Civilizations, RANKED!

[Snarf Zagyg]

I wanted to pop back in to make a few responsive comments to the many astute observations, along with one general comment.

First, is anyone else excited for a new Civ? I AM. Okay, this is mostly because I found Civ6 to be ... not great (not judging those who love it, just my opinion) and I am hoping that it recaptures the magic.

Now, in no particular order-

A. Yes, I did create the rules knowing that it would exclude Alpha Centauri. I agree that AC is an amazing game, but I didn't want to get too sidetracked into a conversation about where it places, as it is both wonderful and flawed, and different. Whereas Civilization: Beyond Earth is a LOT easier to place, and has Civ in the name.

B. For those of you who have pointed out it is Civilization: Beyond Earth, and not AFTER EARTH, I say this- it's Will Smith's fault.

C. Finally, I wanted to say that the hardest choice for me is Civ4 and Civ5 at the top. I think that two things really tipped the scale for me- Civ4 is the greatest possible version of the "classic" Civ game (stacked units, square grids). It had production values for its time that really would blow you away (Nimoy, soundtrack). It pretty much laid down the gauntlet and said, "You can't make a classic Civ game better."

Civ5, on the other hand, was ... kinda dire when it was first released. However, it made the choice to unstack and go away from the square grid, which proved to be a game-changer. With the "official" expansions (and the various patches and bug fixes) it turned into an amazing game. In addition, it has a crazy active and wonderful mod community. But it doesn't get credit for the mod community, and while I am judging it on the complete game, I have to say ... I remember how bad it was on release.

I don't think either choice for first is necessarily wrong, but I give Civ4 the title of best Civ game ever because, IMO, it was the Paradise Lost of classic Civ games. Once it was out, you couldn't keep making that type of Civ game. It was so good, it forced them to go in a new (and awesome!) direction.

 

[Stalker0]

I wanted to pop back in to make a few responsive comments to the many astute observations, along with one general comment.

First, is anyone else excited for a new Civ? I AM. Okay, this is mostly because I found Civ6 to be ... not great (not judging those who love it, just my opinion) and I am hoping that it recaptures the magic.

Now, in no particular order-

A. Yes, I did create the rules knowing that it would exclude Alpha Centauri. I agree that AC is an amazing game, but I didn't want to get too sidetracked into a conversation about where it places, as it is both wonderful and flawed, and different. Whereas Civilization: Beyond Earth is a LOT easier to place, and has Civ in the name.

B. For those of you who have pointed out it is Civilization: Beyond Earth, and not AFTER EARTH, I say this- it's Will Smith's fault.

C. Finally, I wanted to say that the hardest choice for me is Civ4 and Civ5 at the top. I think that two things really tipped the scale for me- Civ4 is the greatest possible version of the "classic" Civ game (stacked units, square grids). It had production values for its time that really would blow you away (Nimoy, soundtrack). It pretty much laid down the gauntlet and said, "You can't make a classic Civ game better."

Civ5, on the other hand, was ... kinda dire when it was first released. However, it made the choice to unstack and go away from the square grid, which proved to be a game-changer. With the "official" expansions (and the various patches and bug fixes) it turned into an amazing game. In addition, it has a crazy active and wonderful mod community. But it doesn't get credit for the mod community, and while I am judging it on the complete game, I have to say ... I remember how bad it was on release.

I don't think either choice for first is necessarily wrong, but I give Civ4 the title of best Civ game ever because, IMO, it was the Paradise Lost of classic Civ games. Once it was out, you couldn't keep making that type of Civ game. It was so good, it forced them to go in a new (and awesome!) direction.

For me Civ IV still has the best economic model of the civ games. I think both in terms of mechanics and thematics it just feels better to me than V and VI. I also think its AI is flat out superior to the games that follow, principally because SOD is just easier to use than 1UPT, but even in building and diplomacy the AI is simply better. Now Civ V Vox Populi Modmod I think has the best overall AI out of all of them, but again that's mod territory.

The 1UPT I do think makes combat more interesting, slamming SODs into each other gets old but the tactics of 1UPT is a lot more fun to me. That said, it also introduces a fundamental "flaw" to the game, in which in proper human hands units rarely if ever should die, and defensive killing of units becomes the strongest way to war. Without unit attrition it messes with a lot of other economic aspects.

I could never get into VI for one key reason.... no more movement overflow (aka in all previous civs, if I had 1 move left, I could always move into a new space no matter the terrain. In VI I can only move there if I have the full amount of movement needed). No matter how hard I tried I just couldn't accept it, its annoying as hell having to click through all the units that still have movement left but I can't move them so they just have to sit there. I really really really hope VII reverts that.

 

[Croesus]

Have to admit for me it will always be Civ II, then Civ I. Part of this is just nostalgia - I spent hundreds and hundreds of hours on those two games.

But it's also about simplicity. They were strategy games with some interesting stuff going on. Beginning with Civ III, we started getting culture, then religion, then 'great persons', then whatever. A lot of extra stuff that sometimes didn't really fit right and often felt like it was added only to justify a new game, i.e, sales.

I freely concede some of the later games might indeed be better overall games. But I just couldn't get into them because all I really wanted was updated versions of the classics. Heck, I still want a remake of Civ II with nothing more than better graphics.

Yes, I'm old.

 

[Zardnaar]

Obligatory shout out to SMAC and Lady Deidre Skye. Okay, mainline Civ games:

V
II
IV
I
VI
III

What about Chha Dawn and his worm army.

 

[Zardnaar]

Generally civ 4 and SMAC get put on the top of these type of threads. Civ 3 worked for me as well.

Probably because I got to play it the most. Gave up on civ IV and civ 1&2 were on other people's PCs.

Civ revolutions was also fun better than it should be surprisingly lots of ways to win.

SMACs on GoG think I paid $2.50 for it.

 

[TwoSix]

One thing I do hope they keep from VI is the division between Civs and Leaders. Giving each their own power set and UUs that can be mixed and matched really added some interesting variety.

 

[deganawida]

One thing Vi has is awesome music. I particularly love the Georgia and Cree themes.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

I'm pretty easy, whichever one I'm playing at a given moment is my favorite. I tend to play them in binges and then put them down, and it depends on what else might be available to play at the same time. For whatever reason, I played twice as much of VI as V (according to Steam). I didn't much care for V after IV, and I don't remember V enough to compare it with VI. If forced to pick an actual favorite, it's probably II or IV. They just came out at moments when I had lots of time to play.

 

[Stalker0]

One thing Vi has is awesome music. I particularly love the Georgia and Cree themes.

I'm a fan of the title themes from IV and V, but I must admit VI's title opener is baller.

 

[Milieu]

In order to promote discussion of all things Civilization, from stacking units to Nuke 'em Gandhi

You know that story about Gandhi in Civ I having minimum aggression that would underflow and make him super aggressive? It's almost certainly completely wrong.

Have to admit for me it will always be Civ II, then Civ I. Part of this is just nostalgia - I spent hundreds and hundreds of hours on those two games.

But it's also about simplicity. They were strategy games with some interesting stuff going on. Beginning with Civ III, we started getting culture, then religion, then 'great persons', then whatever. A lot of extra stuff that sometimes didn't really fit right and often felt like it was added only to justify a new game, i.e, sales.

I freely concede some of the later games might indeed be better overall games. But I just couldn't get into them because all I really wanted was updated versions of the classics. Heck, I still want a remake of Civ II with nothing more than better graphics.

Yes, I'm old.

Have you checked out Freeciv? The default rules are something of a mix of Civ II and III, but you can set it to be pure Civ II rules (or even something more custom) if you want.