Which games did which things the best?

[AnonymousSpeed]

This is more of a general "Civilization as a Franchise" discussion, but this seemed like the best place on the site for it.

In which game do you think various mechanics had their best iteration? What did Civ4 do best, what did Civ5 do best, what did Civ6 do best...and the earlier games too, if you liked what they did.

Civ4's Civics are better than Social Policies and that the happiness system is better than in 5 or 6.
Civ5 is where City State diplomacy and the cultural victory were at their best.
Civ6 has the best approach to workers and roads.

That's just my opinion, though. What do you all think?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

SMAC was best n flavor and worldbuilding. SRSLY it's not even close.

 

[Futumch]

Have to agree with Alpha Centauri (re: diplomacy). Being able to essentially share the tech tree and research direction with an ally, advise about attack locations. The games since have been a step backwards in terms of the AI.
Despite Civ 6 still being fun to play, we still can't do basic stuff like trade maps and techs, or work with an ally to more effectively wage war on a 3rd party. ("My troops are going to attack Magdeburg, can you attack Stettin")

I liked map trading in the older games : )

 

[slavaskii]

I know this was a relatively recent introduction, but I just need to say it: Civ V did World Congress the best. I don’t know what they were thinking with this, maybe they wanted to give us more options? But instead it’s completely erratic, half the proposals are entirely inconsequential and I’m CONVINCED the AI will vote for whatever I want, and not what interests them. Last game, for example, I put 10 favor into doubling Great Admiral points. This was a Pangea map, and everyone voted likewise. Why?

I think Civ VI is the best for really interacting with the map. The amount of things you can do with the terrain is super incredible and fun; even if you have a rough start, you can salvage it with all the options at your disposal. I feel like I need to carefully think when settling a city, unlike in V where I’d just plop down four mountain/hill cities and run. I’m always checking for potential adjacencies, and I quite like that level of strategy.

 

[_hero_]

One thing Civ 6 did best was bring uniqueness/flavor. No other civ game came close to having as many unique civs as well as all the game modes. This was both a good and a bad thing though. The bad side of it is that I think it gets in the way of having a more balanced game, and I think it leads to some cases of things in the game not feeling totally synergistic to some people.

One thing Civ 5 did best was to allow for truly playing as a tall but not wide empire. In every other civ game, it's always ultimately better to expand more whenever the opportunity presents itself. In Civ 5 it was often better to stay at 4-6 cities,

I think what Civ 4 did best was having a strategically deep game. I still feel like it has the hardest hard mode of any Civ game ever, and I felt that the decision trees were far more complex than what Civ is like now. Another thing Civ 4 did best IMO was modding. I feel like Civ 4 was the pinnacle of 4X mods.

I didn't really play a ton of Civ 3.

What Civ 2 did best IMO was to have a perfectly balanced game. The only thing unique about civs were the city names. The only imbalance in any given game was having the better starting spots or having more luck on goodie huts.

Finally what Civ 1 did best was exist. This whole franchise and these forums only exist because Civ 1 was a successful game.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

One thing Civ 5 did best was to allow for truly playing as a tall but not wide empire.

That was the worst thing that happened to the franchise and we're still suffering from it, people think an Empire of 15 cities is large nowadays lol.

Finally what Civ 1 did best was exist.

I agree, totally and I'm an old foggy so I was there lol.

Civ II did best -

• Animated advisors, those were brilliant!!

Civ IV did best -

• AI - it wasn't great but the simpler nature of the game. especially combat, meant they could handle it and be a real threat.
• UN - you had to marshall the votes both to become SG and then for the resolutions you wanted to pass.
• Diplomacy - a real feeling of various countries shifting into blocs and diplomacy mattering.
• Movement - it just feels natural and not a chore, you had rally points you could gather your troops at automatically for instance.
• Victory conditions - Domination (as per other thread) was a way to finish a game you were, er, dominating; Conquest really meant conquest.
• Scoring system - you got a bonus for winning early so the score was a dynamic tussle between as fast as possible and as much "stuff" as possible.
• "Lock Modified Assets" - i.e. no cheating button, together with the SDK allowed events like GOTM / HOF to really flourish.
  
• Maintenance system, an elegant solution to stop ICS.
• City health and happiness.

Civ V did best -

• City States - a great idea well executed.
• Religion - choosing beliefs was a master stroke.
• Natural Wonders - another great idea even if some are overpowered.
  (There's an argument Civ 6 does all these better but V was first so I will give them the credit)

Civ VI did best -

• Play the map - it really matters now!
• Districts and Wonders on their own tiles, related to the above but a great innovation, perhaps the greatest in the history of the series.
• The card system for civics, really makes each game unique.
• Unique traits for Civs / Leaders - I know we had that in V but VI has done so much more with it.

 

[Linklite]

I’m CONVINCED the AI will vote for whatever I want, and not what interests them. Last game, for example, I put 10 favor into doubling Great Admiral points. This was a Pangea map, and everyone voted likewise. Why?

strange, I find it the opposite, they'll cut their nose to spite their face. We'll all have CHs so I vote for double GMs, they all unanimously vote for zero GMs. Great, now no one gets anything. Why we bothering to meet again, guys?

 

[civac]

That was the worst thing that happened to the franchise and we're still suffering from it, people think an Empire of 15 cities is large nowadays lol.

I agree in principle. This was an attempt to cut down on late game tedium. Micromanaging 70 bases with Morgan in Smac was indeed a chore. But they went way overboard. I think the typical Civ4 numbers of 10-40 cities are fine.

The debate over tall vs wide is silly anyway. In a well-designed Empire builder game the answer should always be both.

 

[Linklite]

The debate over tall vs wide is silly anyway. In a well-designed Empire builder game the answer should always be both.

I'd disagree there. A well designed empire builder makes it so that it's a choice. Do I want to get another city that will let me do a, b and c at the cost of not growing this city? Or do I grow this city and forgo the extra city, but I get x, y and z in return? Meaningful choices are what make the game.

To give an example of how it can be bad to not give a meaningful choice, in one of my current games, I have a capital that has high production plus a few bonuses towards building settlers. It's already built its capacity for districts and buildings, no scope for Wonders and so I can either build an army (I'm friends with everyone, so an army at this point is a pointless burden), or I can can crank out settlers like no tomorrow because I have Magnus so I don't lose pop. As a result, I now have an army of settlers marching across the map, looking for places to settle. That's fine, but there was no meaningful decision behind it. Every few turns, my capital comes up and I click on a new settler because, why not?

There should be a play off between wide and tall that gives different advantages to provoke strategy and thought in gameplay.

 

[blackbutterfly]

SMAC was best n flavor and worldbuilding. SRSLY it's not even close.

Yay for SMAC/X!

Don't forget terraforming.
Raising and lowering land. Decades before Civ VI's submerged coastal tiles. Even then it's superior

 

[Mount Suribachi]

Have to agree with Alpha Centauri (re: diplomacy). Being able to essentially share the tech tree and research direction with an ally, advise about attack locations. The games since have been a step backwards in terms of the AI.

This. Also you could encourage (bribe) the AI to vote for you in an upcoming planetary council. You could lend money to the AI (or borrow money off them). Amazing to think that was 22 years ago and it still hasn't been bettered.

Also SMAC:
Terraforming. Seriously, why isn't this in future tech Civ 6?
Faction leaders who were characters in their own right and had a personality and playstyle to match
A working air combat system (if a little OP) with fighters, attack aircraft, helicopters, transports...
Lore that bleeds from every pore of the game
Amazing tech quotes voiced by the individual characters
Secret project videos
THE ABILITY FOR YOUR FORMERS TO AUTOBUILD ROADS + MAGLINES (looking at you Civ 6 Military Engineers)
The unit designer

Civ 2:
The first one I played. That's all I remember about it.

Civ 3:
I never played it, like seemingly everyone else in this thread. I was too busy playing SMAC and Total War.

Civ 4:
The best implementation of colonisation & vassalisation in any CIv game. Playing a Terra map in Civ 4 is one of my absolute all time favourite civ experiences
The soundtrack. Music made with stones and logs in the ancient era. The Miserere starting up when you enter the medieval era. The beautiful baroque classics. The haunting modern era music.
Fantastic tech quotes
Leonard Nimoy

Civ 5:
Perhaps the most user friendly Civ, and one that introduced a ton of new players to the game
Introduction of hex map
Introduction of 1UPT
Great soundtrack

Beyond Earth:
Amazing soundtrack
Lots of good ideas (but not implemented properly, or not implemented enough)

Civ 6:
A good game out of the box, unlike Civ 5
Layers upon layers of complexity and decision making allowing for a myriad of "OP" strategies.
Wonder videos on the map
District placement choices
Great soundtrack.
Steady stream of new content

 

[tzu]

Just want to add one aspect:

Civ IV - Victory conditions - Domination (as per other thread) was a way to finish a game you were, er, dominating; Conquest really meant conquest.

You could slay all units & conquer all cities of a civilization while having fun with it, but there was also a shorter route if you found doing this (after some repetitions) tedious:
Encompass "only" a decisive military situation and force them so into vassalage (allowing their survival as civilization & protected ally). Their population & territory count half for your (single) Victory.

Domination Victory was defined (IIRC) as having about 50% of world population and 67% of the world land tiles under your control.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

That was the worst thing that happened to the franchise and we're still suffering from it, people think an Empire of 15 cities is large nowadays lol.

I agree, totally and I'm an old foggy so I was there lol.

Civ II did best -

• Animated advisors, those were brilliant!!

Civ IV did best -

• AI - it wasn't great but the simpler nature of the game. especially combat, meant they could handle it and be a real threat.
• UN - you had to marshall the votes both to become SG and then for the resolutions you wanted to pass.
• Diplomacy - a real feeling of various countries shifting into blocs and diplomacy mattering.
• Movement - it just feels natural and not a chore, you had rally points you could gather your troops at automatically for instance.
• Victory conditions - Domination (as per other thread) was a way to finish a game you were, er, dominating; Conquest really meant conquest.
• Scoring system - you got a bonus for winning early so the score was a dynamic tussle between as fast as possible and as much "stuff" as possible.
• "Lock Modified Assets" - i.e. no cheating button, together with the SDK allowed events like GOTM / HOF to really flourish.
  
• Maintenance system, an elegant solution to stop ICS.
• City health and happiness.

Civ V did best -

• City States - a great idea well executed.
• Religion - choosing beliefs was a master stroke.
• Natural Wonders - another great idea even if some are overpowered.
  (There's an argument Civ 6 does all these better but V was first so I will give them the credit)

Civ VI did best -

• Play the map - it really matters now!
• Districts and Wonders on their own tiles, related to the above but a great innovation, perhaps the greatest in the history of the series.
• The card system for civics, really makes each game unique.
• Unique traits for Civs / Leaders - I know we had that in V but VI has done so much more with it.

add representation of each civs to Civ VI list. I think it is best of all civ series... certainly better than civ IV and V... Especially with Korea.

 

[kotpeter]

Civ II did best -

• Animated advisors, those were brilliant!!

And world wonder videos!

What Civ 5 did best:

• Vox Populi

Jokes off, the base game had good specialist, golden age and culture systems; and some civilizations had unique asymmetric playstyle (most obvious example is Venice).

 

[iammaxhailme]

I've only played 5, BE, and 6 to any appreciable extent, so I'll just pop in and say I really like how 5 did ideologies which could form alliance blocs that had actual meaning. Government styles in civ vi have friendship modifiers that are far too small.

It was occaisonally annoying when a long term friend chose a different ideology in 5, which could kind of be immersion breaking because they are liable to no longer be friendly, but I was usually able to preserve the friendship as long as no big world wars broke out (which I admit is something V was weak in; big wars rarely broke out so there wasn't that much tension)

 

[Sync]

Civ II had animated advisors. Never heard anyone not liking this feature.

Civ IV had the best AI, was by far the most modder-friendly (meaning near-endless levels of customisation), and was the last civ game that felt like it focused more on empire building than being a war simulator. Since 2005, I don't believe there's ever been more than a month between me playing this game.

Civ V had the bulkiest game case, so was the most suited to acting as a doorstop.

Civ VI really made each civ feel unique.

Never played Civ I or III.

 

[civac]

I'd disagree there. A well designed empire builder makes it so that it's a choice. Do I want to get another city that will let me do a, b and c at the cost of not growing this city? Or do I grow this city and forgo the extra city, but I get x, y and z in return? Meaningful choices are what make the game.

To give an example of how it can be bad to not give a meaningful choice, in one of my current games, I have a capital that has high production plus a few bonuses towards building settlers. It's already built its capacity for districts and buildings, no scope for Wonders and so I can either build an army (I'm friends with everyone, so an army at this point is a pointless burden), or I can can crank out settlers like no tomorrow because I have Magnus so I don't lose pop. As a result, I now have an army of settlers marching across the map, looking for places to settle. That's fine, but there was no meaningful decision behind it. Every few turns, my capital comes up and I click on a new settler because, why not?

There should be a play off between wide and tall that gives different advantages to provoke strategy and thought in gameplay.

It was talking about an Empire builder game not a 4 city builder game. There is no such thing as the choice of not expanding. That's a joke. Only absurd and broken game mechanics like CIv5 global happiness can enforce something like that. You do still have meanigful decisions too make. Do you make a few satellite cities for further settling and then let your capital/core city grow/develop? Do you have your core cities **** out settlers for a while? Eventually, you will end up at a natural state of a few powerful core cities and more helper/sattellite cities, the difference being how many helper cities you have and how powerful the core is.

More cities is better is a consequence of CIv's base deign. Actual pure tall play like in Civ5 only makes sense with very restrictive game mechanics or as a challenge like with an OCC.

 

[rschissler]

I started with Civ III, and loved it except for the way corruption, and units like catapults and cannon worked.

Civ III had the best music in the series, in my opinion. Cool that you can find it all on Youtube.
(246) Civilization III Music - MidNAFull - YouTube
(246) Civilization III Music - IndECFull - YouTube

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Good first bad after for each game, I have played, including Call To Power II, which is not really a civ game but it is very close so I add it in.

• SMAC: Strong atmosphere, but not that great gameplay by todays standard
• Call To Power II: Best builder system, best army system and ability to increase productivity at cost of happiness, however unpolished/unfinished.
• Civ III: Most competetive, possible to have large empires early on and most capable ai, but really annoying happiness system and micromanagement in order to not waste resources.
• Civ IV: Generally a more polished Civ III, added many new things such as religion, civics and great people and polished many systems to a whole new level. It however don't have the same competitive nature and empire feeling of Civ III.
• Civ V: A complete redesign, things like unique civ abilities, leader speakin animations, hex and one unit per tile, maybe could be called Civ 2.0, many new interesting systems added. However it feels unpolished/unfinished and not all systems, like global happiness was that good.
• Beyond Earth: The affinities and ability to customies your civilization and probably best exploration system and tech web instead of a tech tree is interesting, however ai seems quite weak and the game feels unpolished.
• Civ VI: Add alot of variety, tries to solve the issues of chopping everything (even if the solutions have been lackluster), make terrain have whole new meaning beyond just pure yields, two tech trees, unstacking of cities and general polish of the systems added in Civ V. Weakness is mainly the ai inability to play the game well.

 

[Zaarin]

Civ V did World Congress the best.

What was the last version of Civ to not have World Congress? I'd say that was the version that did World Congress best.