Sid Meier's Civilization

[Prowler]

Any fans of this series here?

I've only played 4, Revolution, 5 and 6. In that order.

Honestly, I still think 4 is overall the best one in the series, Particularly the Beyond the Sword expansion. Might look and feel outdated nowadays, but fan mods are still being made for it and Civ 4 has, by far, the best mods of any civ game out there.

Hard for me to explain what else makes me think 4 is the best, honestly. It just feels right in terms of pace and tension. Plus, the AI was much smarter than it was in 5 and is in 6. And I honestly think war is much more fun in 4 than it is in 5 and 6. Even if the stacks of doom and cities lacking defensive abilities wasn't very realistic at least it didn't make war a slog to get through. Good look aiming for a Domination victory in 5 an 6 if you're playing against a lot of civs. If you have 100 hours to spare in a single civ game go ahead

Oh and 4 has Leonard Nimoy as a VA. Can't beat that.

5 is the best looking civ game, imo. It's very aesthetically pleasing and my 2nd favourite in the series. I also like the city-states addition. Plus, if you get the Vox Populi mod, it pretty much becomes like civ 4 with some differences.

6... not a bad game by any means, but just didn't click much with me. I also thonk the game looks too goofy and Disney-like in terms of character models.

Revolution is fine for what it was. I mean, it was on the Nintendo DS back in the mid-2000s. Gotta remember that. Nowadays everyone can play 4 or 5 in a laptop that's 5-6 years old fine, not to mention they can play 6 on the Switch as well. But back in 2008 it was the best way you had to play a civ game on the go in case you couldn't afford a good modern laptop to run civ 4 on. Plus, it's silly in a good way. The voices of the leaders sound so funny, especially Alexander the Great who sounds like an American guy who's trying to speak ancient Greek while high

If they eventually make Civ 7, I'm not sure I'll get it. The game will probably add more stuff and take even longer to beat and who has time for that anymore?

[IMJ]

Absolutely. Hell, I'd still get sucked into weeks of playing Civilization II on the PSOne if I booted it up. Those games are brilliant.
The killer is that, pixelated graphics or not, they are timeless games. Everything sprite and game tile is an archetype, clear and simple so really no graphic enhancements needed if that understanding is inextricable from your perception of the game.

But like you said about time above - I still have the game but it's an honest life-sucker.

[Prowler]

Originally Posted by IMJ

Absolutely. Hell, I'd still get sucked into weeks of playing Civilization II on the PSOne if I booted it up. Those games are brilliant.
The killer is that, pixelated graphics or not, they are timeless games. Everything sprite and game tile is an archetype, clear and simple so really no graphic enhancements needed if that understanding is inextricable from your perception of the game.

But like you said about time above - I still have the game but it's an honest life-sucker.

Can't speak about Civ 1, 2 and 3 since I haven't played those.

I think 4 is generally considered to be peak Civ. Although newer gamers to the series would probably have a better time with 6 or even 5 nowadays since they have much better graphics and have advisors explaining you how to play the game, which 4 did not.

I think the biggest problem with Civ is that sometimes it's like monopoly. A certain player or the CPU gets an advantage that's so significant by turn 250 or so that it becomes predictable who's going to win. Also, while the series has made war more strategic by getting rid of multiple units per tile and adding defense/health bar to cities, it also made war more of a hassle and a slog. So in 5 and 6 I felt more like war was the thing to avoid and better to pursue a cultural, diplomatic or religious victory instead. While 4 just feels like a very pure Civ experience. You can't let your guard down for 50 turns because the AI is smarter and knows when you're vulnerable enough to attack you. And war is less of a hassle and slog in it. What's fun about a game like this if you avoid going to war at all costs? It really feels like empire building in civ 4 which to me is the point of the game.

Also, civ 5 punished you for having a large empire which was stupid. Every city you founded lowered the happiness of the citizens of your empire. So you'd have like 2-3 cities best in a 400 turn game if you never went to war or conquered other civs cities. And eventually you'd have to just let many of the ones you conquer burn to the ground instead in order to avoid the unhappiness penalty and the war monger penalty.

In civ 6, conquering cities is even more annoying because once you take over someone else's city, it will have negative loyalty points and it's a bitch to raise it to positive in like 6 turns or so. Which means it will rebel and leave your empire and become a barbarian/anarchic ruled city.

[Original TMNT Cartoon Fan]

Originally Posted by Prowler

If they eventually make Civ 7

Earliest possible release date for Civilization 7 is 2024

https://www.pcgamesn.com/civilizatio...7-release-date

[IMJ]

Oh yeah - the citizen happiness. LOL! Best way to mitigate that issue in Civ 2 is to change government types as needed and then immediately enhance the city....

"Citizen Happiness". I forgot about that.... how it could get in the way..

[Prowler]

Originally Posted by Original TMNT Cartoon Fan

Earliest possible release date for Civilization 7 is 2024

https://www.pcgamesn.com/civilizatio...7-release-date

Let's see where they'll take this series next. They're going to have to work really hard in order to convince me to buy it.

[Prowler]

Apparently Civ fans are rather disappointed with Civ 7 so far.