I never played a Civ game before but I just got this for free so I was gonna try it, but someone told me I should play 5 instead. Why? I need explanations from people with expertise on this series

5 is the most accessible and pretty good. 6 is ok, it's kinda braindead but it's fun if you like min maxing things and watching number go up. 4 is the only genuinely great game in the series, but it's more difficult and janky than 5/6. From what I've heard 7 is kinda dogshit but hey it's free.

>>715772802 (OP)
5 is the one with the not queer art style, which massively affects the overall tone of the game. 6 is when civ when sjw/woke. uses soulless globalism promoting art style. i hate that i bought 6 on sale, what a waste of money >:(

>>715772802 (OP)
V is less balanced and a little shallower I guess. Civ 6 has more content, but the maps and models are oddly cartoonish, and not in a charming way.

>>715772802 (OP)
Your friend is retarded. Don’t listen to him. If your friend truly had good taste, he would tell you to play Civ 4. Just play Civ 6. Its pretty good

>>715773013
I'm not very smart at strategy games so maybe I will just go for 6 after all, being braindead makes it sound more appealing to me. Plus the box art is cool. Also I don't think 7 is free, it seems to have Denuvo.

>>715772802 (OP)
Because 6 is garbage. The only notable thing from 6 is the CEO Driller doing work on the UI.

5 also has less micromanagement (the city district system introduced with 6) which means a slightly easier learning curve.

>>715773170
5 is braindead too, they are both solid choices.

>>715772802 (OP)
6 has the best tutorial, that's what should matter for you

>>715772802 (OP)
I've only played 3/4/5 (deity AI 4+5 player and used to play a lot of mult). 6 has Sean Bean narrating that's supposedly it's one redeeming feature. 7 surely you've seen the cluster fuck of threads over the last year? 5 like >>715773013 said is easy to pick up and you can learn quickly using the 3-4 city meta. It's very much a 'tall' game. 4 meanwhile has way more flexibility in play styles and content but late-game is a slog moving doomstack after doomstack.

>>715772802 (OP)
6 has the most soulful art style. 5keks and 4boomers just can’t comprehend.

>>715772802 (OP)
>>715773170
6 is only braindead on lower difficulties, on higher ones you need to be planning 20 turns ahead, maximizing yields, efficient movement of builders so you get improvements online when you need them, and landing your timings or you will just lose. You need to plan out your entire city before you settle it, because if you fuck up and put it in the wrong spot you'll lose 2-3 yields on your districts. If you settle before you discover iron or horses, and then get those techs, you won't be able to put districts on them.

It's overall a lot more clunky than 5. The victories are more arduous, especially culture, and the world congress sucks.

5 is easier to learn but also more fun, it has a better aesthetic, and better mods (everyone plays Civ modded).

>>715772802 (OP)
Did it come with all the dlcs? 6 and 5 are barebones w/o the major expacs. 5 has less potential micromanagement with tall being pretty decent and has less systems to learn than 6. There's a couple of overhauls like VP or Sapiens that take several of 6's mechanics, too. However, it's 32-bit and the game takes a bit to load in mods if you're not using a modpack. 6 boots much faster in that respect and there's a whole army of chink mods to mess with, to not mention overhauls like City Lights which help with playing tall.

>>715772802 (OP)
Most people who shill V do so because it was their first Civilization game. V has much less micromanagement than VI, and some people prefer clicking "Next Turn" for dozens of hours.

V and VI is really the "two retards fighting" of 4X. Both are okay, but if you got VI for free just fucking play VI. Don't overthink it. Play one or two unmodded games of it on 4 / 5 / 6 difficult and then start looking into mods. VI has a lot of great mods.

V is just a better game. VI is overloaded with badly designed "content", none of which works well together.

>>715772802 (OP)
civ 3

>>715773995
This
t. Vfag

Civ 6 i salright but it hates domination victory and expansion strats. They vary up the linearity of Civ 5 but in reality, most civs end up building the same boring empires

>>715773995
>Most people who shill V do so because it was their first Civilization game.
Note that the same counts for VI.
In the end there's no proper starting point, just play whichever is more convenient and be aware that it will probably become your favorite Civ so you might start fighting people who have different favorite Civs on the internet.

>>715777815
True, but before I gave up on discussing Civilization here the pattern I noticed was
>Vfags won't shut the fuck about how amazing it is, but rarely address the legitimate criticisms of the game (tall vs. wide, global happiness, etc.)
>VIfags were bullied into submission for the first few years of the game's life, and tend to admit that the game has faults (excessive micromanagement, dragging on in later eras, art style)
V fans come across as fanboys most of the time. For the record, I started with V and still play it occasionally. They're just different experiences.

>>715778042
At least there will never be any VIIfags.

>>715773995
>>715777815
>>715778042
>>715778125
So it's kind of like Elder Scrolls where whichever one you played first is your favorite?

>>715772802 (OP)
5 has less convoluted mechanics and is more straightforward. In 5 you won't need to worry about adjacency bonuses or district placement. You just build your cities in places with plenty of resources or strategic defensive locations and progress the game. In 6 you would need to know, almost from the start, that a random wonder only available in the modern era will need to be adjacent to a lake tile, a hill tile and a campus district or whatever bullshit.

On the other hand, starting with 6 is not a bad idea since you have the Eureka mechanic, which is a small research/culture bonus you get when you do some specific actions in the game. I really dislike this because it sort of forces you to follow the same behavior no matter what civilization or style you are playing, since you want to research and advance your culture as fast as possible. But, as a newbie, it is continuously telling you what to do next, so it can serve as a guide on how to properly progress.

6 also has some really bad barbarian behavior and climate change events that don't make much sense. For example, building next to a volcano is absolutely OP, you will get half of the map flooded by 1800 because of ice melting and stuff like that which, in my opinion, feels very forced. In 5 you will be able to decide your roads and have your workers around much longer, so you also get a better feeling of control over your civ and your territory.

Overall I recommend starting with 5. If you try 6 you might not like "going back" to an older game that has more or less the same mechanics but looks outdated and feels simpler. Oh, and I almost forgot about Civ 6 counselors. For some reason, they decided to add 6 or 7 old cunts that are the same for every civilization that you can hire to get specific bonuses for your civ. They are like part of your government I guess? I never liked them.

>>715773995
>>715777815
>>715778208
5 was my first and i still prefer 6

I wrote this >>715779271 which can be summarized by this >>715774080 but I also fully agree with this >>715773995

>>715773082
>6 is when civ when sjw/woke
30+ year olds really believe this

Civ 4 is the last real Civ game and the peak of the series. Playing anything other than 2, 3 or 4 or Alpha Centauri is just pointless

If you just HAVE to be a queer there is literally zero difference in quality between 5, 6 and 7, Dont list to brain dead morons trying to convince you otherwise

>>715780508
What about Beyond Earth, is that one any good?

>>715777815
imagine the people in a few years whose first and favorite civ will be 7

>>715780680
god no

>>715780770
That will also happen with TES6: Hammerfell

>>715780680
Honestly what do you think?

>>715772802 (OP)
your friend is retarded, civ 6 is strictly an upgrade over the previous iteration. It has deeper mechanics, more civilizations and even the leaders are better at emoting.

The only minor criticism I'd say is the cartoon-y aesthetic, but there's always mods for that.

>>715781282
>The only minor criticism I'd say is the cartoon-y aesthetic

it is not minor in the slightest. you're affecting THE WHOLE TONE of the game. cartoon = joke

how can you take a joke seriously? you cant. its a stupid sjw/woke aesthetic for clowns, s-0ys and girls

>>715777815
>In the end there's no proper starting point
Sure there is start with 2
https://playclassic.games/games/turn-based-strategy-dos-games-online/play-sid-meiers-civilization-ii-online/play/

>>715781859
That link certainly doesn't look shady at all

since civ 7 shat the bed whats the next big 4X game?
endless legend 2 looks cool

>>715772802 (OP)
5 is the easiest in the series by far. Very little is required of you and it's very pretty. It's a game about making number go up, but it does feel go to make the number go up. A good game for chilling.
6 isn't as pretty as 5, and it is a bit more tricky than 5 due to cities no longer being a single tile but instead a city center that you add districts with various adjacency bonuses around.
1 and 2 are too rough around the edges to really be recommended for a new player.
Either 3 or 4 is where the series peaked before shifting towards mass appeal. Which of the two is better is a subjective opinion since they both have strengths and weaknesses, but they are both very good.

>>715778208
For some, sure, but everything is like that. However, I started with 2, but think 4, 5 and 6 are all basically equal. They are just different flavors of the same game.

>>715782135
4 and 5 are the best

>>715781949
its just a dosbox in browser abandonware site, nothing nefarious

>>715781985
In 2032 they'll release Civ 8 and then people will talk about how actually 7 was really good and a misunderstood game and they always liked it from the start, just like what happened with 6.
But in the meantime I agree about EL2.

>>715782135
>4, 5 and 6 are all basically equal
You must be retarded, 4 is nothing like 5 or 6
>>715782179
4 are the best
FTFY

Too bad they dont remaster Civ 2 to work on modern systems, that would be the peak right there

>>715782230
just like with final fantasy right? people always say the new one sucks, and then they start worshipping the one just before it! you know the pattern! they do it with windows too!!!

people amirite?

>>715772802 (OP)
4 Is considered the best one due to mods that have enhanced the AI instead of just 'it gets more gold/settlers/whatever/

Both V and VI are fine for newbies. They don't play much like the first four Civs as most of the Civs in 5/6 have a 'gimmick' that defines them

Regarding them being 'braindead' yes but so is 4 unless you use mods. So long as you avoid 7 you're fine to play whatever

>>715773013
>it's kinda braindead but it's fun if you like min maxing things and watching number go up
Then what makes 5 better?

>>715782412
They kinda do yeah. I started hearing a lot more praise for 13 after 15 came out, then same with 15 after 16. People just trash every newest release as the worst thing ever and then years later they come crawling back to praise it. I dunno why you're bringing up Windows though, that's not a video game.

>>715782653
Nothing
Watching dipshits argue if 5 or 6 is better is like watching 2 down syndrome kids arguing about whether cat shit or dog shit tastes better

>>715783014
you're a smart man for figuring out the pattern anon. the pattern always happens, i just brought up windows as an example. you are genius for figuring it out

>>715782653
they are pretty similar desu, just different stuff
5 has good mods though

>>715783250
I wouldn't call mods that are necessary to save the game from being absolute garbage "good"

It sort of insinuates that it enhances an already good game which they definitely do not

>>715783173
I suspect you are being sarcastic, but I can't imagine why since your example only proved my point. Gamers are famously hiveminded and only after a certain amount of time has passed do they start to express something resembling an actual personal opinion. Mind you it didn't used to be like this back before the internet when people didn't have others to tell them what to think and had to form opinions on their own, but for the past 20+ years or so it's been the same thing over and over. I didn't think bringing up Windows was particularly relevant since most people just use whatever runs their games and don't debate about the quality of the OS, and have to presume you only brought it up because you couldn't think of any other examples.

>>715773013
>4 is the only genuinely great game in the series,
WE MUST DISSENT

If you play CivV get three units per tile mod, the AI becomes instantly less retarded
You can also alternatively install Vox Populi but thats so far from the vanilla experience you should go for it later if you like it.
Civ6 IMO is waaaaaaaaay tuneed to be a multiplayer game and I needed a fuckton of mods to make it fun (like beeing able to tear down districts. fucking puzzle ass game where you need to plan the placement of your factory in the year 4000bc)
In both cases the DLC is mandatory since they release their games half-done and bring long established shit back in later.

>>715783549
>I suspect you are being sarcastic

no, you are literally a genius. the new thing comes out, people hate it, they like old thing, then after a while they love new thing. thats the pattern. it ALWAYS happens. i am impressed by your psychology skills and wisdom

>>715783664
>>715773013
I want a fucking genuine remake of Call to Power. It is fucking fun, and CtP2 is ass

luigi worked on the user interface for 5.

My first Civ was IV but I still consider V to be better than VI. VI felt like trying too hard to be "competitive", too many unnecessary mechanics, too many screwed up ideas (like how one of first mods adjusted costs of building districts since it was rising with time, making later new cities basically unable to rise districts due to elevated costs) and too much focus on "meta". To give some example, when I was playing V I could pick "scientific" or "military" civ and, while focusing on that certain aspect, play more or less my way, at my pace. Meanwhile VI civs, in most cases, force certain play styles and strategies. If you play Brazilian, you HAVE to settle in jungle and build improvements in certain way or you will be at huge disadvantage, if you play as Russia, you HAVE to use tundra, if you play as Germany, you HAVE to settle at rivers and build Hansa/trade districts in certain setup and so on. It's not comfortable empire building game, it's meta MP focused race to victory condition. Not really my type. And I hated how in VI I couldn't start at more remote location, each and every single time, no matter the map size or number of AI players, I would always spawn surrounded by them.

And global warming mechanic was a mess.

>>715783385
not really
but thanks for chiming in

>>715783984
It actually says he did 6. So 6 confirmed best game?

>>715772802 (OP)
4 and 5 are great for different reasons. 6 is dogshit.

>>715780680
The hate for Beyond Earth on release was well-deserved (even if slightly misguided because a lot of it was because people expected Alpha Centauri 2, which it clearly isn't, but it had plenty of issues on its own), but it's improved a lot since then and it appears to me people are just still parroting the initial hate. It's not as good as Civ V, but I consider it a lot better than Civ VI. I don't think it's worth the base 60 bucks (for game + expansion), but I would recommend it on sale.

>>715772802 (OP)
If you have it for free, why not give it a try? (Assuming you also have at least the first expansion.) The early game is somewhat decent, it just becomes a drag later in the game and becomes less fun the more you replay it.

>>715773692
>(everyone plays Civ modded)
Most people play their games unmodded. That goes even for games that are very popular modded like Minecraft or Skyrim.

>>715784545
Even when I mod games I always like to play my game unmodded on the first playthrough to get a feel for what's good, what's bad, what needs to be changed.

>>715784545
>Assuming you also have at least the first expansion

its free Platinum edition has most of free expansions

>>715772802 (OP)
6 is 5 but more mechanically complex and with an uglier artstyle.

>civ 5
>select final tech so tree fills out on its own
>build worker
>set worker to auto build
>next turn next turn next turn
>???
>win
wow so deep

>>715781816
If you're worried about the "tone of the game" go and play paradox, you sissy

Civ V with Vox Populi is the best Civ experience but i think 6 is an okay Civ, not a bad starting point for sure.

>>715772802 (OP)
just play 6
it's the most fleshed out game in the series, and by far the most popular to this day for a reason

the only people recommending 5 are those who had 5 as their first Civ, got filtered by 6 having a vastly different artstyle and never even bothered to familiarize themselves with it's gameplay

>>715773013
> it's kinda braindead
lmao what
never thought 5babbies would unironically try to pass 5 as being harder. 6's district system alone makes it's gameplay more complex than 5's is with all of it's mechanics combined.

>>715789646
Civ 6 district system is bloat, extra clicks for little added depth.

>>715788030
ever civ game is like that
first two game I remember was so retarded in essence that you'd either passively cuck or go war with others.

no idea how this shitty series became so popular.

>>715789810
Because its still the best 4X series available, at least with mods it is, i think only Age of Wonders can compete but like all other 4X games it doesn't counter snowballing effectively.

>>715789810
>ever civ game is like that
civ 6 stopped having workers with unlimited build because its the first game to realize how retarded it was to have in every previous game

>>715790092
There is literally no difference

Are the two expansions worth it for civ 6? I remember 5 becoming a proper game after hou got the major dlc:s

>>715790373
they are literally free now

>>715790402
Yeah, but do they add anything worthwhile, or do they just make unnecessary additions to needlessly complicate the game?

>>715772802 (OP)
They're all shit. Except 7 which is extremely shit.

>>715789646
relax nigger

>>715790873
List good 4x game then. >inb4 SMAC

>>715772802 (OP)
5>6 is the case of „old good, new bad” retardation that’s been going in civ community for years now. You can safely ignore it.

>>715791165
Here you go.
Oh wait, you said SMAC.

>>715791503
Because if somebody shit on 4x games, especially Civs, they ALWAYS bring up SMAC. Which is great game but come on.

>>715791165
>all civ games are shit
>lists civ2 reskin
retard

>>715777815
I started with 2 and I think it's a tossup as to whether 5 or 6 is the best (I haven't played 7, but from what I've heard I doubt it's the best)

>>715791668
You know why.

>>715791767
7 is utter shit. Everything else is subjective.

>>715772802 (OP)
Tile improvements are gay in 6. The climate change mechanic is also fucking stupid.

>>715772802 (OP)
Honestly the only things I dislike about Civ 6 (not having played 'competitively' against others, if that's a concern) is the art style and that they downgraded from the epic surroundings when you interact with different characters.
My favourite part of Civ 5, what got me hooked to it originally, was that when you speak to someone you enter a vast throne room they hold court in, it's immersive and atmospheric.

In gameplay I would say Civ 6 is better in almost every way.

>>715792097
>>715791767
>>715790873
>>715782439
Everyone is saying 7 is bad but nobody is saying WHY 7 is bad

>>715772802 (OP)
>Civ 5
you click next turn and wait 300 years to finish granary, while your workers mindlessly keep switching between mines and farms, zero brain activity involved
>Civ 6
you plan ot your city layout in advance, accounting for the most efficient grid, while A.I conquers all city states around you and but hesitates to attack you

>>715792269
>shit mapgen
>shit era mechanics
>shit ui
>retarded civ/leader picks (harriet tubman in the base game, england is not)
>blatantly copies the worst mechanic from Humankind, a game that flopped long before CIV7 came out
Anything missing?

>>715789729
as opposed to tall only 5

>>715792524
as of right now those have been fixed

>>715792182
people say this but the more I look back at it, 5 feels more like a wax museum/animatronic where the characters barely move and are in some sort of setpiece. 6 captures 4 a lot more in some ways.

>>715792680
They have not. The latest update just removed some of the shit, ironically making it more like civ 6. Last I tried it, the foundation is still utter garbage. Also GB a fucking paid dlc? K E K

>>715792623
What does tall/wide imply within the context of Civ?
When I hear tall and wide I just imagine building my empire north to south or east to west . . .

>>715792746
It looked great for its time though, and that's what initially drove me in. It's getting a bit dated now. And even though it's dated it's still very immersive seeing Attila the Hun angrily rising out of his seat to shout at you like you were some lowly embassy fearing for his life. Theodora lying in front of a window overlooking Constantinople always comes to mind.
Horrifically they made this even fucking worse in Civ 7, the leaders no longer adress you, don't even have a backdrop, and look like some semi-detailed versions of Total War generals when they interact, it's atrocious. Soulless epitome!

>>715792942
What is GB

Regardless of which game you prefer, we can all agree that Sean Bean was the best narrator.

>>715792942
didn't know about england being dlc
they're adding a lot more customizability and making better work of towns at least

>>715793056
England. He's just a bit retarded but the rest of his post was on point.

>>715793050
tall = only few cities (usually 4), make them big and populous
wide = more cities, focus is spreading land to get key resources
4 was balanced between the two, 5 outright punishes you for going wide because of the global mechanic, and 6 while it seems like it punishes you for going tall because of districts, it actually gives compact city building plenty of buffs

honestly I'm way more forgiving on 7 and at the very least they're doing steps to fix it
people fap to 5 here but they have no idea how horrible it was when it came out. like fuck, it was seen as the death knell of civ back then. hell it was way more jewish too, it had a "complete" pack before it had all the dlc.

>>715793238
Leonard Neemoy was extremely good though.

>be me
>favourite civs in 6 are maori, portugal and australia
Why are coastal civs so comfy?

>>715793708
has so many buffs especially when you land on a shore with so much water resources
you should check out indonesia too

>civ 1-4
retro shit, no one alive has played them
>civ 5
old but good
>civ 6-7
zoomer fortnite trash

>>715793826
who do zoomers like to pretend they're not zoomers

>>715793708
It's just comfy, and good for basically everything, to settle on coasts or rivers.
My favorite thing in Civ 5 (can't recall if it was easier to do in that game, less 'penalty' from not settling by rivers?) was settling across a landmass in a straight line, blocking anyone off from walking through it and just having this super long road network along the cities.

no other civ lets you zoom out this much

>>715793948
>>715793826
Now THIS >>715794140 is a zoomer

>>715794185
why u quoting me u brain damaged faggot

>>715794974
Sadly it appears you are the brain damaged one, I thought you would find that amusing but it soared right over your head. In the back of my head I thought "Hm, there's a possibility he won't get it and will get angry" but I said no, I have faith in him, and pushed that thought away. It seems my faith was misplaced.

Just claimed the game from EGS, what am i in for?

>>715798635
you will have fun. I usually play on a pretty low "difficulty" (I mean I intend on winning anyhow, why make it harder than it needs to be) to ensure I can finish the wonders I set my eyes on, am able to go forth and colonise the locations I want to, and don't have too hard of a time militarily when fighting barbarians or other civs.

Just pick a leader/civilisation that intrigues you, and you'll have a good time.

>>715795545
>It seems my faith was misplaced.
Obviously, Faith wasn't added as a resource until V.

>>715799102
I'll pick Japan because i love weebslop. Last Civ game i played was 3 on the PC like 15-20 years ago

>>715799237
You'll enjoy it, it's highry honoraburu

>>715799365
Would you say Civ is easier than paradox games like CK3?

>>715799493
Definitely. It's less numbers and more visual indicators in my opinion.

>>715799493
Infinitely more approachable, to be sure. Whether or not it's still harder once you've actually processed all the menus, charts, and tooltips-within-tooltips, is arguable.

>>715799990
Sweet, it's a pity i don't have it on steam but EGS is based for giving it away. Wish i was there to grab Subnautica and Death Stranding too but missed them.