Is civ6 the best civ game
- Thread starter akossoka
- Start date
Yes, the need to make a better AI and not rely on modders doing it. But I still think that in the long run (your 'in time') modders will create an even better AI and so it doesn't matter that much. They should still do it. Many people play without mods and it's really Firaxis job to do this.
Tacgnol
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2008
- Messages
- 216
IMO IV>VI>V>3.
I really don't understand how anyone could like 3 the best. I started with 3 and played it for years when I was in like middle school and I had a ton of fun with it. But IV is just an improvement in pretty much every way. The graphics are just unacceptably bad, the map is freakin 2D. @agonistes I appreciate what you're saying, I just completely disagree...yes, Civ 3 results in the most populated giant earth maps because of its affinity for completely uncontrolled ICS but that isn't actually a fun game at all. There just isn't really anything in Civ 3 that IV doesn't do better.
I pretty much assume anyone who prefers V started out with it as their first civ game. It's just not that great, IMO, when it first came out it was a step down from Civ IV, even with the expansions in place it had improved graphics and changed some features but just wasn't as fun gameplay wise. And now just a few months into Civ VI release it's already a much more fun game. Like, going from 3 to IV they mostly just refined and added features, IV to V was a pretty big overhaul with a lot of major changes but V to VI is once again mostly refining and adding features. There's just nothing about V that really stands out to me, VI is better and I wouldn't go back for nostalgia. Oh, and the penalties to expansion are just the absolute worst, there should not be areas of the map that no one has claimed in the modern era, it's just stupid.
Now as far as IV vs VI. Both are excellent games, no doubt. But IMO the difference is just in the feel they have, the general scope of the game.
Civ IV feels epic. You aren't really your civ's leader, you're some godlike guiding force pulling the strings. It really feels like you're building a civilization, not worrying about the mundane details but strategically planning and expanding on a grand scale. When you fight wars, you're sending vast armies with huge numbers of troops to their death. It's IMO the most suitable for the scale of a civ game where you're literally going from 4000BC to 2050 AD and developing the entire world.
Civ VI just feels a lot less epic. The player's perspective seems more limited, like you're the leader of your civ just doing what you're able to to lead your people. You don't just plan where your cities will go and where your people will settle, you have to worry about how the cities themselves develop, what grows where, you have to manage trade routes individually. Combat isn't an epic massive scale bloodbath, it's yet another tactical minigame. That's really my issue with Civ VI (and was true for V as well) - it just feels more gamey. You're accumulating victory points. You're focused on doing what you need to win. Civ IV feels like a grand strategy game, it's got quite a sandboxy feel to it, like you're painting the world. VI is about winning the video game - on high difficulties the AI will win by like turn 350 if you don't win before that and on lower difficulties there is just no challenge at all. Moreover it's not a pure grand strategy game like IV - it's like a city-building game, and a tactical combat game, placed into a grand strategy framework.
The franchise really went from grand strategy feel, to an artificial tactical minigame, with 1UPT in Civ V. Like by any reasonable measure that represents the size of a planet on a map, each tile represents a land area of hundreds of square miles. So when you have an archer attack a unit 2 tiles away, your archers are shooting their arrows hundreds of miles to hit the enemy... There's just no way to integrate this kind of thing in the grand strategy framework, it's sacrificing any semblance of realism for 'fun' tactical gameplay.
All that being said, I love Civ VI, it's really well done, it's a great game and it's a ton of fun. I have a PC and a Nintendo 64 and Civ is all I play on the PC, and I've been playing a ton of VI. All those sacrifices for gameplay result in a really fun game, and most of the issues from V are smoothed out. And there are some features like religion that really are represented more realistically and organically than in IV. Plus you can't argue with the graphics, IV is still playable but...barely lol. And it's fun keeping up with the DLC and game updates. Civ VI is an awesome game and is going to be even more awesome with expansions, it does what it does very well it's just a different feel from the old civ games.
Also, Civ IV FfH is hands down the best fantasy strategy game of all time
I really don't understand how anyone could like 3 the best. I started with 3 and played it for years when I was in like middle school and I had a ton of fun with it. But IV is just an improvement in pretty much every way. The graphics are just unacceptably bad, the map is freakin 2D. @agonistes I appreciate what you're saying, I just completely disagree...yes, Civ 3 results in the most populated giant earth maps because of its affinity for completely uncontrolled ICS but that isn't actually a fun game at all. There just isn't really anything in Civ 3 that IV doesn't do better.
I pretty much assume anyone who prefers V started out with it as their first civ game. It's just not that great, IMO, when it first came out it was a step down from Civ IV, even with the expansions in place it had improved graphics and changed some features but just wasn't as fun gameplay wise. And now just a few months into Civ VI release it's already a much more fun game. Like, going from 3 to IV they mostly just refined and added features, IV to V was a pretty big overhaul with a lot of major changes but V to VI is once again mostly refining and adding features. There's just nothing about V that really stands out to me, VI is better and I wouldn't go back for nostalgia. Oh, and the penalties to expansion are just the absolute worst, there should not be areas of the map that no one has claimed in the modern era, it's just stupid.
Now as far as IV vs VI. Both are excellent games, no doubt. But IMO the difference is just in the feel they have, the general scope of the game.
Civ IV feels epic. You aren't really your civ's leader, you're some godlike guiding force pulling the strings. It really feels like you're building a civilization, not worrying about the mundane details but strategically planning and expanding on a grand scale. When you fight wars, you're sending vast armies with huge numbers of troops to their death. It's IMO the most suitable for the scale of a civ game where you're literally going from 4000BC to 2050 AD and developing the entire world.
Civ VI just feels a lot less epic. The player's perspective seems more limited, like you're the leader of your civ just doing what you're able to to lead your people. You don't just plan where your cities will go and where your people will settle, you have to worry about how the cities themselves develop, what grows where, you have to manage trade routes individually. Combat isn't an epic massive scale bloodbath, it's yet another tactical minigame. That's really my issue with Civ VI (and was true for V as well) - it just feels more gamey. You're accumulating victory points. You're focused on doing what you need to win. Civ IV feels like a grand strategy game, it's got quite a sandboxy feel to it, like you're painting the world. VI is about winning the video game - on high difficulties the AI will win by like turn 350 if you don't win before that and on lower difficulties there is just no challenge at all. Moreover it's not a pure grand strategy game like IV - it's like a city-building game, and a tactical combat game, placed into a grand strategy framework.
The franchise really went from grand strategy feel, to an artificial tactical minigame, with 1UPT in Civ V. Like by any reasonable measure that represents the size of a planet on a map, each tile represents a land area of hundreds of square miles. So when you have an archer attack a unit 2 tiles away, your archers are shooting their arrows hundreds of miles to hit the enemy... There's just no way to integrate this kind of thing in the grand strategy framework, it's sacrificing any semblance of realism for 'fun' tactical gameplay.
All that being said, I love Civ VI, it's really well done, it's a great game and it's a ton of fun. I have a PC and a Nintendo 64 and Civ is all I play on the PC, and I've been playing a ton of VI. All those sacrifices for gameplay result in a really fun game, and most of the issues from V are smoothed out. And there are some features like religion that really are represented more realistically and organically than in IV. Plus you can't argue with the graphics, IV is still playable but...barely lol. And it's fun keeping up with the DLC and game updates. Civ VI is an awesome game and is going to be even more awesome with expansions, it does what it does very well it's just a different feel from the old civ games.
Also, Civ IV FfH is hands down the best fantasy strategy game of all time
Leyrann
Deity
Bold: This is actually the first time someone ever says something that, for me, is a reason to use stacks over 1 upt... Congrats, I guess. Really like the post in general by the way, though for me districts are too important for the rankings - they alone make Civ VI rank above all others for me.
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
I think in VI they've tried to get more people to name units by making it something special.
But I think they should switch it back. Or at least have the option to. In various versions of Civ (& Colonization) I've named different units mostly for pratical reasons.
More recently I'd like to track each unit I build to see where they end up. That is only possible if I can tag them at commission.
HF22
Warlord
YMMV. I just can't play against VI'sAI because I think it's still very very very bad.
No. Civ V's AI was actually better than Civ VI, even though it was still crap. So it's not unanimous.
Fact: You can rename units in IV. Click on the unit name, and a rename popup appears.
nzcamel
Nahtanoj the Magnificent
The point agonistes was making is that in III there was no limit to the digits in the name. I never ran into that problem myself in IV...but then I was never naming my units the cool things he was!
Leyrann
Deity
I wonder what kind of names people are using if they're running into a 25 character limit...
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
I struggled with this at the beginning and came to the realisation for me that they had duplicated the tech tree doubling the samey tasks in one area. Yes the civics have a lot going for them which disguised this samey element. Have I overcome this feeling? No but I accept that the cards system is great, I just wish there was a different UI way of dealing with it. Its a small thing for me now but still grits a bit. Yours may be different, just trying to help ya with a similar feeling
Was it 25? I don't recall it being that long. I'm not basing my opinion on only that though. I played 3 up until a few months before VI came out, and then went to V until it did, just for a change. I even prefer V to IV.
'Northern Pacification Force' is a favorite for German games, + the tag of (infantry) or (artillery) + marks denoting rank... like ' for rank one to **** for a 4 star to ^ for field marshal. Ranks earned for cities taken. Like General von Welhminham ****.
Maybe its a civ III thing, cause I know I'm not the only 3er that does it. Jeez, there's even been forum discussions on naming.
I do like IV's vassals and letting me put units in a foreign city.
grandad1982
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,552
In order of my preference
4, 5, 3/6. It's beeb so long since I played 2 I can't rate it I'm afraid and I never played 1.
6 has the potential to become the second best but there are so many faults with it that I'd need to wait at least a year to give it a fair rating. It will never over take 4 due to '1' unit per tile and the design decisions that forces in the game. If they got rid of the stupid gog of war and improved the ui of would be in clear 3rd rather than tied with 3.
4, 5, 3/6. It's beeb so long since I played 2 I can't rate it I'm afraid and I never played 1.
6 has the potential to become the second best but there are so many faults with it that I'd need to wait at least a year to give it a fair rating. It will never over take 4 due to '1' unit per tile and the design decisions that forces in the game. If they got rid of the stupid gog of war and improved the ui of would be in clear 3rd rather than tied with 3.
Leyrann
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,901
its not the unknown fog, its the known fog is too foggy IMO, I mean you cannot even see if there are hills underneath it
I guess they had to make it foggy because it still updates with wonder build change and most other things which is terrible and the real problem IMO
grandad1982
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,552
Well as Victoria says its the 'revealed' fog if war (I'd love a dog of war). After making the map bold and colourful I find the nasty bland obscure fog really jarring and it really reduces my pleasure as you spend all your time looking at the map. I also find it much harder to read the terrain than if it was just a darker shade instead of a totally different texture.
I think civ 6 is the worst civ game ever. Installing mods helped a lot though, but civ 3 and 4 is by far the best civ games. civ 4 also had some awesome mods. I took me a long time to like civ 5, but it was way better that number 6. Right now I am testing mods, which ones can be combined in the game, and hopefully I will end up with a mix of mods that makes civ 6 awesome. I think they have removed too many of the fun parts of the game. I remember one of the earlier civ games had colonies, so resources could be gained without having to build a city. I also miss the ability to make vassal states (not the city states, but making other major civs vassal - either by force or offer to protect them). I miss the old world wonders, don't like that they have to be build on tiles. I don't like the districts. There used to be more units. Should be able to build cities closer to other civs cities. Religion in previous civs were also more intersting, with more religions to chose from. The limit of religions to be found is just ridicilous. I miss beeing able to stack units (a limit of 10 units per tile would also be ok). I know there is mods for that, but they don't work very well. I miss beeing able to trade maps, units and technology. There is other features I miss which I don't remember right now. I think they. The graphics are way too much like a facebook game I think, the game itself also feels very much like a facebook game. The have moved too far from the other civ games, they should rename the game since its basicly dont have much in common with earlier versions.
BUT I still live in hope that I will find a mix of mods that fixes all this
BUT I still live in hope that I will find a mix of mods that fixes all this
Ferocitus
Deity
Well, Civ 1 didn't have mods, so he can't evaluate that...Seriously? Worse than civ 1?
Why not? Civ I was great and had features that VI is lacking (kill a civ before 1AD and a new one appears to take its place for instance).Seriously? Worse than civ 1?
Similar threads
