another year
another "civilization killer" flop
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
another year. another "civilization killer" flop
another year
another "civilization killer" flop
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
civ 6 by far the best civ confirmed
millenia is a dogshit game though...
humankind is potentially the best classic 4g game if the devs weren't such a pack of pussified gays who won't let the playerbase roleplay one civilization/nationality because "muh far right fascists"
why the frick would I ever play a game that let's me go from a greek civilization to a "turkish" civilization? O.o
same with total war as well as paradox titles, nobody else can come close
and heroes might and magic series too. the clones can't win.
Age of Wonders won tho'biet
AoW had more in common with Master of Magic than Heroes imo.
No one has really tried to top Total War or PDX yet. Mankind and Millenia were big budget attempts to carve out market share, whereas small indie projects are the most competition Paradox GS titles get.
Personally, I still think these games are the right way to go, as rough as they are. The best way to compete with Civ, is to not compete. Actually try to offer something different and interesting rather than starting with the premise of creating a game for the "Civ crowd."
>No one has really tried to top Total War
I wish someone did
Ultimate General competes with Total War. It has good reception but doesn't sell. It simply isn't flashy or easy to play enough to appeal to zoomers, and a good portion of the target audience always pirates games on principle.
I'd actually argue Ultimate General doesn't compete with Total War. It's really more for people who grew up with Sid Meier's Gettysburg, Cossacks, American Conquest; that sort of thing.
The riveting amount of TWO factions doesn't help UG's case either
>No one has really tried to top Total War or PDX yet.
There's been game(with sequel) that tried to do eu4 with total war battles
It was just lame so you never heard about it(and i forgot the name)
>No one has really tried to top Total War
I consider the things Eugen Systems has done as good attempts.
>or PDX
Lots of indie devs have come and gone over the past decade trying to at least come close, you either ended up with things like Age of History 2 or Realpolitiks which are too simple, or Field of Glory (which I think is what
is referring to) which are too different.
>Actually try to offer something different and interesting rather than starting with the premise of creating a game for the "Civ crowd."
It's this. Ironically, if Paradox made an actual Paradox-style game but with the time scale of "entire human history" it might have legs. But Millennia just looks like another Civ clone. Why should I bother? Hell, I already will never buy Civ 6 because it looks too damn similar to Civ 5 which I already have. Civ itself has saturated the market.
I would like it if a paradox-like civ game similar to Stellaris so it would look like a more simplified and less autistic Caveman to Cosmos. You start as a nameless pack of nomadic caveman and over the course of millenia they grow into an unique civilization. It's shouldn't be like Humankind who restrict that into a binary choice of irl civilizations but way more custom and modular. Irl civilizations exist as a template like religion in Sid Meier's Civilization imo.
Of course
People play civ because of the brand, not because it’s better than the competition
Are any of the alternatives better games?
gay, the only "civ killers" better than actual Civilization are Endless Legend and Old World.
>Endless Legend and Old World.
more dead wannabe competitors
Endless Legend's current player base numbers surprise me given that it's way older than of the other Civ-clones. I guess that's the benefit of it actually trying something different with its high fantasy setting rather than making another Civilization clone with a lame gimmick attached.
I'm more surprised that Humankind. which is IMO so much more blander and shit than Endless Legends, have over 1k.
humankind is in this month's humble monthly thing
It's only know for having "Paradox" plastered over.
You lost.
the game
B^(
Old World got more DLC just few months ago so I suppose people still buy it despite not actively playing it at least on Steam. The game being restricted to just one historical era makes it more niche than Civ anyways.
Also Old World was among the first victims of Epic Game Store black hole, since they went for Tim's short term money after Starbreeze shit the bed and cancelled their publishing deals. I think Hades is still the only game that ever managed to break the timed Epic exclusive curse when it eventually came out on Steam.
>Le all the worth of the game is in steam player number
sad
>Endless troony and Time Limit Black person World
The millennia bubble burst when people played the demo and found out the battles looked like absolute dog shit but the game launches in a month. Everybody knew it was never going to be fixed in time IF EVER. Wasn't worth looking at if one of the main draws looked like cheap cell phone game mechanics from the fricking early 2000s.
>main draw
>combat screen
I agree that it looks attrocious but tbh it's not that impotant.
I didnt played the game but it looks pretty interesting
Millennia is actually great, but you can feel how low budget it is. I'm pretty sure they made a profit even though it's a small player count. Hopefully it's enough of a success for Pdx to fund a sequel that doesn't look like ass, because the gameplay is solid. Love the resource chains. Ages were a cool idea but they need some work to implement better.
>The millennia bubble burst when people played the demo
Literally the exact opposite. Everyone thought it looked like dogshit until the demo came out and some of us were pleasantly surprised by the gameplay despite the dogshit graphics.
i love the game it just optimization and some balance. Also age of utopia was one of the big let down for me.
I haven't even managed to get any of the unique ages yet. If I'm going tech I tend to not have the bonuses needed for the age and if I'm not going tech I'm trying to rush a normal age before the AI locks in a crisis one. The Age of Ignorance was a goddamn nightmare for my big wide empire.
>Ages were a cool idea but they need some work to implement better.
They're a cool idea, but implementation and theory work completely differently. They succeed at gating content and giving some flavor to different phases of the game. But the "alternate history" bit is almost completely nonfunctional, because there's a default age you'll get to most of the time, a fancy age you need to really know what you're doing and get lucky to reach, and a punishment age you can stumble into or need to intentionally reach for depending on your situation.
The consequences of each age don't really last and aren't very visible most of the time, so even if you get to one, once you're out of the Age of Plague or Age of Ether it's not terribly relevant to the rest of the world's history.
Again, it's not a bad system. But it doesn't do what it said it would, and what it does do is pretty stiff.
I think making them not global would help with that no lasting impact thing. So if you enter age of kings but others iron you feel that lasting impact cause you have things that the others didn't, or perhaps getting plague while others were normal would have you leaving that age with a "Well that sucked and im behind the curve now so this will change my plans" type feeling. Its not like when Spain was at the peak of its powers in the 1500's every other country was also in a golden age.
Yeah I'm not sure about the global thing, but both sides have benefits. I really do like the idea of fricking over the rest of the world to force them to shift how they are playing. And by making them global, you get to add in things for them to compete for. Honestly a small improvement for me would have been giving them more lasting visual impact. Like each age leaves its mark on the world or on your civ's buildings or whatever. Just some indication that our nation went through this. There's just a lot they could have done with the idea but it's pretty obvious just how little money they are working with, so it's pretty impressive what they did manage to do in the end. No difference in visual between civs is such a killer for me though. Who knows if that was a budget thing or PDX telling them don't bother because we can sell that shit as DLC.
They probably thought just getting to keep the units was enough. For example, with the age of heroes or whatever it's called, the heroes are really good leaders and the lodges are really good housing and so they last for several ages, but I feel like the quests shouldn't disappear the moment the age ends and there should be longer lasting "triggers" like since myths were real, now cryptids are real forever and so when you get out into the deep water you have to watch out for sea serpents and krakens.
I'd like someone to make a fantasy game in this vein where you started off and stayed non fantasy as long as you played it straight but every alternate age would pull it permanently in some fantasy or sci-fi direction. You'd end up with maybe very low amounts of fantasy and just some household brownies and the occasional forest nymph, or with mechs that shoot fireballs, or with orcs and elves in a magic-less cyberpunk world.
>there should be longer lasting "triggers" like since myths were real, now cryptids are real forever and so when you get out into the deep water you have to watch out for sea serpents and krakens
Yeah that's a sick idea. The ages unfolding throughout the game and having a presence. Like age of plague sees future development into bio and viral warfare and shit like that. Or modern uses of alchemy from the age of alchemy.
I guess make them local, but also be influenced by neighbours. Like make it so getting good age is harder (but not impossible) if your neighbors have shit ones and vice versa.
They really need tourism and archaeology as a mechanic to keep the timeline consistent and impactful.
I don't like Civ, wish Humankind was better cause that seemed like it had potential.
>Millenia Released 11 days ago
>Civ6 released 8 Years ago
Gee I wonder why more people heard of Civ6 than Millenia.
You know that its not going to be a more popular game. If anything millenia is going to drop off
It will not be of course. I am saying CIv6 has a major history behind its name, had several expansion, DLCs, quality of life updates over the 8 years. It was also freely available on stream on several occasions.
A game that has just released less than 2 weeks ago is simply not going to compete with that amount of content and history.
Why don't you go back to Ganker if you want to post steamcharts screenshots and pretend you're making some kind of point
It's overpriced paraslop. I would have bought it for 20.
>start out with good ideas, intention to make Call to Power 3
>Paradox gives a shoestring budget, not even enough to provide 00's era graphics, let alone something that can compete with Civ 5 or 6
>day 0 nuke DLC
>flops
I guess there just isn't a market for strategy games. Maybe Paradox should try spending a billion dollars on a looter shooter with epic memes and black women.
Warframe already exists.
There is no day 0 nuke DLC and Paradox didn't provide them with any money. They weren't contracted by Paradox they contracted Paradox. Your /misc/ brain takes might warrant reading if you were actually able to type out at least one true thing.
You know, I hate civ games. There's nothing immersive about line infantry unit shooting modern infantrymen or tanks.
I never played Civs, and never will(i believe it's slop), i play humankind (pirate) few games, was kinda fun, Millenia (pirate) is full slop.
if someone would make shadow empire with faster AI and simultaneous turns, I would be happy
I just need a fun game to play with my friends(they refuse to play pbem)
We just play beyond earth and aow for civ-ish stuff now
Kind of unfortunate
Its not even cause they don't know how to play SE, they just only play it singleplayer because for some reason they're just totally against pbem though with manual battles Aow practically is
sigh
only good civ derivative is Wh40k Gladius because it does its own thing instead of copying
fr fr fr ngl my grandmother once told me... Augustus was a brother!
Of all the random shit to be mad, the game being so lazy they make legionaries the default unit for all nations is a weird one.
It's not, not at all, since all nations are generic ones, it makes MUCH more sense to have legionnaires than "swordsman" as a mainstay of your main infantry over the "spearman".
Infantry from ancient to classical evolved basically as:
>Warbands
>Tribal Warriors
>Light Infantry with short spear, shield and javelins
>Heavy Infantry with spear and shield
>Phallangites with sarissa (really long spear)
>Heavy Infantry with tower shield and short sword + heavy javelin.
Nope, legions had specific training, recruitment and organisation beyond simple 'sword-armed infantry'. Some nations tried to copy it but with limited success, so they are too specific to be such a generic unit.
So did the hoplites, but every game use them as a base for spearman.
What's matter is the loadout here, if you want to talk about the Legionnaire capabilities into infrastructure that's something that could fit into a unique unit.
But tower shield+short sword+heavy javelin+heavy armor is way better than generic "swordsman" being the top dog of the classical age in every 4x historical game, frick that.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but some units should be unique because of their effectivness in history, and they give civs a lot of flavor. Btw hoplites should be unique as well. Maybe just for Greece-Makedon
But if you are going for "what if" scenarios, might as well give all civs Legions with a cultural touch (like irl Silver Shield Swordsmen, or Numidian Legionaries)
> might as well give all civs Legions with a cultural touch
If only...
For all Humankind flaws, one thing that I liked was the cultural flair for each generic unit on their art portrait and model.
>cultural flair for each generic unit on their art portrait and model
That is cool, didn't know that. Rise of Nations had that too, loved it. It even had different tanks and airplanes for each nation. Too bad Civ doesn't go all in with cultural variety and leave it to mods
>legionnaires
That word isn't used for Roman Legions, but for the French Foreign Legion
For Romans it's:
>Legionary
>Legionaries
Thanks for the correction, the point still stands.
I dunno why, but ancient to classical infantry was always half-assed in 4x historical games.
>Axeman
>Axeman is good against other infantry units
Jesus christ, I love Civ IV but thank god for mods.
Oh shit, they added black dudes. That's actually good. When I played Zulus in the demo, all my dudes were white and it was really fricking immersion breaking.
The current playerbase is irrelevant, all they had to do was make a shitty clone on a shoestring budget to have all the morons buy it on launch and make profit. In this regard they were successful so expect more shitty bland civ clone #5543434196
I genuinely gave the game a good college go. Pic related is how I view the game, 'meh.'
The QoL of Civ VI is by far superior, and Millennia's logistics system is somehow inferior to Colonization.
The fact I have to fight borders in my own regions is just asinine and the export mechanics is too limited
The game is ok and all, but the gimmicky kick-in-the-nuts with random uprisings in some ages really dour my experience.
I tried the Age of Visitors and, good grief, that was such a miserable experience in my first playthrough when I conquered my continent.
It's a 6/10 game, could be better. It's unbalanced but I hope they would just buff the weaker ideas instead of gutting the meta builds.
I heard civ 6 modding is super fricked, how is it compared to modding 4?
good numbers even when the last dlc came out a year ago