Do you think Civ VI is the best in the series?

[Jcturmer]

I prefer Civ IV for the Rhyes and Fall mod. Bring me back RFC for Civ VI and I will love Civ VI.

Oh and get rid of the governors, or change them, break my immersion.

 

[trev1972]

Its probably blasphemy to mention it, but i remember call to power had an army formation system (melee at front, ranged at back etc) with a limit to how many units you could have in it.

I dont mind 1upt though, but i think it did affect production issues

Production is one of my biggest bugbears to be honest, especially how long it takes to build a new district once your in the ind age..

 

[AntSou]

I find it a bit hard to go back to V. The graphics looked great back then, and apparently I had kept that image of the graphics in my head until I went back to it some months ago and OH MY GOD do they look jarring!

It's a good decision they went back to the slightly cartoonish style of Civ IV for Civ VI, which is part of why I go back to IV when I want a bit of change.

I just find it more appealing to look at, which considering it's a game I spend hundreds of hours on, it matters.
---

As for game mechanics, I feel Civ V was an overall improvement over IV and VI over V.

My main complaint is that the AI doesn't seem to have improved nearly as much as the game mechanics and then you end up with underutilised systems and broken dreams!

 

[GenyaArikado]

Idk how it might work in gp but yeah, game should last longer in the ancient/classic and perhaps even medieval period for "realism" sake and the further you advance, the quicker should be things. This would probavly screw over many civs though or they'd have to be really strong to make up for the late bonuses.

Regarding the actual question though, well Civ6 is my favorite. I think asking for "the best civ game" is childish though, given how relative that is.

 

[trev1972]

Idk how it might work in gp but yeah, game should last longer in the ancient/classic and perhaps even medieval period for "realism" sake and the further you advance, the quicker should be things. This would probavly screw over many civs though or they'd have to be really strong to make up for the late bonuses.

Regarding the actual question though, well Civ6 is my favorite. I think asking for "the best civ game" is childish though, given how relative that is.

True, i spent ages on CIV 2, one campaign fighting my way across europe still sticks in my mind!!
And early eras fly by.
But i wouldnt go back to CIV2 now, it was great for its time! but would feel very dated now

 

[enKage]

1) Civ4
2) Far behind civ6, this "far behind" means mainly AI
3) civ3
4) civ5

I don't count civ2 as it had no uniques for different civs

 

[j51]

Oh and get rid of the governors, or change them, break my immersion.

It would be cool if each civ had a different name and picture for each governor type (for example: Talleyrand the diplomat, and Vauban the Castellan for France). Also, it wouldn't be that hard to add.

 

[Arent11]

It would be cool if each civ had a different name and picture for each governor type (for example: Talleyrand the diplomat, and Vauban the Castellan for France). Also, it wouldn't be that hard to add.

Just make a hero system like in master of orion and name the heroes after historical people.

 

[seancolorado]

Civ V is my favorite. One really minor thing made me feel so much more immersed: leader screens with full artwork of local scenery in the background

As for why it is my favorite, can't say. Right time in my life where I had time to play I guess

 

[Zaarin]

Just make a hero system like in master of orion and name the heroes after historical people.

I love heroes in Endless Space and Endless Legends, but they'd have to be implemented right for me to like them in Civ.

 

[AriochIV]

It would be cool if each civ had a different name and picture for each governor type (for example: Talleyrand the diplomat, and Vauban the Castellan for France). Also, it wouldn't be that hard to add.

Seven governors for each of 50 civilizations? 350 new art assets "wouldn't be that hard to add?"

 

[KayAU]

I like games with dual-mode combat (like Master of Orion or Age of Wonders, where there is a separate "zoomed" tactical map), but I'm not sure it's right for Civilization. Dual mode combat is a precarious balancing act of player focus between the strategic and tactical modes, and it's easy to get wrong... the more detailed the tactical battles are, the less detailed the strategic layer can be, as you can end up in a situation where the tactical battle takes long enough that you forget what you were doing on the strategic level. Also, with the addition of districts in Civ VI, a city now sprawls across many hexes, complicating the clean "a battle map is one zoomed hex" model of games like Age of Wonders. The Civ V/VI strategic map already is the tactical map.

I agree it's not certain that it would fit Civ perfectly, due to the way it takes the player out of the strategic view. As mentioned, I didn't like it much in Endless Legend, even though I enjoyed it greatly in all the other games I mentioned. I do ultimately think it would do more good than harm though:

• Vastly improved tactical possibilities
• Possibility of making the AI an actual military threat
• Battles can resolve in a single turn
• Solves movement issues caused by 1 UPT
• Avoids stacks or carpets of doom

@King of Prussia
It doesn't have to end in the deletion of one side, the games I mentioned have "retreat" as an option. I also don't see how it would lead to the return of stacks of doom. Armies would be limited in how many units can be in them. A particularly powerful army would of course be very intimidating, as it should be, but there could be ways of dealing with it: in both FE and AOW3 you had spells which could damage all units in a stack without fear of return fire. The equivalent for Civ would be artillery bombardment or air strikes. In AOW 3 you could flank a powerful army with several of you own armies, allowing you to bring many more units into battle. As for wether it would prolong the game, well probably. Autoresolve is a thing though, and you only have to manually control interesting battles. You could also have an option before starting a game to disable tactical battles.

This would actually be an interesting alternative. Even if they do not include proper tactical battles, they could still implement an army system. The tactical battles would then be replaced with maths. This would still add depth to the game, as you would be able to model things like combined arms bonuses, and how different unit compositions may perform in different situations. It would be somewhat similar to what Stellaris does. Stellaris has fleets, which can contain a number of different ships fulfilling different roles. Of course, there, instead of just a calculation to see who would win, you get a fully visualized simulation.

 

[Abaxial]

I started with Civ 1 and played a lot of that and Civ 2 (which had excellent mods). Civ 3 I never played, nor 4 - I have acquired 4 on account of how everyone extols how great it was, but can't relate to the primitive graphics. So, I don't really know whether 5 or 6 is better, but I play 6 almost exclusively now. I prefer some features of 5 and others of 6. Aesthetically 5 is better (in 6 everything seems made of plasticene), but the happiness mechanic is annoying and the WC is much worse.

 

[GenyaArikado]

It would be cool if each civ had a different name and picture for each governor type (for example: Talleyrand the diplomat, and Vauban the Castellan for France). Also, it wouldn't be that hard to add.

I wish governors had been the CivBE leaders in period clothing. Current ones fit the same niches as them

 

[Elhoim]

I hate the tactical combat in Endless Legend. It's the single reason why I don't touch that game despite enjoying all the other aspects of it.

I've found the main issue with it is the lack of control. What they are planning for Humankind seems a perfect balance.

 

[AriochIV]

I agree it's not certain that it would fit Civ perfectly, due to the way it takes the player out of the strategic view. As mentioned, I didn't like it much in Endless Legend, even though I enjoyed it greatly in all the other games I mentioned. I do ultimately think it would do more good than harm though:

• Vastly improved tactical possibilities
• Possibility of making the AI an actual military threat
• Battles can resolve in a single turn
• Solves movement issues caused by 1 UPT
• Avoids stacks or carpets of doom

@King of Prussia
It doesn't have to end in the deletion of one side, the games I mentioned have "retreat" as an option. I also don't see how it would lead to the return of stacks of doom. Armies would be limited in how many units can be in them. A particularly powerful army would of course be very intimidating, as it should be, but there could be ways of dealing with it: in both FE and AOW3 you had spells which could damage all units in a stack without fear of return fire. The equivalent for Civ would be artillery bombardment or air strikes. In AOW 3 you could flank a powerful army with several of you own armies, allowing you to bring many more units into battle. As for wether it would prolong the game, well probably. Autoresolve is a thing though, and you only have to manually control interesting battles. You could also have an option before starting a game to disable tactical battles.

This would actually be an interesting alternative. Even if they do not include proper tactical battles, they could still implement an army system. The tactical battles would then be replaced with maths. This would still add depth to the game, as you would be able to model things like combined arms bonuses, and how different unit compositions may perform in different situations. It would be somewhat similar to what Stellaris does. Stellaris has fleets, which can contain a number of different ships fulfilling different roles. Of course, there, instead of just a calculation to see who would win, you get a fully visualized simulation.

The tactical battles in Endless Legend were unusual, in that they were kind of puzzle-y minigame. I didn't play long enough to decide whether it worked in its own way.

If you limit the size of stacks, then you haven't really solved the movement logjam problem, just changed it. AOW limited the stack sizes as well as the number of stacks that could participate in a battle, so maneuvering your units into the right configuration and number of stacks could still create traffic jams as well as requiring a lot of fiddling micromanagement. I'm not sure that's an improvement over strategic 1UPT.

 

[j51]

Seven governors for each of 50 civilizations? 350 new art assets "wouldn't be that hard to add?"

Good point. Hadn't really thought too much about it. Maybe just have a generic icon for each governor type? I'd still think specific names for governors for each civ without an image is more flavorful than those portraits.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Certainly 6 has the most "stuff" to play with. It's probably exactly for that reason that people consider the AI to be lacking. The simpler (or "more streamlined" depending on how you choose to view it) would certainly be easier for it to handle.

It'll be interesting to see what they decide to keep from 6>7 and what they choose to let go of. I'd be fine with them losing governors unless they got a rework. I generally like districts for gameplay reasons, but in terms of modeling real cities they fall short for me.

 

[KayAU]

If you limit the size of stacks, then you haven't really solved the movement logjam problem, just changed it. AOW limited the stack sizes as well as the number of stacks that could participate in a battle, so maneuvering your units into the right configuration and number of stacks could still create traffic jams as well as requiring a lot of fiddling micromanagement. I'm not sure that's an improvement over strategic 1UPT.

I'm sure you could get traffic jams in AOW3 too, but in my experience it wasn't too common, as there weren't as many armies to move around as there would have been single units if it was 1 UPT. It's been a while, but as I recall, I would typically have one main army and a few secondary ones. It was similar in FE, as well as in Stellaris (although there you had no such thing as tiles or fleet size limits). I think it somewhat depends on what is a usable fighting force. A single army in the games I mentioned can operate effectively on its own. In Civ, however, a single unit is rarely sufficient to do much other than exploring or clearing barbarian encampments, so you need a bunch of them to do any serious military engagement.

Of course, I recognize that both FE, and to a greater extent AOW3, are games where battles are a much more central component. In AOW3 in particular, you could argue that cities and everything else was just there to support the creation of armies. I think Civ would probably be better served by a system closer to Conquest of the New World in terms of army size and complexity.

 

[darko82]

Civ I on Amiga is the best in the series