When Civilization was the most fun?

[Horizons]

It was more fun before I tried going up the difficulty ladder. That's when I learned that you have to religiously observe build orders and the fact that there are perma-sub-optimal options in the game, in other words there are choices you should almost always never take at higher difficulty levels. Vast swatches of the game that aren't worth bothering with.

Have Firaxis changed Civ6 in a recent patch? Seems that everything produces more slowly and the AI is ultra-super-obnoxious all the time. The game is basically no fun at Emperor (for me)

 

[Patine]

Any time prior to July 2019 (cav nerf).

That was another benefit of Civ1-3 (and SMAC and Colonization - I don't know if it applied as late as when Civ4 was live, as I only ever played a very limited demo of that iteration), was that MPS, then Firaxis, weren't making mandatory tinkering through obligatory patches and such that were required to actually play the game, whether or not you liked the buffs, nerfs, and other tweaks, or not. That was typical of that era of gaming, in general.

 

[Horizons]

Have Firaxis changed Civ6 in a recent patch? Seems that everything produces more slowly and the AI is ultra-super-obnoxious all the time. The game is basically no fun at Emperor (for me)

Production times seem like they are for Epic game speed even though I'm on standard speed. Unplayable.

lol - wouldn't surprise me if Firaxis left Civ6 in a damaged state.

 

[Horizons]

That was another benefit of Civ1-3 (and SMAC and Colonization - I don't know if it applied as late as when Civ4 was live, as I only ever played a very limited demo of that iteration), was that MPS, then Firaxis, weren't making mandatory tinkering through obligatory patches and such that were required to actually play the game, whether or not you liked the buffs, nerfs, and other tweaks, or not. That was typical of that era of gaming, in general.

Yes, and Civ2 was left in a bad state because of it. (Multiplayer gold essentially had diplomacy turned off and it was perma-war)

That game was horribly unbalanced, ultra-spammy and had severe and glaring design flaws. I actually think it would have been better if another company had inherited Civ (like Call to Power) rather than Firaxis, with their obsession with keeping Sid Meier's personal quirks and faults in the game.

 

[Patine]

Yes, and Civ2 was left in a bad state because of it. (Multiplayer gold essentially had diplomacy turned off and it was perma-war)

That game was horribly unbalanced, ultra-spammy and had severe and glaring design flaws. I actually think it would have been better if another company had inherited Civ (like Call to Power) rather than Firaxis, with their obsession with keeping Sid Meier's personal quirks and faults in the game.

Yuck! Call to Power!

 

[Alashiya]

loved Civ 2 it used to give me absolutely vicious migraines until I bought a UV screen, Civ 6 is great as well
the one I didnt like was the one with the pollution mechanic (Civ 3 IIRC)

 

[vorlon_mi]

I started with Civ2, which I found in a discount bin in 2001 or 2002 for $10 USD. Best investment of $10 ever, got me hooked on the franchise. I waited to buy Civ3 when the Conquests expansion came out and switched to that since it didn't have "stack insta-death." Overall, I've had the most fun playing Civ3. Civ4 is a challenge, with more chances for runaway AI. When I'm up for a challenge, I might play Civ4 (BTS), but to have the most fun, I fall back to 3. Civ5 is the least fun for me, since I really enjoy conquering and founding a LOT of cities and covering a lot of territory. I've begun my Civ6 journey, now that the science bug is fixed and I have the LP.

In a contrarian way, I also have lots of fun playing BERT. Of the 3 games with 1UPT, BERT is the most fun for me. It's possible to conquer a lot of cities, hold a lot of territory, and *grow* your way out of unhealthiness (which is their version of Civ5 happiness).

Civ3 and BERT are the most fun.

 

[reddishrecue]

loved Civ 2 it used to give me absolutely vicious migraines until I bought a UV screen, Civ 6 is great as well
the one I didnt like was the one with the pollution mechanic (Civ 3 IIRC)

What? Didnt tphey all have pollution mechanics.

 

[Horizons]

Oops! Embarrassing. There's nothing wrong with production, I was just being an idiot again.

 

[ezzlar]

Rhyes and Fall on Civ4 is the pinnacle of the Civilizations series. I am still amazed how I can relive all the ages in a simulated realistic, yet not totally deterministic, way.

Second place would be all the fun scenarios in Civ 2, mostly WW2. The system of health and firepower is the best take on military strength in the civ series.

And on third place, Civ 6 has the most potential of the whole series. But it seriously lacks in execution, too much bloat and too complex mechanisms for the AI to handle.

 

[Disgustipated]

It was more fun before I tried going up the difficulty ladder. That's when I learned that you have to religiously observe build orders and the fact that there are perma-sub-optimal options in the game, in other words there are choices you should almost always never take at higher difficulty levels. Vast swatches of the game that aren't worth bothering with.

Have Firaxis changed Civ6 in a recent patch? Seems that everything produces more slowly and the AI is ultra-super-obnoxious all the time. The game is basically no fun at Emperor (for me)

Emperor is as high as I feel like I can go and still have "freedom". I can still go scout first without any repercussions. Though I will say my last game playing as Theodora took several restarts to get a decent start. And even then I feel like I wouldn't have been able to get a religion if I hadn't started next to Canada (they were surrounding my capital with warriors- if it had been anyone else, I would have been toast). It can be difficult to get a religion, I honestly don't know how people can do it on higher difficulty levels. Neglecting building military units to build a holy site is dangerous.

That said, I was behind most of the game. I could have done the religious victory early, but I like to build out my empire. Plus I was on a huge map, so I really needed a lot of faith. Conquering the Aztecs in the modern era helped get me ahead.

I did feel behind on this game, but mostly because my small number of cities because I had it on small continents. And I never did take out Canada. But some emperor games I utterly dominate, and it isn't even close. I'm talking about my previous game, Victoria Age of Steam. OMG is she broken. I guess you could also say she suits my playstyle better as well. I still haven't finished the dlc leaders, I still have 4 more to go.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

CTP and V for me.

 

[Bibor]

Playing games from 1990 onward, CIV1 and RRT were the ones that loudly spoke to me of the potential computer games had in store for the future. Later, SMAC/X was the one that blew my mind the most. And for longest. Nothing since.

Of course, my mind became harder to blow. But then again, Sim City 4, America's Army, World of Warcraft, Far Cry, Witcher 3 and AC Origins... all these truly blew my mind in since SMAC/X, so I guess it's not impossible, just improbable. Civ4 was probably the pinnacle of the series, but in an expected way. Most of its features and mechanisms were expected. And welcome.

Where Civ6 falls short is not in "sticking to the well established, well known or presumed", all valid and very reasonable to prevent a catastrophic sales failure, but rather in lack of courage and of vision. There is nothing I'm looking forward to in Civ7. Not the glimpse of a feintest idea on what to expect. I'd rather not be disappointed. Putting districts and wonders on the map were gimmicks, not a revolutionary idea. SMAC/X already had these in form of unique map features. GS had some great ideas, but also falls short.

 

[reddishrecue]

I remember civ 1 would have pollution until the recycling center was built and all pollution from a high productive city would be gone. Civ 2 4 5 and 6 also has pollution issues and eventually were unfixable sort of like the global warming from civ 4. Civ 2 I don't really remember but civ 5 and 6 had ocean levels rising. If I remember correctly, I thought I had good memory. I don't remember having pollution issues in civ 5... just in civ 1 2 4 and 6 but flood barriers fixed the issues.

 

[Patine]

I remember civ 1 would have pollution until the recycling center was built and all pollution from a high productive city would be gone. Civ 2 4 5 and 6 also has pollution issues and eventually were unfixable sort of like the global warming from civ 4. Civ 2 I don't really remember but civ 5 and 6 had ocean levels rising. If I remember correctly, I thought I had good memory. I don't remember having pollution issues in civ 5... just in civ 1 2 4 and 6 but flood barriers fixed the issues.

Civ2 has a toggle to turn off pollution entriely for a custom scenario - so that it isn't, for instance, an issue in a Roman Empire-themed one.

 

[reddishrecue]

Civ2 has a toggle to turn off pollution entriely for a custom scenario - so that it isn't, for instance, an issue in a Roman Empire-themed one.

I agree, there wasn't as much pollution in the Roman Empire days.

 

[civac]

Civ4 and Smac

 

[Horizons]

Emperor is as high as I feel like I can go and still have "freedom". I can still go scout first without any repercussions. Though I will say my last game playing as Theodora took several restarts to get a decent start. And even then I feel like I wouldn't have been able to get a religion if I hadn't started next to Canada (they were surrounding my capital with warriors- if it had been anyone else, I would have been toast). It can be difficult to get a religion, I honestly don't know how people can do it on higher difficulty levels. Neglecting building military units to build a holy site is dangerous.

That said, I was behind most of the game. I could have done the religious victory early, but I like to build out my empire. Plus I was on a huge map, so I really needed a lot of faith. Conquering the Aztecs in the modern era helped get me ahead.

I did feel behind on this game, but mostly because my small number of cities because I had it on small continents. And I never did take out Canada. But some emperor games I utterly dominate, and it isn't even close. I'm talking about my previous game, Victoria Age of Steam. OMG is she broken. I guess you could also say she suits my playstyle better as well. I still haven't finished the dlc leaders, I still have 4 more to go.

Haven't you noticed that Emperor feels more difficult now? Or is this a sign of ageing on my part lol.

Just got beat culturally by Egypt that was regularly getting 20k+ per turn from its rock bands. I never get runs of luck with rock bands that good. (I was so close to a diplo victory, this felt like a super aggressive push by the AI to beat me)

The AI is SO tough to beat, it honestly feels like I'm being punished the entire game. Maybe one in 9 or 10 games I win but never easily, but there are all manner of issues with this game on higher levels. Not as bad as competitive play versus a human though.

 

[Horizons]

Something is up with the 'shuffle' map type. Now, every single map I get puts me in an intensely unfavourable position where it's impossible to win the game. The game is totally unplayable on this map type now. Emperor, Standard size and speed, random leader, intensity 2 disasters.

EVERY start has a strong combination of the following: floods, active volcanoes, bad terrain, very little room to expand and neighbours who have four cities before I can get my second settler out.

EVERY game plays the same: very little iron and horses, or no time to develop them (by the time you have more than two or three swordsmen or horses, the AI has crossbowmen), at least one AI has a huge science lead over everyone else by the end of Medieval era, and even if you can build up an empire a remote AI *will* have an unassailable tech or culture lead before you can get to them.

The game is NOT fun with these settings AT ALL.

 

[Iberian]

Something is up with the 'shuffle' map type. Now, every single map I get puts me in an intensely unfavourable position where it's impossible to win the game. The game is totally unplayable on this map type now. Emperor, Standard size and speed, random leader, intensity 2 disasters.

EVERY start has a strong combination of the following: floods, active volcanoes, bad terrain, very little room to expand and neighbours who have four cities before I can get my second settler out.

EVERY game plays the same: very little iron and horses, or no time to develop them (by the time you have more than two or three swordsmen or horses, the AI has crossbowmen), at least one AI has a huge science lead over everyone else by the end of Medieval era, and even if you can build up an empire a remote AI *will* have an unassailable tech or culture lead before you can get to them.

The game is NOT fun with these settings AT ALL.

This is what I think is difficult for the game devs. Emperor is my fun level that I play on because I can get a religion and win any victory condition I want without touching any of the settings. Standard speed, standard map, standard resources, etc. Just pick a civ and play. You add in secret societies and corporations and it is even easier. The more you add to the defaults to easier it is for the human.

But I have been playing Civ since it came out in 1991. Already had RailRoad Tycoon, and when my birthday came around in October I got Civilization from my dad. I am not sure how many thousands of hours I have into this series but it trumps every game and even many hobbies. Older now but I still probably get a few hundred hours in a year. Hard to balance a game series that has fans who have been playing for over 30years with new players.