youngsteve
Prince
Considering Civ 5 is the best version, certainly with the Vox Populi mod, I have no idea what the Thread founder is on about.
So if the even numbered Civs are the better ones, your expectations for 7
- Thread starter Disgustipated
- Start date
aieeegrunt
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2021
- Messages
- 1,353
I mean, you're certainly entitled to like Civ5, but I'd definitely say you're in the minority there. IMO Civ5 is by a long shot the weakest game of the franchise with the possible exception of Civ3 so OP's theory holds for me so far.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,198
Exactly! Vox Populi is the best overall mod of any Civ version with the most contributing members.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 10,950
Actually, the ToTTP mod for Civ2 could give that claim a definite run for it's money.
youngsteve
Prince
I cannot stand civ 6, thinking it is the weakest game in the series. That being said, all the previous versions with the exception of the 1st, were given modding tools to improve the game significantly. If Civ 6 was given the same tools, there is no reason why the game couldn't achieve alot more. Imagine if people could produce a product of the standard of Vox Populi for it. There are fans, like you, who could really expand this version if given the tools to do so.
yes, but that's not the only parameter, civ6 is a good modding platform, more limited than 5 and 4 in some (important for me) ways, better on other.
overall I'd rank them this way for modding capabilities: civ4 > civ5 > civ2 & civ6 > civ3
(civ5 having it's own issues, like mods in MP, I can understand people ranking it lower)
and don't take the last position as being a sign of weakness, civ3 is far from dying, when I see this I wonder if something similar could happen with civ6.
maybe it's just that as the targeted audience of the game has changed, so did the targeted modders.
Quoth the Raven
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2016
- Messages
- 165
I started the series at Civ 4, and it is still my favorite and the best with regards to the AI. Civ 5 was just one more expansion away from being one of the best, if they implemented a few features like better AI, multiple units per tile, and multiplayer mod support. I didn't try Civ 6 as the cartoony graphics put me off (even Civ 4 graphics are far less cartoony) and I didn't hear good things about the AI. I don't like 1 unit per tile or expanding cities on to the map. It makes it feel like a board game instead of an empire management game. You can play realistic Earth maps in Civ 4 because armies can occupy 1 tile and cities do not take up a continent.
kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,568
So what you say is, Civ5 would have been the best, if they had just made it into a completely different game.
On a more serious note, however, while I actually think Civ5 is a worthy competitor for the best of the series (if you are a builder-type player and not one who plays for a challenging AI), I agree that it did deserve and would greatly have benefited from one more (quality, not NFP-style) expansion.
reddishrecue
Some dude on civfans
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,212
To me, whatever they do would be surprising because I have been surprised and every expansion after that I have been surprised as well. There have been some expansions particularly the New Frontier Passes where it felt like if the developers actually took a look at the forums and gained ideas off of users like me. It felt like if they took one of my ideas and I felt that was awesome. it makes you feel like you're doing something right.
As for civ 7, again, it would seem like a surprise to me that they would actually do. I recall talking about America for civ 7 and I even saw a new natural wonder that was going to be added to it that looked pretty amazing. Civ 6 by itself is big enough already and if anyone has the patience enough for a new civ 7 it's going to have to be a mixture of both civ 6 and 5 because they have the biggest expansions ever. I would even sometimes even rather Pocatello than Poundmaker because of geographical convenience, tbh. The music on civ 5 is awesome too.
As for civ 7, again, it would seem like a surprise to me that they would actually do. I recall talking about America for civ 7 and I even saw a new natural wonder that was going to be added to it that looked pretty amazing. Civ 6 by itself is big enough already and if anyone has the patience enough for a new civ 7 it's going to have to be a mixture of both civ 6 and 5 because they have the biggest expansions ever. I would even sometimes even rather Pocatello than Poundmaker because of geographical convenience, tbh. The music on civ 5 is awesome too.
AntSou
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2019
- Messages
- 2,831
Can you explain what this means?
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2020
- Messages
- 665
I don't agree with the premise of the question asked.
I think he did that in his next sentence.
For me it's a feeling, of course no one is saying that the series is not based on board game rules at the core, from civ1 to civ6, but previous versions added various layers of "lead an Empire to stand the test of time" impressions over the core rules. Civ5 started to peeled those, and now IMO civ6 is back to a naked board game, from the game's rules (1UPT, city unstacking, smaller maps) to the UI (moving cards around) or the AI behavior (simulating players instead of leaders)
aieeegrunt
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2021
- Messages
- 1,353
Its ridiculous because these mechanics had their origin in the fact that you were limited by what cardboard could do. You have a computer, use it!!
I would also say the fact that most yields/adjacencies are a very set "+1 per X" type of setup is also very boardgame-y. You have very few % multipliers at play, so the way that stuff like factories are set up with a fixed +x yields to all cities within y tiles is also very much like how board games can play.
Now, to be fair, that's not necessarily a problem, since the more complicated things are, it can be challenging for new players. If factories gave +2% production boost per citizen in the city + 1% for every iron resource in the city, which decreases by 10% of its base yield per tile away from the factory, but that's also impacted by how the cities are connected by roads and railroads and trade routes, maybe it would slightly better represent things, but it's harder to describe and harder to mentally plan on exactly how much impact building a new factory would have. Which way is better, I don't know. There are definitely a lot more "how does tourism work" threads on the boards than there are "how do factories work" threads, which are pretty solid examples of fixed vs fuzzy logic.
AntSou
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2019
- Messages
- 2,831
I ask because I'm genuinely confused as I have no idea which board games are people referring to.
I understand the "board game" criticism in regards to policy cards, as this is something that is very common in board games and that I'm familiar with. Even if it's only UI, I'm not a fan of how they look in Civ 6 and I don't understand what's the point of making everything more difficult to read and reach just for the sake of looking more pleasant on the eye (which in any case, it does not).
But which board games are people referring to in regards to stacking? I've only seen districts in Endless Legend before Civ 6, and board games like Axis and Allies literally stack units, and from my (not extensive) experience with board games, it's common to throw a bunch of military units onto the same tile/region, etc.
Anyway, these are my hopes for Civ 7 in regards to armies and districts:
- Partial stacking, where the type and amount of units you can stack together are decided by military culture and other factors other than science (the Civs with the most technologically advanced militaries won't necessarily be the ones with the most effective traditions). Some types of stacking would be unique or unlocked earlier by certain cultures (e.g. a full stack of light cavalry for the Mongols) -> From Europa Universalis, Humankind and Through the Ages.
- Tone down (but do not entirely remove) the district sprawling element. Huge maps were unplayable for me in this iteration largely due to this. I don't think I've ever finished a "Huge Map" and I gave up entirely on them eventually. Adjacencies were overused. There's just too much stuff at some point and the AI is not good with district placement. If we expect another Civ game in the next two years (or even just Civ-like), there's no reason to believe the AI will be that much better. I would be happy with removing most districts but keep utilities like Dams, Bridges and Canals.
Districts I'd like:
- Dams;
- Bridges;
- Canals;
- Natural Parks / Preserves;
- Nuclear Plants;
- Spaceports;
- Airports;
- Defensive Districts like Castles/Encampments causing ZoC effects to adjacent tiles, with ranged attacks, and defensive bonuses to occupying units. Can be sieged.
I would also like some buildings to me made into tile improvements, such as the Observatory.
Everything else could be removed. I will always be able to go back to Civ 6 if I miss the district placement experience. I think it's fun for the first few cities.
Yeah, I wouldn't mind some sort of "limited districting". Even if it ended up being something like all the above basically take up a full district slot, and all the other buildings individually take up like 1/5 of a "city centre" type district slot (maybe the number of slots would rise per pop or per era or something). That way you could build a market/library/granary/amphitheatre/bank, for example, but the next building you want in the city you would have to place another "city centre" district slot to fit it in. You would presumably still want some sort of bonuses for "playing the map", but perhaps it turns into something like "Universities gain +1 science per mountain tile in the city", so you would still want them in some cities more than others, but at least it means that every city should be able to get all the basic items in. It still feels weird that my 18 population capital happens to not have a market or bank it in, because I decided to build a Harbor instead of a Commerce Hub.
vorlon_mi
Emperor
Google some images of "Catan", formerly known as "Settlers of Catan". Hex grid, improvements, roads linking settlements.
Full disclosure: I have not played Catan, so I can't compare/contrast the terrain management with Civ6.
The link here https://www.reviewgeek.com/88206/the-6-best-board-game-alternatives-to-settlers-of-catan/ for other board games includes well-known empire builders such as "Ticket to Ride" and lesser known games such as "7 Wonders" where (surprise) one builds wonders and engages in military conflicts.
bene_legionary
Searching for the daguerrotype of God
I've played all three games, and some of them have aspects of Civ. It's more complicated though.
Catan is most like Civ, especially with expansions. You settle an island and harvest resources to trade and build settlements. In the base game, you can only upgrade your settlements to cities but in expansions you can also make metropolises and upgrade your infrastructure other ways. Resource trading is very important and I'd argue it's better developed than most civ mechanics to do with any resources.
Ticket to Ride has a lot of route-building and completing objectives for points. There is one expansion which adds the development of technologies to upgrade your train systems, but otherwise it's a very simple game to learn and I wouldn't compare it to Civ. It's nothing like those monster 18xx games though, which have fluctuating stock prices, hexagons to build your tracks manually, external market factors etc. It probably take 8 hours to play in a single sitting.
7 Wonders is a rather simple card game about controlling a city of the ancient world and building its wonder. Warfare is so heavily abstracted it comes down to who has more of one symbol than another, there's no territory or resources to be won or even any units to control. Technologies aren't really a thing even though there are cards for it, and it's possible to win without building your wonder. You could easily make 7 Wonders into a game about space stations or building a house, for example; the theme is not all that important. It has a 2 player version called 7 Wonders Duel, which is actually much better at developing a civilisation than 7 Wonders.However, the card systems in both of these games can be comparable with policy cards in Civ 6. The game isn't actually as bad as I make it out to be, though.
However, all three emphasize controlling resources and trading them (to a degree, it's less so with Ticket to Ride), and all need victory points to win. In general (except for 7 Wonders which has unique abilities for wonders and in some expansions), they don't have unique factors determining who has what abilities, there are other games that do that and take much longer to play.
There's one game called Tigris and Euphrates, which is about building civilisations on those two rivers and fighting over them for points. Actually, instead of 'building', it's better described as 'influencing' and 'politicking'. It's long out of print and I'm certainly not doing it justice with this description, but take a look at it, because it's a different take on building a civilisation. There are other civilisation-like games, like Tapestry, or Twilight Imperium (Stellaris as a board game is my impression) but I haven't played them before.
In boardgaming, there is a debate about how thematic or non-thematic a game should be. Thematic games have a background that make sense to its mechanics and can't easily be changed. This means that what you're doing feels like what the game is about. Non-thematic games have a background that could be easily swapped over for something else and is really about it's mechanics fitting together; like writing a book, and then finding a plot to make sense of it. 7 Wonders and potentially Tigris and Euphrates are good examples of non-thematic game, because you don't feel like you're building a civilisation when all you have are tiles and cards. The focus is on the mechanics of them game. Catan is more thematic, and its mechanics make more sense to the player; you're actually trading resources, and you're actually upgrading your settlements; in 7 Wonders, that feeling is not as great. What we're describing here is that Civ 6 is like a board game that is becoming less thematic, and has become more about its mechanics trying to put it together. Districts feel weird; why do all of my cities have a library kilometres away from my main city? Why does my government change without that much effort or consequence? Why do my policy cards create yields out of thin air? The answer is that they just do, there's not a strong connection other than the name of the policy card being connected to its bonus.
Catan is most like Civ, especially with expansions. You settle an island and harvest resources to trade and build settlements. In the base game, you can only upgrade your settlements to cities but in expansions you can also make metropolises and upgrade your infrastructure other ways. Resource trading is very important and I'd argue it's better developed than most civ mechanics to do with any resources.
Ticket to Ride has a lot of route-building and completing objectives for points. There is one expansion which adds the development of technologies to upgrade your train systems, but otherwise it's a very simple game to learn and I wouldn't compare it to Civ. It's nothing like those monster 18xx games though, which have fluctuating stock prices, hexagons to build your tracks manually, external market factors etc. It probably take 8 hours to play in a single sitting.
7 Wonders is a rather simple card game about controlling a city of the ancient world and building its wonder. Warfare is so heavily abstracted it comes down to who has more of one symbol than another, there's no territory or resources to be won or even any units to control. Technologies aren't really a thing even though there are cards for it, and it's possible to win without building your wonder. You could easily make 7 Wonders into a game about space stations or building a house, for example; the theme is not all that important. It has a 2 player version called 7 Wonders Duel, which is actually much better at developing a civilisation than 7 Wonders.However, the card systems in both of these games can be comparable with policy cards in Civ 6. The game isn't actually as bad as I make it out to be, though.
However, all three emphasize controlling resources and trading them (to a degree, it's less so with Ticket to Ride), and all need victory points to win. In general (except for 7 Wonders which has unique abilities for wonders and in some expansions), they don't have unique factors determining who has what abilities, there are other games that do that and take much longer to play.
There's one game called Tigris and Euphrates, which is about building civilisations on those two rivers and fighting over them for points. Actually, instead of 'building', it's better described as 'influencing' and 'politicking'. It's long out of print and I'm certainly not doing it justice with this description, but take a look at it, because it's a different take on building a civilisation. There are other civilisation-like games, like Tapestry, or Twilight Imperium (Stellaris as a board game is my impression) but I haven't played them before.
In boardgaming, there is a debate about how thematic or non-thematic a game should be. Thematic games have a background that make sense to its mechanics and can't easily be changed. This means that what you're doing feels like what the game is about. Non-thematic games have a background that could be easily swapped over for something else and is really about it's mechanics fitting together; like writing a book, and then finding a plot to make sense of it. 7 Wonders and potentially Tigris and Euphrates are good examples of non-thematic game, because you don't feel like you're building a civilisation when all you have are tiles and cards. The focus is on the mechanics of them game. Catan is more thematic, and its mechanics make more sense to the player; you're actually trading resources, and you're actually upgrading your settlements; in 7 Wonders, that feeling is not as great. What we're describing here is that Civ 6 is like a board game that is becoming less thematic, and has become more about its mechanics trying to put it together. Districts feel weird; why do all of my cities have a library kilometres away from my main city? Why does my government change without that much effort or consequence? Why do my policy cards create yields out of thin air? The answer is that they just do, there's not a strong connection other than the name of the policy card being connected to its bonus.
Last edited:
Similar threads
