Was there ever a Civ game with a good art style? Some empty maps look decent but as soon as you get some units and buildings on it it becomes absolute dogshit.
lol idk how to argue with it being mechanically superior other than it having no hint of balance and each paid dlc being a massive power creep and it being all about having a good start more than ever before with ridiculously OP rare tiles and natural wonders so does it even matter? And what you have to sacrifice for this superior mechanically strategy game that takes 6 hours minimum and has had shit netcode and borderline unplayability online for half its life now is that it no longer feels like a civilization game at all, in previous games you could have a massive overpopulated civilization now population basically peaks mid game. Combine that with it being stupid woke while simultaneously managing to feel less diverse than previous games and even lefty homosexuals shouldnt care.
I'm probably going to buy Civ VII regardless but man they need to improve combat and reduce warmonger penalties. Shit is mega moronic 90% of the leaders in the medieval age wouldn't hate me that much for taking one city from Spain or some swarthy shitter nation. Fricking soiboy anti violence pacifist shitters need to stop projecting their ideals onto video game adaptations of world leaders from hundreds of years ago
Firaxis absolutely went woke are you fricked in the head c**t?
>90% of the leaders in the medieval age wouldn't hate me that much for taking one city from Spain or some swarthy shitter nation. Fricking soiboy anti violence pacifist shitters need to stop projecting their ideals onto video game adaptations of world leaders from hundreds of years ago
Civ games are designed as digital board games. The AI leaders aren't there to simulate the real people they're based on but to simulate your imaginary friends who are playing the board game with you.
This doesn't even make sense. Real people wouldn't care if I took one or two cities from somebody that wasn't close to them and especially not if it was only one or two cities. Warmonger penalties are objectively way too harsh
3 months ago
Anonymous
The idea is that they're other players who are also trying to win the board game rather than just some punching bags. An extra city is powerful asset so the warmonger penalty is there to simulate them getting nervous when they see you threatening their victory.
3 months ago
Anonymous
It's moronic. Certain Civs having agendas that punish the player and other Civs make sense (Gandhi not like violent Civs etc) but some agendas punish Science and Wonder achievements too. Diplomatic penalties don't apply to Science, cultural, religious and Wonder achievements like they do taking cities only though agendas even if the Civ is close to winning via that win condition. It both makes no sense and is anti fun
3 months ago
Anonymous
It's moronic but that's how they design their game. In other words, the devs themselves are fricking morons.
This doesn't even make sense. Real people wouldn't care if I took one or two cities from somebody that wasn't close to them and especially not if it was only one or two cities. Warmonger penalties are objectively way too harsh
The idea is that they're other players who are also trying to win the board game rather than just some punching bags. An extra city is powerful asset so the warmonger penalty is there to simulate them getting nervous when they see you threatening their victory.
This is why IV is still the better game. The leaders act like historical nations rather than people trying to metagame the board. For that alone no other Civ game has been able to surpass it.
This doesn't even make sense. Real people wouldn't care if I took one or two cities from somebody that wasn't close to them and especially not if it was only one or two cities. Warmonger penalties are objectively way too harsh
Real leaders absolutely would care >You take a city means more land for you >It also means more subject you can tax >Which means you have more resources which means you're overall stronger
The Crimean War, First Punic war and numerous conflicts between Rome and Persia happened because they "took a town or two"
You're a fricking idiot. England and France constantly went to war during the Medieval era. Did Spain/Greece/Ottoman Empire all denounce England everytime it happened? Warmonger penalties are far too harsh and you know it. They should be massively toned down in any pre industrial era. They should be harsh Civs allied to the Civ losing cities or who are geographically close because yes they would be angry/worried but Civs half a world away wouldn't all denounce me for taking some towns/cities when it doesn't impact their own agendas that actually define them as leaders
3 months ago
Anonymous
>He doesn't know about all the foreign powers involved in the 100 years war
>Where the hell is civ 7
they're busy researching all the literal who women they're going to make leaders instead of actual influential people, it takes time because no one bothered to write about them
>Implying that history isn't full of "literally who men" >Implying that women in power haven't been influence on their society beyond just their gender
Educate yourself
>civ 7
You don't want civ 7 in the current year. Wait another 5-10 years and then they'll be able to make a good game again. If they made it now it would just be pure garbage.
>What do you mean I can't just stay in one place and wonder prostitute, noooooo this isn't fair!
Cities having a natural cap for wonders is one of the best parts of civ 6
my complaint about CIV VI is that you actually dont decide anything. You place and build thing in a very precise order that you cannot choose, depending on where you start on the map. You make no decision during the whole game. It's a classic boardgame problem now on PC !! Wow
Shit game, back to IV
also mobile graphics
>The people that cry about 6 are upset with the cartoonier art direction.
I like the stylistic design of the characters actually, I'm just not a fan of districts and wonders taking a whole tile.
That said, it's the superior game despite that.
Yes. The only thing that brings VI down from being perfect is how mediocre the combat is. I started with Civ II and III as a kid and almost all battles ended with a death. Only cavalry units and tanks could retreat with 1HP. Ever since IV the % based combat has held the series back. Wars and sieges take far longer than they should which gimps Conquest victories especially on large maps
My brother. You will always have a seat at my table
Why
It's just a catchy flute tune. When you're exploring the world at the start of the game just starting to expand it feels like pure adventure when it plays
>Civ 6 < Civ 5 < Civ 5 + Community Patch
easily one of the best 4x games I've ever played, and finally patched for multiplayer. You actually get to feel the gravity of ages and industrialization/ideology are huge.
No, Civ 5 with Vox Populi is the gold standard in 4x gaming
Wrong. Vox populi could not fix the broken happiness system. I don't use this word a lot but objectively speaking, global happiness is one of the worst mechanics I have ever seen in a videogame bar none. Civ 5 actively punishes wide playstyles by making social policies and research cost more the amount of cities you have. Frick John Shafer, that c**t ruined Civ 5.
I am incredibly good at the game. I sincerely hate the mechanic so much. It makes absolutely no sense logically, I know it's a videogame but 4 handled unhappiness perfectly which was city based
>Civ 5 actively punishes wide playstyles by making social policies and research cost more the amount of cities you have.
No shit, moron, it's to balance the game.
Bigger civs should be more powerful. Simple as. Being forced to limit yourself to a handful of cities due to stupid mechanics makes the gameplay turn into a boring slog. You're essentially forced to camp and just endlessly passing turns without being able to do much.
Pretty much rebuilding Civ 5 to be a better game in all regards without bloating it, the AI is especially vastly improved to the point that every other 4X game pales in comparison
https://civ-5-cbp.fandom.com/wiki/Game_Concepts
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/new-beta-version-4-5-february-20-2024.688218/
I have so much time on Vox Populi that I forget what vanilla is like.
There's a bunch of changes. The most popular aspects being Diplomacy reworks and way better AI given how doghsit Civ 5's AI was.
It's a mod that does good things. I'm being very succinct here.
>achievementprostitute
Turn it into a DLC pack via Firaxis tuner and that one workshop mod that lets you put in a command to the tuner. It then goes in the same general area DLC files goes as its own folder and the game reads it as a DLC, but there may be weird issues.
I'm too moronic to figure out what you're talking about.
3 months ago
Anonymous
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=361391109
You have to load up all of your mods with this, and have fire tuner installed from steam's tools. After you put in the command it'll try to pack all of your mods into a DLC file. Since the game reads your mods as DLC afterwards it will not mess up achievements. Not sure how jank it will be with certain mods in game.
3 months ago
Anonymous
NTA but the guide is moron-proof.
t. moron who followed the guide and got achievements with mods
I have so much time on Vox Populi that I forget what vanilla is like.
There's a bunch of changes. The most popular aspects being Diplomacy reworks and way better AI given how doghsit Civ 5's AI was.
Unironically yes. If you can look past the awful art, characters and music, yes it is much better than 5. I fricking hated 5 on launch and with expansions
I don't like 1UPT.
If they wanted to fix death stacks they could have just limited the amount of units per tile, instead of adding 1UPT and making everything super slow and tedious.
Yes. And the rest is why is because of districts. The two best things to ever happen to Civ were Hexagons and Districts and that is why VI > V > IV. Nostalgiagays can FRICK off.
Atmosphere is 99% of a game's quality. Whether or not it plays better or has better systems doesn't actually matter much, atmosphere and immersion are king, or else you'd have no reason to engage with something interactive.
Civilization is the series that proves this concept, seeing as VI has the best gameplay and mechanics in the entire series, but even that is not enough for people to look past the horrible woke style it went for, and for that alone people continue to prefer IV and V to this day even those play objectively inferior to VI.
I like districts, how they cause cities to expand physically, ask for more commitment in specialization, and give you more to think about when planning cities
Same for wonders. In 5 I always had a 'wonder city' (almost always the capital) where I just built pretty much all of them, but in 6 they have very strict requirements and just gobble up too much space for that to be an option
You had something resembling a point but for some reason you decided to go full moron and massively exaggerate it. Maybe it's a conditioned response, too much time on this website.
>VI has the best gameplay and mechanics
It unironically has the most boring gameplay, everything feels so inconsequential and the choices feel less impactful than civ 5. Civ 5 has constant impactful decisions being made multiple times every turn, which really makes it hard to stop playing
Builders >>> workers 100% they made a great decision to replace them. I don't post in a lot of Civ threads but I feel like that was a massive improvement for the series making improvements automatic but giving them limited charges
I just hate how the scaling works
They and settlers get more and more expensive with every one you build
If you go for a large empire, they end up becoming astronomical
This and the district (tile not the buildings) costs are just ridiculous.
It is strange. By the time you can get an ancestral hall up and your governor, you are probably already done expanding, since every city past the first 50 turns just takes ages to get any infrastructure down.
Feels incredibly punishing to be forced to get one of those district purchasing governor promotions just to have a city worth anything. That one worker charge consuming thing should've been a default. Kind of like how I don't think you can funnel settlers from your bloated cities to pump your early pop numbers anymore you just have to chop every jungle, deer, marsh, etc in sight.
But hey, at least I can have more than four cities!
Civ 5 modded with Community Patch with Enlightenment, more Wonders, more Luxuries and Future Era is legitimately the best. It's not even that complex to understand and the breadth of content is immense. I'm not even going to get into the sheer number of custom civs you can just larp as.
Civ 6 AI is horrid compared to Civ 5 so its a worse videogame, its not hard to comprehend. Or are we supposed to pretend that a terrible AI in a strategy game is a good thing?
This, I pirated civ 6 day 1 and won twice in a row so easily
They kept declaring war on me from the other side of the world then surrendering and giving me half their resources
Have not played it since
They do the same shit in 5 >Declare war on someone on the other side of the continent >30 turns late they surrender and offer you one of their cities >you are now a warmonger >everyone declares their contempt >declare war one by one > more free cities in 30 turns
Agreed. The only good thing Civ 4 did was introduce 3d squads to represent units rather than one individual like Civ 3. I'm a sucker for battle animations
Agreed. The only good thing Civ 4 did was introduce 3d squads to represent units rather than one individual like Civ 3. I'm a sucker for battle animations
You are a joke nasty homosexual animals. Unfunny joke at that.
Agreed. The only good thing Civ 4 did was introduce 3d squads to represent units rather than one individual like Civ 3. I'm a sucker for battle animations
i only played II before VI and i liked VI's mechanics, especially the district system
to me it seems the V newbies want civ to be like fifa where new editions are just the older version but with slight changes
yes newbie zoomeroid, i spent more than a thousand hours on II growing up >mods
i only use UI mods in VI
if a game needs gameplay mods to be fun i do not consider it worth playing
Are there any other good 4X games that don't focus too much on combat? I tried Age of Wonders and I just hated how much of the game is on the XCOM gameplay. I just want to focus on developing my empire and maybe some diplomacy. These games never have fleshed out ways of playing pacifists.
>Already played it(the best 4X game ever) >Already played it, great game >Already played it, don't really like the family tree and randomised event bullshit
Damn
>Endless >Focus on diplomacy
I love them both, but cmon
I still like EL cause the combat isn't very involved. You just build a bunch of guys and send them off unga bunga style.
I like both but somehow Stellaris feels almost turn based to me even though it's not. I can't really explain myself further.
>4X >eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate
I'm not saying that you're wrong for your request if that's what you want, but it's kind of a fundamentally non-pacifistic genre. And I don't know what to suggest if you don't like Paradox stuff.
I'm aware. It's not that I hate militarism. It's more that I just don't like any 4x game where the only way to engage with other factions is through invading them cause I find it pretty one note and boring and as I also don't really like the combat itself being too involved. Also I'd say grand strategy focuses more on combat than 4X games do. But that's an opinion formed loosely through ignorance since I haven't really played many.
You can win Civ without ever firing a shot. I've done it before. Obviously you still need to build a strong army as a deterrent but you don't need to invade to win. Whoring gold and tech and culture is all doable peacefully. It's been a while since I played any of these or else I'd recommend a start to you. Maybe somebody else can.
You don't have to go to war in Stellaris, you can make a pacifist empire that forbids war that aren't defensive. You can set up trade and migration treaties, start branch offices that benefits both parties or branch offices that benefits you and fills the host planet with crime etc
3 months ago
Anonymous
I would like Stellaris a lot if not for it being in real time.
>4X >eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate
I'm not saying that you're wrong for your request if that's what you want, but it's kind of a fundamentally non-pacifistic genre. And I don't know what to suggest if you don't like Paradox stuff.
>start playing Rome in Civ 6 an hour before sleep just to get non shit map seed and play tomorrow >log off at 3AM, Gr*eks, Georgians, Gauls, Fr*nch got demolished when they refused my generous offer of friendship >culture victory
it keeps happening
Absolutely. III and VI are my favorites and have the two best OSTs imo
?si=Hltkr5RXRVx-lfT8
What is up with the music system in this game?
It gets stuck playing other civ's themes more than my own that I am playing.
It makes me want to wipe them out just to silence that stupid music track.
Is this their intention or do they really think its cool to hear Arabian Rasputin for hours?
Must be bad luck or notice-bias on your part.
It just sets up a playlist of the tunes of all the civs that you've met on random
My first 6 game, the map generator decided to give me a whole continent to myself and so for the first half of that marathon-speed match until I crossed the sea and met other civs I had to listen to Waltzing Matilda over and over
I didn't play civilization since I was 12, but isn't there a way you can make him reluctant to enter your borders after you agree to open them for him? that seems to me like the best move that would avoid war (as he wouldn't blame you for sabotaging his advances, but rather blame that faceless element which discouraged him) and teach him a lesson for trying to be a smartass.
in 6 open borders itself doesn't do much, even if you move your units around the city they get booted outside the borders
Having a military score higher than your opponent is also a great deterrent
bad >tech tree cut in half to accommodate the culture tree, making the game way too fast paced >districts are RNG >AI cant use religious units >faith is objectively op and religion builds are the most effective >combat too focused on archery units >AI cant keep up after the Renaissance and just falls apart as you steam roll them with tanks (if you even let it get that far)
good >worker charges make workers a constant need and not something you built once per city (or just steal) >faster pace means you will get further in the game per session as it isnt such a slog >less buildings bloat >districts help keep track of what city is supposed to do what and enforce that choice
Its not bad at all but the fast pace just makes it feel so empty.
Like most civ games, it's a big mechanical divergence from what's gone before it which makes it more subjective as to whether it's better or not. It's not a bad game with the full expansions added on (same as V), but it does feel under-baked without them.
Ive played 2-6 and think it's the best Civ in almost every way except combat and (arguably) diplomacy. Well worth the $ to get the base game+Rise and Fall at the very least but if you're unsure don't buy the platimum or anthology editions. Judge it based on base game+Rise and Fall and only if you love it buy the other expansions
it's my run and I post this on /vst/ in every civ thread to btfo people saying happiness is hard to handle. it's on king difficulty btw, because I planned to do a peaceful run before washington began to forward settle me.
>victory conditions
what kind of autist play with victory conditions? I was playing to see how high happiness I could achieve while taking over the world.
that one game was the only time I went so far and it was only to try to hit 200 happiness. actually I don't think I've played civ since, and this was years ago.
>happiness is hard to handle
Stupid western games. Just kill all the unhappy ones. Breed the always happy slave race like the Asians did. Problem solved.
>Asians >always happy slave race >cant go a century without some giga civil war that costs millions of lives
Europeans are more timid and submissive than Asians
VI is way worse because of the obnoxious feature bloat that makes every decision feel pointless cause it's just another small increment amongst many. Nothing you do in VI feels significant or fun.
Diplomacy and world congress are significantly worse. Religion went from a nice boost to ridiculously broken and by far the best victory condition
Everything else is generally better, I like the district system a lot.
>diplomacy
city state manipulation is better than just simply throwing money at them, spies can eliminate all enemy influence there and Apadana grants you extra seats each time you build a wonder
trading needs a mod to work, quick trade gives information for best prices and interested parties rather than individually clicking them one by one >religion
I always disable that shit, either A.I ignores it and it takes 1000 odd years to start converting city states or they have apostles roam the land by classic era, the only good from it came were the synergies (faith workers, Byzantines ignoring walls and loyalty pressure drop/increase)
>fighting a religious war ends up being cheaper with actual soldiers due to the scaling costs of religious units
Religion is basically a domination diplomacy fusion, but possibly some of the worst parts of both.
Culture is getting spammed trade offers from AI trying to buy your great works constantly.
Get your own!
I don't really understand the cultural victory in 6, but it seems cool. It was fun trying to steal every piece of art in existence to hoard and make the ultimate museum collections.
Seems like you need a lot of theater squares though. I had about 6 and you just run out of amphitheaters fast for those writings. It is a shame because not every city has a good spot for that district, and making more later is non-trivial.
Amphitheaters help but they're mostly there for culture to get through the culture tech tree faster unless you have specific bonuses and synergy for great works. The majority of your tourism comes in around the modern era when you get techs like flight and can start planting resorts and parks and rock bands everywhere.
Essentially culture victory plays a bit like a science victory for much of the game because you want to get to the later eras fast but you need to prepare and plan for specific things like faith generation, building your own religion, spaces for parks and resorts and other districts, not killing any of the AI outright, discovering everyone early and establishing trade and eventually alliances, etc.
civ 6 became unplayable once I started playing on deity and realized how exploitable the AI really is >go for science victory >shit, other civ is ahead of me! >other civ gives up on science victory halfway through for no reason >I win
ok >turn off all victory types except domination, play big map >one of the AI's gets nukes >they just keep nuking the same city over and over again >after they're done I steamroll them
I miss not knowing the extent of how shit the AI is and I wanna go back
Yes, but zoomers will say otherwise. IV is the best.
t. started with III
boomers like IV though
IV with ffh2 is the peak civ experience
>ffh2
Redpill me on this? What's the full name?
Fall from heaven, it's a fantasy mod.
No but its fun.
Not true.
4 > 5 > 6
3 is ok
2 and 1 are primitive and slow but thats how it was done back in the day
Trash looking mobile game
Was there ever a Civ game with a good art style? Some empty maps look decent but as soon as you get some units and buildings on it it becomes absolute dogshit.
Just like Total War they do 1 or 2 things better or new and frickup twice as many things if not more.
It is objectively mechanically superior.
The people that cry about 6 are upset with the cartoonier art direction.
Which maybe could be a valid complaint if 5 wasn't heinously fricking ugly.
Where the hell is civ 7, been 10 years
lol idk how to argue with it being mechanically superior other than it having no hint of balance and each paid dlc being a massive power creep and it being all about having a good start more than ever before with ridiculously OP rare tiles and natural wonders so does it even matter? And what you have to sacrifice for this superior mechanically strategy game that takes 6 hours minimum and has had shit netcode and borderline unplayability online for half its life now is that it no longer feels like a civilization game at all, in previous games you could have a massive overpopulated civilization now population basically peaks mid game. Combine that with it being stupid woke while simultaneously managing to feel less diverse than previous games and even lefty homosexuals shouldnt care.
>woke
Stopped reading there.
Case in point you have to be a socialist moron to like this game
I'm probably going to buy Civ VII regardless but man they need to improve combat and reduce warmonger penalties. Shit is mega moronic 90% of the leaders in the medieval age wouldn't hate me that much for taking one city from Spain or some swarthy shitter nation. Fricking soiboy anti violence pacifist shitters need to stop projecting their ideals onto video game adaptations of world leaders from hundreds of years ago
Firaxis absolutely went woke are you fricked in the head c**t?
>90% of the leaders in the medieval age wouldn't hate me that much for taking one city from Spain or some swarthy shitter nation. Fricking soiboy anti violence pacifist shitters need to stop projecting their ideals onto video game adaptations of world leaders from hundreds of years ago
Civ games are designed as digital board games. The AI leaders aren't there to simulate the real people they're based on but to simulate your imaginary friends who are playing the board game with you.
This doesn't even make sense. Real people wouldn't care if I took one or two cities from somebody that wasn't close to them and especially not if it was only one or two cities. Warmonger penalties are objectively way too harsh
The idea is that they're other players who are also trying to win the board game rather than just some punching bags. An extra city is powerful asset so the warmonger penalty is there to simulate them getting nervous when they see you threatening their victory.
It's moronic. Certain Civs having agendas that punish the player and other Civs make sense (Gandhi not like violent Civs etc) but some agendas punish Science and Wonder achievements too. Diplomatic penalties don't apply to Science, cultural, religious and Wonder achievements like they do taking cities only though agendas even if the Civ is close to winning via that win condition. It both makes no sense and is anti fun
It's moronic but that's how they design their game. In other words, the devs themselves are fricking morons.
This is why IV is still the better game. The leaders act like historical nations rather than people trying to metagame the board. For that alone no other Civ game has been able to surpass it.
Real leaders absolutely would care
>You take a city means more land for you
>It also means more subject you can tax
>Which means you have more resources which means you're overall stronger
The Crimean War, First Punic war and numerous conflicts between Rome and Persia happened because they "took a town or two"
You're a fricking idiot. England and France constantly went to war during the Medieval era. Did Spain/Greece/Ottoman Empire all denounce England everytime it happened? Warmonger penalties are far too harsh and you know it. They should be massively toned down in any pre industrial era. They should be harsh Civs allied to the Civ losing cities or who are geographically close because yes they would be angry/worried but Civs half a world away wouldn't all denounce me for taking some towns/cities when it doesn't impact their own agendas that actually define them as leaders
>He doesn't know about all the foreign powers involved in the 100 years war
>reddit chimes in
Who invited you? Only chads are allowed here, so you need to leave.
>Where the hell is civ 7
they're busy researching all the literal who women they're going to make leaders instead of actual influential people, it takes time because no one bothered to write about them
Michelle Obama will be in the Wakanda dlc
>Implying that history isn't full of "literally who men"
>Implying that women in power haven't been influence on their society beyond just their gender
Educate yourself
There's going to be a game modifier called
>Behind Every Great Man...
Where the leaders of all nations are replaced with their wives.
>civ 7
You don't want civ 7 in the current year. Wait another 5-10 years and then they'll be able to make a good game again. If they made it now it would just be pure garbage.
>and each paid dlc being a massive power creep
He says when all the top tier civilizations are in the base game (and some expansions)
I'm a socialist moron and I agree with everything you said, so what now, motherfricker?
>5
>heinously fricking ugly
you need to lay off the meth or get glasses
5 is hands down the best looking Civ
4 and 6 look like ass and play like ass
kek not them but I definitely agree that VI is gorgeous compared to V. V is butt frick ugly
The districts mechanic is dogshit. Also wonders taking up whole tiles. Cities should be one tile, and that's it.
>What do you mean I can't just stay in one place and wonder prostitute, noooooo this isn't fair!
Cities having a natural cap for wonders is one of the best parts of civ 6
>Nothing but farms and mines to cover the map
>It is objectively mechanically superior.
Nah, it has way too much micro / busywork
>could be a valid complaint if 5 wasn't heinously fricking ugly
100% this.
my complaint about CIV VI is that you actually dont decide anything. You place and build thing in a very precise order that you cannot choose, depending on where you start on the map. You make no decision during the whole game. It's a classic boardgame problem now on PC !! Wow
Shit game, back to IV
also mobile graphics
>You place and build thing in a very precise order that you cannot choose
but enough about 4 and 5
They somehow managed to go backwards with the graphics style. 4 > 5 > 6 > 2 (never played 1 or 3)
>The people that cry about 6 are upset with the cartoonier art direction.
I like the stylistic design of the characters actually, I'm just not a fan of districts and wonders taking a whole tile.
That said, it's the superior game despite that.
they added canada as a civilisation
it isn't
6 is shit
This complaint might hold water if America wasn't in civ since 1
Canada has as much right to be in as US or any modern state
yes
but Ganker will say 5 is better because that's the first one they played so it has to be the best one
Yup, except for the leader models and some of the leader choices.
Yes. The only thing that brings VI down from being perfect is how mediocre the combat is. I started with Civ II and III as a kid and almost all battles ended with a death. Only cavalry units and tanks could retreat with 1HP. Ever since IV the % based combat has held the series back. Wars and sieges take far longer than they should which gimps Conquest victories especially on large maps
t. 29yo boomer
Civ 3 soundtrack is one of the best of all time
Absolutely. III and VI are my favorites and have the two best OSTs imo
?si=Hltkr5RXRVx-lfT8
Aristotle's pupil is welded into my core memories and will probably stay with me even after Alzheimer's.
Why
My brother. You will always have a seat at my table
It's just a catchy flute tune. When you're exploring the world at the start of the game just starting to expand it feels like pure adventure when it plays
>29yo boomer
then what the frick am I at 34 yo
That depends how's the hairline?
Domination is easy, just get ahead in tech and blitzkreig.
>Civ 6 < Civ 5 < Civ 5 + Community Patch
easily one of the best 4x games I've ever played, and finally patched for multiplayer. You actually get to feel the gravity of ages and industrialization/ideology are huge.
Both V and 6 are braindead zoomer games so doesn't matter.
Yes, frick the happiness system and frick the ideology system
Hell no, 5 has much more content and overall has better gameplay mechanics and cohesion around them.
Wrong. Vox populi could not fix the broken happiness system. I don't use this word a lot but objectively speaking, global happiness is one of the worst mechanics I have ever seen in a videogame bar none. Civ 5 actively punishes wide playstyles by making social policies and research cost more the amount of cities you have. Frick John Shafer, that c**t ruined Civ 5.
Its not about the amount of cities but population and the happiness system works fine, maybe you should try getting good
I am incredibly good at the game. I sincerely hate the mechanic so much. It makes absolutely no sense logically, I know it's a videogame but 4 handled unhappiness perfectly which was city based
Yeah the happiness system means you should never build more than 4 cities, honestly you only need 1
>Civ 5 actively punishes wide playstyles by making social policies and research cost more the amount of cities you have.
No shit, moron, it's to balance the game.
Bigger civs should be more powerful. Simple as. Being forced to limit yourself to a handful of cities due to stupid mechanics makes the gameplay turn into a boring slog. You're essentially forced to camp and just endlessly passing turns without being able to do much.
No, Civ 5 with Vox Populi is the gold standard in 4x gaming
>Vox Populi
Redpill me on this.
Pretty much rebuilding Civ 5 to be a better game in all regards without bloating it, the AI is especially vastly improved to the point that every other 4X game pales in comparison
https://civ-5-cbp.fandom.com/wiki/Game_Concepts
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/new-beta-version-4-5-february-20-2024.688218/
Can I still get achievements?
>achievementprostitute
Turn it into a DLC pack via Firaxis tuner and that one workshop mod that lets you put in a command to the tuner. It then goes in the same general area DLC files goes as its own folder and the game reads it as a DLC, but there may be weird issues.
I'm too moronic to figure out what you're talking about.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=361391109
You have to load up all of your mods with this, and have fire tuner installed from steam's tools. After you put in the command it'll try to pack all of your mods into a DLC file. Since the game reads your mods as DLC afterwards it will not mess up achievements. Not sure how jank it will be with certain mods in game.
NTA but the guide is moron-proof.
t. moron who followed the guide and got achievements with mods
I have so much time on Vox Populi that I forget what vanilla is like.
There's a bunch of changes. The most popular aspects being Diplomacy reworks and way better AI given how doghsit Civ 5's AI was.
It's a mod that does good things. I'm being very succinct here.
>"progressive" social policies that are available from the start of the game
Maximum cringe. VP sucks. There; I said it.
Unironically yes. If you can look past the awful art, characters and music, yes it is much better than 5. I fricking hated 5 on launch and with expansions
Millennia feels like a compromise between civ 4 and 6
i only played the demo so i can't give a detailed review, but you might want to check it out
I don't like 1UPT.
If they wanted to fix death stacks they could have just limited the amount of units per tile, instead of adding 1UPT and making everything super slow and tedious.
it's kino
They're different games and I play them both.
Baba yattu yattu nya
Enuhhi yattu yattu amoeba
Baha yattu yattu nya
Emjena la qauaki lekomskway
Yes. And the rest is why is because of districts. The two best things to ever happen to Civ were Hexagons and Districts and that is why VI > V > IV. Nostalgiagays can FRICK off.
If you like Civilizatiion, also try Warlock: Master of the Arcane.
Atmosphere is 99% of a game's quality. Whether or not it plays better or has better systems doesn't actually matter much, atmosphere and immersion are king, or else you'd have no reason to engage with something interactive.
Civilization is the series that proves this concept, seeing as VI has the best gameplay and mechanics in the entire series, but even that is not enough for people to look past the horrible woke style it went for, and for that alone people continue to prefer IV and V to this day even those play objectively inferior to VI.
>seeing as VI has the best gameplay and mechanics in the entire series
The districts system alone makes it worse than most 4X games, its simply unneeded complexity that the AI can't understand.
I like districts, how they cause cities to expand physically, ask for more commitment in specialization, and give you more to think about when planning cities
Same for wonders. In 5 I always had a 'wonder city' (almost always the capital) where I just built pretty much all of them, but in 6 they have very strict requirements and just gobble up too much space for that to be an option
You had something resembling a point but for some reason you decided to go full moron and massively exaggerate it. Maybe it's a conditioned response, too much time on this website.
You don't care about the gameplay but want an "interactive experience", you're a snoy even if you play TBS on PC.
>VI has the best gameplay and mechanics
It unironically has the most boring gameplay, everything feels so inconsequential and the choices feel less impactful than civ 5. Civ 5 has constant impactful decisions being made multiple times every turn, which really makes it hard to stop playing
>iv 5 has constant impactful decisions being made multiple times every turn
lmao
>set worker to auto build
>next turn
>next turn
>next turn
>next turn
>next turn
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW
Builders >>> workers 100% they made a great decision to replace them. I don't post in a lot of Civ threads but I feel like that was a massive improvement for the series making improvements automatic but giving them limited charges
I just hate how the scaling works
They and settlers get more and more expensive with every one you build
If you go for a large empire, they end up becoming astronomical
This and the district (tile not the buildings) costs are just ridiculous.
It is strange. By the time you can get an ancestral hall up and your governor, you are probably already done expanding, since every city past the first 50 turns just takes ages to get any infrastructure down.
Feels incredibly punishing to be forced to get one of those district purchasing governor promotions just to have a city worth anything. That one worker charge consuming thing should've been a default. Kind of like how I don't think you can funnel settlers from your bloated cities to pump your early pop numbers anymore you just have to chop every jungle, deer, marsh, etc in sight.
But hey, at least I can have more than four cities!
>for people to look past the horrible woke style
I wish. Have you seen how many woke redditors itt love the game?
the truth is that the console version of 4 is the best but Ganker isn't ready for that conversation
Civ 5 modded with Community Patch with Enlightenment, more Wonders, more Luxuries and Future Era is legitimately the best. It's not even that complex to understand and the breadth of content is immense. I'm not even going to get into the sheer number of custom civs you can just larp as.
Don't be a child
5 is incredibly easy on the eyes AND ears
muh build tall casuals love 5
dunno i only played 5
Yes but literally anything is.
Civ 6 AI is horrid compared to Civ 5 so its a worse videogame, its not hard to comprehend. Or are we supposed to pretend that a terrible AI in a strategy game is a good thing?
This, I pirated civ 6 day 1 and won twice in a row so easily
They kept declaring war on me from the other side of the world then surrendering and giving me half their resources
Have not played it since
They do the same shit in 5
>Declare war on someone on the other side of the continent
>30 turns late they surrender and offer you one of their cities
>you are now a warmonger
>everyone declares their contempt
>declare war one by one
> more free cities in 30 turns
the districts alone make it worse
best game will forever be civ 4
No. .
no hitler = no buy
The last good civ was 4.
>Civ 4
>Good
What a joke, by far the most boring entry without mods. And even with mods, there's only one worth using and that's History Rewritten
Agreed. The only good thing Civ 4 did was introduce 3d squads to represent units rather than one individual like Civ 3. I'm a sucker for battle animations
>its uh, bad because. it is, okay?
Vanilla Civ 4 has no depth or identity. It's dogshit and every Civ plays the same
Get cancer lying piece of shit.
You are a joke nasty homosexual animals. Unfunny joke at that.
Why is the average iq on Ganker so low?
i only played II before VI and i liked VI's mechanics, especially the district system
to me it seems the V newbies want civ to be like fifa where new editions are just the older version but with slight changes
You only played two Civ games and call others newbies? Civ 5 like 4 is saved by mods, Civ 6 has no mods that will ever fix it.
yes newbie zoomeroid, i spent more than a thousand hours on II growing up
>mods
i only use UI mods in VI
if a game needs gameplay mods to be fun i do not consider it worth playing
VI isn't fun since the AI is moronic AND it can't be saved by mods
Whats the optimal government type order to win a game of Civilization 2 on standard rules deity?
despotism -> monarchy
No. Entire government order, not just first 2.
I always go with one super city and a few smaller ones so I don't bother with anything else
You never won a deity game of Civilization 2 standard rules big map 7 civs...
my winrate is probably ~80%
You never won a deity game of Civilization 2.
>1776
>no engineers
>no railroads
You never won a deity game of Civilization 2.
cope
reply to this question
already did
>You didn't beat the game.
You can look at the fake screenshot..
Some cheat mod or bugged ai or whatever savescumming exploit.
Are there any other good 4X games that don't focus too much on combat? I tried Age of Wonders and I just hated how much of the game is on the XCOM gameplay. I just want to focus on developing my empire and maybe some diplomacy. These games never have fleshed out ways of playing pacifists.
Endless Space 2
Endless Legend
Old World
>Endless
>Focus on diplomacy
I love them both, but cmon
The guy asked for empire building 4X with not too much focus on combat and MAYBE SOME diplomacy.
>Already played it(the best 4X game ever)
>Already played it, great game
>Already played it, don't really like the family tree and randomised event bullshit
Damn
I still like EL cause the combat isn't very involved. You just build a bunch of guys and send them off unga bunga style.
Maybe try grand strategy games
I like turn based games. Same reason I don't like Stellaris.
That's fine but all 4x games tend to focus on combat a lot so that's your only real alternative.
I'm aware. It's not that I hate militarism. It's more that I just don't like any 4x game where the only way to engage with other factions is through invading them cause I find it pretty one note and boring and as I also don't really like the combat itself being too involved. Also I'd say grand strategy focuses more on combat than 4X games do. But that's an opinion formed loosely through ignorance since I haven't really played many.
>Also I'd say grand strategy focuses more on combat than 4X games do
Victoria or Crusader Kings certainly don't
You can win Civ without ever firing a shot. I've done it before. Obviously you still need to build a strong army as a deterrent but you don't need to invade to win. Whoring gold and tech and culture is all doable peacefully. It's been a while since I played any of these or else I'd recommend a start to you. Maybe somebody else can.
Also yeah, second what that other gay said about Vicky. Disagree with him on CK though. Vicky requires some autism though, and isn't for everyone.
You don't have to go to war in Stellaris, you can make a pacifist empire that forbids war that aren't defensive. You can set up trade and migration treaties, start branch offices that benefits both parties or branch offices that benefits you and fills the host planet with crime etc
I would like Stellaris a lot if not for it being in real time.
I like both but somehow Stellaris feels almost turn based to me even though it's not. I can't really explain myself further.
>4X
>eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate
I'm not saying that you're wrong for your request if that's what you want, but it's kind of a fundamentally non-pacifistic genre. And I don't know what to suggest if you don't like Paradox stuff.
Civ 6 Science victory is so tedious holy frick
Did you know there are ACTUALLY gays who install Civilization games and say 'I am NOT going to build a huge empire with shitloads of cities'
I actually don't mind art of 6, it's somehow easier on the eye compared to 5.
yes
Unciv is the best Civ game by virtue of not making you wait 30 seconds between turns.
>start playing Rome in Civ 6 an hour before sleep just to get non shit map seed and play tomorrow
>log off at 3AM, Gr*eks, Georgians, Gauls, Fr*nch got demolished when they refused my generous offer of friendship
>culture victory
it keeps happening
Post your favorite CIV songs Ganker!
What is up with the music system in this game?
It gets stuck playing other civ's themes more than my own that I am playing.
It makes me want to wipe them out just to silence that stupid music track.
Is this their intention or do they really think its cool to hear Arabian Rasputin for hours?
I haven't played Civ VI in ages but can't you turn it off for certain Civs or choose to play what you want on queue in the music menu?
Must be bad luck or notice-bias on your part.
It just sets up a playlist of the tunes of all the civs that you've met on random
My first 6 game, the map generator decided to give me a whole continent to myself and so for the first half of that marathon-speed match until I crossed the sea and met other civs I had to listen to Waltzing Matilda over and over
No. CIV 6 looks like mobile trash.
This smug face asks for an open borders deal.
What do you do? (surprise war incoming)
I didn't play civilization since I was 12, but isn't there a way you can make him reluctant to enter your borders after you agree to open them for him? that seems to me like the best move that would avoid war (as he wouldn't blame you for sabotaging his advances, but rather blame that faceless element which discouraged him) and teach him a lesson for trying to be a smartass.
in 6 open borders itself doesn't do much, even if you move your units around the city they get booted outside the borders
Having a military score higher than your opponent is also a great deterrent
no, the pacing is way off
It lets me nuke isreal. So yes?
bad
>tech tree cut in half to accommodate the culture tree, making the game way too fast paced
>districts are RNG
>AI cant use religious units
>faith is objectively op and religion builds are the most effective
>combat too focused on archery units
>AI cant keep up after the Renaissance and just falls apart as you steam roll them with tanks (if you even let it get that far)
good
>worker charges make workers a constant need and not something you built once per city (or just steal)
>faster pace means you will get further in the game per session as it isnt such a slog
>less buildings bloat
>districts help keep track of what city is supposed to do what and enforce that choice
Its not bad at all but the fast pace just makes it feel so empty.
No, V is better than VI, VI feels like flat copy of V but poorly implemented discovery mechanics.
no
not until those homosexuals at firaxis release the dll and we can mod in better AI like what was done for 5
I see that Civ 6 is on sale and thinking about picking it up. Is it really as bad as people say? (I can deal with the shitty cartoon people)
I think it's better than 5
Like most civ games, it's a big mechanical divergence from what's gone before it which makes it more subjective as to whether it's better or not. It's not a bad game with the full expansions added on (same as V), but it does feel under-baked without them.
Ive played 2-6 and think it's the best Civ in almost every way except combat and (arguably) diplomacy. Well worth the $ to get the base game+Rise and Fall at the very least but if you're unsure don't buy the platimum or anthology editions. Judge it based on base game+Rise and Fall and only if you love it buy the other expansions
>Judge it based on base game+Rise and Fall
*Gathering Storm, which includes everything the previous expansion added mechanically + extras
but the climate change mechanics are fricking garbage
CiVI had better bones. All its problems were skin deep.
civ6 is civ5 with more bloat and busywork but no more depth. civ5 was peak civ.
>reposting some /vst/ spergs run
it's my run and I post this on /vst/ in every civ thread to btfo people saying happiness is hard to handle. it's on king difficulty btw, because I planned to do a peaceful run before washington began to forward settle me.
>posting some run clearly long past any victory conditions
to what end? Are you moronic?
>victory conditions
what kind of autist play with victory conditions? I was playing to see how high happiness I could achieve while taking over the world.
There are a lot of better games to autistically build than next turn the game
that one game was the only time I went so far and it was only to try to hit 200 happiness. actually I don't think I've played civ since, and this was years ago.
meant to quote
>look what I did in baby mode
cope, higher difficulty over prince doesn't give you penalties to happiness.
>happiness is hard to handle
Stupid western games. Just kill all the unhappy ones. Breed the always happy slave race like the Asians did. Problem solved.
>Asians
>always happy slave race
>cant go a century without some giga civil war that costs millions of lives
Europeans are more timid and submissive than Asians
Only during the last ~100 years. Before that killing your neighbour because they interpreted the bible differently was a sport.
Eurogays: nooooo sky daddy will be mad if you dont eat the cookie
Asians: If you are emperor why was the harvest so shitty? Prepare for war
hilarious. you must be a coping chinkcel. never had anything other than tyranny to this day.
do you actually believe all of those exaggerated chinese civil wars where 10 of millions of people died hundreds of years ago
Used to think only Civ 4 was good. Now I warmed up to Civ 5. Probably never going to touch Civ 6. The art style just looks gay
Civ3 is the only good civ. The rest is garbage.
you realize there mods which port civ5 textures to civ6
And when 7 comes out, you'll suddenly like 6
The cycle goes on
more like
>then civ 7 comes out, but I won't buy it because nu-firaxis is a bad joke
Let me know when 6 gets a mod like Vox Populi
>muh VP
which does what exactly?
I hope it's not another SFO level of mental moronation that plagues total war
it doesnt need it cause its not utterly broken game like civ5 which needs mega mod to make it playable.
civ 5 never needed an autistic bloatfest mod either
I think vanilla is better than VP
>AHHHH, I need le reddit mod!!
homosexual.
Can you mod in better AI?
Keep saying it you are right
Yes but that's not a high bar.
VI is way worse because of the obnoxious feature bloat that makes every decision feel pointless cause it's just another small increment amongst many. Nothing you do in VI feels significant or fun.
I hope Civ 7 gets rid of the 1upt shit
there will be 1UPT and you will only be able to settle certain spots to make sure you go tall
Agreed, I still like Civ4's combat the most, throwing massive stacks at eachother is fun, giving orders to 30 individual units per turn is not
Diplomacy and world congress are significantly worse. Religion went from a nice boost to ridiculously broken and by far the best victory condition
Everything else is generally better, I like the district system a lot.
>diplomacy
city state manipulation is better than just simply throwing money at them, spies can eliminate all enemy influence there and Apadana grants you extra seats each time you build a wonder
trading needs a mod to work, quick trade gives information for best prices and interested parties rather than individually clicking them one by one
>religion
I always disable that shit, either A.I ignores it and it takes 1000 odd years to start converting city states or they have apostles roam the land by classic era, the only good from it came were the synergies (faith workers, Byzantines ignoring walls and loyalty pressure drop/increase)
I still feel like religion and culture aren't developed enough, religion feels too shallow as a game mechanic and culture is sort of slog to manage
>fighting a religious war ends up being cheaper with actual soldiers due to the scaling costs of religious units
Religion is basically a domination diplomacy fusion, but possibly some of the worst parts of both.
Culture is getting spammed trade offers from AI trying to buy your great works constantly.
Get your own!
I don't really understand the cultural victory in 6, but it seems cool. It was fun trying to steal every piece of art in existence to hoard and make the ultimate museum collections.
Seems like you need a lot of theater squares though. I had about 6 and you just run out of amphitheaters fast for those writings. It is a shame because not every city has a good spot for that district, and making more later is non-trivial.
Amphitheaters help but they're mostly there for culture to get through the culture tech tree faster unless you have specific bonuses and synergy for great works. The majority of your tourism comes in around the modern era when you get techs like flight and can start planting resorts and parks and rock bands everywhere.
Essentially culture victory plays a bit like a science victory for much of the game because you want to get to the later eras fast but you need to prepare and plan for specific things like faith generation, building your own religion, spaces for parks and resorts and other districts, not killing any of the AI outright, discovering everyone early and establishing trade and eventually alliances, etc.
civ 6 became unplayable once I started playing on deity and realized how exploitable the AI really is
>go for science victory
>shit, other civ is ahead of me!
>other civ gives up on science victory halfway through for no reason
>I win
ok
>turn off all victory types except domination, play big map
>one of the AI's gets nukes
>they just keep nuking the same city over and over again
>after they're done I steamroll them
I miss not knowing the extent of how shit the AI is and I wanna go back
No, but i got it for free with an old gpu
Yes, but more because civ 5 is terrible dude bro trash than it is because 6 is good. I can't take anyone who likes 5 remotely seriously.
>play the world extended, marathon, level 7
>shoshone start puts me on north america with washington
Would you call this an easy start?
>Decides what leaders are in your game a which not.
kneel chud