All of them "need" expansions (civ DLCs of V/VI not necessary unless you want to play said civs) so take that into account.
They are sufficiently different that, if you end up becoming a Civ fan, you probably want to play all, and some of their mods. But without going into detail about why, I think a simple recommendation would be Civ V.
>VI is best because uh... it doesn't have multiple units per stack
Anon, it's because of that, that makes V and VI so shit
V literally had broken AI on their last patch
VI was like 'uh, we make super diverse civs and mechanics for them but yeah the AI is broken as frick but like, it's super diverse of how you can play even tho there's zero really challenge or strategy since again the AI is fricked'
That isn't an argument
Anon, the AI is fundementally fricked because of the limit of one unit per tile
I loved nuking stacks.
Most people enjoyed stacks, actually. You had the concept of strategy and tactics with them
Now because Civ 6 needs to try to advertise to both the spastic zoom-zooms and the autismos, you have a weird frickery of 'every civlization is deep and unique but like you can ignore them for unga bunga'
>VI if you value 'le crazy whacky modern gaming lolz'
Some of the quotes you get for going up tech trees are fully moronic. I'm impressed you can frick up something so easy. >"The Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese" - GK Chesterton >"If it's natural to kill, how come men have to go into training to learn how?" - Joan Baez >"Benjamin Franklin may have discovered electricity but it was the man who invented the meter who made the money" - Earl Wilson >"There may be no forgiveness for polyester. On this one matter, Satan and the Lord are in disagreement" - Joe Hill
Can't wait for Civ 7 where they will be quoting twitter users!
>man knows to kill a man you kill him by smacking heavy object off his brain
REEE WHY DOES HE NEED TO LEARN ALL THE OTHER WAYS THEN THIS IS A feminist POINT REEE ACCEPT IT
>Military Training Civic which you will have earned after probably 50+ turns killing barbarians constantly >Quote questions why men need to be taught to kill when it should be a naturally occurring process anyways >"NOOOOOOOOOOOO FEMINAZIS RUINING MUH GAAAAAAAAMES"
The other quote is >"Those who in quarrels interpose, must often wipe a bloody nose."
and both of them suggest that Military Training is something that has a reason to exist, and the only ones who don't get it are the ones who get trampled over by a lack of it.
>Military Training Civic which you will have earned after probably 50+ turns killing barbarians constantly >Quote questions why men need to be taught to kill when it should be a naturally occurring process anyways >"NOOOOOOOOOOOO FEMINAZIS RUINING MUH GAAAAAAAAMES"
The other quote is >"Those who in quarrels interpose, must often wipe a bloody nose."
and both of them suggest that Military Training is something that has a reason to exist, and the only ones who don't get it are the ones who get trampled over by a lack of it.
There's a difference between making a point and taking one quote out of a fricking essay that doesn't fit
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it." -Robert E Lee
was the civ5 quote for comparison. It's not the worst quote in the game tbh but swapping Robert E Lee for a hippie roastie who got pumped and dumped by Bob Dylan is just indicative of a larger pattern of style choices in civ6
Depends what you want
4 is objectively the best game. Interesting and deep mechanics. The AI can be a real challenge because it can deal with stack of death gameplay better than 1 unit per tile. Some mechanics are relatively intimidating or difficult to use optimally. Good visuals. Some people don't like stack of death but I think it's fine
5 is the most casual but it's fun if you just want to build buildings and grind through AI. It tends to be quite grindy due to 1 unit per tile and strong AI production. The AI is bad though and will never really threaten you. Also looks very nice imo
6 is "different" and has districts and other weird shit, requires more micro to maximise numbers. But some people seem to really like it. I think it looks kinda bad visually
V and VI are both great. Play V if you want to have to focus on less cities. VI if you like spamming out as many cities as possible. I played IV but I was a kid so I don't really remember much other than also thinking it was fun.
The bitter old people seem to be circlejerking Civ IV for whatever reason but don't listen to them and get Civ 5
There's a reason that it's the expensive one
5 and 6 are busywork simulators >build 20 different buildings each with +1 [yield] >wars take forever because it's 1 per tile and AI can shit out hundreds of units >no real strategy or tricks, just maximise yields (which is trivial) and spam units >the AI is insanely bad
That's right, I continually forget the immeasurable strategy of cIV. >Stack 100+ of the exact same unit on top of each other >Right-click the enemy settlement
Vastly cerebral and immeasurably riveting strategy.
Sure. It's unfortunate the AI is too moronic to counter it properly, and I say this as someone with 1000+ hours of IV, V, and VI. >B-BUT MULTIPLAYER
The post I'm responding to is mocking the AI, so we're talking about brainless doomstacking in singleplayer.
Meanwhile in 5 you get to make the same "tactical" decisions over and over again for 3 hours while monty shits out 8 riflemen per turn, while micromanaging your reinforcements so they don't trip over eachothers dicks... coma-inducing
Stack of death is over quickly and the AI is at least capable of making a decent stack
Spamming 1 unit is usually suboptimal..
AI cheating is present in literally every Civ game. That's not an actual single-game counterargument. Positioning, Great Generals, etc, all of these actually keep things tactically interesting, along with placing of Cities, forts, etc. There's no point in bothering to care with doomstacks, because even though it's over "quickly", it's immeasurably less intelligent.
>Positioning, Great Generals, etc, all of these actually keep things tactically interesting, along with placing of Cities, forts, etc
The thing is all that shit is not very interesting. It's not very hard. It's quite annoying because your units get in eachothers way, but you can grind through it. You have to do it over and over and over again. Ideally, every time to conquer a city, you have 10 workers on hand to spam roads everywhere so your units don't frick eachother over. What a pain in the ass. And the AI is dogshit (even in vox populi, which I played a lot). Realistically you might have one crucial period of war where you want to play optimally, then you're winning and the rest of the game is a huge grind against ultra-strong morons. There's actually little incentive to play well once you're winning since you can win faster (in real time) by spamming units to their deaths.
Doomstacking is more interesting than you seem to think and I doubt you actually played civ 4 very much. You need different units and promotions to do it optimally. And it's often beneficial to have multiple stacks. There are a lot of possible moves. Plus it's all over pretty quickly once you decide what to do.
Meanwhile in 5 you get to make the same "tactical" decisions over and over again for 3 hours while monty shits out 8 riflemen per turn, while micromanaging your reinforcements so they don't trip over eachothers dicks... coma-inducing
Stack of death is over quickly and the AI is at least capable of making a decent stack
Spamming 1 unit is usually suboptimal..
Sure. It's unfortunate the AI is too moronic to counter it properly, and I say this as someone with 1000+ hours of IV, V, and VI. >B-BUT MULTIPLAYER
The post I'm responding to is mocking the AI, so we're talking about brainless doomstacking in singleplayer.
[...]
AI cheating is present in literally every Civ game. That's not an actual single-game counterargument. Positioning, Great Generals, etc, all of these actually keep things tactically interesting, along with placing of Cities, forts, etc. There's no point in bothering to care with doomstacks, because even though it's over "quickly", it's immeasurably less intelligent.
just a completely dishonest comparison tbh. reads like an actual shill post
VI is the only franchise i took a step back from, i like it though and at that price its a steal. IV had the most soul and the best soundtrack but i dont think i could go back to stacking units. Its V for me with gods and kings. If you want a challenge turn on the raging barbarians option, it can be a blessing/curse depending on the leader. Ive seen AI leaders in low player games get limited to one city on a continent and swamped to progression death its funny.
>Fricking how? 4 is good. 5 is different, but with mods it's solid. 6 is like 5's moron cousin.
They didn't play those games, they are... too old and outdated for them.
Because they've actually played it? 6 is an excellent game for a plethora of reasons. Almost 100% of detractors explicitly show off how little they understand all of the mechanics inherent to 6, and it's obvious they don't actually know how anything in 6 works. 4boomers are effectively AoE2gays, and 5zoomers started with 5 and never played anything else in the series.
Anon, 6 is fine if you want a speedy, less thoughtful game
The problem tho, is, it's inherently not a Civ game
It's like a weird version. Imagine if you took Mario and said 'hey, racing cars is cool so you have like 30% platforming, 50% mario kart and 20% mario soccer' and then say it's Mario 2D
Again, morons like you who have literally never touched 6 are the explicit reason why you cannot understand why people enjoyed 6. It's not as if explaining how the game functions would convince you of things, because you'll never actually interact with the mechanics and see what turn-by-turn strategies are being performed, how far-ahead city planning needs to be dealt with, etc., you're just going to continue spouting vagueries without touching the game.
Civ 6 is more complex than civ 5 objectively so you're full of shit. You need to actually think about what techs you research and what social policies you choose instead of >HURRRR DURRR ME CHOOSE TRADITION RATIONALISM EVERY GAME
Woah.... Deep.... Tactical....
Firaxis devs are desperate for these people to move from Civ V to VI. They also post here often defending the wokeshit cartoony animations and artstyle.
They can't stop seething that the old team made a much better game than they could.
I liked civ but it literally puts me to sleep, you need to do something else at the same time like listen to an audiobook. Grand strat ruined civ for me.
All the games go to shit in the modern eras. 6 just gives you more bullshit to do but it still feels like an every increasing set of checkboxes at that point.
VI was my first Civ game and it was so unimpressive to me that it's killed my interest in the series. I usually like 4X and RTS games but it just didn't do it for me. I'll give it another shot one day though.
It's markedly better than 5, but you should probably wait until you can get the complete edition with literally everything for a very low price. It goes on sale constantly.
>Load game >Intro is literally white civilization being destroyed by global warming to be replaced by le heckin wholsum brown peepul utopia
I never booted the game up again after that.
There is no one on Ganker but contrarians and nostalgiagays. Just pick the one that has the best looking gameplay to you and ignore everyone else here.
It's bizarre how this is regularly brought up as some sleight against VI but not the other plethora of strategy games where the exact same movement cost penalty exists. 4 movement means for movement. If there's a move cost penalty of 1 for moving on a hill, you cannot make 5 movement that turn.
I don't know what you're referring to. I'm playing 6 right now, and there's no movement split. You're prevented from moving into anything beyond your movement range, not half-permitted to enter space 2.5 and then given 1.5 movement later.
I just feel like in V, Age of Wonders, and Endless Legend, the movement was "cleaner" and you didn't to rely on reserving a path to make sure you don't waste the 0.5 movements left each turn. You could just use an entire unit's movement within the turn. No extra movements needed at end of turn either.
Again, I'm not sure what you're referring to. There's no half-movements in VI. You have X/X movement to move through tiles that either have no movement cost (1) or any movement cost (2+) to go through, and you'll finish up when you're done. There's no halves or quarters of movement in VI. If your suggestion is that you should be able to move up a mountain at 2 cost when you only have 1 movement left, you're suggesting something that wouldn't be permitted in almost any other 4X as well.
5 months ago
Anonymous
nta but in 5 as long as you had movement left you could move into any space, the other games that don't let you do that usually give you more movement so it's less noticeable. In civ6 you only get 2 move AND you can't move into a 2 move tile with just 1 pt AND the first tier of roads doesn't even help you on flat terrain AND you have 1upt. no one of these things on their own would be that bad, but in combination they make the movement in 6 feel very sluggish.
endless legend is better than civ
But most people who play civ are slaves to it
EL fricking rules, but it doesn't work on my current setup, immediate crash on launch. I've tried every work around like running it as an administrator in compatibility mode, nothing works.
I agree. The rounding part isn't the issue it's the 2 movement points per turn on maps with plenty of rough terrain and rivers. That combined with oupt is basically a death sentence for the possibility of fun combat in the mid-late game. age of wonders still has the best balance imo and humankind did okay with a similar take. I highly doubt civ will ever go that direction though
civ players are like battered wives. they just keep treating us like shit but there's no alternative so we have to put up with it. I've been denounced like 3 turns after I made my first city with just a builder and a scout. game is bullshit
lol theres always a large amount of opinion (sometimes veering on pedantic lunacy imo) in civ threads that they can make for a quagmire of wut - but given all the addons and peoples arrival at the franchise at varying points (its very old ive been playing since 95) i do quite enjoy them. Its the same with all strategy games of a certain heritage.
I'd argue the extreme disparity of opinions in Civ threads can mostly be explained by the simple fact that they all do many things correct and very few things objectively incorrect, and as such there is a needless tribalism because having multiple favorite flavors of ice cream cannot be done. There cannot be people who are excited to play a game of FFH2, Vox Populi, and some mod soup in VI in the same month, it has to be one or the other, and everybody else is WRONG.
6 is full of issues so it's rabid defenders are "new good" consumerists....
At best they should be saying "it's better than 5!" But no, 6 is god and you're a casual if you disagree
Yeah maybe, i like to think i can enjoy multiple iterations of a franchise and i think i do without getting het up about which is oestensibly better, even in strategic game
I've never given 6 a serious chance because it looks like a fricking mobile game
Turn the sound on its fun and relaxed on the big screen
5 is the worst in the series, it panders to casuals who don't actually want to play a strategy game. Tall isn't a valid playstyle shitters, learn to landgrab. >BUH BUH I WANT TO SIT ON 4 CITIES TURTLE AND PASSIVELY BEELINE A SCIENCE VICTORY WITHOUT EVER FIGHTING A SINGLE WAR
>Less options = better
I agree. I hope in Civ 7 the developers listen and the game ends after 20 turns and whoever controls more tiles wins! It'd be way more popular and easy for people to get into, like Mario Party. >duhh I love using the same policy cards every game >duhh I love using the same governor every game
Civ5 is my favorite but I respect the Civ4 gays and find their arguments reasonable whether I personally agree or not. What I think most people would agree on is that they're both better than 6.
not that anon but I bought it during the free weekend on steam and had an alright time, finished up the battle pass and hit lvl 91 after about 80 hours of gameplay. I'd say worth
Prob gonna chill on it until the next season/league or whatever, end game feels really pointless unless you wanna push your build to the max
Civilization is so fun but I hate the part of the game where you move 50 units and then end turn over and over. I wish I could automate the army part completely.
Any advice for someone that likes all the managing, choice making, etc, but not the individual military micro
Play vs. diety, assuming you're playing Civ V.
"Winning" against them in combat is pretty much an exercise in futility. This means your armies will be defensive and most of your time will be spent bribing nations to war against eachother instead of you.
Turtling is gay and unintresting unless you're playing against an AI with like +14 happy per city.
this is the one time all those game deal aggregator websites came through for me. i got everything civ5 for the equivalent of like 10$ local currency. just make sure the key site you're buying from isnt too sketchy.
Wait until V is on sale (great going forgetting to that this time, Steam) and get its full pack, it's around the same price as VI's base game.
They're probably never going to do a notable enough sale for VI+DLCs at this point. Small chance once VII is out maybe.
Civ V. Best visuals, easy to lean into, units auto-embark, no gay pollution mechanic.
I can’t get over the choices they made for VI. The shit-tier diversity Civs and leaders, the awful climate mechanic, a world Congress like 4 turns in, and diplomacy pop ups every 3 turns just with some stupid line you can’t speed through. It also felt micromanagy and slow as hell. It’s garbage.
Civ 4 has better improvements and resource management/structure improvement but Civ 5 has a far better combat system where instead of spamming a frickload of cheap soldier you strategize with a couple.
Civ 4s combat would be ok if there weren't things like promotions to make the the entire combat system weirder than it has to be, they should have kept it simple like alpha centauri does for promotions.
I went back and played 5 after playing 6 more for the last few years. There's definitely things I like about 5 more but 6 with mods, DLC, with the right game settings is more enjoyable to me especially since you add things like secret societies, dramatic dark/golden ages, etc. The endgame in 6 does get a bit repetitive though. 4 is a very good game but I haven't played it since 5 came out and my impression at the time was that 5 eclipsed it in my most ways so I never went back to it.
VI if you want fun
V if you have peanut for brain
IV if you are a chad
anything below is curiosity nowadays >beyond earth
it's Civ 5 with less replayability
just cant say no to kasbahs, and petra stacking. Especially if you get a strong desert mountain city
Them, Venice, Inca for terrace farms and Ethiopia are some of my favorite civs to play.
civilization revolution is all you need >bonuses in civ 6: +3.592345% lower production cost of (incredibly late game and inefficient unit) >bonuses in civ rev: +50% gold production
4 is the best one, but 3 is the true contrarian choice. 3 is just good enough for one to be autistic that it's the best one but obviously missing important features and gameplay that 4 has.
All of them "need" expansions (civ DLCs of V/VI not necessary unless you want to play said civs) so take that into account.
They are sufficiently different that, if you end up becoming a Civ fan, you probably want to play all, and some of their mods. But without going into detail about why, I think a simple recommendation would be Civ V.
Isn't V with all the DLC?
> Why?
in 6's case it's a trojan horse if you check the price of all the DLC shit
IV > VI > V
you should be flogged
This is the correct answer. It took years of expansions for V to have as many features as IV had day one, and V's gameplay is horrendously slow.
Low quality bait
Get IV.
This
Some of these leaders aged far better than others..
Let's not talk about Justinian.
looks like a taxidermied corpse
IV if you want a good game
V if you want an experiment
VI if you value 'le crazy whacky modern gaming lolz'
Just get IV. Please. The other two are not worth your money
6 is literally the best the franchise has ever been
4 is awful when you go back to it, infinite stacks of units
>VI is best because uh... it doesn't have multiple units per stack
Anon, it's because of that, that makes V and VI so shit
V literally had broken AI on their last patch
VI was like 'uh, we make super diverse civs and mechanics for them but yeah the AI is broken as frick but like, it's super diverse of how you can play even tho there's zero really challenge or strategy since again the AI is fricked'
stacks are garbage and the opposite of strategy
I dont really care about 5 because its ugly as sin
That isn't an argument
Anon, the AI is fundementally fricked because of the limit of one unit per tile
Most people enjoyed stacks, actually. You had the concept of strategy and tactics with them
Now because Civ 6 needs to try to advertise to both the spastic zoom-zooms and the autismos, you have a weird frickery of 'every civlization is deep and unique but like you can ignore them for unga bunga'
>dont really care about 5 because its ugly as sin
if you have eyes you meant 6 lol
I loved nuking stacks.
>AI
Play against real people, then.
unit stacks are great and you're a homosexual
Civ 6 is fricking trash. What am I reading
zoomers were a mistake
>guaranteed replies
I too find it impossible to resist the low hanging fruit sometimes, anon.
>VI if you value 'le crazy whacky modern gaming lolz'
Some of the quotes you get for going up tech trees are fully moronic. I'm impressed you can frick up something so easy.
>"The Poets have been mysteriously silent on the subject of cheese" - GK Chesterton
>"If it's natural to kill, how come men have to go into training to learn how?" - Joan Baez
>"Benjamin Franklin may have discovered electricity but it was the man who invented the meter who made the money" - Earl Wilson
>"There may be no forgiveness for polyester. On this one matter, Satan and the Lord are in disagreement" - Joe Hill
Can't wait for Civ 7 where they will be quoting twitter users!
don't forget the one about no wifi at macchu picchu that was literally pulled from some tumblrinas blog
>>"If it's natural to kill, how come men have to go into training to learn how?" - Joan Baez
What's the issue with this one?
>man knows to kill a man you kill him by smacking heavy object off his brain
REEE WHY DOES HE NEED TO LEARN ALL THE OTHER WAYS THEN THIS IS A feminist POINT REEE ACCEPT IT
I'm sorry you're like this
>Military Training Civic which you will have earned after probably 50+ turns killing barbarians constantly
>Quote questions why men need to be taught to kill when it should be a naturally occurring process anyways
>"NOOOOOOOOOOOO FEMINAZIS RUINING MUH GAAAAAAAAMES"
The other quote is
>"Those who in quarrels interpose, must often wipe a bloody nose."
and both of them suggest that Military Training is something that has a reason to exist, and the only ones who don't get it are the ones who get trampled over by a lack of it.
Are you implying you're moron, sar?
There's a difference between making a point and taking one quote out of a fricking essay that doesn't fit
"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it." -Robert E Lee
was the civ5 quote for comparison. It's not the worst quote in the game tbh but swapping Robert E Lee for a hippie roastie who got pumped and dumped by Bob Dylan is just indicative of a larger pattern of style choices in civ6
I only played 4, read all these in nimoy's voice.
Depends what you want
4 is objectively the best game. Interesting and deep mechanics. The AI can be a real challenge because it can deal with stack of death gameplay better than 1 unit per tile. Some mechanics are relatively intimidating or difficult to use optimally. Good visuals. Some people don't like stack of death but I think it's fine
5 is the most casual but it's fun if you just want to build buildings and grind through AI. It tends to be quite grindy due to 1 unit per tile and strong AI production. The AI is bad though and will never really threaten you. Also looks very nice imo
6 is "different" and has districts and other weird shit, requires more micro to maximise numbers. But some people seem to really like it. I think it looks kinda bad visually
V with community patch is the best.
If you're not really into the genre just get V. It seems to be the title every noob to 4x flocks to and then never leaves.
4 is a classic
I personally liked IV the most. Never really involved in Civ discussion but it's nice to see IV get some love here
IV has the Fall From Heaven 2 mod and its various modmods so it is the best.
V and VI are both great. Play V if you want to have to focus on less cities. VI if you like spamming out as many cities as possible. I played IV but I was a kid so I don't really remember much other than also thinking it was fun.
The bitter old people seem to be circlejerking Civ IV for whatever reason but don't listen to them and get Civ 5
There's a reason that it's the expensive one
4
Get 4 and 6 because they're cheaper.
Fav of those is 5 though.
Or just get 2, the best one.
6 is better without expansions btw, the expansions there unlike with 5 are just gimmicky bloaty busy work.
I own both IV and V and I've played IV far more despite getting both of them at the same time.
IV. This shouldn't be a discussion
I liked V more than VI. IV feels too antiquated now considering the improvements the latter entries introduced. So V I guess.
5 and 6 are busywork simulators
>build 20 different buildings each with +1 [yield]
>wars take forever because it's 1 per tile and AI can shit out hundreds of units
>no real strategy or tricks, just maximise yields (which is trivial) and spam units
>the AI is insanely bad
4 however is a great game
That's right, I continually forget the immeasurable strategy of cIV.
>Stack 100+ of the exact same unit on top of each other
>Right-click the enemy settlement
Vastly cerebral and immeasurably riveting strategy.
Good thing there are units that damage every unit in a stack to punish that.
Sure. It's unfortunate the AI is too moronic to counter it properly, and I say this as someone with 1000+ hours of IV, V, and VI.
>B-BUT MULTIPLAYER
The post I'm responding to is mocking the AI, so we're talking about brainless doomstacking in singleplayer.
AI cheating is present in literally every Civ game. That's not an actual single-game counterargument. Positioning, Great Generals, etc, all of these actually keep things tactically interesting, along with placing of Cities, forts, etc. There's no point in bothering to care with doomstacks, because even though it's over "quickly", it's immeasurably less intelligent.
>Positioning, Great Generals, etc, all of these actually keep things tactically interesting, along with placing of Cities, forts, etc
The thing is all that shit is not very interesting. It's not very hard. It's quite annoying because your units get in eachothers way, but you can grind through it. You have to do it over and over and over again. Ideally, every time to conquer a city, you have 10 workers on hand to spam roads everywhere so your units don't frick eachother over. What a pain in the ass. And the AI is dogshit (even in vox populi, which I played a lot). Realistically you might have one crucial period of war where you want to play optimally, then you're winning and the rest of the game is a huge grind against ultra-strong morons. There's actually little incentive to play well once you're winning since you can win faster (in real time) by spamming units to their deaths.
Doomstacking is more interesting than you seem to think and I doubt you actually played civ 4 very much. You need different units and promotions to do it optimally. And it's often beneficial to have multiple stacks. There are a lot of possible moves. Plus it's all over pretty quickly once you decide what to do.
Meanwhile in 5 you get to make the same "tactical" decisions over and over again for 3 hours while monty shits out 8 riflemen per turn, while micromanaging your reinforcements so they don't trip over eachothers dicks... coma-inducing
Stack of death is over quickly and the AI is at least capable of making a decent stack
Spamming 1 unit is usually suboptimal..
just a completely dishonest comparison tbh. reads like an actual shill post
i got VI plat for like 16 bucks. it doesn't have everything but I probably won't play it anyway so big deal.
>playing civ games without AI mods
VI is the only franchise i took a step back from, i like it though and at that price its a steal. IV had the most soul and the best soundtrack but i dont think i could go back to stacking units. Its V for me with gods and kings. If you want a challenge turn on the raging barbarians option, it can be a blessing/curse depending on the leader. Ive seen AI leaders in low player games get limited to one city on a continent and swamped to progression death its funny.
BABA YETU YETU ULIYE
More like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KevmywHSf1I
Get Civ 4 and install C2C
>people unironically like 6
Fricking how? 4 is good. 5 is different, but with mods it's solid. 6 is like 5's moron cousin.
>Fricking how? 4 is good. 5 is different, but with mods it's solid. 6 is like 5's moron cousin.
They didn't play those games, they are... too old and outdated for them.
Because they've actually played it? 6 is an excellent game for a plethora of reasons. Almost 100% of detractors explicitly show off how little they understand all of the mechanics inherent to 6, and it's obvious they don't actually know how anything in 6 works. 4boomers are effectively AoE2gays, and 5zoomers started with 5 and never played anything else in the series.
Anon, 6 is fine if you want a speedy, less thoughtful game
The problem tho, is, it's inherently not a Civ game
It's like a weird version. Imagine if you took Mario and said 'hey, racing cars is cool so you have like 30% platforming, 50% mario kart and 20% mario soccer' and then say it's Mario 2D
Again, morons like you who have literally never touched 6 are the explicit reason why you cannot understand why people enjoyed 6. It's not as if explaining how the game functions would convince you of things, because you'll never actually interact with the mechanics and see what turn-by-turn strategies are being performed, how far-ahead city planning needs to be dealt with, etc., you're just going to continue spouting vagueries without touching the game.
ok boo-boo
Now show playtime
>unornically she played civ 6
my sides
Civ 6 is more complex than civ 5 objectively so you're full of shit. You need to actually think about what techs you research and what social policies you choose instead of
>HURRRR DURRR ME CHOOSE TRADITION RATIONALISM EVERY GAME
Woah.... Deep.... Tactical....
>civ v
ah, anon, you seem to think I care for the other broken piece of shit they scam with
You know what's one feature I miss from early civ games? Building your palace.
They're all the same game. Just play the original, it's free.
V is the most expensive because it is the best Civ game and so it is most in-demand.
IV with the Ganker mod
Alpha Centauri
i seriously dont understand civ 4 gays, 5 is clearly the best one
https://steamcharts.com/search/?q=civilization
Firaxis devs are desperate for these people to move from Civ V to VI. They also post here often defending the wokeshit cartoony animations and artstyle.
They can't stop seething that the old team made a much better game than they could.
>30-day gain of 4% still puts it nearly triple the 30-day average of V
What are you trying to prove with this?
That over 1/3 of the playerbase failed to move on to the new game in the series. Literally unheard of.
>Literally unheard of.
https://steamcharts.com/search/?q=Age+of+Empires
Smash bros melee
I liked civ but it literally puts me to sleep, you need to do something else at the same time like listen to an audiobook. Grand strat ruined civ for me.
All the games go to shit in the modern eras. 6 just gives you more bullshit to do but it still feels like an every increasing set of checkboxes at that point.
VI was my first Civ game and it was so unimpressive to me that it's killed my interest in the series. I usually like 4X and RTS games but it just didn't do it for me. I'll give it another shot one day though.
Two was my first civ.
Three is my favorite.
Four is the one I played the most.
I couldn't tell you the difference between 5 and 6.
Never played one but I have no drive to.
What you got against Justy?
Call To Power 2 is a better Civilization game than any Civilization game is.
It used to be called Civilization: Call To Power but they dropped the Civilization part on Steam for some reason.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/572050/Call_to_Power_II/
Just in case you gays were too lazy to look it up. It's what civ wishes it was.
First game is better and you can apparently just download it free because it's now abandonware, can't find it for sale anywhere.
I can't even be bothered clicking on the fricking link since you can't even be bothered to explain yourself.
Endless Legend was my 4x golden goose, until an update broke it for modern OS's
Get IV and play C2C
Damn. Should I get 6 for $6? Or is it trash without DLC? I've been replaying 5 again lately.
It's trash anyway. Not worth pirating even with the DLC.
It's markedly better than 5, but you should probably wait until you can get the complete edition with literally everything for a very low price. It goes on sale constantly.
It's better without DLC even.
>Load game
>Intro is literally white civilization being destroyed by global warming to be replaced by le heckin wholsum brown peepul utopia
I never booted the game up again after that.
There is no one on Ganker but contrarians and nostalgiagays. Just pick the one that has the best looking gameplay to you and ignore everyone else here.
>terrain means you will move... 2.5 hexes
>oh we actually mean 2 and the other 0.5 next turn
6's movement is absolute garbage.
It's bizarre how this is regularly brought up as some sleight against VI but not the other plethora of strategy games where the exact same movement cost penalty exists. 4 movement means for movement. If there's a move cost penalty of 1 for moving on a hill, you cannot make 5 movement that turn.
It's not the limits that's the problem, it's that the movement is split awkwardly between the turns
I don't know what you're referring to. I'm playing 6 right now, and there's no movement split. You're prevented from moving into anything beyond your movement range, not half-permitted to enter space 2.5 and then given 1.5 movement later.
I just feel like in V, Age of Wonders, and Endless Legend, the movement was "cleaner" and you didn't to rely on reserving a path to make sure you don't waste the 0.5 movements left each turn. You could just use an entire unit's movement within the turn. No extra movements needed at end of turn either.
Again, I'm not sure what you're referring to. There's no half-movements in VI. You have X/X movement to move through tiles that either have no movement cost (1) or any movement cost (2+) to go through, and you'll finish up when you're done. There's no halves or quarters of movement in VI. If your suggestion is that you should be able to move up a mountain at 2 cost when you only have 1 movement left, you're suggesting something that wouldn't be permitted in almost any other 4X as well.
nta but in 5 as long as you had movement left you could move into any space, the other games that don't let you do that usually give you more movement so it's less noticeable. In civ6 you only get 2 move AND you can't move into a 2 move tile with just 1 pt AND the first tier of roads doesn't even help you on flat terrain AND you have 1upt. no one of these things on their own would be that bad, but in combination they make the movement in 6 feel very sluggish.
EL fricking rules, but it doesn't work on my current setup, immediate crash on launch. I've tried every work around like running it as an administrator in compatibility mode, nothing works.
I agree. The rounding part isn't the issue it's the 2 movement points per turn on maps with plenty of rough terrain and rivers. That combined with oupt is basically a death sentence for the possibility of fun combat in the mid-late game. age of wonders still has the best balance imo and humankind did okay with a similar take. I highly doubt civ will ever go that direction though
SOVL
You want SOVL? I'll give you SOVL
?si=TswpE3jaYX9Rp-4u
civ players are like battered wives. they just keep treating us like shit but there's no alternative so we have to put up with it. I've been denounced like 3 turns after I made my first city with just a builder and a scout. game is bullshit
5 is priced higher because it is by far the most popular
My quality ranking would be (assuming you're not a casual)
Lekmod 5 > vox populi 5 > 4 > > > > 6 > > no mods 5
The other guy is right btw you NEED expansions
>5 is priced higher because it is by far the most popular
But it isn't. Steamcharts shows VI is almost triple as frequently played as V.
is lekmod just for multiplayer or is sp good too?
I enjoy the sp
Needs lekmap so you get the new luxuries
>OP trying to parse a sane opinion from the thread
lol theres always a large amount of opinion (sometimes veering on pedantic lunacy imo) in civ threads that they can make for a quagmire of wut - but given all the addons and peoples arrival at the franchise at varying points (its very old ive been playing since 95) i do quite enjoy them. Its the same with all strategy games of a certain heritage.
I'd argue the extreme disparity of opinions in Civ threads can mostly be explained by the simple fact that they all do many things correct and very few things objectively incorrect, and as such there is a needless tribalism because having multiple favorite flavors of ice cream cannot be done. There cannot be people who are excited to play a game of FFH2, Vox Populi, and some mod soup in VI in the same month, it has to be one or the other, and everybody else is WRONG.
6 is full of issues so it's rabid defenders are "new good" consumerists....
At best they should be saying "it's better than 5!" But no, 6 is god and you're a casual if you disagree
You said quite literally nothing of substance, so you're just proving my point.
Yeah maybe, i like to think i can enjoy multiple iterations of a franchise and i think i do without getting het up about which is oestensibly better, even in strategic game
Turn the sound on its fun and relaxed on the big screen
buy endless legend instead
endless legend is better than civ
But most people who play civ are slaves to it
adding RPG elements and side missions to a 4X game was fantastic. I don't know if they were the first to do it, but it was very well done.
5 is the worst in the series, it panders to casuals who don't actually want to play a strategy game. Tall isn't a valid playstyle shitters, learn to landgrab.
>BUH BUH I WANT TO SIT ON 4 CITIES TURTLE AND PASSIVELY BEELINE A SCIENCE VICTORY WITHOUT EVER FIGHTING A SINGLE WAR
>get a bit more land than others in 6
>win by default even if you have downs syndrome
Truly, the thinking mans game.
Ikr sis, civ 6 is so toxic they expect you to actually play the game in order to win instead of afking for 600 turns
>Less options = better
I agree. I hope in Civ 7 the developers listen and the game ends after 20 turns and whoever controls more tiles wins! It'd be way more popular and easy for people to get into, like Mario Party.
>duhh I love using the same policy cards every game
>duhh I love using the same governor every game
I've never given 6 a serious chance because it looks like a fricking mobile game
You buy 3 instead, of course.
You have to play III
IV is easily skippable, painfully bad empire earth-like graphics.
V argued as the best looking Civ game
VI is still good
the op was asking about which one he should play not look at
How do these differ from civ rev? Same thing?
Civ5 is my favorite but I respect the Civ4 gays and find their arguments reasonable whether I personally agree or not. What I think most people would agree on is that they're both better than 6.
Civ 6 is dog shit it's literally not fun, I have 1000 hours in Civ 5 and 9 hours in CIV 6, only game I've wasted more cash on was Diablo IV
Was Diablo 4 really that bad? I had a blast during the beta weekend, despite wanting to hate it because I hate Blizzard.
not that anon but I bought it during the free weekend on steam and had an alright time, finished up the battle pass and hit lvl 91 after about 80 hours of gameplay. I'd say worth
Prob gonna chill on it until the next season/league or whatever, end game feels really pointless unless you wanna push your build to the max
Civilization is so fun but I hate the part of the game where you move 50 units and then end turn over and over. I wish I could automate the army part completely.
Any advice for someone that likes all the managing, choice making, etc, but not the individual military micro
Play vs. diety, assuming you're playing Civ V.
"Winning" against them in combat is pretty much an exercise in futility. This means your armies will be defensive and most of your time will be spent bribing nations to war against eachother instead of you.
Turtling is gay and unintresting unless you're playing against an AI with like +14 happy per city.
I was the exact opposite when I played civ 2 as a kid, just made a bunch of armies and wiped everyone else out and it was kino
VI is really fun. get VI
3, sorry III
Civ 6 is better than 5 because of the civic tree. It's fun to hunt and optimize boosts for Eurekas in game
I found the eureka system more annoying than anything.
this is the one time all those game deal aggregator websites came through for me. i got everything civ5 for the equivalent of like 10$ local currency. just make sure the key site you're buying from isnt too sketchy.
2 Is good
4 Is good
5 is great
6 is okay
Wait until V is on sale (great going forgetting to that this time, Steam) and get its full pack, it's around the same price as VI's base game.
They're probably never going to do a notable enough sale for VI+DLCs at this point. Small chance once VII is out maybe.
You should have gotten the Civ humble bundle a couple of months ago.
Civ V. Best visuals, easy to lean into, units auto-embark, no gay pollution mechanic.
I can’t get over the choices they made for VI. The shit-tier diversity Civs and leaders, the awful climate mechanic, a world Congress like 4 turns in, and diplomacy pop ups every 3 turns just with some stupid line you can’t speed through. It also felt micromanagy and slow as hell. It’s garbage.
RANK:
V > IV > II > III > I > VI
Civ 4 has better improvements and resource management/structure improvement but Civ 5 has a far better combat system where instead of spamming a frickload of cheap soldier you strategize with a couple.
Civ 4s combat would be ok if there weren't things like promotions to make the the entire combat system weirder than it has to be, they should have kept it simple like alpha centauri does for promotions.
I went back and played 5 after playing 6 more for the last few years. There's definitely things I like about 5 more but 6 with mods, DLC, with the right game settings is more enjoyable to me especially since you add things like secret societies, dramatic dark/golden ages, etc. The endgame in 6 does get a bit repetitive though. 4 is a very good game but I haven't played it since 5 came out and my impression at the time was that 5 eclipsed it in my most ways so I never went back to it.
i play since civ1.
Take V
Your post makes sense but your image doesn't. PCgays are more autistic than console normies.
VI if you want fun
V if you have peanut for brain
IV if you are a chad
anything below is curiosity nowadays
>beyond earth
it's Civ 5 with less replayability
just get unciv
When they will fix V netplay with city-states?
Get V because its fun 🙂
and it is easy to learn and hard to master.
Master of Orion/Magic >SMAC>2>5>6 Without Expansions>4>6 With Expansions> Endless Space/Legend >3>1
V with https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/new-version-4-2-7-october-30-2023.685779/
Get all of them. Get all DLC.
Play Morocco in Civ 5.
Build petra.
Rock Cashbah
>?????
profit
>Play Morocco in Civ 5
Fricking based.
just cant say no to kasbahs, and petra stacking. Especially if you get a strong desert mountain city
Them, Venice, Inca for terrace farms and Ethiopia are some of my favorite civs to play.
What's the best 4x game if I hate map cluttered with units? I hate it when I have to spent lots of time moving my army.
Stellaris : ^ )
Maybe get into grand strategy games, in those ones you only see stacks moving around, well excluding HOI4 and Victoria 2
If you like strategy and politics without the military micromanagement then both EU4 and CK2 are FOR YOU.
>without the military micromanagement
>EU4
Have you just never played?
civilization revolution is all you need
>bonuses in civ 6: +3.592345% lower production cost of (incredibly late game and inefficient unit)
>bonuses in civ rev: +50% gold production
gaaaaay
seethe. civ rev mogs shit 6 in every way.
4 is the best one, but 3 is the true contrarian choice. 3 is just good enough for one to be autistic that it's the best one but obviously missing important features and gameplay that 4 has.
Yep. As a true patrician (aka contrarian) I only play 3. 1 and 2 are for nostalgia-addled boomers
none, these games suck