's that? Seems pretty good.