Just a thread for fans of the series to discuss what they like and don’t like about the various Civ games.
I’ve only played some of the games. And I mostly play singleplayer at the noble difficulty level - I’m no wizard at these games.
- IV, IV: BTS, IV: Colonization
- Revolution (iOS)
- V, V: G&K, V: BNW
- Revolution II (Android)
- VI: R&F
Personally I like the board game the most (with both expansions), but that’s kind of a cop out since it’s not really part of the series, and my favorite part is the people I play with. The Revolutions are closest to the board game but they are my least favorite entries in the series proper.
III always had that problem where a new city is profitable, and the computer would always over extend themselves. I don’t particularly enjoy pumping out settlers and spearmen, nor do I enjoy steamrolling a bunch of pop 1 and 2 cities with a lonely regular spearman as their only defense. My goal in Civ III is to make it to the industrial age where it’s still anyone’s game. On the other hand great people are kind of an afterthought, and I have to micromanage a lot of units every turn. The worst part is having to remember what I’m doing when I load a save. Is this unit blocking the path or was he going somewhere?
Civ IV is my favorite game in the series. I love being able to move whole stacks around without expending a great person. A lot of people don’t like catapults but I think it’s good, cheap defense. I don’t like being able to steamroll my enemies, and I don’t like my enemies steamrolling me, so it’s a win-win from my POV. It does kind of suck that catapults (which are cheap) last so long into the game, but the expansions help with extra flanking and castle bonuses. Religion is a little bit overpowered in vanilla, especially if you build up multiple religions. By the late game you can fund your entire government on pilgrimage and tithes, not to mention the +10% monastery bonuses for science. I don’t use espionage much and neither does the CPU, I usually just try and out-spy one or two major rivals for the passive bonuses, and leave spies sitting in my major cities. I’ve gotten into corporations a few times, especially when going for culture, and I’ve tried many different city management schemes, great person focus, whipchop, etc. Balancing the city management is probably my favorite part of the game.
Unfortunately Civ V removes a lot of things that I liked most. People say the hexes really killed it but after a week or so I got over the hexes - it’s a lot more like a traditional strategy board game. I don’t hate the later games for the hexes or removing stacks, but I think it’s lost some of its uniqueness. The whip is gone, if I’m not mistaken. Also, cities can defend themselves for years and the whole world has a really short temper. Tech trading is gone and for some reason the computer players don’t like signing research agreements. If you try and corner the city states (diplomatically or by force) you’ll find yourself denounced. If you try and conquer someone, everyone else will hate you for the rest of the game. That means I spend most of my time hunting barbarians with solo units, sometimes a pair. Social policies were pretty cool, and I didn’t have trouble winning games. But the music is kind of repetative, and so is fogbreaking and barbarian hunting. I use the strategy map view a lot because I’m just doing the same thing over and over. I just got bored of it all.
I’d rank Civ VI between IV and V. Civs don’t go around denouncing everyone every five years so I can actually make lasting alliances with the CPU. Nobody sends me trade routes though. I like the district system, and I love the eurekas/inspirations. The culture victory path (tourism) is more fun than ever, IMO. I like these civics more than Civ IV. The maps are beautiful. Espionage is decently good, if a bit annoying. But there are downsides, too. Diplomacy is too weak - I don’t think I’ve ever been subject to a declaration of war by a major civ. The AI doesn’t seem to know what a sword is (I’ll be up against warriors/archers in AD 1000, quadriremes in 1500). After mobilizing my tributaries I can usually blitzkrieg a civ out of the running, if not the game. So long as I don’t sack a city state nobody else cares. I haven’t been able to grasp the religion system, I’ll be sending apostles and missionaries out and by the time the next one arrives, an enemy missionary has undone all my work. By the mid-rennaisance there’s serious unit clutter, especially around city states which always seem to hold important choke-points. The whole city-state envoy system is pretty weak in my opinion.
So, there’s my opinion. Now let’s see what you like and dislike in the series!
Related topic: Civilization 4/beyond the swrd .... how much do i hate thee let me f***ing list the ways
Also the Civ tangent here: Are there any good strategy games for the PC anymore? - #35 by Babale