Why Civilization IV is the "best" Civilization game.

[all2easy]

Before I get to the tl;dr section let me start off by saying that Civilization VII could be the best game in the series. BUT.. I went back and played Civs 6, 5 and 4 where I noticed something I hadn't realised had been gone from this legendary series.

The ability to trade technology.

Now I understood why every game of Civilization VII I play feels exactly the same. It's no longer possible to use the threat of a strong military to ask an opposing Civ to give away a piece of tech for free.

As a casual player of this series I have to ask - WHY. Why was this removed in Civilzation V and all games going forward? I can theorise it's a multiplayer decision, after all it wouldn't be fun to play a game against players sharing tech with each other, and there would not be a way to police that type of behaviour, but the singleplayer game should not have to suffer because of it.

[kasnavada]

Civ4 was micromanagement hell, especially late game.

Tech exchange was exploitable as hell, it's actually the strategy to win "turn 1".

Doom stack was the most boring way ever to do war.

Civ4 would fail spectacularly if it went out nowadays, even with prettier graphics.

[orthostatic]

idk, i started back on civ1 and thought civ2 was the king until V came along.

[DadouXIII]

Everybody has an opinion on which Civ is the best.

[The Doctor]

Indeed. I thought Civ 3 was the best. Civ IV is one of the most-pined for Civ games after SMAC. It's still highly playable today so there's no need to miss it. But, for better or for worse, Civ went far away from it with Civ V

[DadouXIII]

I also have a soft spot for 3.

Anyone missing Civ 2 should check out the open source version: FreeCiv!

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

2-4-6-3-5-1, that's the right order. The 2 is the only one where I'm immersed in the Civ process. 21 civilizations to play from the start, the fundamentalist government type, corruption/waste/pollution/...

The 4 was great for warfare as it is more realistic to stack troops while going to war. 1 unit/square is absurd and made AI extremely weak compared to previous titles. Too easy to break with religion wonders though, the weakest point of the IV.

The VI transformed cottages -> cities into districts and did it quite well. While it lacks balance it's still an excellent way to specialize cities.

The V was far too easy to tickle me. I don't remember a single challenging game there, even with my first playthroughs.

The 1 is the only one I struggle to play nowadays. Probably the one I played the most, the civ soundtrack that is still popping in my mind from time to time, especially that weird Gandhi's 8-bit tune. But it's too hard now, far too slow and not much to do.

The 3 is the one where things began to change and it was quite well done. I missed my council and wonder's videos though, which decreased greatly immersion.

[DadouXIII]

Originally posted by Jean-Maurice Nya:

2-4-6-3-5-1, that's the right order.

Speak. For. Yourself.

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

No. I'm the voice of people that leads them, always have been since 1991.

[Skull]

Nah, the board game was the best Civilization game of all time. And I’m definitely not looking back with rose colored glasses to ignore the major flaws in a multiple decades old game.

[TheCr33pur]

I wouldnt say the best, some players like the old fashion Civ IV setup and the classic III. The fifth and sixth series is something entirely different. I didnt like the sixth cause the launcher isnt friendly and too much hardware demand running the game itself. So i would say classic III, IV if you want more challenge and the fifth is simple without stack of doom.

Forget about the seventh series, after what i heard, read and seen videos about the game is not good at all. Too many issues and making the players upset over it. The one i hated the most, is when the new era about to start, everything go into reset. I like the tech trees, so you can advance into eras, even if the AI is behind or ahead of you. That what make the game so special.

[metropolitan75002]

Originally posted by kasnavada:

Civ4 was micromanagement hell, especially late game.

Sorry but what makes you think so? Developing cities was considerably less tedious and much faster in Civ4, allowing to grow more of them. Towns were simple improvements that were automatically growing out of cottages. They didn't need their own work like they do in Civ7. This allowed the game to reach a larger scale, with more cities and more units, basically feeling like a real Empire rather than a small kingdom.

If you think about workers, they were usually turned in auto mode once the most strategic improvements were done and their work became less meaningful.

If you think about more numerous units, they could be moved all at once as a stack with a go to function directly leading them to their destination. Even with less units, following civ games made their movements more tedious, as they had to be moved one by one and were interrupted when blocked by other units.

What else? Sorry but I can't see.

[strategic_panda]

Civ5’s massive success probably solidified the franchise’s shift toward mainstream appeal. However, in reality, the rise of video-sharing platforms at the time played a huge role in spreading the word about Civ4.

Most viewers of Civ4 gameplay videos were newcomers to the series, and Civ5 happened to align well with their preferences.

But back then, when platforms like YouTube didn’t offer ad revenue, many content creators who uploaded Civ videos purely for their own satisfaction had already abandoned Civ5.

The core fanbase of the Civ series is like a bedrock—without it, the soil above loses its nutrients, becoming barren and unable to sustain growth.

A Civ game that disregards its core fans might not have a long future ahead.

[DadouXIII]

Originally posted by strategic_panda:

A Civ game that disregards its core fans might not have a long future ahead.

Get over yourself.

[Despiser]

Originally posted by Jean-Maurice Nya:

2-4-6-3-5-1, that's the right order. The 2 is the only one where I'm immersed in the Civ process. 21 civilizations to play from the start, the fundamentalist government type, corruption/waste/pollution/...

The 4 was great for warfare as it is more realistic to stack troops while going to war. 1 unit/square is absurd and made AI extremely weak compared to previous titles. Too easy to break with religion wonders though, the weakest point of the IV.

The VI transformed cottages -> cities into districts and did it quite well. While it lacks balance it's still an excellent way to specialize cities.

The V was far too easy to tickle me. I don't remember a single challenging game there, even with my first playthroughs.

The 1 is the only one I struggle to play nowadays. Probably the one I played the most, the civ soundtrack that is still popping in my mind from time to time, especially that weird Gandhi's 8-bit tune. But it's too hard now, far too slow and not much to do.

The 3 is the one where things began to change and it was quite well done. I missed my council and wonder's videos though, which decreased greatly immersion.

5 had a much better AI than 6. How could you have possibly found 6 to be challenging? Air power never even worked, though they said it was fixed.

[Gut]

Stack of Doom was far better than the Carpet of Doom we have since Civ5. And no, Civ games are not about tactics, they are about strategy and management. Trying to add an interesting tactical layer to the game is a deadend that alienate the whole game in an inferior version of itself.