What is the best Civilization game?

  • 59 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Edited 1 year, 1 month ago

Poll: What is the best Civilization game? (60 votes)

Civilization 0%
Civilization II 8%
Civilization III 12%
Civilization IV 15%
Alpha Centauri 7%
Civilization Revolution 5%
Civilization V 53%

Sid Meier's Civilization games are amazing, the grand masters of the strategy genre, and among the premier PC exclusive franchises. But there have been so many of them, and they have grown so much over the last few decades- which one do you think is the best though?

I personally think the answer is Civilization V, as not only did the game streamline itself so it wasn't as much of a sprawling mess, it also finally made some broken strategies impossible (no more fucking unit stacking), and became even more nuanced and complicated than previous games (especially with the expansions).

What do you think though?

#1 Edited by Maroxad (8667 posts) -

Sid Meier 4 is the best Civilization game that does not have Alpha Centauri in it.

Alpha Centauri is the best though. Civ 5's attempt to stop Unit Stacking did more harm than good.

#2 Edited by FreedomFreeLife (3175 posts) -

Latest game of cause.

Old games are bad(not all old games like Mafia and Battlefield 2)

#3 Edited by freedomfreak (43048 posts) -

Civilization: Revolution.

#4 Posted by mems_1224 (48409 posts) -

I've only played Civ V and Revolution so Im gonna go with V

#5 Edited by hoosier7 (3967 posts) -

Civ 5, needs all the expansions though.

#6 Edited by wolverine4262 (20112 posts) -

Im gonna go with Civ 5. Before the expansions, 4 was the best, but 5 is significantly more fleshed out now.

I also think that removing unit stacking was a fantastic idea. It makes city placement much more meaningful, as a coastal or mountain city must be approached differently when attacking.

#7 Edited by lamprey263 (25398 posts) -

I only played Revolution but it's a lot of fun. I find the Sim like talk amusing, especially when figures like Gandhi shaking his fist demanding you give him enhanced flight in exchange for knowledge of the alphabet or he'll send his knights to contend with your tanks.

I was actually on Steam looking to try one of the later versions but it's still too pricey for me, hopefully it'll be a part of a Steam sale in near future.

#8 Posted by adamosmaki (9799 posts) -

@hoosier7 said:

Civ 5, needs all the expansions though.

same. Civ V with G&K and brave new world is the best in the series.

#9 Edited by PurpleMan5000 (7827 posts) -

It really is remarkable how much better Civ 5 has gotten with the patches and expansion packs. It was easily one of the worst games in the series at launch, and now it is almost as good as Civ 4 with the Beyond The Sword expansion. Civ 4 is still the best, though.

#10 Posted by hoosier7 (3967 posts) -

@adamosmaki said:

@hoosier7 said:

Civ 5, needs all the expansions though.

same. Civ V with G&K and brave new world is the best in the series.

Best DLC i've bought all generation. They know how to put together a good expansion. I picked up the Korean and Babylon too, awesome science Civs, not lost a game on immortal playing with them.

#11 Edited by blue_hazy_basic (28501 posts) -

@freedomfreak said:

Civilization: Revolution.

Its hard to criticize people's opinions as being incorrect, however, you're not only wrong but a monster.

#12 Posted by freedomfreak (43048 posts) -
@blue_hazy_basic said:

Its hard to criticize people's opinions as being incorrect, however, you're not only wrong but a monster.

:barn:

#13 Posted by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -
@freedomfreak said:
@blue_hazy_basic said:

Its hard to criticize people's opinions as being incorrect, however, you're not only wrong but a monster.

don't mind blue hazy. he's just a bit blue today.

anyway i will go for civilization 5. i can't remember which one i played when i was a youngin, but it was also a damn good game.

#14 Edited by br0kenrabbit (13418 posts) -

Civilization IV: BtS. Granted, I haven't played V since the expansions came out, but I'm still addicted to IV. The religion/corporation aspect is too often overlooked.

I love AC as well, and if weren't for those damn mind worms it may have been my favorite.

#15 Edited by Raptor_Herc (298 posts) -

I have only played Civ III and Civ IV so between those two, I would have to go with Civ IV, as it is more fleshed out and, as the poster above me mentioned, the religion and corporation aspect does make the game more interesting.

I originally did not get Civ V b/c of all the negative things I read about it when it came out (bugs, AI issues), but might eventually get it once I also get a new PC that can handle it on more than just minimum settings. It will be interesting to play, as I will have to change my tactics since I'll no longer be able to charge the enemies with my "stacks of doom" ^^.

#16 Posted by padaporra (3438 posts) -

Civilization V in its final form.

#17 Posted by SolidGame_basic (19154 posts) -

I like 5, but XCOM spanks this series

#18 Posted by padaporra (3438 posts) -

@SolidGame_basic said:

I like 5, but XCOM spanks this series

#19 Posted by dethtrain (457 posts) -

Civ 5 at release it wasn't that great. Now it's amazing. I LOVE the 1 unit per tile rule but I think the combat would be better if they allowed a ranged unit stack with a melee unit. I really enjoyed 4 and revolutions though. Never played the other ones

#20 Posted by PyratRum (557 posts) -

Civ IV + Expansions followed closely by Civ Rev.

I don't play much Civ these days due to them being so damn time consuming so I haven't played any of Civ V's expansion which seems to remedy a lot of the issues I had with V.

#21 Posted by hrt_rulz01 (6988 posts) -

Definitely Civ 5... the expansions make it even better!

#22 Posted by cainetao11 (19276 posts) -

Dem President vs Republican Congress. Been in a stalemate for years

#23 Edited by DocSanchez (2266 posts) -

The one I enjoyed the most was Civ 2. I'd played the original but Civ 2 was the one which blew me completely away. I had all the expansions and managed to create a few nice mods for it on it's own customisation suite. So that's my favourite. Didn't like 3 but have really enjoyed every single one since. And if I was going to recommend one, my nostalgia be damned. I'm going to recommend the latest one. It's terrific. As deep as any of the others, with a lovely look to it.

#24 Posted by SakusEnvoy (4442 posts) -

Civilization 2 will always be my favorite if only because of the High Council.

#25 Edited by treedoor (7648 posts) -

Civ V + expansions

#26 Posted by j_assassin (933 posts) -

only played revolution and civ 5, civ 5 was very addictive

#27 Posted by nintendoboy16 (27924 posts) -

My favorites are Civ III and Revolution (DS version, I'm playing the 360 version).

#28 Posted by jake44 (2045 posts) -

@hoosier7 said:

Civ 5, needs all the expansions though.

I would agree with this.

#29 Posted by locopatho (20792 posts) -

CIV IV i consider to be about perfect. Civ V was awful when I first played it but people tell me to try again with expansions + patches.

@charizard1605 - "no more fucking unit stacking" - that's called combined arms, that every army in the world does. Sending siege weapons along without an infantry escort is dumb.

#30 Posted by blue_hazy_basic (28501 posts) -

BTW if anyone wants a code for CivV and Gods & Kings send me a PM I think I still have codes for them.

#31 Posted by anab0lic (374 posts) -

4 is my favorite...i havent got around to 5 yet though... from what ive read 5 sucks unless you have all the expansions to fix most of that sucky stuff.

#32 Edited by KungfuKitten (21401 posts) -

Alpha Centauri. The Civ game with regrettably the BEST political A.I. in the series. How did they go downhill from there?
Thematically and description wise the most interesting CIV for me and closest to the heart. The only Civ game where I could work together with the A.I.
Disliked the workshop though. I don't like wasting time playing Bob the Builder when I could be spending time nerve stapling my citizens.

#33 Posted by charizard1605 (60999 posts) -

@locopatho: Oh, I definitely agree. I just think that stacking wasn't the right way to go about representing it, it led to too many cheap brute force and spammy tactics. In Civ V, for instance, I can still have an infantry escort for my siege weapons, I just need to place them on an adjacent tile, which is not only more realistic, but also leads to more thorough strategy and tactical thinking which requires the player to consider the lay of the land and actually try to utilize the terrain =)

#34 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (7827 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

@locopatho: Oh, I definitely agree. I just think that stacking wasn't the right way to go about representing it, it led to too many cheap brute force and spammy tactics. In Civ V, for instance, I can still have an infantry escort for my siege weapons, I just need to place them on an adjacent tile, which is not only more realistic, but also leads to more thorough strategy and tactical thinking which requires the player to consider the lay of the land and actually try to utilize the terrain =)

I think it's actually less realistic when you consider just how much land a tile is supposed to represent, though. I think the best solution is to tie military organization into the social policy trees. You would only be allowed one unit per tile at the start of the game, but as your military becomes better organized, you would be allowed to stack a certain number of units per tile, allowing for combined arms.

#35 Posted by cfisher2833 (2150 posts) -

Certainly not 3. I still have the disc of that game and god was it annoying. The amount of times I had tanks and other advanced units get killed by some guy with a spear....ugh.

#36 Edited by Lucianu (9557 posts) -

@locopatho said:

CIV IV i consider to be about perfect. Civ V was awful when I first played it but people tell me to try again with expansions + patches.

Civilization V was, for sure, a inferior game compared to Civilization IV: The Complete Edition (which includes its two expansions and Colonization).

But now? Civilization V: Complete Edition ( which includes the countless DLCs and its two expansions, Gods & Kings and Brave New World) is a better game and my favorite of the series. Highly recommend you give it a go now, you can find Civ.5: Complete Edition on Steam.

But man .... you really can't go wrong with either one of these two. They're both fucking amazing games. Easily the best two games of the entire series.

#37 Edited by locopatho (20792 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

@locopatho: Oh, I definitely agree. I just think that stacking wasn't the right way to go about representing it, it led to too many cheap brute force and spammy tactics. In Civ V, for instance, I can still have an infantry escort for my siege weapons, I just need to place them on an adjacent tile, which is not only more realistic, but also leads to more thorough strategy and tactical thinking which requires the player to consider the lay of the land and actually try to utilize the terrain =)

I thought Civ IV stacks were perfect. They give you the brute force, yet I can damage your entire stack with one or two siege units of my own. It means as the attacker you actually needed to have light infantry/cavalry as screening units, to protect your powerful yet vulnerable stacks. Very cool, very fun and somewhat realistic.

Civ always utilised the terrain btw, from defense bonuses to movement costs to line of sight.

The one unit per tile thing isn't realistic for the strategic scale. I'm from Ireland (over 70,000 km^2) and the Civ 5 world map I saw had 4 tiles. So 4 infantry units fills my whole country? (3 actually, and one in the North ;) ) And we better not want to build some tanks to go with that infantry cos every square inch of those 70,000 km^2 is already covered in dudes!? :P

And what about cities, which take up 1 tile? Are we saying a tile can hold millions of civilians and only a couple thousand soldiers?

I like one unit per tile in small scale, tactical games where it's a tile is physically very small and filled by 1 person. As in, I can use one guy to block a one tile doorway in Fire Emblem. Cool, sensible. But when we are looking at a global scale map, the idea of a single military unit entirely filling the large chunk of land represented by a tile is very silly.

#38 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (7827 posts) -

@cfisher2833 said:

Certainly not 3. I still have the disc of that game and god was it annoying. The amount of times I had tanks and other advanced units get killed by some guy with a spear....ugh.

I wish the newer games would still let you pimp your throne room, though.

#39 Posted by locopatho (20792 posts) -

@Lucianu said:

@locopatho said:

CIV IV i consider to be about perfect. Civ V was awful when I first played it but people tell me to try again with expansions + patches.

Civilization V was, for sure, a inferior game compared to Civilization IV: The Complete Edition (which includes its two expansions and Colonization).

But now? Civilization V: Complete Edition ( which includes the countless DLCs and its two expansions, Gods & Kings and Brave New World) is a better game and my favorite of the series. Highly recommend you give it a go now, you can find Civ.5: Complete Edition on Steam.

But man .... you really can't go wrong with either one of these two. They're both fucking amazing games. Easily the best two games of the entire series.

I will defo go back to Civ V at some point. I was so very bitterly disappointed at 5 when I first played it but logically I know it's better now. I'l;l overcome my emotional "JUST PLAY 4 YOU KNOW IT'S PERFECT" response one day :)

#40 Edited by RossRichard (2469 posts) -

Played them all, like 2 the best.

#41 Edited by charizard1605 (60999 posts) -

@PurpleMan5000 said:

I think it's actually less realistic when you consider just how much land a tile is supposed to represent, though. I think the best solution is to tie military organization into the social policy trees. You would only be allowed one unit per tile at the start of the game, but as your military becomes better organized, you would be allowed to stack a certain number of units per tile, allowing for combined arms.

This is actually a great idea! I hope they do this for VI.

@locopatho said:

I thought Civ IV stacks were perfect. They give you the brute force, yet I can damage your entire stack with one or two siege units of my own. It means as the attacker you actually needed to have light infantry/cavalry as screening units, to protect your powerful yet vulnerable stacks. Very cool, very fun and somewhat realistic.

Civ always utilised the terrain btw, from defense bonuses to movement costs to line of sight.

The one unit per tile thing isn't realistic for the strategic scale. I'm from Ireland (over 70,000 km^2) and the Civ 5 world map I saw had 4 tiles. So 4 infantry units fills my whole country? (3 actually, and one in the North ;) ) And we better not want to build some tanks to go with that infantry cos every square inch of those 70,000 km^2 is already covered in dudes!? :P

And what about cities, which take up 1 tile? Are we saying a tile can hold millions of civilians and only a couple thousand soldiers?

I like one unit per tile in small scale, tactical games where it's a tile is physically very small and filled by 1 person. As in, I can use one guy to block a one tile doorway in Fire Emblem. Cool, sensible. But when we are looking at a global scale map, the idea of a single military unit entirely filling the large chunk of land represented by a tile is very silly.

I can agree with the sense of scale and realism, definitely. But I also think a lot of that comes down to poor map design (either make the maps bigger, make cities expand past just one tile, and so on!). It would make exploring it a big pain, but again, that would be realistic (and they could give movement bonuses to specific kinds of units like they already do, but specific units meant only for exploration).

I also think a lot of these issues come with the fact that this was the first hex/non stacking based Civilization game yet- I think (hope?) that they will be fixing a lot of these issues in the inevitable Civ VI. Or well, I hope at least that they try- I would hate for them to give it up and return to unit stacking, when there is so much potential to take the concept forward!

Also, I know Civ always utilized terrain, I meant the absence of stacking opened up even more possibilities in that regard :p

@Lucianu said:

Civilization V was, for sure, a inferior game compared to Civilization IV: The Complete Edition (which includes its two expansions and Colonization).

But now? Civilization V: Complete Edition ( which includes the countless DLCs and its two expansions, Gods & Kings and Brave New World) is a better game and my favorite of the series. Highly recommend you give it a go now, you can find Civ.5: Complete Edition on Steam.

But man .... you really can't go wrong with either one of these two. They're both fucking amazing games. Easily the best two games of the entire series.

This! Civilization V with all the expansions is amazing! You should give it a shot, the Complete Edition is on Steam, and it is incredible now.

#42 Edited by Lucianu (9557 posts) -

@locopatho said:

I will defo go back to Civ V at some point. I was so very bitterly disappointed at 5 when I first played it but logically I know it's better now. I'l;l overcome my emotional "JUST PLAY 4 YOU KNOW IT'S PERFECT" response one day :)

I'm a little nostalgic for Civ IV. One of the very first games i bought in early 2006, same day wen i bought a good PC + 5.1 system to get into gaming. The second day after i recieved my salary, at my second job. Still have that copy in good condition, with a huge strategy book i never read, and a gigantic skill poster. I remember that i had to rush to work, but i couldn't, not before i installed and start the game up because my curiosity was tearing me apart. Wen i first started the game and heard that Baba Yetu song, i knew i was in for something amazing, memorable and wonderful.

Love this game, so many good memories tied with it.

#43 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (7827 posts) -

It still really bothers me that roads are bad for your economy in Civ 5 if you do more than just the bare minimum to connect your cities. Also, I don't like how happiness is global, rather than local like it had always been in the past. These are pretty minor gripes, though.

#44 Edited by locopatho (20792 posts) -

@PurpleMan5000 said:

It still really bothers me that roads are bad for your economy in Civ 5 if you do more than just the bare minimum to connect your cities. Also, I don't like how happiness is global, rather than local like it had always been in the past. These are pretty minor gripes, though.

Not THAT minor. I remember breaking the happiness limit very easily. Thought it made way more sense for a metropolis with advanced buildings and resources to be happier than a backwater or frontier town with nothing. But yeah I'll shut up til I play it again :P

#45 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (7827 posts) -

@locopatho said:

@PurpleMan5000 said:

It still really bothers me that roads are bad for your economy in Civ 5 if you do more than just the bare minimum to connect your cities. Also, I don't like how happiness is global, rather than local like it had always been in the past. These are pretty minor gripes, though.

Not THAT minor. I remember breaking the happiness limit very easily. Thought it made way more sense for a metropolis with advanced buildings and resources to be happier than a backwater or frontier town with nothing. But yeah I'll shut up til I play it again :P

Yeah, it makes a huge difference gameplay-wise, but it's not such a big deal that it makes Civ 5 a bad game. I think that Firaxis really should be borrowing mechanics from other strategy games for the next game. For instance, in Empire: Total War, if your citizens in Europe were unhappy, they migrated to your new world colonies at a higher rate. That sort of mechanic makes a lot of sense and it would be cool for Civ to incorporate something similar. Unhappy populations should migrate to cities with high happiness. Immigrants from foreign countries would make native populations less happy but increase productivity, etc. That mechanic makes a whole lot more sense than the age old "I'm not happy so I'm just going to stay at home and not work" mechanic.

#46 Edited by Senor_Kami (8439 posts) -

Civ 5 has the best combat but I enjoy Civ 4 more, especially with all of the expansion packs. With Civ 5, they removed a lot of core functionality from Civ 4 and improved combat mechanics. They then charged you $30 a pop to add back in stuff that was in the most basic version of Civ 4.

Perfect Civ for me would be Civ 4 with the graphical and mechanical changes of Civ 5 (six-sided tiles rather than squares, one military unit per tile, ranged combat, cities can defend themselves). Basically, the combat of Civ 5 but literally everything else be from Civ 4.

#47 Edited by Sword-Demon (7001 posts) -

5 is the best, but I had the most fun with 3

#48 Edited by illmatic87 (15467 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

@locopatho: Oh, I definitely agree. I just think that stacking wasn't the right way to go about representing it, it led to too many cheap brute force and spammy tactics. In Civ V, for instance, I can still have an infantry escort for my siege weapons, I just need to place them on an adjacent tile, which is not only more realistic, but also leads to more thorough strategy and tactical thinking which requires the player to consider the lay of the land and actually try to utilize the terrain =)

Except that in Civ 5, the notion of having a strong military was figuring out where to put everyone; which wasnt any better. Rather than applying increases to say... upkeep to stacked units (which is the solution that would have seemed best for the game, in my opinion).

#49 Edited by AdrianWerner (28222 posts) -

Alpha Centauri and Civ V (but only with expansions packs included)

#50 Posted by Zaraxius (221 posts) -

I can't say how I think Charizard1605 makes these topics of appraisal for PC games to pleasure the PC gamer audience he so desperately wants to appease in quite the way I want, without provoking moderator intervention, but I will say that these games suck dick and that I hate that I own the fourth and fifth one (System Wars told me they were fun!).