Which is the “best” Civ (1-6) and why?

[Lexicus]

That's fair, but in terms of where the franchise is at / where it's going, it's dramatically out of date. The 1UPT vs. MUPT discussion has been done to death in every Civ game subforum on this site since V was released, and it's not even accurate unless you stop counting at CiV!

All indications I've ever seen are that the dynamics of combat in civ 6 are highly similar to 5, with carpets of units that devolve into a sliding puzzle and the AI not being good enough at it to offer a real military challenge to a competent human.

In the original Civ, when a single loss wiped the stack? Yes, positioning was important (unfairly so, I'd say - I'm not saying this was a fair mechanic, it's just how the game worked in its earliest iteration).

Positioning is also rather important in civ 3 and 4. Being on the forested hill as opposed to the grassland tile really matters if you're fighting on close to equal terms (if you have enough of a tech lead, very little else matters, but this is certainly also true in the restricted-stacking civ games).

 

[Gorbles]

All indications I've ever seen are that the dynamics of combat in civ 6 are highly similar to 5, with carpets of units that devolve into a sliding puzzle and the AI not being good enough at it to offer a real military challenge to a competent human.

Similar, yes. Like I said previously, folks who dislike 1UPT in favour of stack dynamics from older games are still unlikely to like of VI or VII. But for me the trade-off is worth it, and VI and VII improve on the tediousness that I'm not going to argue exists in CiV.

The AI not being good is more complicated than just "1UPT". 1UPT had nothing to do with bomber (or was it fighter) logic being broken in VI for ages. 1UPT has nothing to do with Settler / Founder logic being bananas on launch in VII (there's already a mod to fix it, and it makes the AI in general wildly better, because the stronger early game sets them up a lot better).

Positioning is also rather important in civ 3 and 4. Being on the forested hill as opposed to the grassland tile really matters if you're fighting on close to equal terms (if you have enough of a tech lead, very little else matters, but this is certainly also true in the restricted-stacking civ games).

Terrain modifiers are omnipresent, that's true.

 

[Lexicus]

The AI not being good is more complicated than just "1UPT".

Of course, but most bad AI behavior is not as impactful to the player's experience as its military ineptitude. I've said it before but they replaced the sheer terror of being invaded by a huge AI stack with the exasperation of knowing that you'll have to do the sliding puzzle until the AI is willing to negotiate.

 

[Farm Boy]

could attack simultaneously

I may be remembering 5 wrong and putting 6 over it in my brain, but cannot the bombers, the land unit, and the city defenses all attack in the same turn? It makes bombers staggeringly powerful in 6.

 

[Gorbles]

Of course, but most bad AI behavior is not as impactful to the player's experience as its military ineptitude. I've said it before but they replaced the sheer terror of being invaded by a huge AI stack with the exasperation of knowing that you'll have to do the sliding puzzle until the AI is willing to negotiate.

Yeah nah it was never terror for me. I get losing the economic game, but that doesn't have much to do with stacks. I can do that in any Civ game

(shoutout to barbarians, whose only settings are "useless" or "drown you in the legions", and nothing in-between)

 

[Kyriakos]

Back in Civ2, barbarians could actually take over your city - although iirc they always first asked for money. Not sure if they automatically took over if you had no money.
In Civ3 they would, at worst, kill your settlers.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Well, you can certainly disagree, but there are several examples of multiple military units per tile in V, specifically 5 bombers can stacked within a city, a (say) catapult and city defenses acting as separate units within one tile and ending the turn within that same tile. That's seven military units acting independently, stationed inside one tile. Given that "1UPT" claim is misinformed. Imo, the principle difference between IV and V is that in IV all units within the Stack could attack simultaneously, while this can't be done in V. That is the delineation, not the limited vs unlimited stacks.

There is some stacking in 5 but it is very limited. I don't think embarked land units could even stack with naval units until the first expansion came out, which was a real pain.

Which, for some reason, is an idea the devs didn't really follow through with: for 1UPT it seems like a good idea to allow for a small stack but only the top unit can attack. That would've reduced a lot of clutter.

 

[aelf]

Can any 1UPT advocate really describe what their problem is with doomstacks?

There are quite a few who say that there's no strategy with doomstacks. They don't seem to know that you can order individual units to attack in a certain order instead of just bashing the whole stack against another (some consider this tedious micro, though, which is pretty funny because 1UPT also works that way).

Some also seem unaware that it's not always optimal to have one big stack instead of splitting them up.

Awareness of collateral damage in Civ4 seems low, even among those 1UPT fans who played it.

And some consider doomstacks unrealistic and less immersive, though I'm not sure why 1UPT would be more realistic.

A lot of the hatred for doomstacks seem to uninformed or based on the lack of skills managing doomstacks.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Of course, but most bad AI behavior is not as impactful to the player's experience as its military ineptitude. I've said it before but they replaced the sheer terror of being invaded by a huge AI stack with the exasperation of knowing that you'll have to do the sliding puzzle until the AI is willing to negotiate.

I had a really good game of Civ V recently, though, where carpets of doom evoked that same terror.

I was the Celts. Assyria was my neighbor. I was pulling together the elements of a Compound Bow rush: 5 archers, 400g to upgrade them, tech beeline to Construction. Assyria was going to be my first victim because they were closest; don't want to waste that little tech edge marching units.

In Civ V, civs are most likely to attack when their UU comes on. For Assyria that's the siege tower, and they truly are deadly, in a way that the AI can make use of. If they can get just one of them adjacent to your city, all the other troops do extra damage--enough to take you out, even with the AI's generally terrible play. They're getting siege towers at basically the same time.

Sure enough, just as I'm a turn or two from my goal, here comes the carpet of doom, with its own CBs and multiple siege towers. Every turn I know I have to do everything in my power to eliminate any siege tower that has come adjacent to my city. I'm deciding between the damage that an archer can do, vs the lost turn to upgrade to CB. Truly down to the wire. The dynamics of the combat was all sliding puzzle, but the stakes were "do I have enough fire-power for what he's bringing?"

 

[Lexicus]

Awareness of collateral damage in Civ4 seems low, even among those 1UPT fans who played it.

Collateral damage in civ 4 just isn't quite strong enough to overcome the benefits of stacking. Even when bombers come into play it's more efficient to stack intercepting units on a single tile.

I had a really good game of Civ V recently, though, where carpets of doom evoked that same terror.

I was the Celts. Assyria was my neighbor. I was pulling together the elements of a Compound Bow rush: 5 archers, 400g to upgrade them, tech beeline to Construction. Assyria was going to be my first victim because they were closest; don't want to waste that little tech edge marching units.

In Civ V, civs are most likely to attack when their UU comes on. For Assyria that's the siege tower, and they truly are deadly, in a way that the AI can make use of. If they can get just one of them adjacent to your city, all the other troops do extra damage--enough to take you out, even with the AI's generally terrible play. They're getting siege towers at basically the same time.

Sure enough, just as I'm a turn or two from my goal, here comes the carpet of doom, with its own CBs and multiple siege towers. Every turn I know I have to do everything in my power to eliminate any siege tower that has come adjacent to my city. I'm deciding between the damage that an archer can do, vs the lost turn to upgrade to CB. Truly down to the wire. The dynamics of the combat was all sliding puzzle, but the stakes were "do I have enough fire-power for what he's bringing?"

This is fair, the AI is capable of attacking with a carpet on Deity civ 5 before the player can quite build up the capacity to respond. On Emperor though this never happened to me. Early attacks would appear frightening at first but it usually took only a few turns to build enough units (given the very strong city defenses in that game, you would often only need one or two melee units and maybe three or four ranged to make a city all but impregnable). The ability to buy units with gold and faith helped with this as well.

 

[Voidwalkin]

It's doomed to be a casual strategy game as long as 1UPT remains. There's only one real solution to player skill exceeding AI capability, and it's mass. They can't use that. It's too much player fatigue. Too many units to order and position.

It's broken at the foundation.

 

[aelf]

Collateral damage in civ 4 just isn't quite strong enough to overcome the benefits of stacking. Even when bombers come into play it's more efficient to stack intercepting units on a single tile.

Well, back in my day, stacks weren't usually large enough to tank all the collateral damage that a serious opponent could throw at it.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, back in my day, stacks weren't usually large enough to tank all the collateral damage that a serious opponent could throw at it.

The thing is, if your stack isn't big enough to shrug off an enemy attack, splitting it up won't help and will actually just let the enemy destroy your units at less cost.

 

[Farm Boy]

Developed cottages and resources are vulnerabilities? Do I remember that being more impactful than it is(esp cavalry and helicopters)? Lose the units, scourge the empire.

 

[Gorbles]

And some consider doomstacks unrealistic and less immersive, though I'm not sure why 1UPT would be more realistic.

I gave my opinion on the previous page. The short version is that VI and VII aren't pure 1UPT, and moving beyond the constraints of CiV appeal to my immersion personally.

Immersion is a personal thing by definition. We all want slightly different (sometimes significantly different) things out of the same game.

It's doomed to be a casual strategy game as long as 1UPT remains.

Ahh, gatekeeping. How I haven't missed you.

 

[Kyriakos]

In my only Civ6 game, I just placed one defending unit between two mountains, and a reserve behind it, and it was enough for 200 years or similar.

 

[Voidwalkin]

In my only Civ6 game, I just placed one defending unit between two mountains, and a reserve behind it, and it was enough for 200 years or similar.

Masterful.

 

[Gorbles]

In my only Civ6 game, I just placed one defending unit between two mountains, and a reserve behind it, and it was enough for 200 years or similar.

Did that in Civ 1, and I'm not even a good player. Certainly wasn't when I was 10!

 

[Kyriakos]

Did that in Civ 1, and I'm not even a good player. Certainly wasn't when I was 10!

Hm, did civ1 have 1upt? I was also 10 when I played that.
I am pretty sure it did not, though. Or at least it allowed you to move units through tiles with other units.

Speaking of which, where is the logic of being able to have only one unit in a tile, but many units in a city?

Masterful.

It's not my fault ^^ When you only have a linear function, you don't need complicated calculations to find a root.

 

[Lexicus]

Developed cottages and resources are vulnerabilities? Do I remember that being more impactful than it is(esp cavalry and helicopters)? Lose the units, scourge the empire.

My understanding is that pillaging is mostly good in multiplayer, but I'm not very knowledgeable about civ 4 multiplayer.

I've never really thought of it as more than an (admittedly fun at times) gimmick. If you're at war with an AI and you don't have the military strength to confront their stack, there's basically no way to cripple their empire quickly enough through pillagaging to prevent their stack from tearing your empire a new orifice. You're going to want to keep those units to confront the enemy stack.

One exception is indeed the early game where pillaging enemy metal, horses, or ivory can be very impactful, but that's situational. And at any event the point of pillaging their metal is so they can't counter your stack of units, pillaging strategic resources isn't something you do for its own sake.