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

[amadeus]

Sure we can: some version of civilization was good.

Now if you ask which...

I’m asking which!

For me they all have their charms but I keep going back to Civ2. It’s more than the original game but not as much as the ones that followed. I also like that it’s easy to customize.

 

[Hygro]

Civ2 I find to be the most emotionally immersive.

Civ3 had the best industrial era World Wars. It also was the most fun to micromanage on gigantic maps.

Civ4 was fantastic all around.

Civ5 had very straightforward multiplayer which was excellent.

never played 1 or really much of 6.

I voted civ2.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Civ 4 has the most difficulty and also seems to have the most extreme differences between beginner/intermediate/advanced/elite play. It's not perfect, but it has the best balance of expansion incentives vs costs, the most deep micromanagement consequences, and has *by far* and objectively the best QoL in the entire series when it comes to efficiency of inputs/doing things in-game.

It is simply impossible to play newer civ games as quickly as 4, due in part to bad optimization but also in great part to UI design. You cannot physically do it. Civ games prior to 4 were significantly worse than TBS competition of the time in QoL. Often massively so (comparing Warlords 2's UI design to Civ 2 when it comes to handling units makes Civ look like a joke, and in some was it was actually better than even Civ 4). That an early 90's game outcompetes all but arguably one title in the Civ franchise in UI design is pretty rough.

4's advantage in terms of inputting meaningful choices vs fighting the UI to do what you know you want to do already puts it far ahead of the others. It remains the only time Firaxis seems to have had anybody with decent UI design capability on their Civ team in its entire existence. You still can't do numerous useful things in Civ 6 right now, that you can do in 4.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Civ 5 for me but not because of the merits of the game--only because it came at a time in my life when I could afford to play lots of Civ. I've played a little of 4 (didn't come at a good time), a lot of 3 and a little of 6 (just didn't want to be mastering a new game when I could be playing a game I'd mastered).

 

[Fippy]

II was an amazing game but had a major flaw for me: placing many cities close together (no distance restrictions) resulted in an optimal and cheesy strategy.

IV even if you cheese (rerolling starts etc) remains scary to this day on deity (with barbs turned on as default).
So there's a difficulty level for everybody.

It has some weaknesses too, like endless classic music (can be changed thou by manually replacing files) and most important the super annoying unit cycling system (jumps wildly between them with little logic). But overall it's rightfully considered as one of the best games of all time.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

and most important the super annoying unit cycling system (jumps wildly between them with little logic).

Unfortunately, this never got meaningfully improved in newer Civ games. At least in 4, you can select all of a unit type of entire tile and get at least part of the way there. With 1UPT, poor cycling logic is definitely felt more.

 

[dusters]

Civ 3. I like the isometric 2d-ish view of units.

Grew up playing Civ 1, skipped Civ 2, settled with Civ 3, because it is easy on eyes for me. I tried Civ 6 recently and the tech tree and civics seemed overwhelming. Also I had no idea how to battle with 1 unit per tile. I had the most fun playing mods of Civ 3, so I'm biased towards that.

I still think it is possible for me to find some Civ lovers IRL and find Civ 4 multiplayer fun if I find such friends.

 

[Gorbles]

VI, because SMAC isn't on the list.

Though to be fair I missed a lot of the time III and IV had in the spotlight. I do own them both now, but struggle to get into either of them.

I've basically not touched V since VI came out.

I know why SMAC isn't on the list, don't worry. Even though it should be

 

[The_J]

Normally I'd say "the latest", but I've only played until 4, so it's 4.

 

[Josu]

Civ 4 has the most difficulty and also seems to have the most extreme differences between beginner/intermediate/advanced/elite play. It's not perfect, but it has the best balance of expansion incentives vs costs, the most deep micromanagement consequences, and has *by far* and objectively the best QoL in the entire series when it comes to efficiency of inputs/doing things in-game.

It is simply impossible to play newer civ games as quickly as 4, due in part to bad optimization but also in great part to UI design. You cannot physically do it. Civ games prior to 4 were significantly worse than TBS competition of the time in QoL. Often massively so (comparing Warlords 2's UI design to Civ 2 when it comes to handling units makes Civ look like a joke, and in some was it was actually better than even Civ 4). That an early 90's game outcompetes all but arguably one title in the Civ franchise in UI design is pretty rough.

4's advantage in terms of inputting meaningful choices vs fighting the UI to do what you know you want to do already puts it far ahead of the others. It remains the only time Firaxis seems to have had anybody with decent UI design capability on their Civ team in its entire existence. You still can't do numerous useful things in Civ 6 right now, that you can do in 4.

I also voted for 4, basically, completelly agree with this post.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

My memory is hazy.

We owned Civ, but I never worked out how to play. I was very young.

I recall playing Civ 2, but I don't think very much, and might have even come after Civ 3 just to mix things up.

Civ3 was the game that really hooked me. I've played endless hours, and been drawn back into it after years on the side countless times.

By the time Civ4 came out I wasn't really a gamer any more and didn't have a decent PC. Also I had 'done' the genre.

Typically I have a game of a genre that blew me away, and subsequent versions pale.

I've tried 4 and 5. Yet quickly bored as I didn't innately understand it as I did Civ3.

Maybe I'll jump in on the next Civ just to be excited again... But I don't have much confidence in the industry currently not to sell me a broken product and make me be the QC for 6+ months before its patched to a passable product.

Big Money has moved into gaming.. And ruined it.

 

[Fippy]

Big Money has moved into gaming.. And ruined it.

So true sadly. Maybe not ruined but more complicated than needed.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I've played I, II, and tried III. I also tried SMAC. My favorite will always remain Civ II: Test of Time.

After getting used to 4 levels of maps and incorporating the 3rd dimension into my strategy of where to build cities and airports/teleportation pads, plus which units are most effective against my enemies' cities in multiple dimensions, the plain 2-dimensional maps just aren't as challenging.

 

[amadeus]

the most deep micromanagement consequences

This, I am of two minds: on the one hand, I like the option to have customization, but on the other hand I don't want to be forced to scrutinize every single aspect of the game.

But I don't have much confidence in the industry currently not to sell me a broken product and make me be the QC for 6+ months before its patched to a passable product.

Maybe not as bad then as it is now, but I remember sending floppy disks back to the game company to get patched copies of games. Just a couple times, doubt I'd even remember what they were now.

 

[Samson]

Civ 4 is the one that I enjoy the most, so that is the answer. I am not really good enough at self analysis to really explain why, but I think it has just the right combination of complexity, speed of play and richness of the mods available. I still play Civ 3 a bit, it seems quicker to play through a game which I like at times. Civ 5 I hated because the 1UPT made moving your army a boring micromanagement task and steam kept kicking me off when I was off line, and it came at a time I was traveling quite a bit and so was playing it off line. I would like to try 6, but am not going to go to steam for it and do not know of an off line way of getting it. I have wanted to give Civ II: Test of Time a replay, but have not found a version available and cannot find my old one.

 

[Akka]

Civ4 by far, towering over the rest.

Civ1 has the charm of "the first", and it can still be surprisingly fun even today, but well, it's old and it shows.
Civ2 has the bonanza of choices and ability to do everything, and the refining of Civ1 formula. But like the 1 it still shows its age, and feels rather primitive.
Civ3 is very rough around the edge, with crappy diplomacy and wonky systems (gawd the corruption...). BUT it has the credit of actually inventing a lot of new concepts which have become hard to play without (culture and borders, mainly). Also, it's UI had good immersive value and I loved its music.
Civ4 is a marvel of design. Best UI (TMIT already spent a lot of time explaining it and I agree with him), but also more importantly, the whole system drips of elegance. Numbers and choices are carefully curated and allows for an incredible variety of playstyle, AI is the best (or at least the least bad) in the whole serie while still keeping a strong immersive flavor, and the graphics are actually a significant improvement. Despite late game being a kind of a drag, it feels like the most "complete" and most polished Civ, with the most robust and versatile design.
Civ5, like Civ3, tried to reinvent the franchise, but sadly nearly every change was for the worse. That UI was just an abomination, 1upt is a catastrophe, hexe bring nothing to the game, the immersion is completely gone, the technologies tree is nonsensical and the numbers are off.
Civ6, I'll admit I didn't even try when I saw how close to Civ5 it was.

So I'd rate :

Civ4 >> Civ3 >> Civ2 > Civ1 >>> Civ5
I'd put SMAC either right above or right below Civ3.

 

[Narz]

Civ1 was my gateway drug, it was the most magical. Civ2 of course was much improved in many ways but could've been much better.

Never got into any of the other civs after that as I was already an adult and didn't really have the emotional energy/room in my heart to fall in love w new games anymore.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Dumb question, was 1UPT first done in 4 or 5?

 

[Samson]

Dumb question, was 1UPT first done in 4 or 5?

In the main released game, 5. There were mods that implemented 1UPT in 4 before 5 came out, IIRC including the one that came with BtS that was not very civ at all, more like an RPG called Afterworld.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This, I am of two minds: on the one hand, I like the option to have customization, but on the other hand I don't want to be forced to scrutinize every single aspect of the game.

"Forced" is a bit strong. You can win any Civ game, even Civ 4 deity (which is the hardest) with far suboptimal micromanagement. You won't get liberalism in 200 AD that way, but you can win.

Even in Civ 6, the micro required to win deity is a fraction of what you can possibly do. The best players put up very impressive research/spaceship dates.

Civ6, I'll admit I didn't even try when I saw how close to Civ5 it was.

Visually, it's close. And they share 1UPT, but otherwise they're not that similar. Civ 6 doesn't have weird anti land competition incentives wrt expansion like 5; more cities are better, if you can get them. It balances trade routes better than 5. The combination of policy card slot usage/timing and builder micro leaves it second only to Civ 4 in micromanagement impact. The way the dual tech tree, cities, terrain, and policies all interact give a surprising amount of depth that just flat-out didn't exist in the "3-4 city tradition" or "~6 city liberty" days of Civ 5.

Militarily, there are investments you can make through tech, infrastructure, and policies. A tech lead is usually decisive, but not if the more advanced civ is going up against corps/armies with a great general and unit-boosting policy cards...then it's actually possible for the less advance nation to take favorable engagements/win wars without losing units. That's a big deviation from earlier titles, and creates another interesting tradeoff.

All of that is to say that while I hold Civ 4 still stands above the rest of the series due to its balance between competing incentives and best UI of the series, 6 makes a real case for being second best in the series. Also while its UI is bad, it's the least bad after 4's. UI before Civ 4 was awful, so many unnecessary inputs. It single-handedly gated me out of putting heavy time into Civs 1-3, because competing games of those eras were so much better to play (HOMM, Warlords 2-3, WC2/StarCraft as examples). In those games, a much smaller % of your time was spent knowing what you wanted to do, but blowing time fighting the game to let you do it.

Warlords 2 again was ahead of its time in "ending games that are over", too. It had a version of Civ 4's "domination" victory condition, in the early 1990s! Other than Civ 4, the Civ series largely doesn't even bother with a mechanic that lets you close out an insurmountable position early. When you can have 100s of units with bad stack management, or dozens to move with clunky interactions with each other under 1 UPT, the lack of consideration of the player in omitting such features is felt.

So true sadly. Maybe not ruined but more complicated than needed.

We see the pushback via indy games. If the demand for the aspects of play that made for quality experiences in old games weren't there, indy games would struggle to compete. Same if the big $$$ games could gather development teams that understand those aspects of design. But I guess the skillsets to create good art assets or make an engine run well do not often overlap with the skill to create intricate/dynamic game systems with meaningful choices. Probably why big budget FPS games actually do their job well sometimes.