What’s Yas Forums‘s consensus on which Civilization game is best?

2 is S O U L overload

youtube.com/watch?v=FlTIk80uBPg
youtube.com/watch?v=LHeyi3UbtX8

Attached: 1578596338732.jpg (1024x577, 188.42K)

2 is a fine answer but the real answer is SMAC
cmon

Civ II was my first Civ game, and those FMV advisors were absolute kino.

4 is the best, also best mods. Last good Civ game.

Only played 3, 5, and vanilla 6. Played too little 4 to give an opinion.

5 with full DLC is my fave. But 6 seemed to built on it a lot. Is it worth it for both DLCs?

2, 3, 4, and SMAC

4 with mods has the most content
5 with mods has the most polished gameplay
6 has the best new features, but fails elsewhere
SMAC isn't Civilization

>smac isnt civilization
i bet you didnt even win the space victory in civ 2

5 and 6 aren’t even made by Sid

IV always and forever

Anybody who says anything but 4, 5, or 6 are being contrarian retards.

5 easily

Play Master of Magic instead

>muh doomstacks
the bigger stronger army won, it's not fair!

6 is better.

IV if you disagree you are wrong.

II is second best also.

SMAC was indeed the best.Having only a handful of factions is much better as they can be tailored towards specific playstyles, unlike Civ where you have civs with fairly minor bonuses, which you try to milk as much as possible when it's their era
Also SMAC wasn't afraid of giving you some really strong shit, unlike the Civs which in general give you small improvements

Revolution is the best Civ in terms of fast simplified gameplay.
5 Beyond Earth: Rising Tide offers arguably the best Civilazation experience without tacking on useless or burdensome mechanics.

6 is better.

Imagine being wrong.

For me it's either 5 or 6 depending on my mood. 4 has the best mods though, Rhyes and Fall and Caveman2Cosmos are variants that I still play to this day.

I had never played SMAC before and I picked it up from GOG a few weeks back and put in three games. Jesus, the writing and atmosphere in that game is stellar - I'd never been so immersed in a 4X game before. Haven't fucked with Alien Crossfire yet, haven't had as much freetime.

Anyone saying 5 or 6 is a zoomer who never played anything earlier.

>work really hard on building uptopian society
>some nigger with elephants stomps all over it
trash series

Civ 1 is too janky. Even on the highest difficulty level if you have competent play you can turtle almost indefinitely

2 is probably the best, given how customizable it is. Gold is a bit too powerful, and i know its not a gameplay issue, but they were really, REALLY reaching with some of those female leaders. 2 has the 'most fair' deity difficulty

3 gold is again too powerful, as is culture.

4 is when things get a bit too 'planny'. its also when the victory types all sort of melt together. if you're good at one aspect, you're likely good at them all so victories are more 'how long do you want this to take?'

5 imho is best because Hexes are better than squares and ranged attacks provide actual strategy to war. carpet of dooms vs stacks of doom are an argument worth having

6 I haven't played because I was burnt by Civ 5's original iteration and i'll never buy a civ game again until its fully out and complete, though i hear its more minmaxing friendly, and i do like the idea that civics and technology are separate now

1 is also the easiest to break: speed build the Pyramids, switch to democracy. the AI will simply not be able to compete with your production and income

most time spent award goes to 2: it was the game i got for my 11th birthday and i spent so much time playing with numbers and tilesets for it. all on a computer that had too little RAM to be able to see the animated heralds for leader screens. it also gets the 'best wonder movie' awards. some of these still give me chills, especially Shakespeare's theatre and the Lighthouse and Manhattan Project

youtube.com/watch?v=LHeyi3UbtX8

SMAC.

Civ2>Civ4=Civ5>Civ6>Civ1>Civ3

Call To Power is barely playable, as fun as some of its elements are.

>REALLY reaching with some of those female leaders
..your face is really reaching

Attached: Amaterasu_cave_-_large_-_1856.jpg (1273x600, 1.28M)

>SMAC isn't Civilization
>Sid Meiers Alpha Civilization isn't Civilization
ok xoomer

Tbh that’s just history

>Romans build the most sophisticated society on Earth, unparalleled in civility, advances and military prowess
>Germanoids and steppeniggers destroy it with horses and mass wave tactics

Attached: 524C2482-0550-4B9B-B39E-786C366F05CB.jpg (216x250, 8.84K)

>Noble tribals from the forest and steppe topple an evil empire
very based

lmao the romans were the aggressors you historylet

I can't believe there are 3 apologists, it was obviously completely half-baked at the time and the bipolar corruption thing was just annoying. 4 completed its design.

I probably had the most fun with 1 but I can't really defend its low level design, it was just the first one. 5 was OK for changing things up with 1UPT and hexes even if it basically made the AI defenseless.

Besides being abandoned as an unbalanced mess, why did it bomb Yas Forums?

Attached: 20200325125432_1.jpg (1920x1080, 736.55K)

And? There’s no good or evil in the scope of history and war. There’s whoever has the bigger army, the better generals and who is able to last the longest.

Colonization never gets any love here. Not a ton of replayability but it's fun.

is that beyond earth? it if its, its because it was a 60 dollar mod for civ 5 that just added a space tileset

Yeah, and the barbarians outlasted and outfought the roman proto-globohomo pedos.

it's just civ except I have to look up what fagtronium deposits look like and do instead of just seeing cows on the map and knowing what they mean

Because it was abandoned as an unbalanced mess. That's like asking "Besides the shit used to make it, why does this sculpture smell so fucking horrible?"

They're all just civ, and I think it's kinda cool because it's like playing an accelerated version where the game takes place over 300 years in the near future rather than the last 6000 years.

OG Colonization has too much micro and killing natives made me feel bad, despite the game making them profoundly annoying and filled with loot.

Why even play civ if thry penalize you for not having a democratic form of government? At least in 2, they do.

No nuke-like equivalent endgame superweapons unique to each ideology.

>have nice low key worldbuilding in the beta
>changed to pure NUMBER GO UP in release
Fucking hell, Beyond Earth was a disappointment. Learned absolutely nothing from SMAC.

Attached: Change this back.jpg (1635x498, 151.75K)

democracy has war penalties. the broken government in Civ 2 was Fundy

It never got a lot of traction though.

the Civ 4 engine version lets you automate trade routes to make production chains a lot easier

I've only played 4 and 5. I'll take 5 because I've despised doomstacks since the very first time I played 4. SMAC is also acceptable because for some reason that game actually has an anti-doomstack mechanic when 4 doesn't.

I don't actually want to play Civ anymore though. I've always loved the idea of the 4x genre but the games are so disappointing in practice.

Attached: 1509236166621.jpg (1920x1080, 110.88K)

Yeah i prefered dictatorship or monarchy but the adancements were slow because of it.

I don't know but 4 is the worst, FF7 of Civ

>anti-doomstack mechanic
collateral damage

Yes

Communism is usually the best in 6 because of the production bonus.

Yeah but SMAC has it built into all the units. Not sure if it's just my imagination but I think the damage is also less RNG because there's multiple rolls, or it at least appears that way. I think a combination of those things is why I hate 4's combat so much.

they pretty much go in inverse order. Anyone who will try to lie to you for anonymous hipster cred and tell you that their childhood-favorite square-grid version civ game is the best should eat shit in silence. 6 really only an improvement on 5. no big controversy or underdog upset here fags, let's move on

this
h
i
s