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

[The Civs 6]

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.

Thank you, I agree with all of this.

The district idea just need 1) a better flavor (were the Romans really building a 100x100 km sciency place?) and 2) better execution (why do jungles and mountains help campuses, and rivers don't help industrial zones?) but I think it is fundamentally good for the series. All this stuff has also made the game incredibly fiddly and hard for people to get into, while turning off hardcore strategy fans because... it's not really a fun challenge at the end of the day!

I also want to agree with your point about streamlining. Governors absolutely are just an unnecessary and cartoonish feature that ruins the flavor. I can't play the game in front of people without them mocking how ridiculous the governors just look. In addition, the current religion system, the current government/policy system, cultural victories are all other things that for me can be eliminated or significantly streamlined.

Other than my own crazy ideas about what gameplay should be like, I think the one thing that actually needs a second look is the tech tree. A tech tree (or two) just isn't satisfying in 2020. Now that we aren't in Civ 4 land (where you had to slide b/w tax and science) or Civ 5 land (where science was a function of building up an impressive civilization), science really doesn't represent anything that we can think of in history. And we all know better than to think about science as linear, and generally people realize that there was plenty of backsliding because, say, maybe you killed everyone who knew how to build aqueducts or couldn't afford to maintain them.

 

[gimley_gunner]

As an improved version of Civ V it's ok but the 1 unit per tile approach still needs more work on improving it.

If I'm going to play Civ I'll choose Civ 3 or 4 over 5 and 6

 

[ColdClimate]

The district idea just need 1) a better flavor (were the Romans really building a 100x100 km sciency place?) and 2) better execution (why do jungles and mountains help campuses, and rivers don't help industrial zones?) but I think it is fundamentally good for the series

It's funny because those two reasons are essentially why I would be completely happy to see districts get ditched. Actually, not completely get ditched, I would still keep industrial zones, encampments and harbors, and put the rest into the city center. In the other hand, I wouldn't limit your cities to just one district of each kind...

 

[Futumch]

I've played Civ since the Amiga version of Civ 1 (complete with a hefty book as a manual - remember those?) and the associated games like Alpha Centauri, FreeCiv and Colonisation. I can't really pick a favourite any more, I realise that my views of the older games will be coloured by nostalgia.
I'm certainly enjoying the current version though.

I really didn't give Civ 4 much love though, I think I was concentrating on other stuff at the time it was released. I should rectify that.

 

[KayAU]

No. It has no long term value like previous games due to the lack of modding tools. Vox Populi mod for Civ 5 is far better than Civ 6.

I was inspired to install Vox Populi again, and wow, I had forgotten how good it was. :-D Not only does it improve things like AI and balance a great deal, it's all those little things it adds, like Resource Monopolies, Events and gating wonders behind social development. These all add flavour and fun to the game, without adding busywork or feeling redundant. I think I will be playing this for a while now.

This is indeed something which is lacking with Civ 6. Civ 4 had Fall from Heaven/Master of Mana. Civ 5 had Vox Populi. When will Civ 6 get something on this level?

 

[BakouKai]

Clearly not.

I play since Civ I and I got a little bit bored after my second game on Civ VI. I do not own any DLCs though...

It adds some cool little features, but the series needs Mods to transform every fan's idea into a great modpack scenario. And I could not find any of this on Civ VI.

Today I feel I could go back to Civ IV (Modded : Fall From Heaven, Three Kingdoms or Realism Invictus) for some more, while I do not have many challenges to face on Civ VI...

 

[lz14]

I got this free from Epic and it is suprisingly good.

There are a lot of negative reviews about the game I feel it's undeserved. The game is quite polished. I didn't buy the game because I thought my computer wouldn't run it but the performance is excellent and very efficient. This is a sign of a game made with good quality and care rather than unfinished untested like so many games these days.

There are things that's broken e.g. abysmal AI combat capability, that prevents this from the best, but it's a pretty nifty game.

 

[The Civs 6]

It's funny because those two reasons are essentially why I would be completely happy to see districts get ditched. Actually, not completely get ditched, I would still keep industrial zones, encampments and harbors, and put the rest into the city center. In the other hand, I wouldn't limit your cities to just one district of each kind...

The other problem with the district idea is that, contradicting the basic idea that it is supposed to represent civilization, it indirectly is a pretty severe nerf to tall play styles. What do big cities need to do to contribute to your victory in 6? They need to have districts. Districts take up space. There will be some kinda crap tiles that you can sacrifice, but at some point your big city is going to be putting productive tiles into districts (in addition to wonders - which it makes 0 sense why these take up tiles. I've personally been to massive wonders like Versailles and the Forbidden City, both would fit comfortably in any decently sized city). So it creates a limit to how tall you can build, while significantly benefiting wide play styles - especially for the Russia's, Korea's and Greece's of the world that benefit from spamming a single win condition district.

I kind of like your idea. To build on it, perhaps there should be a select few district types that significantly enhance your cities' productivity and ability to exploit resources? Endless Legend kind of has a feature like this, and it results in a system where new districts are really an expansion of your city.

 

[darko82]

I was inspired to install Vox Populi again, and wow, I had forgotten how good it was. :-D Not only does it improve things like AI and balance a great deal, its all those little things it adds, like Resource Monopolies, Events and gating wonders behind social development. These all add flavour and fun to the game, without adding busywork or feeling redundant. I think I will be playing this for a while now.

This is indeed something which is lacking with Civ 6. Civ 4 had Fall from Heaven/Master of Mana. Civ 5 had Vox Populi. When will Civ 6 get something on this level?

Bad news, probably not in the near future, if ever at all. They are going to sell new leaders/civs for the next year or so.

 

[acluewithout]

gating wonders behind social development

I’d love to see a few Wonders gated behind particular Governments.

Hopefully NFP will add a few of those missing details and flourishes that are missing.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

Nope, not by a long shot, and I've played 'em all since the original.
Both IV and V were better - mainly because after release they became better games. This one -- not so much.

 

[ColdClimate]

The other problem with the district idea is that, contradicting the basic idea that it is supposed to represent civilization, it indirectly is a pretty severe nerf to tall play styles. What do big cities need to do to contribute to your victory in 6?

I immediately didn't like districts when I got Civ6 because they felt 'unrealistic', but whatever, realism doesn't always equal good gameplay. When I figured out that they would penalize me from playing tall, however...

Ultimately I just wish they had decided to develop the cottage system more, because I feel like that seemed like a more organic way to develop your terrain without having to sacrifice the base tile yields. I feel like a lot of the adjacency bonuses could have been used for towns instead in a more generalized way (e.g. once a cottage becomes a town, it gets 1 gold for adjascent each river tile, 1 production each mine, 1 science per mountain etc), instead of single districts that void the tile underneath. In that way big cities work more cottage tiles, which get more developed and result in higher yields for its suburban populations. Unless of course you decide to work specialists in your capital instead, which makes for two distinct viable tall strategies.

Anyhow, seems unlikely that they'll abandon districts now, but I really wish they had instead kept some of the better features (IMHO) of civ4...

 

[Ferocitus]

It has flaws, but Civ6 is streets ahead of all the others.

 

[Jimdigriz]

If you'd asked me a year or two back I would have said no. Now? I have to say yes! I can't imagine going back to earlier ones now despite VI not being perfect.

 

[JesusOnEez]

I'm an old fart so have played them all. Civ IV has probably had more hours out of me than any game ever, and combined with BtS and BUG/BAT mod makes it the top game for me (especially as an OCD micromanager).

Civ V I just could not get in to. I flat out hate it.

I bought Civ VI with Gathering Storm only a week ago, and I am hooked. For me, VI kind of feels like IV. The information within easy reach is so much better than Civ V (although to be fair, I never tried V with expansions, so that may be different now), and for the micromanager in me, that's a big deal. I like that you can concentrate on one or two of the (many) mechanics and ignore the others depending on your game goals. I love the graphics, the UI is intuitive and it's so close to being as good as IV it's painful.

If I could have Civ IV with BtS and BUG/BAT plus hexes and the Tech/Civics tree's split like VI...

or

If I could have Civ VI with an equivalent of BUG/BAT...

then it would be the flip of a coin.

 

[KayAU]

@JesusOnEez
While Civ IV seems to be universally loved, it looks like Civ V is very divisive. I personally liked it as it was on launch, but it seems a more common opinion is that it only became good with the expansions. I would certainly agree that the expansions improved it a great deal. That is one of my issues with Civ VI. I like the expansions in Civ VI because they add new content, and in particular they have added some really good new civ designs. That said...I'm not really sure if the game is much better overall because of them. As mentioned, the various systems in the game don't really interact as much as I would have liked, and many features end up feeling a bit redundant.

Then, of course, Civ V has the fantastic mod pack "Vox Populi", which completely overhauls and transforms it, to the point where it feels like a different game. It adds even more (well integrated) systems, lifts the AI to pretty good level, it adds events, rebalances everything, adds units, buildings, wonders, and lots of information to the UI. I think this is probably the deepest and most complete version of Civilization.

 

[King Rad]

I have only played IV, V and VI, and I got hooked on IV, but hated stacks and the huge squares. I liked V better; and my favorite game of all time is VI, with literally 1000's of hours in it. I love the districts. Could it be improved? sure. And if it's not obvious after reading the last six pages, we all like different things - so "best" for one isn't "best" for another. But I've liked each iteration so far better than the one before. And I always do all four x's - including expand; even in five I never played tall, not even as Ethiopia. And I just finished a Lady Six Sky game with 27 cities - 8 in my original group and the other 19 spread over 4 different islands or continents.

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'm ok if they want to use an icon for each gov type, but not a different picture for each. Just like the different colors for different districts, the idea is to be able to recognize a governor without having to memorize hundreds of different pictures.

 

[Bast]

Civ IV is still probably the best for me. I spent so many hours on that game. But I enjoy Civ VI a lot. Here's my ranking:

1. Civ IV - For me the best, I loved the leader traits and the religion and corporations
2. Civ VI - Playing a considerable amount now and has room for a lot of growth
3. Civ II - The original one for me that introduced the game for me, now it is a bit dated but so nostalgic!
4. Civ III - Never really got into it
5. Civ V, I didn't buy. I fell out of love with the game just from appearance and the changes were jarring for me. Civ I, never got to play. I'm too young for it.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

If so, why do you believe so? Does Civ VI compare favourably to previous games in the series?

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.

I think the fact that Yogscast and that PotatoMcWhiskey youtube guy are currently playing a modded version of civ5 a couple weeks after the civ6 new frontier patch came out isn't a good sign for civ6 being the best in series:
https://www.twitch.tv/yogscast

I think civ6 is a great game, but overall civ5 is better (especially with mods)

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?!?!

 

[KayAU]

So, I was playing some more Vox Populi last night, and it is a bit of a revelation just how much better the AI is than the base game. Since it's been many years since last I played VP, I am playing on a low difficulty, Prince, to get to grips with all the things I have forgotten. Of course, in VP, Prince is not the same as in vanilla,as the AI gets bonuses on any difficulty above Settler. Still, Prince is not difficult, and I had a solid lead in science and culture when the various AI players started declaring war on me. Since I have a stronger economy and better tech, I am winning these wars. However: the AI is actually putting up a good fight, even with inferior tech, even on Prince. I took a city on Genghis' continent using my navy, and I have actually struggled to hold on to it, and to land reinforcements. Even though I have more advanced units, Genghis tends to focus his considerable forces to take them out quickly, and he kept a pretty impressive amount of pressure on my recently acquired city for a long time. It was only after I started mass producing Bombers and deployed them to the city that I managed to drive him back and gain a proper foothold. Meanwhile, on another front, I am fighting Napoleon, and after breaking the main part of Genghis' army, I could redeploy parts of the air force to help with the siege of Paris...

The point here is: in Vox Populi, a war actually feels like a war, and the AI is effective both in how it builds its forces, and how its uses them on the battlefield. As someone who generally don't care much for warmongering, I am impressed at how engaging it is to fight a war against an AI that is able to fight back.