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

[EvaDK]

I have my best memories playing Civ2, back when I was a young teenager. Especially a US vs Japan endgame with our two massive navies clashing.

I've always had issue with the huge stacks -> 1UPT change; it solved one issue, but also created a new one.

Could they not have tried the middle road with limited stacks, like 5UPT? Just enough to have sizable armies, but not overcrowd and dominate the gameplay - unless you're going for a pure domination game of course.

 

[H4run]

It feels wrong in a weird under-the-skin way that "suicide catapults" or some such unit is a serious "strategy" that exists within an actual video game. How do you write a note to that guy's mother?

This is not a problem with stack units; it’s more of a Civilization 4 issue, as the previous series, as far as I know, didn’t have this problem. In my recent years of playing Civilization 4, I didn’t have to deal with it because many mods, like Realism Invictus, fixed that issue. Why not adopt that feature instead of switch to 1upt?

Or that archers are somehow unable to fire over an obstacle

I agree, but again, this is not a problem with stacking units. You can design a game without the "1 unit per tile" (1UPT) mechanic by giving units a real ranged attack ability. For example, there’s a mod called PIE Ancient Europe for Civilization 4 that gives stack units the ability to shoot arrows. Again, I believe this issue isn’t about unit stacking.

Or cavalry can't ride around to the blind side of an enemy and attack the rear; or any sort of hit-and-run with the same.

This is not a unit stacking issue either. Such a feature could be made viable if cavalry retreat chance promotions and movement were slightly increased, allowing for effective flanking maneuvers and hit-and-retreat tactics.

And yes I think moving a large army one-at-a-time is a pain in the tuchus, not to mention the pathfinding errors.

While 1UPT creates better visuals and some action when battles are on a small scale, it becomes a massive headache to manage when scaled up. It leads to traffic jams and overly simplifies combat.

Why not combine both approaches? I'm not a game designer, but let's say we allowed units of the same type to stack while restricting certain combinations (e.g., infantry with cavalry or archers with infantry). Additionally, terrain could impose attrition penalties for exceeding a specific unit limit unless the units have a particular promotion. For example, in terrains like tundra or desert or jungle, attrition would play a significant role. Attrition warfare is a reality; in certain areas, like jungles, mosquitoes have historically killed more soldiers than guns.

These new additions will partially solve SOD and give more tactic and strategy to how the unit should be organized. There are ways to solve the "stack of doom" problem, but 1UPT feels like abandoning the carefully built mechanics developed over decades and replacing them with a brand-new mechanic with new issues.

It seems 1UPT is catered more toward attracting casual players and, arguably, isn’t even that effective at doing so.

 

[Gorbles]

It seems 1UPT is catered more toward attracting casual players and, arguably, isn’t even that effective at doing so.

Taking this as the intent (I disagree), the significant (if not massive) successes of V and VI would disagree that it wasn't effective.

VII has the most MUPT of the three via Army Commanders, and it's doing the worst of the three

 

[Kyriakos]

VII has the most MUPT of the three via Army Commanders, and it's doing the worst of the three

Maybe because in VII you literally cannot build a civilization that will stand the test of time ^^

 

[H4run]

Taking this as the intent (I disagree), the significant (if not massive) successes of V and VI would disagree that it wasn't effective.

VII has the most MUPT of the three via Army Commanders, and it's doing the worst of the three

Is that so? I'm surprised. 5 is such a mess, it's the only reason that I open account in this forum because how messy it is, but nevertheless, if that's the case and I believe in you, I stand to be corrected.

 

[Hygro]

There is no tactical depth to 1UPT. There is arguably more to the old doomstack, do ya bring up a few catapults, or not? Fortify on that forest/hill tile? These don't seem like complex decisions, but they're still impactful, because the AI can actually leverage its strategic bonuses into actual effect.

In contrast, 1UPT, easy win after easy win. AI is gonna blunder around, and although there is a panoply of tactical options available, they're all so trivial as to feel inconsequential.

I think Firaxis has three options, restore SOD to the throne, radically change their AI processes to give competence(least realistic), or let players win every game. It's the 3rd option that's been chosen and it's a bummer for those that want challenge.

Anytime they want, It can be the ai. Training an AI to be smart just by running a few months of simulations, updating periodically by always online game data, will give a competent AI, one you could even scale independently of handicap bonuses.

 

[Gorbles]

Maybe because in VII you literally cannot build a civilization that will stand the test of time ^^

Not really interested in unrelated takes on VII. They are many and varied

 

[Voidwalkin]

Anytime they want, It can be the ai. Training an AI to be smart just by running a few months of simulations, updating periodically by always online game data, will give a competent AI, one you could even scale independently of handicap bonuses.

That's an innovative way of doing it. I've imagined stuff like that but have trouble imagining Firaxis doing it. Institutional walls and logjams. Mostly though? I kinda suspect that they don't want players to be too challenged for fear it'll reduce mass appeal.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Taking this as the intent (I disagree), the significant (if not massive) successes of V and VI would disagree that it wasn't effective.

Massive success according to which metrics?
On this forum, Civ4 section has over 4 million posts whereas Civ5 only has 1.5 million and Civ6 only has 500,000.

 

[H4run]

On this forum, Civ4 section has over 4 million posts whereas Civ5 only has 1.5 million and Civ6 only has 500,000.

I haven't checked the numbers yet, so thanks for clearing that up. As far as I know, Civilization 4 is the best seller, but you never know, people might prefer the simpler Civilization 5, especially those who find Civilization 4 "intimidating" (even though it's quite simple compared to many hardcore strategy games). I remember one game reviewer praising Civilization 5 because it delivered more action, unlike Civilization 4, where you spend most of your time analyzing charts and columns of texts, which is wrong according to my view.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I haven't checked the numbers yet, so thanks for clearing that up. As far as I know, Civilization 4 is the best seller, but you never know, people might prefer the simpler Civilization 5, especially those who find Civilization 4 "intimidating" (even though it's quite simple compared to many hardcore strategy games). I remember one game reviewer praising Civilization 5 because it delivered more action, unlike Civilization 4, where you spend most of your time analyzing charts and columns of texts, which is wrong according to my view.

Civ5 and Civ6 fans are convinced that the franchise was nothing before Civ5. Obviously that's true to them as it seems only a minority played seriously any previous iteration. Regarding sales, there's no official publication from Firaxis or 2K so that's widely speculative. It's usually told that Civ4 sold 3 million whereas Civ5 sold 8 million and Civ6 sold 11 million.

No matter what, the fact that older Civilization games still have an active community shows that many disagree with the idea that the newer one is necessarily the better one.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Massive success according to which metrics?
On this forum, Civ4 section has over 4 million posts whereas Civ5 only has 1.5 million and Civ6 only has 500,000.

Players aging out may be one reason.

 

[BenitoChavez]

According to this site: https://levvvel.com/civilization-statistics/ Civ VI has sold the most copies

The Civilization series sales reached over 40 million copies.​

(Sources: GamesBeat, VG Chartz, GameSpot)

• That number is based on a statement that Strauss Zelnik made regarding total sales at TakeTwo Interactive.
• The first Civilization game was released in 1991.
• Civilization sold 1.5 million copies.
• Civilization II sold over 3 million copies.
• Civilization IV sold over 3 million copies.
• Civilization V sold over 8 million copies.
• Civilization VI sold 11 million copies.

Although the Civilization series has taken over 25 years to sell 40 million copies, a pace less rapid than some contemporary franchises, it’s important to recognize the remarkable achievement of these iconic games. The series continues to draw players, and with ongoing content additions, it’s poised to sell even more copies. Speculation aside, the prospect of a new Civilization game is always exciting. In the midst of it all, Civilization 6 sales are notably contributing to the series’ success, affirming its enduring popularity and robust sales figures.

Regarding the thread topic, I voted for 6 at some point and I still agree with that. I've been playing 7 a fair amount and I don't like the age system. It's too weird having things reset. Ongoing wars or other diplomatic agreements are reset. Troops are either teleported to cities or entirely removed from the game. Civilizations are temporary but leaders are eternal, which seems backwards to me. Lots of UI issues too. It's hard to see unit health. You place buildings/wonders on the map but it's hard to tell what those building/wonders are at a glance. City nameplates disappear when you select a city. City planning is difficult without map pins. Units are incredibly cheap. You can yield massive armies, most of which disappear at the end of an age. I really dislike the trade route system, needing to build a merchant to establish a trade route which of course resets at the end of an age.

 

[H4run]

It's usually told that Civ4 sold 3 million whereas Civ5 sold 8 million and Civ6 sold 11 million.

Ah I see, this is what Gorb may referring though

 

[Gorbles]

Massive success according to which metrics?
On this forum, Civ4 section has over 4 million posts whereas Civ5 only has 1.5 million and Civ6 only has 500,000.

Sales. Appreciate you sourcing those!

CFC posts mean literally nothing in the grand scheme of things, I'm afraid.

Civ5 and Civ6 fans are convinced that the franchise was nothing before Civ5.

Been playing since Civ 1, so let's not bring any chips on our shoulders into what was a very tongue-in-cheek point about 1UPT and the "casual market".

No matter what, the fact that older Civilization games still have an active community shows that many disagree with the idea that the newer one is necessarily the better one.

Who said anything about better?

@H4run's argument was that a) 1UPT was an attempt to appeal to "casuals", and b) that that arguably wasn't a success.

I was questioning b).

As an aside, as someone who played Civ 1 when they were 10 and most decidedly a "casual", I roll my eyes anytime anyone uses the word. It's nearly always used as degrading, which makes it somewhat useless.

 

[H4run]

As an aside, as someone who played Civ 1 when they were 10 and most decidedly a "casual", I roll my eyes anytime anyone uses the word. It's nearly always used as degrading, which makes it somewhat useless.

Simplification or "dumbing down" mechanics is a common strategy to reach a larger market, and casual gamers are a significant captive audience. The term is not intended to be derogatory in any way. If it seems so, we can consider using a substitute word, you can choose one that better fits the tone to your liking. However, my main point remains unchanged

Like you I've been playing Civilization since Civilization 1, probably when I was around seven years old. It was an incredibly fun experience, followed closely by Civilization II, as I played those games as a kid. However, I believe the best Civilization game ever is Civilization IV. It's great that nostalgia doesn't cloud this judgment, it has truly aged gracefully.

 

[Gorbles]

Simplification or "dumbing down" mechanics is a common strategy to reach a larger market, and casual gamers are a significant captive audience. The term is not intended to be derogatory in any way. If it seems so, we can consider using a substitute word, you can choose one that better fits the tone to your liking. However, my main point remains unchanged

Like you I've been playing Civilization since Civilization 1, probably when I was around seven years old. It was an incredibly fun experience, followed closely by Civilization II, as I played those games as a kid. However, I believe the best Civilization game ever is Civilization IV. It's great that nostalgia doesn't cloud this judgment, it has truly aged gracefully.

Nostalgia clouds everyones' judgement. Nostalgia is another word for bias. It's an association with a thing unburdened by who you were at the time. If you still like Civ IV, more power to you, but enjoyment is still factually a subjective thing. It's not based on any kind of objective rating. It's based on things we like, and things we don't like. Things that irritate us, and things that don't irritate us. And all of it is valid!

For example, I've never been able to get into IV personally, and I own all Civ games on Steam as far back as Civ III (not that I ever got into that one either).

r.e. "dumbing down", again, the phrase is intended to be derogatory (not necessarily by you, but by its invention). Would you prefer it if I said "removing unnecessary complexity", or would you assert that IV had no complexity that needed removing? What if I simply said "getting rid of the junk"? This kind of thought experiment is what I mean. Everything comes with a connotation to one or more people. You and Marla are both replying to me, but you're saying subtly (or in Marla's case with the rather unnecessary V / VI playerbase comment, less subtly) different things.

 

[r16]

if CFC posts are nothing , why are people here then ?

 

[Gorbles]

if CFC posts are nothing , why are people here then ?

Who said CFC posts are nothing? If you're going to quote someone, quote them accurately! I'm a CFC baby, relatively speaking, and I've still been here over ten years (yikes)

 

[H4run]

Nostalgia clouds everyones' judgement. Nostalgia is another word for bias.

I get that, that's why I bring that up because despite having way more fun playing Civilization 1 and 2 when I was a kid, revisiting that series can't really reenact the same enjoyment as when I'm revisiting Civilization 4, while Civilization 4 is as good as the way I played it back in the day. Hence, in a way, it's objectively good. Sure, that doesn't mean it’s devoid of any personal preference or other subjectivity, but there's an element of objectivity in it being as good as I remember playing it decades ago, unlike Civ 1 or 2.

r.e. "dumbing down", again, the phrase is intended to be derogatory. Would you prefer it if I said "removing unnecessary complexity", or would you assert that IV had no complexity that needed removing? This kind of thought experiment is what I mean. Everything comes with a connotation to one or more people. You and Marla are both replying to me, but you're saying subtly (or in Marla's case with the rather unnecessary V / VI playerbase comment, less subtly) different things.

Well, dumbing down is a common term that's widely used; that's why I used that expression, but removing unnecessary complexity pretty much defines it well. We can use that. Similar to how it simplifies the complexity of how religion works or policies work, 1upt is basically part of that simplification package. I argue that instead of improving what already worked and was good in the previous Civilization games, which were pretty much a source of inspiration for many other big title strategy games, shifting to 1upt brought a lot of follow-up problems that needed to be readdressed and endlessly fixed in the upcoming series, which is just not a good decision. My question is simple, is 1upt working well right now, or is it still problematic?