Is this still a turnbased strategygame?

[BubblestationCPH]

I was a huge fan of Civ1, almost just a huge fan of Civ2.. and kinda lost it at Civ3-4. In general strategygames used to be my favorite gametype and Ive played various RTSgames at tournamentlvl like literally 20 years ago. Im getting older and turnbased games is the answer now I lack that splitsecond advantege u need if you want to succed in online rtsgaming.
Now im on Civ5 and the game still have that fundamental feel to it as the first cpl of releases.

But i begin to remember why I lost it at 3-4.
In the hunt for a wider audience, the devs have inflated the non-combat areas of the game into something that, imho, just isnt a classed as features in a strategygame. In Civ1 there was Domination and Spacevictory.. In later releases of Civ things like culture and religion simply takes up too much room.
And if I uncheck them as victorycondition the AI dont adjust. If i go Domination only, The AI still pops random personalities that aim for ie Religious victory.. How is that cool??

I dont give a flying rat about churces or theaters unless the give my military some benefits.. and tbh id rather be without. I want units, lots of units. and i want my ass wipped by hordes of marauding enemies. I want an AI that doesnt cave in after the 1st initial battle
I want earlygame exploits like blocking essential resources or areas for soon-to-be-cities.
But I dont want to have a defeciet of 50 Happines for 150 years because I concoured 3 enemy cities from a nation that declared war on me. I want to be able to accept a city as payment for peace without being punished for it.

Well.. looking at what i just wrote, things didnt excactly come out as planned.
My point is..
I think theres to much nonrelevant stuff for a STRATEGY game in later Civs.

Am I alone?

[Anakin_the_Green]

If you have BNW and G&K most of the other victories help you in other ways.
Culture: Get a 10% bonus to combat if military is adajant.though polocies
Religeon(not a real victory in Civ5): grab a +gold for for evry city or 4 population
Diplomtic:Crush your oppenets happiness by banning the sale of the luxorios and others
Siance:well better units.

Look at the ways and theres more than one way to crush an enemy. :)

[Mashsmouth]

Wow, you're saying this game isn't befit to be called a strategy game whilst you fail epicly and complain about how armies are everything. There's more to a civilization than war and conquest.

This isn't a Total War game.

[thedUWUmslayer]

Yeah, you're alone. Listen old timer, love to burst your bubble here, but human history has involved more than war and conflict. Sorry that you can't understand some simple systems that better emulate reality. Looks like you need to play a different game.

[friend robocat]

indeed, em Paradox games are good in that regard

at least in the specific periods they set their games in

[BubblestationCPH]

Well. One thing I forgot during the years of not playing Civ, is the fact that this game is so deep you actually have to "study" it to know all the aspects. So a cpl of you guys are right in your assumption of my skills. I dont understand the complete game yet. have less than 200hours gametime so far. It just seems utterly irellevant to kill my enemies with Rockconcerts or Missionarys.
Sid Meyer have publicly announced that the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of the devs is to keep the gameexperience as the original Civ. To never add anything new without removing another element. In Civ 1 you had 3 "enemies".. The brute force of foreign nations, The spacerace and the rising sealvl, and the Happiness factor was more of a bonus than a restriction against rapid expansion. I have just have a hard time finding room for Tourism etc in that constelation.(Edit: forgot about the FNbuilding in early civs. But that could be "bypassed" by building the wonder yourself)
Im not saying that a 25year old game should stay 25 year old.
I just feel that in the hunt for renewal has led to something that isnt classified as strategygame.
To me it feels more like a govermentual simulator.

You might be right that Totalwar would be the answer to my despair these days, cept its RTS, not turnbased. And we all remeber "the first kiss"-- Civ was my first kiss, and i loved it.

Anyways.. I actually feel a bit stoobid with this thread.
Its publiced in a fan-forum, and for better or worse all who reads it is biased.

[AngryAsOatmeal]

Well I do understand what you are saying but the game is called "civilization" based on building a civilization and solving diplomatic issues through money or war. When I first got the game I focused on nothing but military and liked the tactical gameplay, then I later understood how to play the game and loved the parts other than military. What I would do if I were you is try either a war scenario (there is a civil war and a couple others I think) that disable city building and are soley for military, OR try making a custom game with a bunch of warmongers as the other civs to compete against for military conquest.

[Mark]

Always best to do some research into games before blindly buying them.

[Devilangel]

I haven't played Civ 1-3. I only started playing Civ at 4 (Beyond the Sword) or whatever. Then I got hooked for good. But as a comment already stated, it's Civiliation - where you build up your own civilization against the "test of time" or whatnut. Not everything was solved by war, even though lots of it was. I heard playing on higher difficulties gives you more military units to fight anyways!

As for your "thirst" for military conquest, I would also suggest Total War. But do note, Total War can be paused during battles. With little building/managing components - compared to Civ at least - it'll just be war, war, and more war. And while on the battle field, just pause and commence orders then watch. I think there is also an option where you can play slower than normal speed. So I don't actually consider it that much of an "RTS" cuz there is nothing really rushed and no buildings to build in battlefield. Like Company of Heroes! I expected more from it, I just can't stand RTS games (except Star Wars and Lord of the Rings).

But another fun suggestion, there is a war game you can play for free called "Battle Of Wesnoth." Or "Battle For Wesnoth." Whatever. It's not bad. It's turn based and all there is is fighting. It's not blind fighting either, with strategy or the right tactics, you'll get far. Units who survive and get promoted can be recalled onto your next compaign mission/scenario. As long as you keep them alive. As I said, it's not the best though, it can be a little unbalanced at times. I went on multiplayer local host and posed as all the factions I could play (vanilla, mods are in game as well which helps) and looking at the starts of all the factions got I can't get the undead faction very well - I feel like they're the weakest and most useless faction but I haven't gotten around to the campaign. I'm too busy playing Civ V, Star Wars the old republic, and War Thunder. Also, I suck at PvP anyways so I NEVER bother with it.

[fractured_sanity]

Might try giving Warlock a go.

[Relapse]

Originally posted by BubblestationCPH:

I was a huge fan of Civ1...

He has no idea about how to play this game, yet he whines about "nonrelevant stuff". I'm not even sure, if he knows meaning of strategy.

There are more important things than armies in history. There are many important things than military, if you are in a control of a civilization. THIS GAME CALLED CIVILIZATION, NOT CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS. WAR IS LITTLE PART OF IT.

There will be no army, if you can't manage your civilization. This is the real strategy.

Go play Total War/AoE scenarios or something similiar to these games.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit 1: Stay away from EU:U4

Edit 2: Play Might and Magic Heroes VI; an epic combination of lack of strategy and full of combat tactics. Both of them lacking, but you will like it.

Edit 3: Since you are bad at playing RTS games, play Heroes VI and Total War (has a pause and give orders option).

Edit 4: You can pause and give orders during battles of Total War. Just like Baldur's Gate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note 1: "I think theres to much nonrelevant stuff for a STRATEGY game in later Civs."
I lost some IQ after reading this part. That "STRATEGY" part kills me.

Note 2: "I just feel that in the hunt for renewal has led to something that isnt classified as strategygame."

"To me it feels more like a govermentual simulator."

You can't tell the difference between simulator and strategy, can you? How is that not qualified as a strategy? If you think strategy games includes only combat tactics and combat strategies, just jump from a nearest skyscraper.

Note 3: Learn the difference between strategy and tactics.

[BubblestationCPH]

I never said i mastered this specific version of Civ, but ive played a lot of other versions longer than can be described. I have that fundamental understarnding of the game, but that clearly slipped pass a lot of answers. i know its Civ, not Full-on-war.

But how many plays a say 2v2 and aim for ie Cultural victory??

[Relapse]

Originally posted by BubblestationCPH:

I never said i mastered this specific version of Civ, but ive played a lot of other versions longer than can be described. I have that fundamental understarnding of the game, but that clearly slipped pass a lot of answers. i know its Civ, not Full-on-war.

But how many plays a say 2v2 and aim for ie Cultural victory??

If someone plays Civilization for enjoyment, they will do whatever they want. I can play 1v1 spacerace or I can go for a domination victory (or culture victory which is harder) on a map with 22 Players + 41 City-States (which is my favourite map setting).

Total War is fine for you (except multiplayer). You can pause in single player.

[BubblestationCPH]

Why rule out multiplayer?? ive have victories most only dream of. Im the only one ever to win an Axis/Allies 1v1 flawless.. So plz drop your patronizing regardin strategyskills

[BubblestationCPH]

(EDIT) got carried away. I mean a full Axis/Allies tournament

[Relapse]

Originally posted by BubblestationCPH:

Why rule out multiplayer?? ive have victories most only dream of. Im the only one ever to win an Axis/Allies 1v1 flawless.. So plz drop your patronizing regardin strategyskills

I ruled out of mp from Total War, because there is no pause option for mp (i may be wrong). You said " I'm too old for RTS atm", It means you don't like it / no longer great in it / no longer enjoying it etc, so my opinions based on your comment.

In Civ V, you can get an easy culture victory before medieval/renaissance era on 2v2 situations (depends on your starting location, your civ etc and other factors. Turtling is much easier than attacking. (+50 hp regen each turn, tech advantage, + combat bonus in friendly terriority, forts, citadels etc.)