The entire game with all expansions is $15. I've never played a Civ game, only Total War and paradox games mostly. How is this game? I've never been very interested in the series because of the nonhistoric kind of gameplay where you have one leader over centuries
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Many will juggle between 4,5, and 6. Personally I like 6 but I never found any of them to be hard to dive into. They all have their own nuances and ways of working, the one thing I would say is if you get 5 or 6 be sure to pick up the major expansions as they are pretty much fundamental expansions rather than just extra content.
It's good, if you become really immersed in playing it and play it regularly, it's nice to have the same game on other devices. There's a lot of content for $15.
I recommend starting with IV. That's honestly the peak, and has numerous 10/10 total conversion mods. But I like VI well enough.
Stay away from V.
I really wouldn't recommend IV to someone who's never played Civ before, that game is hard even for veterans.
Shut up boomer
4 sucks ass, doomstacks stink
>4
>good mods
LMAO
Also moron, why would you reccomend conversion mods? That's not civ, that's just fantasy homosexualry
only on Ganker would you unironically get morons saying 4 doesn't have mods. god i hate what that asiatic c**t did to this site
4 has mods, but they're all terrible.
>t. spent weeks downloading and playing dozens of outdated or broken Civ 4 mods from Civfanatics
5's steam workshop mods are of 10x higher quality
5trannies are the bronies of Civ
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and went to take a look at what V's Workshop mods are.
Of the top 10 most popular, 6 add basic things like an in-game editor, full setup options, or relationship graphs to the game. These are things that already existed in vanilla 4.
Further down and one of the most popular is a larger Europe map. It still looks congested, but I'm not about to load Civ V to find out. Still, it says a lot.
Civ is probably too slow for you if you're only interested in TW and paradox stuff. If you do want to try it you may as well buy 6, it's the latest and greatest.
Civ 6 is terrible. get 4 or 5.
It's decent, but only in Single-player. Multiplayer Civ 5 or Civ 6 is unplayably bad.
What the frick it’s the complete opposite, the AI has absolutely no idea how to play the game in 5 or 6 so the only way to have any sort of challenge is to play against other human players
Yeah, you get a challenge, but the MP is poorly balanced, so you get steamrolled by some +10 Crusader shit.
Local spergs will hate on 5 and jerk off to 4 but let me tell you, as a newer player, just get 5 with all expansions.
6 is a shallow mobile game with nonsensical design decisions and full schizo AI that can't play the game on account of new game mechanics. 5 is similar but at the very least the AI is mostly able to create an illusion of competence on higher skill levels, on 6 its just blatantly cheating.
5 is the most casual of civ games because it's easy to get into and deep enough as a 'grand strategy lite' to have fun with. Which is to say, not super deep once you understand it, but will give you a few dozen hours of fun nonetheless.
The reason people jerk off to 4 is because it's the most 'deep' but at that also the most autistic, like if you enjoy micro managing every little thing and cheesing / gaming the game's AI you will probably enjoy it more, however the autism required to enjoy that for more than like a few hours is far greater than what it takes to pick up and enjoy 5, even if its objectively less' deep'.
Also 6's art-style and civilization choices are picrel. Some people like it, most people hate it. Judge for yourself.
>like if you enjoy micro managing every little thing and cheesing / gaming the game's AI you will probably enjoy it more
Lolwut? The "cheesing the game's AI" Civ par excellence is Civ 5, there's nothing like the stupid trade cheese in 4 or the worker lure exploit (you can still lure in 4 but it isn't 1upt so the utility is nil). In 4 success comes from exploiting systems that are indeed gamey but it has nothing to do with the AI.
I try to be kind to 5lets if for no other reason than that there's so many of them and it's an uphill battle arguing with casuals but you make it really hard sometimes.
I guess you could start with whatever civ game, but I'm not sure purchasing all the DLC before you have tried the game is a good move, money-wise. Civ 6 is alright in some ways.
I started with civ 5 back in early 2011 I think, then went over to civ 6 when it released, tried to go back to civ 5 but could not, kept playing more civ 6. however eventually I did go back to civ 5 and now I can't play civ 6 anymore. I also tried out civ 4 but haven't finished my first game there yet (which I started many weeks ago), it's just so unengaging compared to civ 5.
civ 5 to me feels more like an empire managing game whereas civ 6 makes you spend too much time on managing individual cities, while at the same time encouraging you to build a ton of cities, so you get bogged down in a time-consuming clicking hell. like in civ 5, at some point you can't bother manually building stuff like farms and mines anymore and allow the process to be automated, while in civ 6 they don't allow you to automate this stuff anymore, has to be done manually.
>I'm not sure purchasing all the DLC before you have tried the game is a good move
You're basically saying he should pirate Civ and decide if he likes it.
Civ 6 is just Civ 5 with more annoying mechanics and no Vox Populi
Civ is really beginner unfriendly.
>only Total War and paradox games mostly
You'll probably be fine. Remember that it's simply a numbers game and the last thing the game is trying to be is historical - it's all pophistory with a lot of whitewashing and blackwashing.
Some leader choices are amusing for how on the surface it's progressive but if you pick up a history book, or just browse wikipedia, said leader was actually a horrible person even for the time period (Africans just can't stop committing slavery, cannibalistic infanticide and human sacrifice, amirite), but of course it still has leaders who were NEVER A FRICKING LEADER OF THEIR COUNTRY OR BANKRUPTED THEIR NATION AND WERE EXILED FOR IT.
Civ6 is prettier but has bad music. Civ5 is casual but ugly and has some unspoken rules. Civ4 is extremely difficult, arguably ugly and basically requires you to ask someone how to play because the AI is no challenge below Prince/Normal difficulty but on Prince and above it gives most players trouble... oh and you will win or lose Civ4 based on your starting map conditions.
If you're totally new to the series, start with 3.
shut up moron
3 is objectively the best way to get started with the franchise, go huff whippets and listen to soundcloud nog-rap somewhere else zoomtard
lol, no, its not, you're literally blinded by nostalgia. I love 3, I live for those shields, but its a fricking terrible point of entry. The entire game is fricked beyond belief without heavy modding. Nice projection though, I can see you're insecure about yourself.
It is not "fricked beyond belief", it is simple to learn/understand while being challenging, along with the best UI in the series to boot. Stop watching tiktok for 8 hours a day & unfrick your attention span, you'll get it fine.
You're reaching so hard its embarrassing. You're 0 on every point. I can clearly see it takes a lot of effort to think up a retort, so in lieu of your atrophied and degenerated brain, I'll accept your concession.
I'm not the one getting bent out of shape over facts, slick.
>best UI in the series to boot
this right here
3 has such a clean interface. I was kind of pissed about it when it came out because I had just come from Alpha Centauri and wanted more info, but it totally grew on me
3 is the best of the series, 4 was the last good one
anything after is just zoomer garbage, designed for casuals, lightweights, and children
How is V made for casuals? All the new features like policies or UA were totally autistic and only fell flat on the execution, regardless the tech tree was a slog and took you forever to get through while late game naval invasions required an Adderall prescription to get through.
I could go on for hours about this but V almost plays itself. In any Civ prior to V you'll get your shit stomped in if you spend too much time dicking around but in V you really have to go out of your way to lose.
>The entire game is fricked beyond belief without heavy modding
I don't think 3 is a work of art or anything but that's a bit of an exaggeration, it's quite playable in vanilla
I played like 40 hours of Civ 5 years ago and never got into it.
Bought the entire Civ6 bundle and found it a whole lot easier to get into. It's a great game, even if I have no love for the Disney style character art.
>paying for games
6 is like 5 if it had mechanics. It's the best hex civ by far.
If it had too much bloat, you mean
The mechanics that 6 had don't improve the game at all, in fact they slow it down for no good reason. The game also looks worse, has no good mods and its not gonna get better any time soon.
Personally V is probably the best.
Good joke
4cel cope
On this same topic, should I get the whole platinum bundle with both expansion DLCs if I'm just curious about Civ 6 or is the base game enough? Sure I'm being a cheapass but 6 bucks is still better than 15, especially given how it's impossible to stop playing Civ before 2 hours in order to get a refund.
Or maybe I should just pirate it.
You want all of the DLC, the game is almost barebones without it
Probably not, Civ VI is known for having bloated mechanics.
Don’t bother with the expansions. All of the features that are unique to it are awful.
the one with best tutorial
Its centered around districts but I never liked them. For a newcomer they are guesswork until you realize by midgame you that science districts are obligatory and you pick one of the rest according to the victory type you will shoot for. Once done you're stuck with them, no refunds, and cities are so hard to grow their income comes from the districts already there, so the only way to increase income is with newer cities but settlers become a pain to build as their cost rises.
I recommend civs 3 or 4. 3 doesn't punish you but makes new cities useless due to corruption which gets annoying. civ4 overall is the best in balancing building up your current cities against expanding. The only donwnside is it does punish you when you get around 10 cities with maintenance costs and it can be a newbie trap especially if you land a poor map
I prefer 5. 6 is okay but 4 is a little eh because of doomstacks. I like that religion is actually a victory type in 6 and districts are kind of fun when you get to know them, but actual gameplay wise 5 is just more polished. Civ 6 doesn't even have a functioning trade route menu. In 5, you click it, you can see all available routes, all current routes, and reorder them as you please. If you settle hundreds of cities it might crash, but that's okay. Civ 6 though, they just give you a completely unordered excel column that you have to scroll through all the way if you want to find anything. That's just one little nitpick, but it's just the tip of the iceberg really. They unlearned a ton of shit from civ5. I hope civ 7 manages to combine the two into a better game overall but let's not get false hope
>Civ VI
>good
No
>for first time
Frick no
If you never played Civ, then 2 is where you should be learning the ropes. If you master Civ 2 loop, you will do great in all 4X. If you start with any other, you will be good in that specific Civ and not much else.
That's a pretty good deal. I went and checked if CIV 5 was also on sale, because i remember getting everything for like 5-10 bucks and it was def worth it. If you've never played Civ before, I'd say just get it. You'll get a ton of hours out of it and if somehow you get tired of it before civ 7 arrives you can always grab 5 and 4 on sale at some point in the future too.