Civilization VI

[Martinus]

Also video from quill here:

https://youtu.be/ZUr5nf3ALCg

The system of hidden leader agendas and how you find out about them passively through trade and embassies sounds great.

[mongers]

OK Marty you've sold this to me.


But do I need a replacement pc to play it? 

[Tonitrus]

So far, looks like Civ 5.5

Likely pass.

[Solmyr]

I'm sold.

[Razgovory]

I never played civ 1.


I'm really not sure on this unstacking cities stuff.....
All improvements on map? Sounds limiting.
But a big improvement.

I hope they get rid of the over the top road maintenance thing.  Just make roads degrade and need a worker touch up now and then.

Never played Civ III.

[DGuller]

Never played Civ III.

Definitely the worst one of the bunch, IMO.

[crazy canuck]

Never played Civ III.

Definitely the worst one of the bunch, IMO.

I agree.

I am still partial to Civ II but Civ IV was very good also. VI looks good.  So it is perhaps what someone said about even numbers in this franchise...

[DGuller]

Never played Civ III.

Definitely the worst one of the bunch, IMO.

I agree.

I am still partial to Civ II but Civ IV was very good also. VI looks good.  So it is perhaps what someone said about even numbers in this franchise...

It's not about even numbers.  Civ V is the best game of the five, by far.  It's just that Civ III was a horrible game, that tried to introduce many new mechanics but did it badly. 

I still remember being forced to ethnically cleanse the cities I captured, by starving them until it almost became a village, because otherwise out of nowhere it would flip back and take all the garrisoned units with it.  And it only took a single foreign citizen to flip the city.  And those borders that constantly ebbed and flowed were loads of fun as well.

[garbon]

I have had more enjoyment out of 2 and 4 than 5. Perhaps mould was stale for me by then though.

[Martinus]

I agree with Dguller - no. 5 was the best.

[PDH]

Civ IV returned the game to very interesting fun - Civ III was too flawed.  Civ II was Civ I on steroids, fulfilling all the promises people wanted after playing the original for 10,000 hours and ruining their lives.  Civ II remains the best for many because of this - it took the game that was inspired by ASCII Empire and made it complete.

However, I find that with all the expansions, Civ V has been the most fun for me since Civ I (nothing can compare to discovering that and almost ruining my graduate school).  I was far more lukewarm to it before the add-ons, but once those came about the game felt more alive than any other since making my Mongol Chariot Army and conquering the world in Civ I.

[Jaron]

4 was best. 5 is crap.

[Monoriu]

3 is the weakest of the bunch.  Actually 1 is weak too but back then there wasn't much to compare with it.  It only felt weak in retrospect.  When I played it, it was the best game ever.  2 is 1 with much better graphics and more of everything.  No significant change to the rules though.  Don't fix it if it ain't broken.  3 was an unpolished attempt to improve the game.  The idea of borders was much needed, but the way it was done was annoying.  Capturing cities didn't feel that good because the captured cities were quite useless.  Or even less than useless due to corruption.  4 was what 3 was supposed to be.  For the first time I felt that the AI had improved.  In Civ 1 and 2, the rule was, you kill the best unit in the stack, you kill the entire stack.  4 did away with this rule (could be 3 though, can't remember), and changed the production numbers so that cities could crank out crazy numbers of units.  The result was massive stacks of doom.  5 changed the stacking rules to basically one unit per tile, and introduced hexagons.  It was great too.

[MadImmortalMan]

4 was best. 5 is crap.

I really miss the unit stacking, to be honest. It's just not very realistic to me that you can't fit more than one army unit in a 500km radius or whatever. What do they represent, a brigade? Division? Entire army group? Why are they so cheap if that's supposed to represent a huge unit size? I'm cool with limiting the stacking, but what they did with 5 was way over the top.

[PDH]

Actually, I like the end of the "killer stacks of doom" from earlier civs.  Sure, there is no real idea as to what each unit represents, but the fact that there are limited military resources (especially in the crucial period after the initial set up and before the advent of killer artillery) helps to make things more iffy and flexible.