The older Civ games are unpredictable and you need to try them

[@renatocpribeiro]

Hearing Civ V being called an "older Civ game" is just pain

[@thelordkragan1888]

10+ years... makes you appreciate how long they've held onto civ 6, as it released in 2016 or so.

[@brastionskywarrior6951]

Reminds me of pkmn black and white being retro now

[@xionkuriyama5697]

The world is leaving me in the dust at my advanced age of 26.

[@lsdave42]

As someone whose all-time favorite is IV, I feel that... But also--get with the times, nerd. VI is way better than V in every way, including the graphics. Especially in the graphics.

[@timothymclean]

​@@lsdave42Yeah, I don't like V either, but it still feels like one of the new Civ games, not one of the old ones...

[@pwnage13371]

All I gotta say is only 1 has a palace builder

[@suedeciviii7142]

Some patches of Civ 2 let you upgrade your throne room, which is part of a palace

[@QUAKERSATTACKS97]

⁠there was a civ5 palace mod. But it’s been a long time since I played civ5

[@stevencass8849]

@@QUAKERSATTACKS97 I think there’s a mod that brings the Civ III palace into Civ VI

[@Stephens_Rocket]

@@pwnage13371 Civs 1 and 3 had palace builders, Civ 2 had the throne room and people wanted the palace builder back. Then they gave up on fun toys like that from Civ 4 onwards.

[@avramlevitter6150]

Correct, Civ 1 has a palace builder

[@monkeytime9851]

The best part of CIv 2 was the advisors videos, all arguing with each other. BUILD CITY WALLS!

[@TJRex-t3j]

You’re the king baby

[@masterexploder9668]

"We are number one in SCIENCEEEEEEE" - Science Advisor "WHO CARES GENERAL, THERE ARE OTHER PIGS TO CUT FIRST". - Military Advisor "Wise men say, that only fools run an empire without luxuries... KING" - Elvis Presley.

[@monkeytime9851]

@@masterexploder9668 I was sad when Civ 3 didn't have any such videos.

[@Michal_Bauer]

"I... Disagree, sire."

[@TalisSolepsis]

Watching the mediaeval military advisor wandering across the screen, singing with a tankard is forever in my mind.

[@normnormnormnormnormnromrornro]

I got Civ 4 at the Scholastic book fair, and couldn't play it for 3 years because my family's pc couldn't handle it. But oh boy did I play that game nonstop when we finally upgraded. Good times. Thanks Dad

[@tmage23]

Civ 1 will probably not fare well in comparison to later titles which are considerably more sophisticated and complex but the core gameplay loop is essentially the same and there's a reason the franchise has been in existence for over 3 decades.

[@Nic0maK]

The simplicity of CIV1 is the reason i still enjoy it today. And maybe why i'm not so much into the later games. CIV1/2/Alpha centauri are still my favorites.

[@poil8351]

civ 1 was simpler but also I found way more challenging in some ways.

[@solemnwaltz]

It becomes a slog in the late game, but it's still worth a play if you like the others

[@samuelbrisseau2694]

Civ 1 is the only in the series where you can play OCC (one city challenge) or ICS (infinite city sprawl) with the same amount of fun!

[@danyoutube7491]

Civ 1 is still surprisingly enjoyable, though with frustrating bugs by the standards of later games in the series (I remember paying Egypt a lot of gold to join me in a war against an enemy. They took the money, but sent no units, despite one of their huge cities being right next to both me and our common foe). It was a revelation at the time, and when I played it via emulation a few years ago I found it surprisingly enjoyable.

[@Saturinus]

The funnest thing about Civ I was that if you took the enemy's capital there was a chance that the civilization would split into two. Oh, and that you get one of the enemy's techs when you take one of their cities.

[@Winspur1982]

Civ 2 has tech stealing of that nature as well. I think it's actually a good balancing mechanic.

[@Nic0maK]

You could split a civ in 2 in civ 2 as well. I think it might need the target civ to be under anarchy, and big enough, i 'm not 100% sure of the requirements. But i saw it happen a couple times.

[@scockery]

@@Nic0maK There had to be an empty civilization slot or dead/wiped-out civ for the empire to split.

[@Michal_Bauer]

Open slot, big civ and have to take a capital afaik.

[@planescaped]

Civ 4 has Leonard Nimoy reading the tech advancements, therefore it is the best obviously. Seriously though, Civ 5 was my favorite Civ game.

[@Khaim.m]

If narration is your standard then SMAC beats every mainline Civ game combined.

[@TheWatchernator]

until you played 3, right? Right?

[@goldenfiberwheat238]

5 has him as well

[@KucingLunox]

Sean Bean >

[@danhulton2418]

And Baba Yetu! Easily the best theme song any of the games has ever had.

[@HuyVu-l9n]

I can't believe that Civ4: Beyond the Sword is almost 20 years old! I still remember how excited I was when I first started playing this expansion, knowing that we could win by focusing on growing tall and waging economic warfare.

[@FuturesInPastTense]

I really think BTS was the peak of the franchise, and the one I keep going back to. My only wish is that it had hexagonal tiles like 5 and 6.

[@RaoulKunz1]

...two decades... bloody hell I'm growing *Old* ...🤣 Best regards Raoul G. Kunz

[@BenjaminGlatt]

Civ II is peak 4x gaming and nobody is going to convince me otherwise. I sank hours of my childhood into a game I couldn't even fathom, but I loved it.

[@Michal_Bauer]

I agree. As far as I love IV with good mods nothing gave me more fun than II.

[@alexeybelyalov]

I love Civ II, but there is only one thing I need in it, it's borders as in Civ III

[@michamuller3451]

@@alexeybelyalov Exactly my opinion ;)

[@QuantumtestGaming]

For greatest strengths civ 3 i would say the visual clarity of the map is the best in the series, even though i prefer civ 4 as a game i cannot deny its ugly to look at compared to civ 3, the map cleanlines was a mess in civ 4, 5, 6 where you need turn on the resource map to recognise everything which are not needed in 3

[@Zorro9129]

Agreed, the isometric layout feels much more organic than a grid-based layout. It's harder to notice a diamond than it is to notice a square.

[@suedeciviii7142]

@Zorro9129 Part of it is just the smaller map sizes. Islands in Civ 4 feel like a couple attached squares, because they're so small. It's easier to "feel" the granularity of tiles at a smaller scale, if that makes sense. Kind of like how, in maps of the Earth, Africa feels like Africa, but Japan feels like a couple tiles stapled together. It's just scale.

[@pablolongobardi7240]

Try playing civ 5 in strategic map mode, once you get used to it, you love it

[@wintermute5974]

I never had a problem reading the map in civ 4, but I agree that 3 is much more attractive to look at.

[@The-jy3yq]

Civ 3 and Civ 5 land are quite similar in readability - only the resources are a big difference Civ 6 though?... Is that a hill or a plain? Is that a forest or a jungle on it? Where does the river go? Is that a tribal village? What is this resource? Is there a road? Which district is that? Does this tile have fresh water? Is this a hill or a grassland? Can I pass over this river into a jungle? and the pure bloat of game mechanics gets out of hand incredibly quickly

[@Jalbesbe]

One of the largest overhaul mods for Civ VI is still to make it more like Civ V, and also to make it look more like Civ V. Civ V has mods that just adds everything from Civ VI that Civ V lacked like natural disasters. So idk, sounds like Civ V is the better Civ, it also has the most congruent player base

[@HansLemurson]

Sid Meier's formula for guiding the successive developers in the Civilization franchise is: -One third the same -One third improved -One third totally new And as a result, every iteration of Civilization is a _different game_ I remember being sad when Civ5 came out when steam was exploding as a game distributor, and realizing that it was so many people's first and definitive version of what "Civilization" is, and just assumed that Civ4 wasn't worth looking into because 4 < 5.

[@TheTattorack]

Well... it isn't. Though largely because of doom stacks. They suck so incredibly bad, they ruin the whole game.

[@QuantumtestGaming]

​@@TheTattorackcarpet of doom isn't any better

[@HansLemurson]

@@TheTattorack "Not worth looking into?" because of that one element you don't like? Every Civ game will fail under that criterion. Lol, get lost troll. 🤣

[@TheTattorack]

@@HansLemurson It's a incredibly big criteria. So yes. Civ became a lot less frustrating with the elimination of doom stacks, and generally became better with hex grids and combat on the main map. Combat is not the only aspect of civ, but it's still an important cornerstone of it. And before 5, the simple fact is, doom stacking made the game suck.

[@histhoryk2648]

Imo the change of from Infinite stacks to one unit per tile was the significant factor that attracted the players

[@SimonAshworthWood]

Civ 4 combat is not quite as simple as you describe. Promotions make a big difference to the strength of units, plus units often get injured, which makes it possible for attackers to sooner or later defeat defenders, even when the defenders are using a variety of units.

[@MuadDiiib]

I could write an art of war book about civ 4. A full scale nuclear war with no win conditions was my peak. The strategy I had to improvise was insane. Invading North and South America at the same time was a tough campaign.

[@are3287]

My favourite thing to do in Civ 5 is survive Africa challenge where I fill an Africa map with only Shaka AIs and rename my own civilization Rhodesia with Ian Smith as its leader

[@wintermute5974]

The biggest reason to go for Civ4 over 3 is that the UI is far smoother to use and easier to read + it doesn't have any extremely important but poorly communicated mechanics to the degree that 3 does with things like despotism. It's a much more approachable experience as a result. The other reason that I think people should try 4 over 3 is that if you know how to play 4 it's much easier to go back and play Alpha Centauri since AC had such a big influence on 4. Aside from those aspects I think 3 vs 4 mostly comes down to personal taste.

[@AwoudeX]

i just loved the combination of designing your own units in AC while being a 4x game like Civ. The fact that factions had impactful traits to the game play also made it far more replayable.

[@aprinnyonbreak1290]

Civ 4 also has a pretty robust modding scene

[@rburk854]

@@aprinnyonbreak1290 FFH2 is the best Civ mod ever created

[@hohenzollern6025]

Played the heck out of both of them... BUT... Once CIV was released I never looked back at CIII. Just hands down a better game, that I still play today. The individual Leaders are characters that you know. Their AI was so well done. And what's more, they try to win the game. The other civ's leaders are just speed bumps... CIV leaders were playing to win. Didnt matter what you focused on, how well you were doing on that victory condition... you could be just a dozen turns from launching your spaceship, and get a message that Ghandi's second city hit legendary status, and it would send you into a panic. CiVI has some great mechanics and features, but the AI is non existent. You can ignore the other AI's and not have to worry about them, other than fr someone to beat up once in a while. But i do still enjoy it as a "city builder" game. Just wish the AI knew how to play it's own game.

[@cow_tools_]

Civ III is a beautiful game, and what got me into the whole series.

[@hugo9846]

III is the only one I haven't played

[@AFnord]

The wonder videos in Civ II really made them feel satisfying to build as well. They were not quite on par with the Alpha Cenatauri wonder videos, but from the main Civ series they are by far my favourites.

[@Khaim.m]

Sister Miriam might have been a real ***** in game but she had some great quotes. "We have become as a gas, and will expand to fill all available space."

[@pablolongobardi7240]

Alpha centauri wonder videos are wild, deranged and ugly... And I freaking love them

[@dubkins9755]

I have and will consistently play Civilization V for another 10 years

[@ohandthefracking]

civ 4's rhye's and fall of civilization is still the best mod in strategy games ever tbh

[@IceFire9yt]

I loved the Fall from Heaven mod in Civ4. If anyone wants to play a fantasy civ game, its a great option.

[@suedeciviii7142]

Still waiting for a Civ game with a functional "stability" system like R&F had...

[@TheAsharedhett]

@@suedeciviii7142 Did you ever end up trying Realism Invictus? It has this.

[@ohandthefracking]

@@suedeciviii7142 i think there are also some factors that are yet to be discovered about how stability actually works tbh

[@TheAsharedhett]

@@suedeciviii7142 I guess my comment errored out or got deleted lol? If you really are waiting for this, have you tried Realism Invictus? That one actually does implement this.

[@Hadriex]

On the subject of the Stack of Doom, I feel the Civ 4 mod Realism Invictus had the best solution by far. Units sharing a tile would grant eachother bonuses (scouts would give units in the stack a recon bonus for example.) However, having to many units on one tile caused overcrowding penalties. Thus you would build small tailored forces with supply lines of replacement soldiers following. As tech advanced you could slowly field larger stacks, but they never grew too big.

[@SpiderEnjoyer]

RI is one of my favorite mods! I love the "conboned arms" stack effects, the great artist/scientist mini-wonders, the distinctive units, I really feel like it's a complete improvement over the vanilla with practically no trade-offs! Shame that the game keeps crashing on the mid-late game on larger maps though.

[@Hadriex]

@@SpiderEnjoyer Yeah, I really wish whatever black magic was used on the caveman to cosmos mod would find it's way over to RI. My favorite map (the giant real world one) starts getting agonizingly long end turn waits after awhile.

[@BasedPeter]

Civ III has BY FAR the best soundtrack. It's so good they reused it for IV. It also has the most unique UI, with small little details like being able to zoom in on your city map and look at the landmass, such as marshes or forests or deserts, and all the buildings in your city, as well as the unique era-appropriate portraits for the leaders Civ IV has the best looking map in my opinion. Yeah I know people don't like the squares, but for me it's always less confusing than rhomboids and the border maps make my little map painter heart flutter, unlike the little, barely-noticeable dotted colored lines in III.

[@suedeciviii7142]

Yup, IndEC + Baba Yetu, how could you go wrong

[@BasedPeter]

@ It’s like EVERY SINGLE SONG, man! Stars, The Conquests Menu Theme, Modern, etc. I had the joy of writing an email to the composer, and it’s quite funny he never wrote music for any other video game before or since. He’s a professor at a conservatory in Georgia.

[@suedeciviii7142]

@@BasedPeter That's actually insane. Dropped one masterpiece and faded into the shadows

[@BasedPeter]

@@suedeciviii7142 Actual mythological legend shit

[@cow_tools_]

I was so sad when they stopped updating the world leaders clothes with the age in the following games.

[@JervisGermane]

I've only ever played Civ 2, but here I am still playing it 20+ years later.

[@ViperGTS737]

CIV V is the cultured mans choice, provided its full with its two DLCs

[@CityState_of_Valletta]

I still think LekMod is almost necessary - makes Social Policies very very fun to try out. No more Tradition -> Rationalism every game.

[@perturbatorya9451]

​@@CityState_of_Valletta i often try different policies, but first one is Tradition just for +3 culture. imho exploration is pretty awesome on island maps, commerce is pretty reliable too

[@hawk992]

CIV IV*. No need to thank me for the correction of your comment. ;-)

[@RaoulKunz1]

The game's in *Art Deco* ... and I have Empire and Art Deco style furniture at home and dress like it's ~1925... 'nuff said! 🧐🤣 Best regards Raoul G. Kunz

[@kerravon4159]

I consider Civ IV to to be the best and still play it to this day. Civ 5 and 6's one unit per tile and the inevitable resulting "carpet of doom" just leaves me cold.

[@suedeciviii7142]

To me it feels like the "purest" Civ game if that makes sense, everything combines great, and none of the design is superfluous (Maybe corporations? I don't know too much about them tbh). I think I prefer Civ 6 from a base game experience. But the core systems of Civ 4 are so great, that if you throw in mods it becomes my favorite of the newer Civ games.

[@ohandthefracking]

@@suedeciviii7142 corporations feel so redundant tbh and barely attribute to anything in average game (they can work very wonkly in fantasy set up maps at best)

[@rkeykey]

Corporations can be strong but they require so much more of your attention, they need great people investment and specific tech to pop them before the ai does, you need multiple copies of same resources which doesn't do anything otherwise, they eat up maintenance cost, they require missionary units to expand etc. Compare that to state property workshop spam which works with granary + forge setup to be strong

[@drag0wnsden907]

@@suedeciviii7142 Corporations are the most busted thing of all time if you invest into them. Play HRE, be free market, play wide, and use creative constructions, cereal corp, and civilized jewelers. It'll change your life. Corporate headquarters have to be in the city you have your wall street national wonder in to be efficient. Trade or fight wars for your corporate resources, especially precious metals and gems. The lack of any system like corporations in later civ games ruins them for me. Civ 4 BtS has such a strong and varied late game that makes you feel like an industrial superpower. In civ 6 you get the most production power (# of units built per turn) in the classical era more or less. Industrializing does almost nothing there.

[@pablolongobardi7240]

​@@rkeykeycoorps with holy rome...❤

[@misterpenney]

CIV V gives me such happy feelings, it was like the combination of years of brilliance. I enjoyed the other games also, but CIV V felt like the sweet spot.

[@Sc4rlette]

I rate this a "looking at your city in civ 3" sound/10

[@StrongZeroPowerHour]

bweaaaaahhhh

[@TheBabyhuewy]

Civ 4 is the one I started on and will always have my heart. I loved reading maps!

[@Kctian]

CIV REVOLUTION MENTIONED WOOOOO Was my introduction to the civ games on the 360 and putting it so far down on the prestige chart is slander. Combining 3 units into armies/armadas/squadrons felt a lot better to me than the system in civ 6, and I think it has the coolest science victory of any of the games. The leaders were great and it was a super easy game for me to get into when I was younger.

[@suedeciviii7142]

I left plenty of space at the bottom to show that while it's not as well regarded as the mainline entries, it's far from maligned or hated on. Beyond Earth would probably be a bit below it in prestige.

[@monkeytime9851]

I have fond memories of the original civ, sending my diplomat guy to buy all the units coming at me and turning them back on who sent them. I also appreciate how Civ 1 was under 1 MB.

[@pablolongobardi7240]

And barbarians were so cheap

[@TheWatchernator]

2.7MB?

[@Mic-sg]

I have only played Civ 5. Love the leaders diplo screen. They feel realistic and historically proper. Love all the tech quotes, many of which inspired me to read classical philosophy. When civ 6 came out i was really displeased with the graphics and the leaders animations. They felt like actors on stage instead of proper leaders. Also, the combat mechanics of Civ 5 are super fun. I couldn't imagine stacking multiple units in one tile. Also, the music score is so immersive and full of vivid passion.

[@rayandanyaanime]

Bro, I've been reading your channel name as Suede Civil for years, CivIII is news to me xD

[@ljubljana_no_yabo]

hahahah i LOST IT at "have you read sullla's website" as far as i'm aware the right-thinking civ3 enthusiast response is "i read sirian's great library before it went offline"

[@suedeciviii7142]

Much like the real great library, its contents are lost to time I guess. And, Pff of course I've read Sulla's stuff. Where do they think half my takes on Civ 5 come from?

[@BoroMonokli]

Is't it on wayback machine though?

[@tomaszmagierowski2166]

Civ II can also be mentioned as most easily moddable as it had a built in "Scenario Editor" that basically let you make mods, tweaking art, unit stats, etc.

[@suedeciviii7142]

2 through 4 are all great for this, yeah. Civ 4 has a slightly higher barrier to entry, but you have more control over more things

[@tomaszmagierowski2166]

@@suedeciviii7142 Yes, Civ4 is also easy. I was making basic mods already in the 4th grade.

[@madskofoed1094]

You should also mention SMAC, sid meiers alpha centauri, which are very good, and clearly part of the civ family.

[@jreeser11]

Civ III is so good, I've never stopped playing it. I tried four and five but never for long. I've been playing III for 24 years and it's the inly game i play. Of any type.

[@dr.tarantula4209]

3 and 4 are the _newer_ games. I've never played 5 or 6, but they don't look like part of the same series. Stacking was a problem that was introduced in 3, and partially solved with 4 by adding collateral damage, but it should have applied to every unit like in 1 and 2 to really make it work. I'll never understand why they introduced this problem and then forgot that previous games had a solution already.

[@Michal_Bauer]

You are right 5 and 6 (I played no more than 20 hours in 6) are at their core totally different games.

[@danyoutube7491]

I've played 5 and 6, but agree that they don't feel like part of the same series. I played 5 absolutely loads, but never quite reached the level of satisfaction that I felt in previous games and never truly loved it for all its good points. I was forever chasing a really satisfying Civ experience in 5 and didn't really get it, despite thousands of hours of play. I played 6 for a few hundred hours and it was even less of a Civ game in my opinion, and when I bought Civ III again a few years ago on Steam I ended up playing it for longer than I've played Civ 6! And that's even with having to go back to a slightly old fashioned UI and contending with a lot of crashing mods (not for the first time, I wished that I'd kept my old hard disks from previous computers and the DVDs for the old games). Regarding them forgetting what previous games have gotten right, I think this is one of the most frustrating things with the series. When Civ 5 came out I really wondered whether any of the designers had more than a passing familiarity with Civ.

[@blockmasterscott]

I like Civ 4 the best of all. Civ 2 is really good too. I love the advisor council. 😂😂😂

[@davidhanson8728]

I have an addiction to CIV 4 Beyond the Sword. I relapse at least two or three times a year during which I play it obsessively for a week or three. It is the only computer game to do that to me going on 20 years. Emperor/Large/2 continents and the instant victories turn off, it is a brawl at the end. Can you take control of your content before the baddies from the other continent can get a foot hold? I am in the middle of one of my relapses now.

[@SimonAshworthWood]

I loved playing Civ 1, especially the fun diplomacy & tech screens.

[@eetuthereindeer6671]

I tried to get into civ 4 recently again. Im doing poorly as im either bankrupting myself from expansion or not expanding enough. The game mechanics are wonderful and im really enjoying the game even though emperor on civ 3 is easy to me but normal on civ 4 is a big challenge. But what i keep missing is the graphics of civ 3. The cartoonish purity of them is wonderful

[@rkeykey]

Whatch any Henrik's immortal videos, he explains every move he does in first 100 turns. Beside barbarian management it should be applicable to lower difficulties

[@tylerp7522]

I've played 1500 hours civ4. I feel very amateur on diety. I think I've legit beat it once on deity with sumeritans or egyptians which is ish cheat for diety.

[@Winspur1982]

I think Civ 4 was poorly thought out and I don't think it deserves to be the most-sold version of the franchise. I think it encourages the strategy of inventing a religion and spamming the world with missionaries to brainwash everybody else more than anything.

[@Cruor34]

I highly recommend you play Civ 4 modded. Try Realism Invictus or Cavemen 2 Cosmos. I am playing Civ 4 again after last playing it like 10 1/2 years ago (I think steam said May 2014) and I am really enjoying Realism Invictus. Vast improvement over base Civ 4. AI still melts my brain on how it chooses to place cities sometimes but beyond that it's really good. I have actually lost a few cities to the AI which is super rare for me in any Civ game vs AI. They are able to do major naval invasions etc.

[@eetuthereindeer6671]

Oof I just had my FULL HEALTH longbowman be defeated by a knight with a 3.1% chance for the knight to win and the knight got 0 damage. Was not damaged at all! What are the chances of that??? Combat log says my longbowman was hit for 15 damage 7 times in a row while it had 0 rounds won. Just before that the same longbowman destroyed 3 knights and took 0 damage from all of them.

[@thedeemon]

Oh man I spent so many hours in Civ 1! Love it so much

[@funnylittlefrog0105]

I sunk way more time into Civ 3, 4, and 5 than I ever did into Civ 6. Civ 5 was probably my favorite.

[@rexstuff4655]

Civ 2 is the best Civ, fight me. Getting rid of ZoC was the worst move they could have made. And let's not forget Alpha Centauri.

[@oleh_lunin]

I guess, one could also talk about flavor. In Civ 3, they had leaders changing their attire based on the epoch (which is so damn amazing, I wish they'd circle back to this idea, but the way Civ 7 is... not in this lifetime, I guess) In Civ 4, they added Civ / Leader based music (even within the same Civ, like France or America) that changes with the epoch, and they added more cultural-specific flavor to each leader screen, as well as attempted to style units based on the region In Civ 5, they added a very detailed diplomatic screen, and the leaders started speaking their own language In Civ 6, the diplo screen was simplified, as were the language bits, but they really leaned into the musical aspect of the presentation, having amazing tunes written for every civilization

[@suedeciviii7142]

The units also started speaking the language in Civ 4. It's a cool touch

[@oleh_lunin]

@@suedeciviii7142 Yeah, sorry, forgot about that. Civ IV is the only game up to date that did that, and there are indeed some "Didi dasu" enjoyers out there :3

[@Romitas]

Ok, I must say that little sneaky moving Peter up on 3:25 cracked me up so hard :D That moustache is irresistible

[@suedeciviii7142]

That little upturn in his eyebrow... I dunno, he's just got attitude

[@CecilXIX]

I always thought Civ II was the most prestigious. And I never heard somebody say a Civ was terrible until V, and later VI.

[@SomePotato]

Call to Power was the first one that I've seen bashed a lot when it came out.

[@Michal_Bauer]

​@@SomePotatoctp is not real civ. Real civs are those made by MicroProse and Firaxis.

[@zhivik]

@@SomePotato True. Call to Power II was pretty decent, though. I particularly liked the army concept, where you could organise units and take advantage of terrain. I do remember many finding that tedious at some point. There were also plenty of interesting concepts, and some interesting future governments - the one with the environmental flavour (Ecotopia) was particularly fun, where you could obliterate cities and turn everything back to wilderness.

[@joshuapettus6973]

@@zhivik Indeed, I remember Call to Power II having a lot of neat ideas, shame he didn't include that in his list.

[@danbance5799]

Civ II is indeed the best Civ. Civ VI has a lot going for it. Very good game. The only real complaint is the bugs and exploits. So many bugs. They've been mostly fixed now, but for a long time it was likely to crash every 3-4 turns in the late game. I never liked Civ III.

[@rhinerivia1456]

I bought Civ VI and have put 10 hours on it but there's something missing that i don't know, it is very different from Civ V and makes me go back to Civ V again 😢 How do i even have fun in Civ VI?

[@suedeciviii7142]

I'll say, my first 4 hours I didn't really enjoy at all. I'd advise focusing on markets. The great people they produce are easy to use and they give you gold to mess around with and try buying different things

[@danyoutube7491]

@@suedeciviii7142 Personally having to faff around with great people and religions takes the fun out of the game for me, I wish they'd never gone down that route. I wasn't keen on having to spam religious units in Civ 4, but in 5 and 6 it feels like this sort of thing went off the charts. It's all about civics, religion and working out how to get great people. I don't like gearing my civ towards producing such units nor defending against those of competing civs. Obviously we're all different in our tastes.

[@vohbovohborian28]

As someone who despises Civ 6 to the core of my very being, I hate seeing it as the most popular strategy game, as it is one of the worst.

[@StG88]

Just wait for VII!

[@RonMizman]

CIV IV is so incredible. It truly is a masterpiece of 4X gaming. Each of its expansions were so impactful as well introducing core systems we take for granted today. This was the peak of Civilization, have played the series since CIV-I release.

[@awedelen2]

This was really informative. For me, Civ III will always hold a special place since it's the game I first played in the series.

[@thepavl]

I used to play Civ 1 in 1993 on my 486. I remember doing a “speedrun” to conquer the world as fast as I could. I finally did it with Romans by 750AD or something. Apart from that small nostalgia Civ V was peak civ for me.

[@lucasodum2185]

I don’t care if Civ V is 15 years old, it doesn’t *feel* old

[@buchstabensalat1238]

I like Civ II and IV the most, but I had fun with every Civ game. Things I like about the different games: Civ I: The simplicity of the game Civ II: The advisors and the wonder movies. Also how riddiculus fast you can expand. Civ III: The music, it has the best overall soundtrack in the series Civ IV: The balancing, it feels like a round game. Also I played many mods for Civ 4 Civ V: For making the civs more diffrent. Civ VI: I personally like the districts, which made feel the game really fresh. Also a shoutout to SMAC, not only did improve on the Civ 2 forumula with some unique ideas (terraforming, unit creator, ...) but it also was really atmospheric and had an interesting lore.

[@arsnakehert]

I'll choose it based on coolest art style and vibes, which is a hard pick between Civ II and Civ III They really should go back to the "3D rendered in Silicon Graphics and put in 2D tiles" of the '90s However the coolest of all box art in Civ is Civ I, it feels absolutely _epic_ in the best sense of the word

[@James-rm7sr]

As one who played them all. I still love Civ 2. The advisors are so awesome in the game. It makes it so much for for me.

[@allenwaddell556]

I've been playing Civilization since version 1. Civ III was the best they ever produced.

[@marcdc6809]

I still play the very first version of civ1 from time to time... usually starting off as the Russians on earth with alphabet and two settlers... I enjoy the fact that you can play some dirty tricks with diplomats and their negation of zone of control and the fact that you can produce caravans that carry 50 production... you can help a city build a wonder with a caravan, and then switch production back to a cathedral or a factory, so basically you can hurry one city to grow large and prosper while all the other cities just produce caravans and settlers to help... it's an exploit, but it feels realistic... What's great also about civ1 is how you really feel the game accelerate in pace once you build your first railroads... the civ-tree is also a bit weird, but very exploitable, it's amazing how early you can get to republic and democracy, and you can build computers before you invent the steam engine...

[@the_major]

Been watching your content for some time but today, I subscribed for the heroes of might magic reference. This man is clearly a cultured gamer.

[@suedeciviii7142]

Hard to compete with all the great HoMM content creators but yes, I love the game, and I should give it another spin sometime for B-Roll footage

[@pablolongobardi7240]

​@@suedeciviii7142what do you think of master of magic? Its a civ 2 meets homm

[@OviD11111]

not just a reference, an on point funny joke too

[@suedeciviii7142]

@@OviD11111 Is bashing Heroes 4 nota dead horse yet? Does the game have any apologists nowadays?

[@Winnetou17]

@@suedeciviii7142 I still don't understand what people didn't like in Heroes 4. It's my favourite one, though Heroes 3 (especially with WoG when it doesn't bug out) is at the same level. HoMM 4 is so much more consistent and coherent and polished (game-design wise) than 3. Basically all skills are useful now, you no longer need to have rules like "no diplomacy, no necromancy" and avoid eagle eye like the plague. If HoMM 4 had heroes specialization (like 3 has) it would probably be perfect. If 3do didn't went bankrupt, they might've been able to polish HoMM 4 to greatness.

[@harbinger200]

Civ 4 has modern feel to it. Civ 3 is my favorite one, because it retains the magic and atmosphere of the original and has sweet pixel graphics.

[@thomasbuckley1436]

Civ 1 has Caravans which act like a combo of great merchants and establish small gold per turn generation (3 and 4 dropped/changed it), spaceship constructions was very complex and clunky, but also the most in depth, variable in how much you actually want to bring to win which will affect flight times, and the dreaded respawn competitor mechanics which confused many a player on how many enemies you will be facing (one more than said, but with two respawns because YOU, dear player, are also a competitor). It was around in 2 and 3, but was toggleable I believe. Diplomacy was bare bones, bigger stick wins arguments, which means you could shake people down for money and tech if you build a lot. Set spawn locations on earth to roughly their capital, and set opponents depending on the civ you picked. (For example, if you picked Babylon with three competition, you would always fight Greece, Rome, Russia and France, but not necessarily in that order, and the first two will spawn in their historic location). Also, it was the only one with the guy with the name on the title being lead developer for it, so it's obviously the best just because of that.

[@Winnetou17]

Aren't these in Civ 2 too ? I played too little Civ I (and not recently) to know the differences.

[@danyoutube7491]

I think that you would have to wait for Rome or Russia to die before you would meet the other, because if I remember rightly they were both the white colour - i.e. you couldn't have Rome and Russia in the same game. France and Germany were the purple/dark blue, Greece and England were pink, India and Mongols were grey, Babylon and Zulu were green, Aztecs and the Egyptians were yellow and the US and China were both light blue. I fondly remember using caravans in Civ 1, you could make trade routes as you say and also use them to hurry up the production of wonders. It was a common tactic of all players, I think, to amass a load of caravans (if you could spare the opportunity cost of not building other things) in preparation for the arrival of a new technology that enabled you to build a wonder, so that you could rush it. Having played the game briefly through emulation (I never bothered working out how to do hard disk emulation so I emulated playing by floppy disk!) I still really like the simple top down view of the map, I think it works well.

[@julia-6195]

My first Civ game was Civ 3, and my biggest surprise was getting nuked by Gandhi.

[@Salem_Alexandria]

I started with RTS' in the 90's, specifically C&C, and Starcraft as well as tactics games. My first foray into 4x titles was with Civ III in 2001. I didn't buy it myself though, or even have an interest in it, but rather my brother did. I was never really into non-fictional strategy even of an ahistorical variety such as Civ (hard to believe that now). I remember being shocked my brother even wanted it as it just didn't seem like his type of game (which I was correct about as he played it all of maybe one day lol). What got me checking out the game was when I saw the size of the instruction manual that came with it. It immediately intrigued me. I was like, ok this must have some depth to it. I was a 3rd edition D&D player back in those days (so I knew a bit about long-winded manuals). Long story short, I played the crap out of Civ III, and continued on through the series to Civ IV, then Civ V. My personal favorite remains Civ IV, but Civ III still holds a special place in my heart. I think quality of life is a big reason I enjoy Civ IV over Civ III. Things like tile yield overlay being absent from III are always frustrating to revisit. Civ V is alright, and I still play it from time to time, but I definitely feel like it was the beginning of the downfall of the series to me. I still haven't tried VI yet, but am not exactly eager too either, largely because after Civ V I got introduced to Grand Strategy titles by paradox interactive like Crusader Kings 2, HOI 4, and 4x/GS hybrids like Stellaris. Now days I find myself more engaged with those titles than the Civ series. That said, when I want something a little less harsh on the learning curve and a little more relaxing to jump in and play, I come back to Civilization 3/4/5 for that vibe. Appreciate the video, was neat to see someone else's take on comparisons between those I've played and have my own opinions on!

[@iiiiiifggffggffgfgfg]

Civ1 has weird design choices like knights being 4/2/2 locked behind three otherwise useless techs but chariots, 4/1/2, are otherwise the best unit until TANKS! It has the "all units die in a stack if one dies" problem, which is dumb, and no HP, it's all a roll of the dice, thus the phalanx beats tank problem. Also has the "forever war" issue Civ 2 even when the AI has no reason to attack you, has but not as badly.

[@Bertie_Ahern]

The forever war reason only happens when you hit the top of the powergraph. It's intended to make the game more competitive/fun, since its too easy to become the runaway dominant Civ otherwise.

[@centurn1]

>phalanx beats tank problem. Ha, I still remember how my phalanx killed the AI Battleship!

[@iiiiiifggffggffgfgfg]

@@Bertie_Ahern Yeah but its not much fun to have a civ a million miles away randomly attack, never declare peace, or take a bribe to make peace and then immediately attack.

[@danyoutube7491]

Yep, the only way to eradicate the risk of losing all units piled up on one tile in Civ 1 was to put them in a fort, so if you needed to defend a chokepoint that was the ideal solution. As you say, the stats could lead to some strange outcomes, but with chariots only having that 1 defence I was never tempted to stick with them rather than replacing with knights because at least knights are unlikely to lose when attacked by weakling 1 attack units like the militia. It gives you a mobile, powerful attacking unit that also has a decent chance (same defence as phalanx) in defence, especially with terrain bonuses. On plains and unfortified Knights were 2 defence vs legionary attack 3, so slightly disadvantaged (though as you note it was not rare to lose in situations where you have the statistical advantage), but if fortified, in a fortress, on a hill or forest or mountain, a 2 defence unit vs 3 attack becomes very strong indeed. I mention the legionary because that was often my attack unit of choice before knights, because if I remember rightly it was cheaper to build than the chariot.

[@thenoremac2685]

I've been playing the Civ franchise since Civ II, and I think four is probably my favorite simply for the Beyond the Sword DLC. There's just something incredibly satisfying about conquering my home continent as Rome with legionnaires and then the rest of the world a thousand years later with cyborg clone soldiers and giant mechs. My dad still plays Civ II. It's his solitaire.

[@bird_law]

Sick video. 5 with vox populi is an elite experience

[@doctorstreamspunk9996]

I would love to play Civ3 again but I can't get it to load properly on Steam.

[@jakarnilson]

Same. I played one session after installing it. After that, it would always crash while opening.

[@arthursandomine5464]

The coolest thing about CivIII is when you get to upgrade your palace!

[@joshuapettus6973]

In II it was a highlight as well.

[@wholesomebaker5410]

My meta is 5-7 cities in Civ 5. Depends how many luxurious resources you can get really

[@pentiofotal]

In my opinion, Civ 4, 5, and especially (!) 6 feel much more game-y, for some reason, than Civ 2. I always thought Civ 2 to be most immersive. I think the news messages play a big role in this, such as "The French and the Aztec sign the 'Paris agreement' to contain [your] aggression' ", or how subtle global warming is introduced (in the 90s!). What is your opinion on this? Might be a cool video idea, immersiveness vs. gaminess :-) P.S.: Why does your Civ 2 look so weird? Do you use a graphics mod?

[@suedeciviii7142]

I played the Test of Time version of Civ 2. They released multiple versions of the same game with different graphics

[@LegosGBS]

One more turn indeed. Civ 3 is still my go to game when I just want to make a huge empire

[@suedeciviii7142]

Now that I've realized the "big maps" thing I'm going to bring this point up more often. It has odd intersections with other things that make the game great. Civ 4 has always felt very "blob"-y to me, while empires in Civ 3 have unique shapes, and interesting layouts that affect how the game plays out

[@LegosGBS]

@suedeciviii7142 using the way the cities expand to engulf another civs city and then cutting it off, my "pacman" move lol usually ends up being Egypt for me IDK y

[@alastairsmith2173]

CIV 1 is the best in my opinion. It has a special place in my childhood and sets the standard by which I judge not just civ, but all other 4x games.

[@Dragonite43]

The only Civ games I played are Civ 1 and Civ 5. I will mention a few things about Civ 1. For Civ 1, because of the time it is made, you do need the manual. It was an old method to prevent piracy (the game will ask you for a certain page within the manual). Another thing I remember from Civ 1, is that there is a risk of ships being sunk at sea. So as long as your ship is next to the shore, there was 0% chance of it sinking. However, once you have only ocean titles around you, there was a chance for your ships to sink. A benefit of Civ 1 is that because of the time it is made, the visuals are simple. This meant it was easy to figure out what is happening at a glance. Newer games have better graphics, but it does mean it can be harder to know what is going on. Since Civ 1's core gameplay is like the rest of the games in the series, it is not hard to go back and play it. You can easily run it on a DOS emulator with no problem.

[@GreyTide]

I really like Civ 1 despite how raw it is. The beauty is in it's simplicity. Alpha Centauri is my favorite, Civ 5 is my 2nd favorite, Civ 1 is my 3rd favorite.

[@KilroyStyx]

I can actually say, that I’ve played every main numbered Civilization game. They’re all great in their own way, but I was really unhappy when they took armies away. Glad they brought them back.

[@ElShogoso]

Instructions unclear, ended up playing Alpha Centauri.

[@Jasmin-lg3gf]

Civ 4 is very good, but the best CIV game is definitely SMAC.

[@suedeciviii7142]

I'm streaming SMAC tomorrow!

[@OviD11111]

i thought u meant to say SMAX. Common mistake ; )

[@Jasmin-lg3gf]

@@suedeciviii7142 Another game I enjoyed playing was CIV: Call To Power. The game had some interesting mechanics.

[@BlueTemplar15]

@@suedeciviii7142 Please tell me that you're going to use one of the interface improvement mods like PRACX or Thinker ?

[@andrewmartin3671]

It's only the best Civ game because Colonization doesn't have "Civ" in the name, else we'd all know what the true winner is. Only half joking, Colon is a bit of an outdated mess, but I sunk more hours into it than any other!

[@ChristianEwald]

Great video. Appreciated the Alpha Centauri cameo.

[@hermesaquila642]

I remember how in civ 1 you often engaged catapults with ww2 bombers... and sometimes the bomber was destroyed.

[@TheGhostman132]

I lost a battleship to a militia 🤦‍♂️

[@MedicineMan55]

Ha ha... yup. Or the infamous and very repeatable tank vs phalanx defeat.

[@CompleteAnimation]

I'm surprised you didn't mention Civilization: Beyond Earth.

[@marcelfabianczyk859]

Civ III's palace builder and city view are some of the best things ever

[@CMDRSweeper]

Should have mentioned the advisors in Civ 2. The small video segments from the different eras telling you what they want, and then having some bickering / disagreements between each other was great. A thing I have sorely missed in later parts of the series.

[@suedeciviii7142]

Flavour and personality varies a lot! From Civ 5's art deco to Civ 2's live action. I just couldn't find a way to put qualitative stuff like that on a scale

[@Izzak_Beck]

Civ 1 is actually super cool. I'd definitely recommend checking it out. Obviously it's super archaic in a lot of ways, but it's simplicity is really compelling and fun.

[@lordhoot1]

The incredible moddability of Civ 2 makes it my favourite. As showcased by the Fantastic Worlds official mod pack, the soundtrack of which is engraved into my memory more than 20 years later.

[@Kastrenzo74]

Some of the older games are so broken that the jank ends up creating its own story, thinking specifically of the forever war story that came from that one guy's 10 year old Civ2 game. thats the kind of thing I wish to get involved in a late civ game, and it just never happens in the newer ones closest I ever got was an instance in civ5,

[@poisin224]

I can't believe the algorithm didn't show me this channel years ago. Civ 3 is the best in the series and no one can change my mind.

[@suedeciviii7142]

Oh boy, do I have a ton of videos with varying levels of quality for you!

[@poisin224]

@@suedeciviii7142 I already have strong opinions about you doing Sipahi dirty in the tier list.

[@suedeciviii7142]

@@poisin224 20 extra shields in cost! Good unit but the devs knew it, that cost is steep

[@suedeciviii7142]

@@poisin224 Put it this way, Sipahi is +33% attack for +25% cost War elephant is +33% attack AND defense AND no res requirement AND a better timed golden age for the same cost. Cavalry is a better base unit, but still, the difference is stark.

[@Zestieee]

I'd love to see how Civ VII will fit into all of these parameters

[@AgileGeoff]

I played Civ 1 when it was new. It was great. Still holds up.

[@JuniorNationFan]

Civ V was just so peak.

[@MagisterCobb]

I've played the original CIV, I was in college when it came out. It was a great "starter game" for the series but there are serval gameplay issues that have been resolved in future iterations that would drive current Civ players absolutely nuts. I must say, failure to mention the awesome advisors in Civ II is negligent borderline criminal for anyone who has a long standing realtionship with this franchise. Thanks for the video. I'm counting down the days to Feb 11.

[@suedeciviii7142]

All of my experience with Civ 2 is with Test of Time (past the age of 8, at least), which sadly removed the advisors. Pity me

[@codegeek98]

imagine if the advisors were reprogrammed and occasionally updated around actual meta strats

[@suedeciviii7142]

"Have you considered abandoning your capital to move your palace to a better spot?"

[@freecivfrank]

Hey Suede, really love your videos. Is there a chance you will cover Freeciv, the free and open source Civilization game?

[@jasonbr7]

Dude you nailed it with the Zelda reference. That game is so ingrained into my life that I named my son Link.

[@suedeciviii7142]

Yeah. My thinking was, maybe Zelda 2 isn't as popular as the others, but it's an amazing game that offers something that the others just don't (side scrolling and random encounters)

[@volbound1700]

Civ 2 was the one that I played as a kid. I actually rarely played a random game after my first series of games, I got the "Conflicts of Civilization" and "Fantastic Worlds" expansions and primarily played their scenarios or made scenarios. I love Scenario setup and this is why I have a harder time with the newer ones after Civ 4.

[@MrRager7712]

Civ 5 I still play non stop, I do remember having Civ revolution on my 360 that was a lot of fun as well

[@gumbycat5226]

Civ 2 had the best scenarios, the historical ones were amazingly realistic and the others such as Mars and Dinosaurs great fun. Civ has never been closer to realising its theme, build an empire to stand the test of time. I like all the even numbered civs best, hardly played 3 because of its way of implementing hexes, and 5 for many reasons, mostly because 4 in its final state was so much more fun. I do like 6 even though it is the most unrealistic.

[@suedeciviii7142]

Hexes? IIRC the diamonds from Civ 3 were basically the same as 2 and 4

[@Ryuko-T72]

The "happiness" mechanic in Civ 5 is so unbalanced at times. It's so agrivating to deal with

[@warlockjmn]

Civ 1 for the win. The box set. Printed map of the science tree. The castle you built.

[@AdamWebb1982]

I loved civ3 the most. Still play it

[@scottianson5133]

Do we include Call to Power, because I adore that game.

[@bakeliteperformance]

2 and 4 are my favorites, and 5 and 6 left me cold due to the carpet of doom. I'm hopeful 7, with the leaders will be a good compromise. Still, all I've ever wanted in Civ is a tactical zoom-in combat mini-game, like Master of Magic, HOMM, etc.