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

[martyb36]

From someone who only plays the game out of the box (no mods) I think Civ 6 is quite comfortably the best Civ yet.

People slam the AI for Civ 6 but the AI has been woeful in every Civ game. The AI only appears more competent in Civ 4 for example, because of the multiple units per tile (stacks of doom). The only reason the AI appears better in the earlier Civ games is because the stacks of doom were so utterly brainless it was hard for it not to be competent in using them.
I for one would much rather have a more interesting, varied and tactical 1 unit per tile combat, even if the AI struggles with it. The AI was hardly a military genius is Civ 1-4 anyway.

Due to my dislike of stacks of doom it leaves Civ 5 vs Civ 6. (I loved Civ 5 by the way).
People complain of the death of tall empires. YOU CAN STILL MAKE 1-4 CITIES WITH BIG POPULATIONS in Civ 6!!!!! It just isn’t the meta, and isn’t the best way to defeat deity, so you could always drop the difficulty?!
You really shouldn’t be surprised when your 3 cities don’t have as good yields as an empire of ~15 cities taking up the the best bits of land on the continent? The penalties for having >4 cities were far too severe in Civ 5. You shouldn’t be dissuading people from having a vast empire, especially considering historically the vast majority of the strongest civilizations spanned almost entire continents (or at least vast areas that are pretty much the size of a continent in their own right).
Playing tall should be an option, not the meta.

Further in Civ 6s favour is you play the map far more than any other edition. Unpacking the cities is great for any fans of building. Tweaking for adjacencies, appeal, nailing that perfect canal, Theatre surrounded by wonders. There is so much to play around with!

Best. Civ. Ever.

 

[KayAU]

I used to never play with mods, until Master of Mana/Fall from Heaven for Civ IV introduced me to the concept of a total conversion mod. Up until then, I wasn't aware that a mod/modpack could not only completely transform a game, but do it in a way that created a game which was completely cohesive and of equal or even better quality than the original. Vox Populi falls into the same category. Another example is Nehrim, a mod for Oblivion which I enjoyed far more than the base game.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Due to my dislike of stacks of doom it leaves Civ 5 vs Civ 6. (I loved Civ 5 by the way).
People complain of the death of tall empires. YOU CAN STILL MAKE 1-4 CITIES WITH BIG POPULATIONS in Civ 6!!!!! It just isn’t the meta, and isn’t the best way to defeat deity, so you could always drop the difficulty?!
You really shouldn’t be surprised when your 3 cities don’t have as good yields as an empire of ~15 cities taking up the the best bits of land on the continent? The penalties for having >4 cities were far too severe in Civ 5. You shouldn’t be dissuading people from having a vast empire, especially considering historically the vast majority of the strongest civilizations spanned almost entire continents (or at least vast areas that are pretty much the size of a continent in their own right).
Playing tall should be an option, not the meta.

What I have seen people complain about is not tall 4 city empire being dead or whatever but the fact that the economy is really simple with campus spam and the fact it is not even Worth it to grow cities, unlike Civ IV. Civ IV had the superior economy since you needed tile improvements, population and infrastructure to build a good economy while in Civ VI it is all about how many campuses you can get out and since each city can only have one campus it lead to city spam followed by chopping the campuses.

 

[pi73r73]

I've skipped 5 since every1 was bsshing it for being casual. I was playing 4 a lot and recently started with 6 thx to epic (upgraded to plat already). While 6 seems way easier (i'll need to play it out more but 6 emperor feels way easier than 4 prince) it has a lot of cool stuff (civic research) that makes the game so fun. I get kinda bored past turn 200 but i think it's similar with most civ games.
What makes 4 outdated is the civ variety. Now all 4 civs (played by the player) feel like they are the same with slight stats diff on few units.
In 6 we finally got actual differences that force certain way of playing. Its good for variety (sure there's balance and tier lists but it doesnt matter in single player game) and how it should always be.

 

[KayAU]

I've skipped 5 since every1 was bsshing it for being casual.

Wait, what? :-D Who's bashing V for being "casual", of all things? Civ V is about as complex as any other recent Civ game, and certainly not easier than Civ VI. It has also remained very popular. Civ VI only last year surpassed it in number of concurrent players on Steam, and even to this day, 10 years after its release and 4 years after the release of Civ VI, it's not really that far behind.

I'm not saying this means Civ V is "better" than VI, that is largely a subjective assessment anyway, but the fact that so many are still playing Civ V should tell you it has something going for it.

I agree with you when it comes to the variety in how civs play, though. They started this in Civ V, which among other things, had a civ which could only found a single city. Civ VI has taken it further, though, with many civs having unique playstyles and strategies.

 

[RavenousX]

I started with Civ2 and played a lot of that. It was a great game and in many ways I still think it's a better game than a lot of the later entries. Civ3 had a lot of great ideas but the overall game just didn't flow for me. Civ4 is by far the best game imo - probably played that game more than any other ever. Civ5 I bought at launch but I really didn't like it. I never bought the expansions.

I downloaded Civ6 for free the other day so I only have the vanilla version and I would say game mechanic-wise it's much more interesting than Civ5 vanilla. I've enjoyed learning new mechanics but it's not very deep. In fact, in my 6 or so games I've learned it's better to just ignore pretty much everything but science/money/units and have a little culture to rush important cards/corps/armies unless I'm specifically trying to do a culture or religion win. Seems better not to worry about amenities, great people, religion unless it's to get a specific buff to increase production and only worry about granaries or a few extra farms as far as housing.

The problem with Civ6 is the AI. It just ruins the game imo because the game isn't about beating the other civilization army or outsmarting it in anyway it's about staying close enough to the AIs tech because of their bonuses that their city walls + ~1 defender don't decimate your army each time because you're hitting the walls for -10 while they're 1-shotting a unit or three each turn. I mean I'm playing on immortal right now and the dangers are 3 barb scouts seeing your city before turn 10, and runaway AI teching before you can intercede. That's it. Essentially it's a race to kill the idiot AI before they go to space.

Say what you want about stacks of doom but the AI in Civ4 is 100x superior, the happiness/health system is much better than the current amenities/housing silliness and the economy management system in Civ4 by itself puts on another level than Civ 5 or 6. The diplomacy, the promotions system, I could go on forever. I mean can I blame Firaxis for going the Elder Scrolls route? No, but it's still disappointing.

 

[Icicle]

I swear every time I read one of these threads I go and play Civ III out of spite since it never gets any love.

 

[Laurana Kanan]

I swear every time I read one of these threads I go and play Civ III out of spite since it never gets any love.

I played and modded III for over a decade. I still like to play a game now and then to clear my head when I hit a roadblock modding VI.

 

[pi73r73]

Wait, what? :-D Who's bashing V for being "casual", of all things? Civ V is about as complex as any other recent Civ game, and certainly not easier than Civ VI. It has also remained very popular. Civ VI only last year surpassed it in number of concurrent players on Steam, and even to this day, 10 years after its release and 4 years after the release of Civ VI, it's not really that far behind.

I'm not saying this means Civ V is "better" than VI, that is largely a subjective assessment anyway, but the fact that so many are still playing Civ V should tell you it has something going for it.

I agree with you when it comes to the variety in how civs play, though. They started this in Civ V, which among other things, had a civ which could only found a single city. Civ VI has taken it further, though, with many civs having unique playstyles and strategies.

If I recall correctly even on these forums up to 1 year after release of 5 many people were saying that. I'm not saying that's the case since I havent seen it at all. But I see it ain't much liked by fans of 4 anyway. Unlike 6.

 

[KayAU]

If I recall correctly even on these forums up to 1 year after release of 5 many people were saying that. I'm not saying that's the case since I havent seen it at all. But I see it ain't much liked by fans of 4 anyway. Unlike 6.

I suspect it's more a case of these being the Civ VI forums, so most of us like Civ VI here, and Civ IV I think is pretty much universally loved.

Civ V at launch was a less complex game than Civ IV with all expansions, so it may have gotten some criticism for that. The reason I enjoyed it already at that point, is that it innovated greatly in some areas:

• It introduced hexagonal tiles to the series
• It eliminated stacks of doom in favor of more tactical combat
• It made aspects of the game more situational and dependent on the map (e.g. wonders having terrain requirements)
• It made civs more diverse in terms of gameplay
• It changed how strategic and luxury resources worked

I think the main relevant criticisms of Civ V which gets mentioned a lot is how it seemed to favour tall civs, and the concept of global happiness. I personally didn't mind either of these, although I can understand that some did. If I were to criticize it for something myself, it is that it never got a real government system. It had something called "Social Policies", which I enjoyed for what it was: a simple bonus tree. Civ VI, on the other hand, has proper governments and the concept of policy cards. Unfortunately, I still find this somewhat lacking in both flavour and mechanics. You basically just slot in a bonus you need at the moment, sometimes just for a single turn, sometimes for pretty much the entire game. It doesn't ever feel like real progress or a choice of direction for your civ, and it has only the very most marginal impact on diplomacy. Civ IV had a much better government system, which was similar to the *best* government system, the one which was used in Alpha Centauri.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

The idea that large empire are automatically powerful and that tall is weak don't make all much sense based on history. For example the small city states in greece defeated the much larger Persian Empire and later under Philip and Alexander managed to conquer it. Being a large empire came with many problems not represented well in Civilization.

During late 1800s, early 1900s US economy eclipsed the British empire, an empire controlling about 1/3 of the Earths Surface. During WW2, the Detroit tank plant had an output of more than half the whole german tank industry and the Willow Run managed to reach an output of airframes of a total weight of about half the whole German Aircraft industry.

So the idea of tall cities with national wonders that reach high output like in Civ IV is not that far-fetched.

What I probably dislike most about Civ VI economy is the focus on cities being jack of all trades since you can only have one speciality district of each type, which to me make no sense, I much rather have the civilization IV focus on building specalized cities and thus have cities with character that I care about. The Civ VI cities I don't care about since they are all identical.

 

[Bactrian]

People slam the AI for Civ 6 but the AI has been woeful in every Civ game. The AI only appears more competent in Civ 4 for example, because of the multiple units per tile (stacks of doom). The only reason the AI appears better in the earlier Civ games is because the stacks of doom were so utterly brainless it was hard for it not to be competent in using them.
I for one would much rather have a more interesting, varied and tactical 1 unit per tile combat, even if the AI struggles with it. The AI was hardly a military genius is Civ 1-4 anyway.

I'm the exact opposite. In an ideal world I would prefer for Civ games to have interesting tactical combat, but the fact that Firaxis refuses to create a passable AI for it in my opinion makes stacks far preferable. I didn't enjoy Civs I - IV less because they had stacks. In fact, I enjoyed them more because I always felt significantly more threatened. Sure, combat wasn't as interesting, but since Civ is a 4X and not a wargame it was well worth it in my opinion.

 

[Jimdigriz]

In spite of the very deserved criticism of existing modding tools (or lack thereof) I do still consider CivVI to be the equal best game in the series (right next to CivIV).

The massive improvements to City States, Religion & Diplomacy definitely help to elevate the game above most of its predecessors, & the addition of the Civics Tree, the new Government/Social Policy systems, Eurekas & Inspirations & Districts also push it close to the front of the pack. If these guys released the DLL's, then I'd say it would leave even CivIV in the dust.



Potato McWhisky literally spent all of the last week playing a game as Gran Columbia. Is that really the best you can come up with?!?!

For some reason, Australia are always next to me when I play Civ VI....and I always let them attack me so I can wipe them out!

 

[Alashiya]

yes, I'm glad certain some mechanics have been consigned to the history books (no pun intended)

 

[bitula]

I see a HUGE - a really, really HUGE - difference between AI in vanilla Civ 6 and Civ 6 with all dlc and expansion and NFP 1. Is this just an illusion? In no way I feel the AI is complete junk as one may read here. But at vanilla stage it was, yes I remember, it was, I could win Diety without even knowing the rules.

 

[Jimdigriz]

I see a HUGE - a really, really HUGE - difference between AI in vanilla Civ 6 and Civ 6 with all dlc and expansion and NFP 1. Is this just an illusion? In no way I feel the AI is complete junk as one may read here. But at vanilla stage it was, yes I remember, it was, I could win Diety without even knowing the rules.

I was actually worried in a game I was playing lately that one of my neighbours (Australia again!) could easily have levied a nearby city state units and cause me really big problems. Luckily enough he levied the wrong city state and it wasn't a problem.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

From my subjective point of view yes, it is.

 

[Gwaja]

Terrible AI, pointless diplomacy, no flexibility in going wide or tall, nightmarish traffic jam caused by badly implemented 1UPT made worse by incapable AI, and.... need I go any further? It is the WORST Civ game in the series, driven by pointless cash grab DLCs.

It looks pretty, but that is all it has going for it. Pure garbage game that is not worth the asking price. There are far better 4X games out there than this junk.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Having being introduced to the Civ serie with IV, I would be able to compare only the last three (even if I hear so much good stuff about civ III that I might try it someday).

Also, whatever Civ V do, Civ VI do it better IMO:

• Dividing the civ between LUA and CUA brought so much diversity and depth to the games;
• Playing the maps. In V you just built your improvments; in VI you actually have to think where to build your wonders, your districts, and where you'll found your next city you'll have to take all of that into account;
• Religions are more interesting, the most important thing for me being you retain your pantheons whatever your religion is;
• While I loved the fact that you could propose resolution in the WC and that voting was more simple, I really like how diplomacy, diplomatic favors and city-States works. Diplomacy is not just anymore "I have gold, I control the world".
• The Civics Tree and the government policies are much more interesting that the Policies Trees in Civ V. Much more replayability, less straightforward, give a unique feel in each game.
• Trade range for trade routes that you enhance with each trade post being able at the end to cover the entire world, and not limited by buildings or technologies.
• Distincts city-States and great peoples. It's a game changer and make you think about strategy rather than "Monaco or Florence are the same" or "Great scientist, don't care which one, just built your academy please".

So my comparisons will mostly be between between Civ IV and Civ VI. So, for the advantages of Civ VI

• I really disliked the stacks of dooms and having to think more strategically about your armies and how you move them is more engaging for me;
• On warfare, I found it very frustrating to have your city defenses relying only on your military. Having cities able to defend themselves even without garrison is 1) historically accurate and b) doesn't frustrate you to have your city razed by a barbarian scout;
• City-States: the fact that minor cultures are represented and that you can interact with them is a blessing;
• In the same way, having each great people unique is very fun and more engaging and strategic;
• I prefer the way religion is created in Civ VI, making it very unique each time;
• Each civ feel very unique in Civ VI, way more than in Civ IV were just two traits, a UU and UB and starting technologies. I mean, when I play Mansa Moussa, Pachacutec or Eleanor in VI I have very different games, while playing Louis XIV, Pericles or Ashoka felt quite the same (except for the trait spiritual: no anarchy was quite useful);
• Using culture in a Civics Tree is also a blessing and open to new strategies. Science is now not only the only meta, you have to have culture too to still be competitive;
• While I feel that civis in IV and VI where much better than policies in V, I prefer the system in VI where you can change things and each governments felt more unique. Also, being "forced" to choose Emancipation each game because of happiness penalties was kind of a cheat;
• Playing the map: I feel that the map is way more interacting with you in Civ VI, especially with GS, than in Civ IV. it's all about where to place my districts and wonders. Plus, being able to pop a harbor even in an inland city is a blessing too;
• I alwasy find that the economy was too complicated to grasp in IV than VI, but it might be a bias because I was young and nowadays I began to learn how it works, but for the moment, I still prefer how gold is managed in VI than IV;
• Founding cities is less tedious in VI than IV, especially in mid-late game. In VI, you can buy buildings to speed up your growth, or even use trade routes to make them have some precious hammers; in IV, well, you relied on the production of the city or on Universal Suffrage (with prohibitive costs and the fact that you couldn't use Representation);
• Graphics. I prefer those in Civ VI. I really love them. I know lots of people disagree but this cartoonish style at least feels alive.

Now for the advantages of Civ IV:

• While I prefer the unique flavor of each religion in VI, the way religions are managed in IV was better. I want to have the ability to choose my state religion or to be a secular state, and I want religion to have more impact on diplomacy. If we could blend the two systems it would be perfect;
• I loved the random events sytem. Some might argue that having to much randomness in their game was frustrating but for me it was something ver welcomed;
• The way specialists are dealt in IV (and V) is more engaging and useful than civ VI. TBT, I never take care of specialists in my cities in VI;
• How culture was implemented; not the purple notes necesarily, but how when you were closer to your borders culture started to blend, and that it was culture, not loyalty, that flipped cities. I love the loyalty system, but I wish it was more tied to culture, more than simply Cultural Alliances negates the loyalty pressure;
• The sytem of health/disease was very interesting and I hope they do something similar in VI or VII. With the Black Plague scenario, it's a shame it's not used;

I might forget a lot of things but, for me, while Civ IV is an incredible game with still lots of good features, civ VI is still better in a lot of ways, changing completely how you play. Civ IV is a strategy game much more similar (at least it's how I feel it) to a Grand Strategy game ala Paradox, while Civ VI has way more building features. In Civ IV, your cities were just tools for your victory; in Civ VI, building your cities already feel like something in itself.

 

[Abaxial]

Civ II was great for modding, and one of the main problems with Civ VI is the lack of modding support. But one can put the question another way - would anyone go back and play Civ II or III today? The dated graphics would kill them. For me, only V and VI are contenders, with acceptable graphics. Even IV looks too klutzy to me.