Civilization VI

[KRonn]

Civ 1: XXXXX
Civ 2: XXXXX
Civ 3: XXX
Civ 4: XXXXXX
Civ 5: XXX
Civ 6: X

I was a lot younger when Civ I and CivII came out and in those days I'd play these games almost all night. The Civ games especially had me really hooked! Loved them! I still really like the Civ games. Hmm, reminds me. I haven't played Civ for a while now though. I do like Civ 6 but not as hooked on it like on the other ones. In the recent Civs one thing, among others, I like are how number of armies are limited. It used to be a hassle to have and need such large numbers of armies. I also like the resources process, how those are handled and traded for.

[Tonitrus]

(I feel like there should be an "X" limit to properly scale this  )

Civ 1: XXXX
Civ 2: XXXXXXXX
Civ 3: XXX
Civ 4: XXXXXXXX
Civ 5: XX
Civ 6:

Loved Civ1, played the hell out of Civ 2...actually thought Civ3 was ok, and played the hell out of 4 (including mods, like Fall from Heaven).  A bit of Civ5, but not too much.  Never got Civ6.  The graphical turn towards looking very cartoony has turned me off.

[Solmyr]

Civ 6 is no more cartoony than Civ 5.

[DGuller]

Civ 6 is no more cartoony than Civ 5.

I think it's a bit more cartoony.  Civ 6 took a turn towards exaggeration of everything.  For example, Civ 5 leaders looked like humans with human proportions, whereas Civ 6 leaders looked like the subjects of political cartoons, with exaggerated physical features.

[Josquius]

I liked civ 3. I remember it handled culture well.
It had issues for sure, but there was a lot to build on.

Failing to get into 6.
Don't think I ever finished my first and only game,

[Syt]

I didn't mind the visuals of Civ 6 so much as the game itself takes a sillier tone. Scots have the golf course district! Brazilians build soccer stadiums everywhere! Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

[DGuller]

I liked civ 3. I remember it handled culture well.
It had issues for sure, but there was a lot to build on.

Failing to get into 6.
Don't think I ever finished my first and only game,

I remember that in Civ 3 you had to ethnically cleanse every city you captured, by repeatedly starving them and growing them until every foreigner was dead.  Even a single foreigner could result in your city instantly flipping back to the previous owner and wiping out all your garrisons.  It's one of those mechanics that easily made it the worst game of the franchise.

[Josquius]

Wasn't Civ 3 the one where you could culture flip enemy cities without conquering them?
That was good. Though very slow. And only really worked with inefficient city placement

[DGuller]

Wasn't Civ 3 the one where you could culture flip enemy cities without conquering them?
That was good. Though very slow. And only really worked with inefficient city placement

You can do that in Civ 6 as well.  In reality, in both games, this is a defensive mechanism much more than offensive, making both games more static.

[KRonn]

One thing that was a hassle to me in the mid Civ games was no borders, so opponents built cities in the midst of the player's and each other AI's areas. I remember stationing troops at the edge of my city areas just to block other civ settlers from moving in. I was glad they introduced borders in somewhere around Civ4.

[mongers]

One thing that was a hassle to me in the mid Civ games was no borders, so opponents built cities in the midst of the player's and each other AI's areas. I remember stationing troops at the edge of my city areas just to block other civ settlers from moving in. I was glad they introduced borders in somewhere around Civ4.

Damn, there you go again, I really should get back to playing IV, you're selling it well. 

[Syt]

Next expansion adds: CANADA. Leader: Wilfrid Laurier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg0PYsWK1dc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfrid_Laurier

[Valmy]

Canada

Though I guess if Poland and Australia are civilizations everybody gets in.

[garbon]

Canada

[Grey Fox]

It's a good, safe, choice for leader.

We're entirely too young of a nation to be in there but eh, Australia is there!