3 ms·
On their release date, the best games in the franchise would be between Civ 3 and Civ 4. Civ 5 and 6 are so different that it is difficult to call them success
by 29athrowaway 3y ago
On their release date, the best games in the franchise would be between Civ 3 and Civ 4.
Civ 5 and 6 are so different that it is difficult to call them successor games anymore. It's Civ meets Settlers of Catan or something, no longer a true Civ game.
The movement limitations in Civ 5 and 6 don't make sense. The biggest battles in history have been what Civ 5+ players dismiss as "death stacks".
Think of the Battle of Trafalgar, Battle of Stalingrad, Siege of Baghdad (1258), Fall of Tenochtitlan... all concentrations of multiple units on one area.
- Semaphor 3y agoI mean, historical accuracy is not exactly a Civ feature. For that I’d recommend Paradox games. And game play wise, I find death stacks simply lame, so I’m happy they aren’t there. There are tons of things that don’t make sense for IV either, but I still don’t call it Uno.
- 29athrowaway 3y agoFor Civ 4 at least, once you have cavalry, cannons, artillery, etc. There is a penalty for death stacks due to collateral damage.
- vintermann 3y agoCiv is heavily rooted in a certain "classical" view of history, in which generals' tactical brilliance is what determines history. So I understand why they wanted to make room for actual tactics. If that comes at the cost of archers being able to shoot a bunch of gatling gunners across the English channel without them having the reach to shoot back, then so be it.
- toyg 3y agoGatlings are just a borked unit. A simple upgrade completely changing the unit-type raison d'etre is simply a Bad Idea, I honestly don't understand why they did it like that.
- 29athrowaway 3y agoAnd that still exists on Civ 3 and 4. There are different types of terrain, unit types, unit experiences and rank, etc. No need to add the board game style limitations.