Is civ6 the best civ game

[MIS]

One reason I haven't seen discussed for liking 4 more than 3 or 2 is the overflow mechanic. In Civ3 you had to review every city, every turn to optimise food v production v not having a revolution next turn. So say I have 5 "hammers" left to produce my building, and the most my city can do is for, I need to look at every 4 + 1 combination, then every 3 + 2 combination. Same with science. The overflow makes it much less tedious.

 

[nzcamel]

I can only compare 1&2 to 3&4 - or 3&4 to 5&6 ... when trying to compare 1&2 to 5&6 I get an "type

It was not easy - you had losses, really significant heavy losses all the time because of the missing "health bar". Just the attackers attack value against the defenders defense value ...
hordes of bloodthirsty phalanxes killing your cute brand new tanks (or battleships as the tales make believe )

Well, that is less than ideal - phalanxes killing tanks

I remember Rome and Russia being white. England was pink.
boy, was the grid ugly! But what's wrong with unlimited rail movement? (The coming Railroad Tycoon expansion will limit rail movement from station to station anyway )

I like immersion. I don't like it being broken.

Currently, 0h/day vs 0h/day.
First, I'd rather play 2 than 1 because 2 is almost exactly the same game but with a few things added. Second, I'd rather play 4 than 2.
So, I play neither. To me, Civ 6 is only worth playing after each patch to see if it's actually worth playing, and it's not. If I really had to choose one or the other (but I've got other things to do), I'd play Civ I because it's been fun for years while 6 has only been fun once when I discovered the game.

You are so anti that I can't take you seriously. There is no way that II or I is a better game than VI. Tougher at the very highest level given a lack of 1UPT? Well, that could make sense. Better? No.

 

[Ferocitus]

I like immersion. I don't like it being broken.

That's why I hate the leader animations and the inane babble from Gorgo and
the other "chatty" types. Turning off animations helps but there should be an
"I'll call you, don't spam me you asinine jerk" option.

 

[nzcamel]

That's why I hate the leader animations and the inane babble from Gorgo and
the other "chatty" types. Turning off animations helps but there should be an
"I'll call you, don't spam me you asinine jerk" option.

That is real life! People say things that rub us the wrong way
The leaders in VI are also far more alive than their wooden counterparts from V who were all clearly on Prozac; and looked about as excited as if they were watching paint dry (Monty aside).

 

[LDiCesare]

You are so anti that I can't take you seriously. There is no way that II or I is a better game than VI. Tougher at the very highest level given a lack of 1UPT? Well, that could make sense. Better? No.

I'm stating my opinion. I won't start a game of VI because it's a bad game to me. I will start a game of IV and I prefer I over VI. VI is just no fun because the AI behaves in such a silly way that immersion is broken. WTH are you bringing a settler on the front line and suing for peace when you have a tech lead and more cities than me? Why didn't you ever attack my city when you had it surrounded? What's the point of playing with opponents if htye don't even try to play the game seriously?

 

[c4c6]

Well, that is less than ideal - phalanxes killing tanks

Well, the human tanks attacked the AI phalanxes (often fortified & with terrain bonus) and most of the time a single tank destroyed a LARGE number of phalanxes before it got destroyed itself. It wasn't unfair (imho), just the probability resulting from attack/defense value.
But it HURT, losing a unit hurt every single time and so civ2 improved that with Hit Points ... etc. ... now we even have a detailed prediction of the outcome of a potential battle ...

Every single step felt like an improvement, but now (already in civ4) you barely loose units. For me something feels wrong with loosing SO little units in general and also excitement got lost ... a much stronger unit won most of the time, but NOT always. And the best defender decided the fate of a WHOLE stack. Civ1 was _excellent_ in keeping you on your toes.

 

[nzcamel]

I'm stating my opinion. I won't start a game of VI because it's a bad game to me. I will start a game of IV and I prefer I over VI. VI is just no fun because the AI behaves in such a silly way that immersion is broken. WTH are you bringing a settler on the front line and suing for peace when you have a tech lead and more cities than me? Why didn't you ever attack my city when you had it surrounded? What's the point of playing with opponents if htye don't even try to play the game seriously?

We know that 1UPT is harder for the AI than stacks were. That in and of itself doesn't mean that I is better than VI.

Well, the human tanks attacked the AI phalanxes (often fortified & with terrain bonus) and most of the time a single tank destroyed a LARGE number of phalanxes before it got destroyed itself. It wasn't unfair (imho), just the probability resulting from attack/defense value.
But it HURT, losing a unit hurt every single time and so civ2 improved that with Hit Points ... etc. ... now we even have a detailed prediction of the outcome of a potential battle ...

Every single step felt like an improvement, but now (already in civ4) you barely loose units. For me something feels wrong with loosing SO little units in general and also excitement got lost ... a much stronger unit won most of the time, but NOT always. And the best defender decided the fate of a WHOLE stack. Civ1 was _excellent_ in keeping you on your toes.

That is still the case. A weaker unit with more health can beat a superior unit that is heavily damaged.
The whole stack thing sucked. Big time. IV's approach with collateral damage was far superior to every unit you had there dying because of one combat.

 

[LDiCesare]

We know that 1UPT is harder for the AI than stacks were. That in and of itself doesn't mean that I is better than VI.

???
The AI in VI doesn't even attack cities and sends settlers to the frontlines. That has nothing to do with 1UPT.
Civ 1 had a kind of 1UPT, since if you put units in a stack, everybody died, so it was very similar to VI in terms of being 1UPT. The units were almost always one by one.
In fact, it was 1UPT but without the traffic jams.
To me, the AI in VI makes the game totally unplayable. It's quite simple. It's not worth playing at all because the AI is ****.
You may argue all you want, I'm not talking absolutes. I'm saying that I don't like Civ VI and if I had to, I'd rather play I rather than VI. I could even make a grid of things that were better in I, but it's kind of irrelevant since the showstopper is the AI. If they fixed it, the game would be good.

 

[BuzWeaverCiv]

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.

Excellent outline. I'm fairly new to Civilization as I started playing with the release of Civ V, Brave New World. I've been aware of the game for many years, but it wasn't a game genre that really captured my attention, but while randomly looking at games on YouTube I came across a Let's Play and found myself watching for an hour as someone explained the latest release (Brave New World). To add to the accolades of Civ IV, Leonard Nimoy as the narrator is perhaps another draw the game has, but I've never played it.

Your outline does seem to capture the jest of each. The thing that stands out for me in Civ VI is the game pace. On standard speed you never really get to enjoy much of the Atomic era, but it seems to level out on Epic Speed. Civ VI still feels like its missing out on a few things. As a Culture Victory fan in Civ V, Civ VI is completely different and the behavior of the City States is completely different. I'd agree we don't interact with the AI as much as we did in Civ V and I'd go so far as to say that with the inability to bribe civ's into fighting one another it's a pretty significant change from Civ V. When you're a peaceful player (Civ V) the ability to manipulate both City States and Civ's is entirely gone in Civ VI, retrospectively. I have to often make myself stop and consider interacting with Civ's but if you play on King or higher difficulty, you're mostly likely already accruing warmonger negatives right out of the gate so getting a good deal with a Civ is challenging. One key ingredient for me that Civ VI is lacking is a City Population Notification like we had in Civ V. With Civ VI focusing a lot of attention on city management (Districts) you'd think that knowing when we get new Pop would be important.

 

[Tacgnol]

???
The AI in VI doesn't even attack cities and sends settlers to the frontlines. That has nothing to do with 1UPT.
Civ 1 had a kind of 1UPT, since if you put units in a stack, everybody died, so it was very similar to VI in terms of being 1UPT. The units were almost always one by one.
In fact, it was 1UPT but without the traffic jams.
To me, the AI in VI makes the game totally unplayable. It's quite simple. It's not worth playing at all because the AI is ****.
You may argue all you want, I'm not talking absolutes. I'm saying that I don't like Civ VI and if I had to, I'd rather play I rather than VI. I could even make a grid of things that were better in I, but it's kind of irrelevant since the showstopper is the AI. If they fixed it, the game would be good.

Have you played Civ VI since release, my dude?

Because it sounds like what you are describing is some of the really awful traits of the AI at release, that have been fixed by now.

I mean, the combat AI is not intelligent or capable by any means, and steamrolling is still pretty out of control just by the nature of the game's design, but it's nowhere near as unplayable as you're making it sound, they use units, they take cities that you aren't defending, they even use ranged units somewhat effectively when defending cities.

It just kind of sounds like you are being a baby, like come on I know civ I is more challenging so is playing chess against a good computer opponent that doesn't mean the game's anywhere near as good as Civ VI as awful as your first impression may have been.

 

[DWilson]

I'll just say that some people are stuck in their ways. They like what they like, and often it isn't the new thing. This isn't a bad thing, it just is what it is. Clearly the challenge is very important to him, and the other important feature-sets are just not on the same level with regards to his enjoyment of a game. That sounds baffling to many, but it's what he believes.

 

[MyOtherName]

That sounds baffling to many, but it's what he believes.

And the bafflement goes both ways! I don't understand at all the appeal of playing a strategy game where strategy doesn't matter.

 

[andreafin]

its too soon still to choose between civ 5 and 6. i have no idea what civ 6 will feel like finally. i remember the difference from vanilla civ 5 once i bought the complete civ 5 and it all updated and i got some mods. once there are similar numbers of mods and the game is no longer being added to with dlc and patches then it will be time to decide i think.

 

[MyOtherName]

its too soon still to choose between civ 5 and 6.

No it's not. We have civ 6 now and we have civ 5 now, and we can decide which of the two is better.

It will be two years before it matters the slightest bit what Civ 6 will be like two years from now. We can revise our opinion then if we like.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

Civ II is more complex and offers more inpactful decision-making than Civ VI. These two reasons alone make it a better strategy game, regardless of leader animations, music, or clumping religious and military units in one layer.

Vanilla Civ VI has the complexity/decisionmaking of roughly Civ I; but in no way offers the same challenge.

 

[Ferocitus]

VI is just no fun because the AI behaves in such a silly way that immersion is broken.

That depends on the map, mods, and when you last got updates.

It sounds like you are judging it on the release version which was
very basic. People should not have bought it if they expected a
polished complete game. Previous releases (like Civ 5) were even
worse, so it's their own fault. Addicts wanted it as early as they could
get it, even with bugs and annoyances.

I'm stating my opinion. I won't start a game of VI because it's a bad game to me.

Nobody is denying you that right, but your opinion is ultimately worthless
because you know next to nothing about the game. You haven't won or
continued to any significant level, or tried any mods that improve the game
way beyond the standard release.

 

[nzcamel]

And the bafflement goes both ways! I don't understand at all the appeal of playing a strategy game where strategy doesn't matter.

I'd like an example of the strategy that I or II had that VI doesn't have.

No it's not. We have civ 6 now and we have civ 5 now, and we can decide which of the two is better.

It will be two years before it matters the slightest bit what Civ 6 will be like two years from now. We can revise our opinion then if we like.

Yes. And VI is better.

Civ II is more complex and offers more inpactful decision-making than Civ VI. These two reasons alone make it a better strategy game, regardless of leader animations, music, or clumping religious and military units in one layer.

Vanilla Civ VI has the complexity/decisionmaking of roughly Civ I; but in no way offers the same challenge.

Give me an example of this complex decision making in II that you refer to, which is more complex than district planning, and the balance between getting boosts and still fulfilling any initial plan one has. I'm looking forward to this

 

[LDiCesare]

That depends on the map, mods, and when you last got updates.

I've played the last patch.
I tried AI+ but it didn't make the game much better for me.
As for the maps, I guess you didn't play much on the inner sea map since you wouldn't defend the game, that script is completely broken (you can't see rivers half the time).

It sounds like you are judging it on the release version which was very basic.

No. I posted after the last patch went otu, which is not a coincidence. I said I only played to see if it was playable after the last patch. You sound like you don't even make any effort to try to undesrtand people who don't have the same opinion as you.

Nobody is denying you that right, but your opinion is ultimately worthless
because you know next to nothing about the game. You haven't won or
continued to any significant level, or tried any mods that improve the game
way beyond the standard release.

You are wrong. You don't know anything about me and how I played. I have won at the highest difficulty level, which is why I'm complaining it's way too easy. I have tried mods, but found them inconclusive.
Your opinion is the worhtles one because you invent arguments about other people that you have no ideas about.

 

[Haig]

Civ 6 is better. Not reading five pages of comments, just giving my own take:

Civ 5 forced in a bad way the restrictions on growing big empires, the global happiness rule is very dumb. Also the policies were very unbalanced with Tradition being always the best and many others being useless.
They didn't fix combat and diplo AI enough either, Civ 6 has surpassed the AI in combat already while being six months old.

Civ 6 I feel is more deep, with casus bellis, war weariness, more options and unique choices.
Some of these need more work of course but we will get more expansions, patches etc.

I have uninstalled Civ 5 already.

 

[Leyrann]

I've played the last patch.
I tried AI+ but it didn't make the game much better for me.
As for the maps, I guess you didn't play much on the inner sea map since you wouldn't defend the game, that script is completely broken (you can't see rivers half the time).


No. I posted after the last patch went otu, which is not a coincidence. I said I only played to see if it was playable after the last patch. You sound like you don't even make any effort to try to undesrtand people who don't have the same opinion as you.


You are wrong. You don't know anything about me and how I played. I have won at the highest difficulty level, which is why I'm complaining it's way too easy. I have tried mods, but found them inconclusive.
Your opinion is the worhtles one because you invent arguments about other people that you have no ideas about.

Are you plyaing on Settler or something? The AI has a lot of flaws, sure, but if I, on Emperor, put a unit in the wrong spot, I can expect it to die. Despite trying several times, I'm still not good enough to keep slingers alive when killing barbs. Etc. Those things wouldn't be a problem if the AI was so bad as you make it out to be. And on top of that, the AI sees major improvements every patch.

And yes. Your opinion is worthless, not his. How many hours do you have into the game? If it's less than some 40-50, maybe even if it's less than 100, it's not enough to be able to make a fair assessment of the game.