civ 4 has a muddy low-poly realistic artstyle. Civ 6 has a mobile game artstyle. They're nothing alike.
Civ 5 is the only civ game that genuinely looks good.
Yup, and some of the current year diversity choices for leaders and nonsensical civ inclusions like Canada, Australia, Mapuche, etc, sullied my opinion of this game so much that I don't even want to give it a chance.
>we need a leader for our iconic bronze age civilization >how about this greek bawd that is mostly known for fricking romans and killing herself and didn't even live during the bronze age? >perfect!
Thats brown transhomosexual depiction is not historically accurate.
Cleopatra was of the Ptolemaic dynasty and theres evidence she looked like in the photo.
What makes you think she'd have spent her time in direct sunlight rather than under the shade being serviced by slaves?
The only people who would be severely tanned would be farm workers or other manual labourers who would be exposed to constant sunlight from working outside all day.
I'm playing through an Earth huge map as Cleopatra on Inmortal. Absolutely rolling the entire map atm. Got lucky having Scotland spawn next to me. Mapuche is giving me trouble because of his riders+he's got a +10 combat bonus against civs in a golden age. Also
III was the last Civ with objectively good combat. From IV onwards they went heavy on stats vs stats and having units survive multiple battles. III was the first Civ with unit animations but still had the RNG based combat that always resulted in a death pre horsemen. It will always be my favourite despite how many improvements have come from VI
contrarian opinion.
Don't care what anyone else thinks. I've been playing Civ games for more than 20 years. I love VI but III will likely never be topped
>IV onwards > having units survive multiple battles
Bruh you didn't play 4
Even cav units have laughable retreat chances, siege units arguably are those who survive the most and yet their purpose is still to kamikaze
II was my very first Civ game ever owned back in 1999 you frick wit. I used to watch my dad play every Saturday morning until I learnt the mechanics and how to play myself. I'm 27 now and still playing Civ daily. IV was dogshit
Depends on the game.
It looks like stock faces photoshoped into default 3d models
>Roman delicacies
oh my
>ROMANIZED.COM
Civilization was all a downward spiral since then
Civ6 artstyle is awful, which is a shame, because I kinda like the districts mechanic.
>Civ6 artstyle is awful
This. I honestly can't even play the game because of it.
>Civ6 artstyle is awful
>but Civ4 is good, despite looking the same
hooo boy
civ 4 has a muddy low-poly realistic artstyle. Civ 6 has a mobile game artstyle. They're nothing alike.
Civ 5 is the only civ game that genuinely looks good.
Yup, and some of the current year diversity choices for leaders and nonsensical civ inclusions like Canada, Australia, Mapuche, etc, sullied my opinion of this game so much that I don't even want to give it a chance.
For me, it's Gitarja.
>we need a leader for our iconic bronze age civilization
>how about this greek bawd that is mostly known for fricking romans and killing herself and didn't even live during the bronze age?
>perfect!
genuinely one of the most hideous downgrades in video game history and reason enough to never touch civ 6
Still would
What were they thinking with these designs?
She looks like a witch.
Aeneas fricked THAT?
>that israelitenose
Phoenicians were litterally semites, nothing wrong with that
Nice try
Thats brown transhomosexual depiction is not historically accurate.
Cleopatra was of the Ptolemaic dynasty and theres evidence she looked like in the photo.
you don't think spending her entire life in Egypt would give her a little bit of a tan?
What makes you think she'd have spent her time in direct sunlight rather than under the shade being serviced by slaves?
The only people who would be severely tanned would be farm workers or other manual labourers who would be exposed to constant sunlight from working outside all day.
Read about her specifically.
And her royal habits of not toiling the fields in the sun and bading in milk.
I'm playing through an Earth huge map as Cleopatra on Inmortal. Absolutely rolling the entire map atm. Got lucky having Scotland spawn next to me. Mapuche is giving me trouble because of his riders+he's got a +10 combat bonus against civs in a golden age. Also
III > VI > II > V > IV > I
Bro III is so fricking broken and jank, I put hundreds of hours into III and IV mogs it so hard
III was the last Civ with objectively good combat. From IV onwards they went heavy on stats vs stats and having units survive multiple battles. III was the first Civ with unit animations but still had the RNG based combat that always resulted in a death pre horsemen. It will always be my favourite despite how many improvements have come from VI
Don't care what anyone else thinks. I've been playing Civ games for more than 20 years. I love VI but III will likely never be topped
>IV onwards
> having units survive multiple battles
Bruh you didn't play 4
Even cav units have laughable retreat chances, siege units arguably are those who survive the most and yet their purpose is still to kamikaze
contrarian opinion.
>6 that high
You never played 2 or 4
II was my very first Civ game ever owned back in 1999 you frick wit. I used to watch my dad play every Saturday morning until I learnt the mechanics and how to play myself. I'm 27 now and still playing Civ daily. IV was dogshit
>hating the best Civ
Truly a contrarian. You're not special or unique btw, you're just another homosexual.
Caesar canonically impregnated her