Which Civ is best Civ?

[Snerk]

I've never played 1 2 or 3 so I can't really answer I guess.

Civ4 was my first civ, awesome game that sparked my love for the series. But way too many units and late game was somewhat tedious and I rarely finished games.

Civ5 was lackluster at launch but after BNW it was an amazing game that was engaging from start to finish. Loved 1upt but would have worked better with fewer units like civ6. I'm pretty certain I'll never play any game as much as I've played this one.

Civ6 was a really solid game from the get go. But like civ4 there is IMO an unfun tedium over certain aspects. Again I'm struggling with finishing games. The DLCs didn't really address the areas I found lacking. I'm still hoping I can get back into it at some point but IDK.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Civ1 because any past time was better.

 

[Patine]

Honestly, that is NOT the ToT manual. Civ II and Civ II: ToT aren't the same. Sure, you can play the "Original" game, but the graphics are different. ToT doesn't have the Advisors or Throne Room, and even the music is different.

The ToT tech tree for the "Original" version might be identical, but the tech trees for Midgard, Lalande, and the Original Extended are all different.

This is what my ToT disk looks like:

View attachment 576531


This is what the ToT manual looks like:

View attachment 576532

The boxed version comes with a double-sided tech tree for all the different scenarios. It's poster-sized, so I got mine laminated.

I believe the manual in the picture you're referring to is the MGE manual, not the Vanilla or ToT manual. I have all three kicking around my apartment somewhere.

 

[Patine]

Wasn't ToT just an expansion?
Call to Power was the actually different game.

Ugh! Call to Power!

 

[Patine]

Civ1 because any past time was better.

Than why isn't there a vote for it?

 

[Snerk]

Generation civ 1 died a long time ago..

 

[r16]

am still alive ! But got only one vote .

 

[AdamCrock]

I started playing from Civ 1 (it was in 1995) on my 486DX2 computer , well not technically mine - my mom worked at the library where I spend most of the after school evenings playing Civ 1 - those were the days .... Civ 1 still is a great game in my opinion, it's just ... Civ 4 if far better

 

[Kyriakos]

Civ1, the game where the AI would surround your city with their units, if you allied to them, so the only way to get anything out would be to declare war on them

I recall that one of my wars in Civ1 lasted for more than 1000 years, and that I had named one of the cities (the english analogue of) "Unconquerable".
Most of my cities were named after myself, though: Kyriakeia (ala Alexandreia)

Due to the backward civs getting no bonus, it was also not unusual to discover lost civs which were 1000 years behind you in tech.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Man, you can't rate that stinking turd of 5 above 3 or SMAC !

Relative to their respective eras 3 and SMAC are better, but I'm not convinced they're better games in a vacuum, especially when considering their vanilla experiences. Physically getting through a civ 3 game is a heavy input slog and that gives it a big negative grade in my personal book, since it interferes with "time between meaningful choices are made in the game". Other than Civ 4 which was decent, every mainline civ title has had terrible UI when compared to best practices of their contemporaries.

Civ 5 UI gets TRASHED by games that dropped in the early 90's, and 6 isn't better by enough to make up the difference.

Many of these games also have a problem with "% of time playing when the outcome isn't in doubt any longer".

 

[Samson]

Relative to their respective eras 3 and SMAC are better, but I'm not convinced they're better games in a vacuum, especially when considering their vanilla experiences. Physically getting through a civ 3 game is a heavy input slog and that gives it a big negative grade in my personal book, since it interferes with "time between meaningful choices are made in the game". Other than Civ 4 which was decent, every mainline civ title has had terrible UI when compared to best practices of their contemporaries.

Many of these games also have a problem with "% of time playing when the outcome isn't in doubt any longer".

I found moving my army from one side of my civ to another in 5 was a heavy input slog, and gave up on the 1UPT versions within a month of that coming out. I did not find that in 3 or 4.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I found moving my army from one side of my civ to another in 5 was a heavy input slog, and gave up on the 1UPT versions within a month of that coming out. I did not find that in 3 or 4.

Moving large troop counts got pretty onerous in 3, and IIRC it lacked the wide swath of city management hotkeys/shortcuts/list of city interactions present in 4. I don't respect UIs that input gouge me when many games manage not to do it. Every generation of gaming has had at least some developers who know how to make input-efficient UIs. It's not a lost art, even if Firaxis only temporarily had someone capable of it.

Games like EU 4 are awful in this regard too, despite the occasional effort to improve it.

Regardless, games made in the last 5-10 years should not have their UI design get embarrassed by games that released before 1995 and ran on Windows 3.1 when it was new...but were more routinely run from DOS.

 

[aelf]

I do enjoy Civ6, but it's somehow too easy. The difficulty arises from making the optimal choices given the myriad choices you have, especially in the form of too many policy cards. Civ4 still seems the best of the lot.

Anyway, I am against full 3d

Sounds more like it.

 

[Zkribbler]

I just bought & began Civ IV. I got warming message that is not up to snuff and I might not suffer performance problems. Nothing yet but...

 

[Akka]

I just bought & began Civ IV. I got warming message that is not up to snuff and I might not suffer performance problems. Nothing yet but...

Did you get the "complete" Civ4 with the Beyond the Sword expansion ?

 

[Lexicus]

Moving large troop counts got pretty onerous in 3, and IIRC it lacked the wide swath of city management hotkeys/shortcuts/list of city interactions present in 4. I don't respect UIs that input gouge me when many games manage not to do it. Every generation of gaming has had at least some developers who know how to make input-efficient UIs. It's not a lost art, even if Firaxis only temporarily had someone capable of it.

Games like EU 4 are awful in this regard too, despite the occasional effort to improve it.

Regardless, games made in the last 5-10 years should not have their UI design get embarrassed by games that released before 1995 and ran on Windows 3.1 when it was new...but were more routinely run from DOS.

IIRC civ 3's expansions added the move all units on a tile and move all units of the same type on a tile buttons which improved things drastically. Still not as good as Civ 4 though.

 

[Tee Kay]

haven't played 1, 2

3 feels epic, like you're actually an imperial leader, not just playing a video game. All the imperfections of the game and "unfun" stuff like corruption, pollution, etc add to the atmosphere

4 has a lot of cool features but it feels super grindy to play and a bit too cartoony

5 is great for multiplayer, has the best artwork/aesthetics (I love art deco), supports a lot of different play styles; all in all an A++ game, but it still doesn't feel as epic as 3 for me

haven't played 6 but from what I know of it, it feels like 4 - lots of cool features, but looks way too cartoony. And it feels like it's trying too hard to be unique from the other titles before it. And leader agenda sounds like the stupidest feature in any Civ game ever.