Should I buy beyond Earth? Is it worth it? Or should I stick with V?

Also, What is your favorite civilization to play as? Mine is the Iroquois. Mohawk Warriors and forest tiles as roads. Now that's what I call convenient.

I bought Beyond Earth and I have yet to hold warm feelings for it. It's just mediocre, a lot of the good diverse gameplay of Civ IV-V is stripped and replaced with somewhat meaningless "decisions" / quests. Waiting for any DLC's or Expansions.

As far as Civ V, I'm caught between the Romans, Nebuchadnezzar, Genghis and Casimir.

Romans have very strong units and a very powerful ability (that allows them to be either Expansionist or be great builders). But the problem is that Legionaries/Swordsmen go away so quickly (like almost every unit in the Civ Franchise) that you can't get much use out of them. Ballista are only moderately better, but still a nifty thing to have.

I am starting to appreciate Darius I more. That golden age perk doesn't seem so nifty at first, but when it is of use, it really helps out.

Personally, I harbor a certain type of hatred for Civ.

It has good games, sure, but there are so many misfires, there is never a single, concise focus, and the good things they bring to the table are not often expanded upon.

I loved the Traits system, but I hated how few traits there were. The UA system was a nice idea, but now some nations have it plain crappy and some are super overpowered. It would be better if there was just more of everything so that nations felt diverse, and that you should gear down one playstyle. Most of the time, I'm able to play the same way but with interesting benefits down the road. It's depressing.

What I don't like is that the leaders they choose don't always seem to be the best pick, in terms of what the leaders did for that civ. India, for example, has a plethora of bad*ss princes in its history, but they choose Gandhi, which is not to say that Gandhi is not important, but he didn't really do much compared to Caesar or Genghis. George Washington could easily (and should be) replaced by Theodore Roosevelt, the manliest man of the modern era.

The game made me research that Harun-Al Rashid guy, and now I know he may be the most bad*ss person featured in the game.

You've got the wrong Roosevelt. FDR or Lincoln.

Beyond Earth is "free" on steam this weekend - try it for yourself :)

(I agree with Genghis the game is mediocre, not bad but far from its potential. Civ V is better in my opinion.)

I have played Civ V for 666 hours (no joke, I just checked it) and have yet to find a *favorite* Leader. I honestly think it is very well balanced, as long as you play on a big enough map, and slower than standard speed.

P.S I currently play at the Immortal level. With a bunch of Mods.

Edited 8/15/2015 13:47:22

https://youtu.be/oOm_2dGzqp0

Germany and Bismarck are my favorites. Was a really big fan of the industrialization boosts.

I'd say Beyond Earth is worth the price. It's not as good as Civ V but it's still pretty entertaining and brings a certain flavor that's absent from other Civ games. Additionally, there are some good mods that fix many of the flaws that people say ruins BE.

As for my favorite Civ V leader, it's really hard to say. Embarrassingly I have to admit I haven't even used all the leaders in that game yet. (In my defense, it takes a very long time to complete just one game, but I've still managed to play over half the civs).

If I had to pick one off the top of my head though, I'd say Russia. Double Iron and Horses early on is a huge boon. Plus double Uranium in late game means you can rain nuclear fire down upon your enemies. Or spam nuclear power plants if you're a pacifist.

@Martian, what makes Harun so great? Didn't he start the decline of the empire?

What I don't like is that the leaders they choose don't always seem to be the best pick, in terms of what the leaders did for that civ. India, for example, has a plethora of bad*ss princes in its history, but they choose Gandhi, which is not to say that Gandhi is not important, but he didn't really do much compared to Caesar or Genghis. George Washington could easily (and should be) replaced by Theodore Roosevelt, the manliest man of the modern era.

The game made me research that Harun-Al Rashid guy, and now I know he may be the most bad*ss person featured in the game.

Didn't George Washington main general behind American independence? Against somebody in the 1930s or something (where not much happened in America, I think).

You're rigt nothing much happened under FDRs watch... He only led the country out of the depression and through most of WW2...

Fun fact:FDR was the only American president to serve four terms.

And he will be the only one to do so.
Yay amendments!

FDR indeed laid foundations for economic recovery, and was strong willed in ww2, but Washington was a very brilliant man and had won a war against Britain. Even with French help, it's pretty miraculous.

He wasn't just a brilliant man. He was a strong individual. After America gained its independence they wanted to make Washington their king. Upon hearing their request he declined! He declined! How many people do you know who would truly turned down a kingship? He is one all presidents should aspire to be like.

George Washington was placed in charge of the fight for independence, but as people like to point out all too often, the colonies had a lot of help from France. During his two terms, he himself didn't do all that much. He was a good president and was very wise, for what it's worth, but there are better choices, like either of the Roosevelts. Then again, Washington is on our money.

Better choices for the USA:

Teddy Roosevelt the Man

Franklin Delano Roosevelt the Savior

Andrew Jackson the Racist, Expansionist, Rebellion-Crushing, Won't Take "No" for an Answer Guy

Thomas Jefferson the Paper-Writing Guy

Abraham Lincoln the South-Submissing Leader who Rocks a Tophat (They actually chose him for Civ Rev)

Civ Rev also featured Tokugawa Ieyasu, which I think is also a better choice than Oda Nobunaga. But then again, they also feature Mao Zedong for China, and Cleopatra for Egypt. On the other hand, it lets you play as the Zulu. You know what? I like Civ Rev more. It doesn't take a week to finish one game.

George Washington didn't need to do much, he stopped a rebellion and that's as much as he needed to do.

Edit: I meant while he was president

Edited 8/16/2015 03:52:45

For Japan, I say Yamamoto or Tokugawa
For US, I say Lincoln, FDR, Adams, or Jackson
China, I say Mao, Sima Yi, and Confucius.
Egypt should be Hatshesut.
The Zulu were a nice addition.
However, Civ Rev was too childlike of a game. Plus, it was WAAAAY too simple for my liking.
I, for one, am waiting on the day when they make Hungary playable, or make a 3 Kingdoms era leader playable.