What's the best Civilization game?

What's the best Civilization game?

if you say anything other than SMAC you are fucking oblivious

unironically civ 6

probably 4. People who say the previous ones are saying it out of nostalgia and if they say the later ones they are butthurt about unit stacking

Though revolution was really good with simplification of things making it an excellent time killer with a mobile device

It's clear that none of you have ever played the wonderful

>SID MEIER'S CIVILIZATION 4: COLONIZATION

because it's objectively the right answer.

>Cozy Colonies
>The british are coming
>Buying land

Tippity top tier civ.

Civ V with VP mod for best AI.

4

IV > V > III > II > I > VI

I'm of course talking about full dlc versions and not vanilla versions

Only the mentally retarded are butthurt about doom stacks, because artillery/siege weapons are an entire fucking obvious class of units

These. Civ 4: BtS was the deepest, hardest, and most fun civ game. You could play in a happy-go-lucky way on lower difficulties, or try to climb a difficulty ladder so intense by Deity that despite having played the game for years I STILL consider it an achievement for someone to succeed at, even DIRECTLY following a guide.

Excuse me for asking friend, but what was great about unit stacking? Was it the complete and utter lack of strategy? Was it the total disregard for unit placement other than (sit in forest or hill ur gud)? Was it the (I have more units than u I win lol)?

>Assuming you're asking in good faith and people actually want a legit answer to this

For solo play, the AI was good at it. Unit stacking is immediately clear and is computationally simple, allowing for the AI to play at a level competitive with humans at war.

For multiplayer AND singleplayer it streamlined combat speed because you could manage an entire stack of units with 3 clicks, which could represent 10-100% of your military. This made equal combat feel less shitty and generally leads to the same outcome that spread out combat does, without all the faffing that introduces.

>but what was great about unit stacking?
Covers up the shitty AI pathfinding traffic jamming, which only got worse with the move to hex / 1UPT.

is still garbage even with """"mods"""". Also 5's modding scene is garbage and will never compare to Rhys and Fall, and Fall From Heaven because Firaxis fumbled the DLL release.

2 because it had cheesy as shit live action actors as your advisors.

He said Civilization game, faggot. AC is based, but not the same.
I'd agree that 4 is the best.

Why in every game of Civ IV I start out good and then suddenly I sink lower and lower in points while the enemies skyrocket even though I'm building a shit ton

trade techs

To win noble and above you either need to be declaring and winning wars with at least one early neighbor, or to get lucky and spawn in a place with access to both a source of money and food, to propel your research and production at a decent pace.

The AIs on noble are balanced to just slightly beat a player playing exactly like them because they have to account for the fact that you're human and therefore they're at a slight disadvantage.

I've never won a game of Civ 4 on deity, what's the strat to actually pull it off?

2

2 civ mode, you vs gandhi, choose an aggressive, military civ centered around early combat, destroy gandhi's civ using force, win domination

who's the better leader?

The one I enjoyed the most was 2 so probably that.

3 would be second place.

Ironically BERT.

I like 4

Why do people hate BE? I tried it a while back and liked it quite a bit.

In general? 4.

If you actually do anything related to combat? 5 and 6. God what I wouldn't give to have 4 with the combat of 6.

You posted it

She is fucking perfect. They breed them correctly in space.

How would you have fixed unit stacking Sup Forums?

I would have it if you lost your most powerful unit within the stack all units within would be lost

In lieu of actually programming good AI, which so far they have proven incapable of, computer unit stacking plus tech bonuses is the only way the game has any challenge. Without it it's not worth playing, impossible to lose unless you're literally retarded.

>Scythia listed with Asians
>"Wip" it
>dumb pornposter
Don't you have some 70 IQ general to trod around in?

The current system is pretty spot on, desu. Stacking is complete cancer and shouldn't exist in any form.

Are you not fond of doomstacks?

2 and 3 are goat easily

>How would you have fixed unit stacking Sup Forums?
It was already fixed, it's called splash damage from artillery.

...

The current system still makes the game as babby tier easy as V

Not in the least. Why even have war as a mechanic when having such a lazy, slapped on way of running it?

Maybe make it so that you can only stack up to 2 or 3 of the same unit type, forcing you to have a more spread out army if you want to lead with all your spearmen for example.

This; you unit stacked against someone who had artillery, you lost, full stop.

it's located mostly in central asia.

Stacking was even easier, what's your point? There's no way to make the AI challenging in Civ because they're incapable of strategy and decent positioning. All you can do is just give them more units and resources to work with. At least with the current system it's not COMPLETELY brainless like it was with stacking.

That's right, 2 will always be king.
BUILD CITY WALLS!

Why is there so little Civilization R34?

Allow unit merging: you merge units into one single unit with all abilities of all lesser units. So, two 1 power warriors become a 2 powered warrior, and you can merge a swordsman, archer, and catapult to have a 14 damage attacker, to simulate strength in numbers.

Boom: Battles are no longer won by stacks or shitty war sims, it's settled by logistics, who is better at getting a platoon capable of delivering the killing blow?

Alpha Centauri.

nigga sid meiers colonization was and is a standalone game outside the civilization series. It is nonetheless a great game.

but civ doomstacks have counters with artillery, missiles, and aircraft but stellaris doomstacks do not

Better question: What makes Civ 6 unappealing to fans asides from the graphics? Seriously, I played Civ 6 for around 2 hours when it came out. Got bored. Redownloaded Civ 5, and dumped like 8 hours in it immediately

Civ II Test of Time is best. 3 was good too

>Not the original Civ 1
>Reduction in silliness from Civ 2
>Missing the elegance of Civ 3
>Shuns the variety and complexity of Civ 4
>Not ambitious enough in its changes to be mistaken for Civ 5

It's kinda a Civ game designed by commitee, without thought to what made the games so compelling all along; the variety of playstyles, both serious and silly, that made things fun all along.

is there some game the depth of a Paradox game packaged like Civ with it's accessibility and clear progression?

This. It just didn't really do much to stand out. It's not a bad game, and as far as execution it's probably the most well rounded Civ. But it's just too dull and samey to 5. I feel like if they had given it the depth of 4 it would have sealed the deal and cemented it as the best Civ.

There is a number of issues with the gameplay. Off the top of my head I can list these:

>The beginning of the game forces you to focus on military, since its very easy to be overwhelmed by barbarians and other civs could turn hostile before you get your borders marked.
>Leader motivations are nonsensic and annoying, they get mad at you for things you cannot do or want, like Norway gets mad if you don't build a navy even if you are landlocked. the Spartans dislike you if you don't go to war, but then are the first to denounce you for being a warmonger.
>Most of the wonders in the game are pretty useless, and the bonuses they give are negligible or are too little too late by the time you can get them.
>many resources are also pretty worthless, like crabs. especially compared to what civ 5 gave you.
>The district system is nice in principle but all it does is delay the production of the one or two buildings that matter to you, the campus remains unused for most of the game from when you get the library until you get the university, and all the models for every civ are pretty much the same, would be cool if the aztecs had a campus made of pyramids and such.
>Its pretty easy to advance in this game, ensuring that most games will have you reach the modern age while in the 16th century. Considering that you can also advance in age with culture, its understandable that it wont be easy to balance progress in the game.
>Speaking of cultural advancements, they feel like they could have used a couple more milestones, since after the modern era there are not a lot of cultural achievements to get.

Also its clear that the better Unique Units and Abilities where given to the first civs the developers thought off while the rest got shit since its hard to balance the game otherwise.

Another question, why did they scrap the ruins? All I can think of is less rng, but the game wasnt meant to be esport anyway

Do you think civ 6 is salvageable? I got 5 only a year ago, and I can play it for a couple of more years easily. By then, 6 should be great, right?

I enjoy VI the most

>Do you think civ 6 is salvageable?

Sure, but the devs are already moving on to a new dlc for so they obviously don't see anything wrong with the current state of the game.

How does civ 5 with the CBP compare to vanilla civ 4?

Stellaris is getting some changes to nerf doomstacks, one being doomstacks taking more damage from smaller fleets. Larger stacks will still win hands down, however they will actually take damage b/c the smaller fleet has a "target rich environment".

That make no sense. May as well just make weapons that chain off grouped enemies, thus damaging all of the ships, or maybe doing more damage by the amount of ships in a stack.

SMAC

>is there some game the depth of a Paradox game
so microsoft paint?

There was literally nothing ever wrong with doom stacks, and only hipsters thought they were a "problem"

>Make a game about WW2
>The wars always end in months.

I would argue that the early game is the best it's ever been in VI
In V, to compete on harder difficulties, you MUST follow a fairly specific build order and military only exists to protect your workers. The entire first few ages are only building your economy.
Whereas in 6, with the addition of districts cities are naturally more specialized. This gives time to build units and so wars as early as the ancient era are viable. I find this a hell of a lot more fun than barely interacting with other civs until the Renaissance.

Me luuv doomstak too!! I liek havig lods of unids and dey moov all at ones!! now duh sivv five mages my hed hort rely bad cuz I cant pud al my guz in 1 skware!!!!

thats a good way to see it.

Or, you know, anyone that actually played the fucking games.

You also don't know what 'hipster' means, apparently.

Not him, but you're full of shit. Doomstacks were fine because of artillery.