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

[Elhoim]

I came to IV quite late and it was the stacks that stopped me from really getting into it, though I do take the point that the AI was much better at using them. I think perhaps there is a middle ground that could work well.

That's why I like how Humankind seems to be handling it. You create limited stacks (armies), move them around as single units. When they get into combat, a part of the map becomes the battlefield, and the battle is 1UPT.

This solves the pathfinding issues, helps the AI move them around more easily, and you can teach it to create proper starting battle formations when combat starts.

 

[Ticio]

I'm not very entitle to say anything as I only played Civ 2 a little bit as a kid, then civ 5 and 6

A friend of mine tried hard to make me love civ V, but it was a game a never liked. I don't know why,I tried again and again and never hooked me.

Then, another friend of mine forced me to play civ VI,and oh boy! I'm addicted to this game. I cannot say is better or worst, I do not know the other opus of the saga, but there is something with 6 that made me fell in love.

The characteristic I like the most is the disctricts and wonders. Having to plan them ahead is just too fun. I think is what made me love this game and just ignore Civ V.

i also remember the fighting of the V a little cheese, I'm not sure but I think it was like "2 units enter, only 1 survive", and I hated it... but the way is in VI is quite fun.

 

[salty mud]

I think you may be confusing IV with V. Civ IV has the "two enter, one survive" combat. Civ V is similar to VI in how combat is handled.

 

[RohirrimElf]

Still think civ 4 is the best in the series. But i’ve got fond memories of civ 2 and 3 even do i played these games only a couple of hundred hours. Instead of the 4000+ hours on civ 4.

i did not mind the doomstacks back then. I might even prefer it still untill the AI knows how to handle one unit per tile.

i prefer civ 5 art style over civ 4. And i like the district system of civ 6 and sprawling cities. Planting mines on every tile just is not pleasing visually. So each civ game has its own advantages. The combat animations of civ 6 are very beautifull and playfull. I really like it when i turn it on on bigger wars between civs.

 

[Zaarin]

I notice you didn't deny that Civ VI's leader backgrounds are muddy and miserable.

Of course they are, but the point of Civ6 is the leaders themselves, not their backgrounds. I don't really notice the backgrounds--which was a design decision. Could Firaxis have foregrounded the leader without going for nearly black backgrounds? Sure, and I wish they had, but I don't mind the leader backgrounds looking stagy.

Yeah... we hate it so much that CivV environment skin is the top of subscribed mods on Steam with almost 120000 subs

Yes, because quality is a popularity contest.

 

[Ticio]

I think you may be confusing IV with V. Civ IV has the "two enter, one survive" combat. Civ V is similar to VI in how combat is handled.

It is possible, maybe it was Civ4 all the time the one I wasn't able to hook up.

 

[Haig]

I think it is the best in the series.

Great accessability but with great depth and replayability, interesting mechanics, gorgeous graphics and memorable leaders.

Civs 3, 4 and 5 are all classics to me but I cant go back to them.

Even playing the new Old World, while fun, makes me miss Civ 6.

 

[Sostratus]

[QUOTE="Zaarin, post: 15786758, member: 279777”]It never ceases to amaze me that there are people who think Civ5's "shades of mud and misery" aesthetic was anything but hideous. [/QUOTE]
The one thing I do love about civ5 was the Art Deco menu and icons. I’m a huge sucker for Art Deco.
I just don’t think that realistic style would work for the first Civ game to introduce districts and heavy focus on map effects. Maybe in the future, but the heavy color coding I think is needed to mesh with the board game style of the mechanics.

 

[tedhebert]

The one I loved the most at the moment it was current was CIV II. Would I go back and play that ? Certainly not.

Contrary to most here, I didn't like III and IV much. was very happy to see the stack of doom disapear, Liked V a lot after all the expansions, vanilla was crap.

I love VI. I don,t have any intention of going back to previous versions. Yes, I think it could and should have been better implemented, but nothing's perfect in life.

 

[Zaarin]

The one thing I do love about civ5 was the Art Deco menu and icons. I’m a huge sucker for Art Deco.

I am, too, and Civ5 had a lovely UI. It was the terrain and world map that I found unforgivably ugly.

 

[AmazonQueen]

My personal theory is that even-numbered versions of the game always beat the odd-numbered version that preceded them, so I guess I'm really looking forward to Civ VIII.

My favourite for modding was Civ II, it was so easy. I think IV was the best eventually but it took a while to get there.
I quite like VI but it doesn't seem to hold my attention as well as previous Civ games. That is probably down to me as much as the game.

I hated Civ III but seem to have blotted out all memory of why.

 

[KayAU]

With regards to stacks of doom versus 1 UPT, my preferred solution is armies, as seen in games like Fallen Enchantress and Age of Wonders. This adds a myriad of interesting tactical and strategic possibilities. It is not a new concept, even an ancient game like Conquest of the New World had this.

 

[Sostratus]

With regards to stacks of doom versus 1 UPT, my preferred solution is armies, as seen in games like Fallen Enchantress and Age of Wonders. This adds a myriad of interesting tactical and strategic possibilities. It is not a new concept, even an ancient game like Conquest of the New World had this.

As some have said I can’t go back to old combat system- AI aside, what we now have is fantastic in terms of what you can do with it.

I think the real “shortcoming” of 6 is that they didn’t do more with support units. Look at what they did with promotions- a lot of those types of things could be support unit effects. Mix with the corps/armies system (which I think should be extended further) and you can almost replicate the positives of stack combat without the downsides.
Imagine a simple case: pike and shot upgrade into the infantry line and antitank guns become a support unit that boosts the combat factor vs armored. If we had a whole roster of support Units that impact combat substantially, then it would unlock our 1.5 units per tile system to its potential.
Civ6 is such an evolution over 5 in this regard but they’ve only scratched at it.

 

[KayAU]

Just to be clear, armies in the games I mentioned is nothing like "armies" in Civ VI or the simple unit stacks of earlier games. An army in the games I mentioned is a grouping of individual units, which can be added and removed. An army can have a commander, which will typically give bonuses to the whole army or to certain units. An army has a limit to how many units it can hold, and this limit is usually affected by things like tech and the commander's abilities. While on the main map, the army moves as a single unit, at a speed usually determined by the slowest individual unit in the army, and possibly modified by the commander. When in combat, however, the army is "unpacked" and you enter tactical combat where you move, attack and use the abilities of each unit individually. This is where you can fully enjoy tactical combat, as each unit type has different types of attack, range, and initiative (which determines turn order). Alternatively, for less interesting battles, you could go with "auto resolve".

Endless Legend also did something like this, but to be honest, I didn't like their implementation. FE and AOW3 both have great tactical battles.

 

[Prester John 2]

My personal theory is that even-numbered versions of the game always beat the odd-numbered version that preceded them, so I guess I'm really looking forward to Civ VIII.

My favourite for modding was Civ II, it was so easy. I think IV was the best eventually but it took a while to get there.
I quite like VI but it doesn't seem to hold my attention as well as previous Civ games. That is probably down to me as much as the game.

I hated Civ III but seem to have blotted out all memory of why.

That's the same for me. I loved Civ2 for its modability, I spent hours building scenarios around the medieval ages. It was so easy back then, even the graphics. The only thing that bugged me was the civ cap at 7.
In civ3 the ics was really ugly and of course the corruption, making many cities useless.
Civ4 was the crown but only because of the skills and imagination of its modders. If not for RFC, Revolutions, FFH, Total realism/Realism invictus, Civ4 wouldn't have lasted that long. I continued playing after Civ5.

 

[AmazonQueen]

That's the same for me. I loved Civ2 for its modability, I spent hours building scenarios around the medieval ages. It was so easy back then, even the graphics. The only thing that bugged me was the civ cap at 7.
In civ3 the ics was really ugly and of course the corruption, making many cities useless.
Civ4 was the crown but only because of the skills and imagination of its modders. If not for RFC, Revolutions, FFH, Total realism/Realism invictus, Civ4 wouldn't have lasted that long. I continued playing after Civ5.

Corruption, that was it
I think mods helped all of the games (except Civ I, I can't remember there being any for it).

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

I just don't like it as much as Civilization 5. Then again I have had much more experience with that one.
Too many things bug me about the mechanics and UI of Civ 6.

I like just about everything in 4 except for the combat; I can't stand it. Dice roll combat is not my thing.

 

[AriochIV]

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.

 

[The Civs 6]

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.

 

[King of Prussia]

I am not sure a tactical map like say Total war would fit/work for Civ well, but i wouldn't rule it out. Firaxis already does something like this with XCom. With the main campaign adding different strategies to build up and progress the story and using the tactical map to fight the actual battles. It would be radically different than the current combat both in fights duration(turns) and the outcomes. You rarely ever have draws in games like TW. One side or the other tends to be deleted in the fight. The entire game would have to be balanced on how those battles play out. It would probably lead to the return of stacks of doom. Overall it would be a radically different game. Would the game or series be better doing it? Who knows. Probably not. Campaigns would take even longer to complete.