Is civ6 the best civ game

[Leyrann]

I think civ 6 is the worst civ game ever. Installing mods helped a lot though, but civ 3 and 4 is by far the best civ games. civ 4 also had some awesome mods. I took me a long time to like civ 5, but it was way better that number 6. Right now I am testing mods, which ones can be combined in the game, and hopefully I will end up with a mix of mods that makes civ 6 awesome. I think they have removed too many of the fun parts of the game. I remember one of the earlier civ games had colonies, so resources could be gained without having to build a city. I also miss the ability to make vassal states (not the city states, but making other major civs vassal - either by force or offer to protect them). I miss the old world wonders, don't like that they have to be build on tiles. I don't like the districts. There used to be more units. Should be able to build cities closer to other civs cities. Religion in previous civs were also more intersting, with more religions to chose from. The limit of religions to be found is just ridicilous. I miss beeing able to stack units (a limit of 10 units per tile would also be ok). I know there is mods for that, but they don't work very well. I miss beeing able to trade maps, units and technology. There is other features I miss which I don't remember right now. I think they. The graphics are way too much like a facebook game I think, the game itself also feels very much like a facebook game. The have moved too far from the other civ games, they should rename the game since its basicly dont have much in common with earlier versions.
BUT I still live in hope that I will find a mix of mods that fixes all this

Why don't you like districts or world wonders on tiles?

 

[Victoria]

You can trade maps, you do so when allied, this game is a lot richer than I originally thought.
You can also switch to the strategic map

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Good old April 1 posts.

At least 6 has a little potential.

 

[rschissler]

It's interesting how people are putting Civ III into the mix of the greatest civ game. As it is so dated, it's hard for me give it a rank. However, I loved Civ III and played it to death. Civ III had the best music and I would play it just for the music. It had its flaws though, the main one being the Corruption mechanic. Maybe that's why I put Civ IV at the top, as while playing it during it's prime time, it didn't seem to have any significant flaws.

 

[Victoria]

while playing it during it's prime time, it didn't seem to have any significant flaws

Well put. 2 things with regard to this.

1. When someone is used to something and used it a lot and also holds it in high regard anything new that comes along will be regarded as an inferior upstart and criticized to death. Human nature.
2. As we move on and play more games we get more fussy and criticize more, some games can do things better than other games and also in the modern world of making money the whole logistic of how games are created and deployed has changed, and not really for the better as the company has to make more profit for the shareholders. There is a lot more that goes into the game graphically as well so more work and less money is a combo most of us have experienced.

 

[agonistes]

Why not? Civ I was great and had features that VI is lacking (kill a civ before 1AD and a new one appears to take its place for instance).

Oh yea, forgot all about the new Civs popping up! God, its been ages. That was in Civ II, right? I never tried I.

You can trade maps, you do so when allied, this game is a lot richer than I originally thought.
You can also switch to the strategic map

VI is awesome! The more I play it, the more I like it. I've yet to play a game without issues - like not enough beliefs in my current game so every damn turn I am told China founded the Belief - but its really fun. Carpets of Death are probably the drawback in my book.

edit: but I would love to have a sit down with Ed, show him a few things, and say: "But why did you do it this way, Ed? Why?"

edit2: like submarines under ice. I stay awake in bed some nights and stare at the ceiling and try to fathom why such a great idea was removed from the game.

 

[Emperor Giulio]

I've never played VI, but I've played every Civ-Civ V all the way back from 1993. IMHO, I think Civ III looked the best, in terms of aesthetics. But I probably had the most fun with Civ IV (But it wasn't that great until BTS came out)

 

[Disgustipated]

I believe Civ4 also had restarting Civs (an option in advanced options).

 

[Leyrann]

I believe Civ4 also had restarting Civs (an option in advanced options).

Not in the base game advanced options. Maybe you had a mod or something?

 

[Unconquered Sun]

Currently it's the worst.

By adding enough difficulty it can surpass Civ I.

By adding quality expansions it can surpass Civ V.

By adding both it can beat Civ II.

It will never be as good as Civ III and IV.

 

[Leyrann]

Currently it's the worst.

By adding enough difficulty it can surpass Civ I.

By adding quality expansions it can surpass Civ V.

By adding both it can beat Civ II.

It will never be as good as Civ III and IV.

Thanks for your statement. What are the arguments it's based on?

 

[nzcamel]

I believe Civ4 also had restarting Civs (an option in advanced options).

It was either that... or it was meeting civs that had been overseas colonies to another civ who had then freed them later in the game...

 

[Ferocitus]

Why not? Civ I was great and had features that VI is lacking (kill a civ before 1AD and a new one appears to take its place for instance).

Hahaha. And that's the criteria for Civ I being better than Civ 6?
Tetris is a better game than Civs 1-3.

 

[LDiCesare]

Hahaha. And that's the criteria for Civ I being better than Civ 6?
Tetris is a better game than Civs 1-3.

Tetris is different from Civ. Saying it's better does not make sense.
Civ 1 was a good game. You may disagree, but the series would have stopped there if it wasn't. In my opinion IV > II > I > III > V > VI. YMMV

 

[nzcamel]

Tetris is different from Civ. Saying it's better does not make sense.

I agree with this ^ much

IV > VI > V = III > II

I never played 1, so I can't comment.

I know many people love II. Hell, it was alright...but unfriendly units hanging out wherever they wanted with no recourse but constant war; Civs sharing colours meaning that you couldn't have say both England and Russia in the same game (I think they were both white...); and the unlimited rail movement just to name a few things leave it at the bottom of my list.

 

[Ferocitus]

Tetris is different from Civ.

It was just a laugh at the silly comment about Civ 1 being better than Civ 6.

 

[LDiCesare]

It was just a laugh at the silly comment about Civ 1 being better than Civ 6.

The comment was not silly.
I think Civ I is better than Civ VI.

 

[nzcamel]

The comment was not silly.
I think Civ I is better than Civ VI.

So how much time do you play I vs VI?

 

[c4c6]

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 mismatch error".

I know many people love II. Hell, it was alright...

... the first love will remain something special forever!

but unfriendly units hanging out wherever they wanted with no recourse but constant war

so what??!!
You could split a huge empire in two parts ("schism") by conquering the capital ...

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 )

Civs sharing colours meaning that you couldn't have say both England and Russia in the same game (I think they were both white...)

I remember Rome and Russia being white. England was pink.

and the unlimited rail movement just to name a few things leave it at the bottom of my list.

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 )

 

[LDiCesare]

So how much time do you play I vs VI?

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.