Is civ6 the best civ game

[Leathaface]

Civilization IV is the richest and most complex of the Civ games (with the toughest AI to beat and the highest difficulty curve), and the best diplomacy system (and not just because you can trade bananas and other resources that are now untradeable in V and VI). Also has the best main menu theme in Baba Yetu (vanilla Civilization IV theme). Also has stacks of doom (you can stack many units in one tile and move them all together as part of one army). Features Diplomatic victory which requires (in some cases) for the AI to vote for you, random events (in Beyond the Sword expansion). Excellent modability, which made for very fun mods ranging from fantasy (Fall of Haven) to sci fi to tactical zombie killing combat scenario (in the Beyond the Sword expansion).

Civilization V boasts a decent user interface and realistic graphics, less demanding learning curve, with the best leader screens, and excellent peace/war music for each civilization based upon famous national songs. Has carpets of doom, or 1 unit per turn, requiring you to undergo the tedium of manually clicking every single *freaking* unit to move them to the enemy (since you can't stack them). Terrible modability.

Civilization VI boasts a colorful graphic style, a day-night cycle, and complex civilization/leader abilities, though with less immersive leader screens than in V and a weaker diplomacy system than in IV, though with significant mechanics borrowed from V (like the 1 unit per tile), and some changes (siege mechanics, religious victory, etc). Terrible modability.

I think you can add Districts as a strength for Civ VI. Plus the way the cities aren't just one tile, but make use of its surroundings. (Adjacency bonuses, etc)

 

[RohirrimElf]

I think you can add Districts as a strength for Civ VI. Plus the way the cities aren't just one tile, but make use of its surroundings. (Adjacency bonuses, etc)

Adjacency bonusses might be very confusing for new players. But exciting for long term city planners. There are a lot of things to reconsider placing your districts/wonders etc. Might not be to everyones taste. I dont mind complexity so it is a big plus for me.
The spying system from civ 6 is not al that good. I dont find it that enjoyable personally. I would give the advantage to civ 4 with this mechanic.

 

[Ferocitus]

This was of course before they were bought out by the Illuminati who don't want us to have nice things.

Do you press the turbo button on your 386 before or after Civ 3 loads?

 

[Leyrann]

Civ 4 is as of right now probably still the best game in the series, with good gameplay, good AI, etc.

Civ 5 is good as long as you haven't played other civ. Once you start playing the other games, you start to notice Civ 5's fatal flaws big time and it becomes (at least for me) basically unplayable.

Civ 6 is much more similar to Civ 5 than to Civ 4, but it has fixed most of the big flaws, maybe even all (one always springs to mind in particular for me, and that one is removed). On top of that, Civ 6 has some extremely good ideas, which means that, even though the game certainly needs additional work, it's already on the level of Civ 4 in gameplay enjoyment. Also, Civ 6 is the first game ever where graphics are, for me, a reason to play the game.

 

[DocRock]

V >= IV >>> VI in my book.

 

[Ryika]

In my opinion, Civ 6 has the potential to become the best Civ game, the district system really adds a new, fun layer to the game that can be expanded upon.

However, currently it feels pretty boring to me, but I can't really pinpoint down why exactly that is. It's strange, because it doesn't really lack features (though maybe some of its features lack a bit of depth), I like the things that were added and I know I "should" be enjoying it, but whenever I start the game and play a few turns I feel like I'm stumbling through a really bland and uneventful, uninteresting world.

 

[Disgustipated]

Originally I read the title as best base game. I think it is the best base game (even over Civ4). Although it took like 4 patches to get somewhere (this latest patch is pretty good). I'm really quite enjoying civ6. I think I have more hours played with vanilla civ6 than vanilla civ5, civ4, and civ3. But maybe not vanilla civ2 (which was quite good and superior than the expansions).

since we are talking Civ games, perhaps we should mention the Call to Power series? They are getting pretty dated though, and I don't have enough experience with them to talk about them. I only played CTP2 and didn't like it.

 

[Felis Renidens]

I still miss Civ2. I think I could really enjoy it if I could arrange it to work on a modern computer. It improved on the original.
Civ3 was nice but could get boring around the industrial era.
Civ4 (vanilla, back then I did not buy expansions) was fun. I did not like the childish leaders. I did not like many civs having colors so close that I could find myself declaring war on the wrong civ. I liked the music very much. It was probably better than 3.
Civ5 at first I liked more than 4 (that I sometimes played for a short game). After the first expansion I liked it more. When I learned about tactics, and the fact that you got penalized for having many cities by slower research it was ruined for me.
I enjoy civ6 although I suspect AI improvements made it more annoying. I'll probably get used to it. I think it's an improvement over 5 and a very good game.

 

[DWilson]

The spying system from civ 6 is not al that good. I dont find it that enjoyable personally. I would give the advantage to civ 4 with this mechanic.

Just wanted to take a moment to wax lyrical about the espionage system of Beyond Earth, which is in my opinion by far the best they've ever come up with, and the only one which I've ever enjoyed utilizing as part of my gameplay. For a relatively weak game, I think Beyond Earth had a lot of amazing mechanics, particularly with Rising Tide. It's a shame the game never was completed.

 

[@Rob76]

I still miss Civ2. I think I could really enjoy it if I could arrange it to work on a modern computer. It improved on the original.
Civ3 was nice but could get boring around the industrial era.
Civ4 (vanilla, back then I did not buy expansions) was fun. I did not like the childish leaders. I did not like many civs having colors so close that I could find myself declaring war on the wrong civ. I liked the music very much. It was probably better than 3.
Civ5 at first I liked more than 4 (that I sometimes played for a short game). After the first expansion I liked it more. When I learned about tactics, and the fact that you got penalized for having many cities by slower research it was ruined for me.
I enjoy civ6 although I suspect AI improvements made it more annoying. I'll probably get used to it. I think it's an improvement over 5 and a very good game.

If you miss Civ2, then you should play C-EVO. It's completely free and for the scope of complexity a Civ2-derived game can offer, it is better designed than anything Firaxis has ever given us. The downside is that the graphics are merely adequate, and documentation for expert-level play is poor (although it does offer a Wiki site). So the learning curve is a bit of a labor.

Back closer to home, I think Civ6 is already the best of the Firaxis games. It is a true empire-building game--which Civ5 was not. I enjoy playing it--when I'm not playing C-EVO.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

Honestly, it's a heated topic aorund here. There are truly fanatics both for IV and VI, but hey, the site has to live up for its name, after all.

 

[ToothedBomb]

I think Civ V is the best for those new to the game. Its mechanics are easy to understand and there's good tutorials and tips to guide new players. It enjoyed many years of support and patches, and there's a healthy mod community if you'd like to alter your experience. On top of that it can be had for cheap, boasts tons of content and looks and sounds good too. It's the best option if you want to try out a Civ game now IMO.

Civ IV seems like a more hardcore experience to me (I've tried playing a little bit, but never got into it personally) and Civ VI still needs a bit of work, both in terms of balancing and mechanics/content.

 

[Leyrann]

Just wanted to take a moment to wax lyrical about the espionage system of Beyond Earth, which is in my opinion by far the best they've ever come up with, and the only one which I've ever enjoyed utilizing as part of my gameplay. For a relatively weak game, I think Beyond Earth had a lot of amazing mechanics, particularly with Rising Tide. It's a shame the game never was completed.

I haven't played BE. How does the espionage work?

 

[Felis Renidens]

If you miss Civ2, then you should play C-EVO. It's completely free and for the scope of complexity a Civ2-derived game can offer, it is better designed than anything Firaxis has ever given us. The downside is that the graphics are merely adequate, and documentation for expert-level play is poor (although it does offer a Wiki site). So the learning curve is a bit of a labor.

Back closer to home, I think Civ6 is already the best of the Firaxis games. It is a true empire-building game--which Civ5 was not. I enjoy playing it--when I'm not playing C-EVO.

The things that I miss the most are the small things like the great council and the wonder movies. Also probably the nostalgia.
As for graphics - I still enjoy old games. I had quite a fun game of the classic Colonization last evening. It has to be dismal indeed to deter me (or childish like the civ4 leaders because it felt out-of-place).

 

[Karmah]

For me civ6 is not yet the best civ ever but well on the way to become the best.

 

[LDiCesare]

If you want to play builder or multiplayer, Civ VI might be goo, but the AI is really bad. Civ IV is the best for me, by far.

 

[Leyrann]

If you want to play builder or multiplayer, Civ VI might be goo, but the AI is really bad. Civ IV is the best for me, by far.

AI has improved tons since release though. It's still not super good, but it's okayish now.

 

[agonistes]

I think its close between III and VI.

I wish we could pick and choose bits and pieces from each version for any game we want to play.

 

[MIS]

So there are obvious trolls above. Here is my 2c:

Civ IV was, undoubtedly and unanimously, the best Civ up to that date.

Civ V, by the end, was very good, and Civ IV v Civ V is still up for debate (for which there are countless threads already - moderators, please delete anyone who tries to hijack this).

Civ VI is, undoubtedly and unanimously, better than Civ V at the same stage.

So there are three reasonable answers:

a) Civ IV
b) Civ V
c) Civ VI already

 

[agonistes]

So there are obvious trolls above. Here is my 2c:

Civ IV was, undoubtedly and unanimously, the best Civ up to that date.

Civ V, by the end, was very good, and Civ IV v Civ V is still up for debate (for which there are countless threads already - moderators, please delete anyone who tries to hijack this).

Civ VI is, undoubtedly and unanimously, better than Civ V at the same stage.

So there are three reasonable answers:

a) Civ IV
b) Civ V
c) Civ VI already

If this was directed at me, I take umbrage at it. My comment was not trolling. In my opinion, III offers things none of the others do.

On III, I play on an earth map (Marla' Singer's) with TSL. So far, III is the ONLY version that will see an earth map that big get filled in a reasonable amount of time. IV, V, and VI, I have to settle for the other civs, and gift them cities. Wtf. Not only that, but the ai in III keeps the expansion fairly realistic, with minimal fine tuning - the world takes shape fairly accurately.

But perhaps most importantly, I can tweak everything in III to my personal specifications with ease. Just open up the editor. Want battleships to have a range of 4? Takes 5 seconds and a restart. I can turn Carthage into Morocco in 20 seconds. People go on about the improvements in modding with the newer versions, but I'll take the ease of use of III any day.

And III has so many thoughtful little details that IV-VI don't have. Like naming units. In III, you can name units anything you want, any time, with no character count limit. Can't in IV. Can't in V. Even with mods. In VI, you have to wait til they get a second promotion, and THEN can only name them once. Typo? Have to delete the unit and rebuild. On marathon that can take a long time. And when you do name it, the name starts with a larger letter... so naming a ship HMS Dudley Jones looks like Hms dudley jones (kind of). Which just looks stupid (and indicates, to me, that whoever designed this bit of the game is not a real civer).

Now, improved diplomacy, vassals, liberation... lots of improvements. Liberation is HUGE for me. Bringing a civ back to life... one of the best improvements ever.

But for a Cold War type of game on a TSL map, where you are patrolling the world, projecting power, III is hands down the best. I think VI is better overall, and play it exclusively at the moment, but I find myself reminiscing quite a bit about the gameplay of III.

And missing the rewarding feeling of building my first frigate, and naming it SS Nancy Drew, and watching with satisfaction as it leaves the port, maiden ship on a maiden voyage, to sail for the new world - and blow the hell out of the Spanish dogs.

III is the version in which I feel the designer actually played the game quite a bit. By the time you get to VI, you feel like some of the designers never even played the game once. Like there's a disconnect between design and play, or perhaps too many hands in the kettle.