4 ms·

4 and 5 are both superb. Civ 4 marks the end of the 'old' Civilization games, and honestly I don't think there's much reason to look further back than that if

4 and 5 are both superb. Civ 4 marks the end of the 'old' Civilization games, and honestly I don't think there's much reason to look further back than that if you're just joining the series. It's fully-featured, cheap with all expansions, and offers a great experience. Civ 5 was the start of the new era, but has been out long enough to get two much-needed expansions. It cleaned up the look and interface of the game substantially, and changed the feel of combat to a more modern TBS approach. I think common consensus is that it's a bit less deep than 4, but plays more smoothly and with more engaging combat. They're both great, and I don't know that it matters too much which way you go. If anything about either game frustrates you, there will be a mod to change it. You really can't go wrong. Civ 6 is more controversial - it reworked a lot of the city-building elements really substantially, and I'm not sure it's for the better. It'll probably be a solid game by the time all the expansions are out, but right now it doesn't feel complete and polished the way 4 & 5 do. Don't get Beyond Earth. Honestly, it's just not worth it - it doesn't have any real merits beyond 5 except "in space!", and it's long on balance and design issues.

fjsolwmv 9y ago
Some traditionalists never cottoned to the isometric angled view, and prefer the original overhead style.
- da_chicken 9y ago
  I, for one, was sick to death of the dreaded Stack of Doom that Civ IV and earlier had. Civ V was a remarkable breath of fresh air. Square vs hex just isn't a big deal to me.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    Civ V's combat is frustrating in a lot of ways, the unit-per-square system makes ranged strength overpowered and takes away all value from numerical superiority. But I still hugely prefer it to the doomstack approach - wars actually involve doing something now.

fjsolwmv 9y ago

Some traditionalists never cottoned to the isometric angled view, and prefer the original overhead style.

da_chicken 9y ago
I, for one, was sick to death of the dreaded Stack of Doom that Civ IV and earlier had. Civ V was a remarkable breath of fresh air. Square vs hex just isn't a big deal to me.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  Civ V's combat is frustrating in a lot of ways, the unit-per-square system makes ranged strength overpowered and takes away all value from numerical superiority. But I still hugely prefer it to the doomstack approach - wars actually involve doing something now.