I honestly prefer both IV and VI, and don't understand the hate for the latter
District, amenities, and separate tech/culture trees are all great systems and I can't think of anything VI actually does worse than V, is it all just autists screeching about the more whimsical art style?
Admittedly it's been years since I've actually played IV and it's probably just a nostalgic attachment. The gameplay may not hold up but it's got more "soul" and character than anything that came after. That title screen song is still baked into my mind.
And VI is cartoony but I wouldn't call it "mobile game aesthetics". Not everything has to be gritty and "realistic", and the stylized models make it more immediately clear what you're looking at.. Regardless, the gameplay is so much improved from V that the aesthetics are pretty much irrelevant.
Well the AI kinda needs to suck given that the vast majority of players aren't good.
People on /vst/ represent a small minority of hardcore strategy people who naturally will have gotten good enough at the game to beat the AI.
Firaxis probably could make the AI better but just chose not to
>heh, too stupid to handle stacks lol >AI just can't handle 1UPT
CivIV fanatics just need to play a wider variety of games to cure their cognitive dissonance.
It's not mobile aesthetics, it's cartoony aesthetics, which Civ had long before mobile games existed and were way better than the moronic realistic shit that Civ 5 tried to do.
>oh nooo! muh realism! evil goys putting realistic things into the game are making me literally cry and shake rn!! i can only look at childish cartoony aesthetics for 6 year olds, why cant they??!?!?
>implying 1UPT isn't realistic
In real life you can't just stack 100 tanks on top of each other can you?
7 months ago
Anonymous
>on top
one tile is a massive area
7 months ago
Anonymous
According to whom?
7 months ago
Anonymous
according to common sense, you have entire city in 1 hex and entire continents span dozens hexes.
7 months ago
Anonymous
If you looked at the tiles and the distance between cities then declared that tanks would have to sit literally on top of each other because of the lack of space you are a certified shitskin
>1UPT isn't strategic, now stacking 50 units into one tile and running that into everything, THAT'S strategy!
Collateral damage is only done by the attackers. If someone bumrushes your cities and armies on their turn with their deathstacks, no amount of siege units will save you.
The game is less consistent with certain setpieces, the balance is awful, and since it's designed as a themepark game, each civ is a curated experience instead of a gameplay modifier.
Look at picrel. and tell me that it doesn't look like something out of a CoC clone or Asterix cartoon.
inb4 >B-But gameplay is better
Doesn't matter. How can you take 4X game seriously if the characters and art style look cartoonish and silly?
inb4 >Muh pre-V games were also cartoonish
Yes, and? Does that mean that VI automatically becomes a better game? Does it diminish the fact that V's realism makes it a more serious game?
>Look at picrel. and tell me that it doesn't look like something out of a CoC clone
He doesn't look like he's from the CoC that I know. Where's the breasts and horse wiener?
Look at picrel. and tell me that it doesn't look like something out of a CoC clone or Asterix cartoon.
inb4 >B-But gameplay is better
Doesn't matter. How can you take 4X game seriously if the characters and art style look cartoonish and silly?
inb4 >Muh pre-V games were also cartoonish
Yes, and? Does that mean that VI automatically becomes a better game? Does it diminish the fact that V's realism makes it a more serious game?
>How can you take 4X game seriously if the characters and art style look cartoonish and silly?
Read the whole post before becoming butthurt over a single sentence.
The only problem with 6 is the AI, it’s way to passive with military civs. As an example in all previous cubs if I played on hemisphere, there was a decent chance a civ like the Zulu or Mongolia would eat up everyone on their continent, and you’d have a pretty big challenge to deal with late game. In 6 I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an AI completely conquer another AI. It just doesn’t happen, so you never end up in a scenario where you are fighting a much bigger empire, which is imo one of the most interesting and fun scenarios in civ games.
Other than that major issue, civ 6 is better than 5 in every way.
it's nostalgia, civ 5 was a ton of people's first civ.
Also, let's be honest, civ 5 is easier than any other game in the series. The AI just cannot cope with one unit per tile or multi-tile range, which let's the player feel smart for beating them.
It's also the most turtle friendly game, which makes it more accessible to timid newer players. You're penalized for expanding and mechanics like city attack and multi tile range make defense far preferable to offense.
It's a 4X game that essentially plays itself while looking good & providing the illusion of choice, so it appeals to a vast audience of lower-skill players.
>It's a 4X game that essentially plays itself while looking good
Tell me how I know you don't play well.
>one unit per tile strategy that the AI can't into >insane diplomatic AI >unclaimed tiles well into the late game >you civilization goes into tumult when you start to win a war
Yeah, it's a real peach.
>you civilization goes into tumult when you start to win a war
Anon, you can win wars without taking cities.
>one unit per tile strategy that the AI can't into >insane diplomatic AI >unclaimed tiles well into the late game >you civilization goes into tumult when you start to win a war
Yeah, it's a real peach.
Civ 5 is the only civ game to make concrete differences between civs. Civ 4 just gives you a single unique unit for a single Era, a unique building, and the choice of two leader traits that all feel like they barely matter. Civ 6 just gives every civ stupid basic bonuses like "This type of district produces one extra resource per turn", instead of the two leader traits. It's slightly better, but not by much
Meanwhile, the majority of civs in Civ 5 feel like they have interesting and unique bonuses. There's a few boring ones, but at least it feels like there was effort to differentiate them. Even among the boring civ bonuses, the game still feels somewhat different from civ to civ.
6s entire gimmick with how it wants to make Civs unique is just homing in on one specific gameplay element which helps with not making any of the Civs feel useless (Iroquois in 5) but the consequence is a lot of the Civs don't actually feel too unique because said gameplay mechanic is some shit like domestic trading or making enemies loose loyalty
America, Gaul, and Hojo Japan all have gameplay mechanics that fundamentally change how you play the game, what the frick is going on with Persia or Egypt before they added the culture bonus for building
>scout passes by Chinese capital for one turn in ancient era >ARE YOU TRYING TO INVADE??? YOUR MILITARY IS AWFUL CLOSE TO MY BORDERS >justpassingthrough.jpg >hundreds of turns and thousands of years later, China has two aircraft carriers with atom bombs on my coast, and diplomacy overview says they're "hostile" >sink one of carriers >YOU LIAR I KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO INVADE ME
What a masterpiece
>is still the king
of zommers
I can't even recall when was the last time I've played it. I had a session of Civ 3 yesterday, played some vanilla 4 back in May, did SMAC MP in July and save file date suggest the last session of 2 was week after Easter. 5? I don't even have a torrent file, which means it had to be prior to 2015.
unironically true, 1upt introduces a lot of tactical decisions at the cost of large strategic movements, while stacking has almost no tactics and it's purely about strategic allocation of your units across game world
>Spam archers >Press on the mouse to shoot if there are nearby units >"I'm a strategic genius!"
Funny how all 1UPT morons keep saying this about stacking while forgetting how unit attacking a stack works(The strongest counter is selected to defend vs the attacker) or how collateral damage can frick up a stack and make it seem just like its just big stack vs smaller stack = automatic win for the bigger one
>makes a gross simplification to make his opponents look bad >accuses opponents of making gross simplifications
the duality of the self-righteous boomer
unironically true, 1upt introduces a lot of tactical decisions at the cost of large strategic movements, while stacking has almost no tactics and it's purely about strategic allocation of your units across game world
>what is collateral damage >what are bombers >what are unit compositions
why are you homosexuals who have have 0 idea and have clearly never played it talking about civ4
also civ5 1UPT combat is literal toddler tier, 0 strategy or thought involved
Collateral damage is only done by the attackers. If someone bumrushes your cities and armies on their turn with their deathstacks, no amount of siege units will save you.
>bumrushes your cities
even ignoring fact you should have decent vision of your borders and neighbors army size, its impossible to lose many cities in surprise attack without being massively behind in army, also holding a newly conquered city is actually a challenge and requires decent amount of time and big army
you also have > city walls for def bonus early game to buy time >cavalry to counter siege units with flanking
>If someone bumrushes your cities and armies on their turn with their deathstacks, no amount of siege units will save you.
Stacks don't magically teleport to a city. even if thr city is 1 tile away from the borders the attackers need to spend a turn to move there, So ignoring city bombardment(which could give the defender an extra turn or two) the defenders should always have a chance to use their collateral damage.
It is though. For most of human history that´s how it was. Wtf you think Napoleon did or alexander the great? Think of the wars of the romans. In terms of realism civ4 had 10 times the better idea of stacks into one tile then being unable to gather your forces.
Stacks worked just fine, they could have expanded on the idea, instead of just costing gold to have units in enemy territory they could have used food as well. Maybe the great big stack can only follow roads or some shit.
I can´t even play 5 or 6, it´s so fricking moronic I can´t gather my army I just can´t get over it.
Even the tile system is worse, instead of each tile being surrounded by 8 other tiles you are limited to 6, it´s so fricking bad.
Did you play at settler or something? This is late early-game on the onset of medieval era with VP. It's already cramped and relations are already breaking down due to border-tensions..
If you play on Emperor or higher difficulty the AI is likely to spam cities late game, so by end game most land will be taken up.
Playing on a smaller map or setting ocean levels to high also help there
Did you play at settler or something? This is late early-game on the onset of medieval era with VP. It's already cramped and relations are already breaking down due to border-tensions..
My brother in Christ why are you playing in windowed mode
Now that is the Rome that should have been in the base game. Know any good ones for Mongolia? I'm just looking for actual bonus' that help you manage the largest empire in history instead of being able to easily conquer worthless city states on worthless land
I've heard, I don't know if this is true, but that the AI in Civ V and VI is trying more to "win" rather than "roleplay" and that's why the diplomacy feels more fickle/adversarial. Whereas the AI in Civ IV had real alliances/friendships/hostilities, etc.
At least from what I can remember, AI was more active making lasting alliances in IV, leading to some good large end game wars. Especially in VI nothing tends to happen in late game, which is so fricking boring.
Combining corruption and city happiness into global happiness plus getting rid of the science/luxury sliders cut down a lot of the micromanagement. Culture was actually made useful with social policy trees. Unique civ abilities are fun. Religion and ideologies from the expansions were great additions.
On the other hand, 1UPT has a whole heap of problems. It's fun when it does work but usually it's a slog and the AI can't handle it.
I mostly play III and V, very different games but both pretty well-rounded. Every time I play IV I feel like I'd rather be playing III or V. Never had a reason to play VI when V already exists and VI doesn't fix any of the problems with 1UPT.
I beat the game as India on Emperor difficulty. The achievements for that say only 6% of players have beat the game as India or on Emperor difficulty. I just got attacked by three different civs as India in my Immortal game. How do I win?
>was a kid walking through the store looking for things to ask for for Christmas >suddenly there it is >Civilization III Gold Edition >the packaging is so shiny >so golden >oh my god look at those game screenshots >I bet the manual is going to be fat
and it was
I'll never play 6 and love 5 aton, but I swear the more I play the more I wish the game was different.
Tradition is way better then Liberty because happiness fricking sucks for Liberty. Honor and Piety are meme paths.
Barbarians continuing to spawn constantly in the later years is dumb. The spawn rates should at least be reduced, and have them renamed to fit the ages. go from barbs to mercs, rogue soldiers, etc.
I would kill for a patrol mode for your units so you can just have them constantly move a path until they encounter an enemy and then control is given back to you.
I wish new cities off of your main continent would be colonies with unique mechanics to allow for faster growth
Did I already mention how much Happiness can suck sometimes? If you play well as Rome, or just shit on the terrible AI as Mongolia you are punished by holding a bunch of unholdable cities which kill your happiness and take so many fricking turns to build courthouses, which then zaps your Gold
Finally city states- Annexing them is always useless because city-states always setlle in dogshit land with little land tiles, and few resources on most map.
tl;dr Civ 7 needs to take what was good from 5 and 6 drop all the bad shit and then it might be good
>Thought Civ 4 was the best >Abused people that played Civ 5 >Years later move to Civ 5 and it becomes my favourite civ game >Civ 6 comes out >It's shitter than civ 6 but I move to Civ 6 anyway because new content >This thread makes me reinstall 5 >Can't play it after playing 6 for so many years now
Are these games making me dumber? Or is it just like convenience baked into the game design that makes previous entries annoying to play?
>Allow stacking, Suffer strength penalties past a certain number >Gold/Science/Culture/Espionage sliders >Health >Happiness based on individual cities >Spies of 4 >Religion system of 5 >Civics similar to 5 >Slavery >City states >Art style of 5 >Unique abilities for civs >Keep ranged attacks but limit their range to one tile until artillery and make them extremely weak when attacked by melee units >AI on higher difficulties gets better instead of cheating
>play civ 4 >go to war >capture city, fight huge battle in a few turns, takes maybe 1 minute if ny tine >play 1upt cringe >have to tactically deploy my shit for 5 turns >moving my 50 units takes eons >30 minutes later i captured a city
the only challenge in civ 5/6 combat is dealing with boredom
>have to tactically deploy my shit for 5 turns
yeah no shit, you're playing a strategy game moron
you have to use actual strategy now instead of "build 30 macemen and walk into city"
woman leaders >aaaagh why are they putting WOKE SHIT in my bideo games!!??
woman leaders, Japan >oh my freakin' science,, is that a brown tomboy anime waifu leading the Ottomans?? sugoi kawai tbh!!
>Want to have female leaders in civ >Want to have diversity >For some reason, don't take advantage of Africans having plenty of female icons to draw on
>>For some reason, don't take advantage of Africans having plenty of female icons to draw on
I too was disappointed that they used Elizabeth I instead of Victoria
I have no idea how people enjoy 5, even ignoring all the 1UPT shit how tf do you enjoy a civ game where you can only play in one way? You can never play wide without getting fricked in the ass by unhappiness, You can't play a warmonger because again, you will get fricked in the ass by unhappiness. The domination victory condition is also silly, controlling the capitals of every player? Really?
So you can't play wide, you can't expand, how do you play this game? Watch numbers go up and borderline AFK, with the occasional defensive war where you press a button to shoot from your city and feel smart and "strategic" for slaughtering the AI that can't play 1UPT for shit, until the last era and go for science or culture victory everytime? How do people enjoy this shit?
>borderline afk
this is the biggest problem tbh and its made worse because cities never feel different from one another
best thing about civ5 is how they handle unique traits. the scope and power is just right
?
Specialists are great.
With Freedom they take up half the food and happiness, which skyrockets growth, and with Rationalism each specialist gives plus 2 science.
And they give great people, and proper use of great people can determine who wins and who looses.
Now for a wide empire, it's less important, as there will likely be better tiles to work, so specialists are more relevant for taller play
>With Freedom they take up half the food and happiness, which skyrockets growth, and with Rationalism each specialist gives plus 2 science.
Yes, and both of those come late. The base output for an engineer is 2 production in a game where, if you even have that building in a city, you likely have multiple tiles with at least 3 production. >Now for a wide empire, it's less important, as there will likely be better tiles to work, so specialists are more relevant for taller play
Yeah, but everything is better if you play tall. They should've made them worthwhile for their base yields, or at least made landmarks strong.
>No you can't have a big army because uhh...tactics! Better cover 50 tiles with units instead! I will feel smart when I press shoot on my archer this way because my enemy won't be able to use more than 3/4 units a turn most of the times!
Tried IV and the game felt moronic when it comes to units. Tried VI, and the eras, as well as the religion stuff turned me off of it.
I'd like if V was on 9 grid OR the cities actually took three tiles instead of one(i.e. the tiles are "smaller" representations than they are in V). Although the diplomatic AI in V is too broad about what constitutes war-mongering, and too unforgiving both to the player and each other, meaning that you either play squaky clean good boi, or you don't interact with ai after a period, but mods can thankfully change that >inb4 AI hating you is pard of the already low challenge of the game
I don't mind AI hating me when i'm a c**t, or challenging me when it's in their best interest(One of the most fun campaigns was when AI ally and neighbour Brazil backstabbed me in a two block rivalry situation, leaving my allies confused, and me really pissed, but after I kicked Pedro's ass a little, meaning I took two of his cities, and then peaced him out from a position of his army being gone, and him begging me for peace, while he became my friend again due to a nice peace, all the other allied AI's didn't really trust "me" anymore), what I hate is AI being hateful even when everything I do benefits them and/or my best interest is in their best interest due to various rivalries and goals of other ai.
I remember once playing a game where me and Russia were allies for our entire history.
In 1900 or so, China declares war on Russia, I declare war on China and return a Russian city conquered by China, Then Russia and China peace out and both consider me a warmonger kek
Yeah, that's the biggest problem that I had, and the first thing I modded is neutering warmongering, because apparently most Ai modifiers in the game beside it are at least somewhat reasonable in ifluencing tha AI opinion. I don't even mean completely getting rid of it, just making sure that, for example, conquering 1 city doesn't ovveride half cumulative possible opinion modifiers.
>play Civ V >game is all about pushing early advantages to snowball into the late game, most games are decided 50-100 turns in, the other 200-300 turns are utterly mindless >play Civ IV >game is all about pushing early advantages to snowball into the late game, most games are decided 50-100 turns in, the other 200-300 turns are utterly mindless >people somehow think one of these games requires more intelligence than the other
Vox Populi
Meh its ok, VI is so bad it made it look better in retrospect but even with expansions its not that great just decent
>inferior version of already shit civ6
I honestly prefer both IV and VI, and don't understand the hate for the latter
District, amenities, and separate tech/culture trees are all great systems and I can't think of anything VI actually does worse than V, is it all just autists screeching about the more whimsical art style?
>preffering deathstackslop to V
>preffering mobile aesthetics V
Admittedly it's been years since I've actually played IV and it's probably just a nostalgic attachment. The gameplay may not hold up but it's got more "soul" and character than anything that came after. That title screen song is still baked into my mind.
And VI is cartoony but I wouldn't call it "mobile game aesthetics". Not everything has to be gritty and "realistic", and the stylized models make it more immediately clear what you're looking at.. Regardless, the gameplay is so much improved from V that the aesthetics are pretty much irrelevant.
Is the AI irrelevant too? Considering that every single Civ (or 4x game) that isn't called Civ V has an AI that sucks?
The AI in V also sucks? maybe it's a hair better than VI but not in any noticeable way. Still never had it take a city.
Not with the mods that it has, Civ IV at least has some mods that might improve AI at least a bit but VI absolutely doesn't.
Well the AI kinda needs to suck given that the vast majority of players aren't good.
People on /vst/ represent a small minority of hardcore strategy people who naturally will have gotten good enough at the game to beat the AI.
Firaxis probably could make the AI better but just chose not to
thats why there are difficulty settings
As the other guy said they could just lower the difficulty
>Not everything has to be gritty and "realistic",
Wrong
>Can't handle stacks in a game that has five different anti-stack mechanics
Must be tough having double digit IQ
AI in 5 can't even move around, so no idea what the frick are you even trying to imply here
I think you've "repied" to a wrong post
>heh, too stupid to handle stacks lol
>AI just can't handle 1UPT
CivIV fanatics just need to play a wider variety of games to cure their cognitive dissonance.
Civ5's giant circle UI looks like mobile shit too
It's not mobile aesthetics, it's cartoony aesthetics, which Civ had long before mobile games existed and were way better than the moronic realistic shit that Civ 5 tried to do.
>oh nooo! muh realism! evil goys putting realistic things into the game are making me literally cry and shake rn!! i can only look at childish cartoony aesthetics for 6 year olds, why cant they??!?!?
>muh realism
>1UPT
lolollooolololololol
>implying 1UPT isn't realistic
In real life you can't just stack 100 tanks on top of each other can you?
>on top
one tile is a massive area
According to whom?
according to common sense, you have entire city in 1 hex and entire continents span dozens hexes.
If you looked at the tiles and the distance between cities then declared that tanks would have to sit literally on top of each other because of the lack of space you are a certified shitskin
Yes.
Playing on immortal. Gonna cry?
The game is less consistent with certain setpieces, the balance is awful, and since it's designed as a themepark game, each civ is a curated experience instead of a gameplay modifier.
Look at picrel. and tell me that it doesn't look like something out of a CoC clone or Asterix cartoon.
inb4
>B-But gameplay is better
Doesn't matter. How can you take 4X game seriously if the characters and art style look cartoonish and silly?
inb4
>Muh pre-V games were also cartoonish
Yes, and? Does that mean that VI automatically becomes a better game? Does it diminish the fact that V's realism makes it a more serious game?
>Look at picrel. and tell me that it doesn't look like something out of a CoC clone
He doesn't look like he's from the CoC that I know. Where's the breasts and horse wiener?
i wish i didnt get that reference
>But gameplay is better
>Doesn't matter
Yeah, that sums up the average civ VI hater.
I literally specified it you moron
>How can you take 4X game seriously if the characters and art style look cartoonish and silly?
Read the whole post before becoming butthurt over a single sentence.
You didn't specify shit
>I don't care about gameplay I just want to take the art seriously
Then go to a museum
Go frick off back to Android and play your Chink cartoon 'strategy' games.
The only problem with 6 is the AI, it’s way to passive with military civs. As an example in all previous cubs if I played on hemisphere, there was a decent chance a civ like the Zulu or Mongolia would eat up everyone on their continent, and you’d have a pretty big challenge to deal with late game. In 6 I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an AI completely conquer another AI. It just doesn’t happen, so you never end up in a scenario where you are fighting a much bigger empire, which is imo one of the most interesting and fun scenarios in civ games.
Other than that major issue, civ 6 is better than 5 in every way.
Maybe you just have shit taste, liking one good game doesn't make up for you liking a shit one
it's nostalgia, civ 5 was a ton of people's first civ.
Also, let's be honest, civ 5 is easier than any other game in the series. The AI just cannot cope with one unit per tile or multi-tile range, which let's the player feel smart for beating them.
It's also the most turtle friendly game, which makes it more accessible to timid newer players. You're penalized for expanding and mechanics like city attack and multi tile range make defense far preferable to offense.
lmao, 4 is what your average /vst/ poster first took and why it's so praised. At release it was considered the worst one.
moron take from a zelligaryan, erm bros??
It's a 4X game that essentially plays itself while looking good & providing the illusion of choice, so it appeals to a vast audience of lower-skill players.
>It's a 4X game that essentially plays itself while looking good
Tell me how I know you don't play well.
>you civilization goes into tumult when you start to win a war
Anon, you can win wars without taking cities.
>one unit per tile strategy that the AI can't into
>insane diplomatic AI
>unclaimed tiles well into the late game
>you civilization goes into tumult when you start to win a war
Yeah, it's a real peach.
Civ 5 is the only civ game to make concrete differences between civs. Civ 4 just gives you a single unique unit for a single Era, a unique building, and the choice of two leader traits that all feel like they barely matter. Civ 6 just gives every civ stupid basic bonuses like "This type of district produces one extra resource per turn", instead of the two leader traits. It's slightly better, but not by much
Meanwhile, the majority of civs in Civ 5 feel like they have interesting and unique bonuses. There's a few boring ones, but at least it feels like there was effort to differentiate them. Even among the boring civ bonuses, the game still feels somewhat different from civ to civ.
Wow someone gave the right answer and the threads still arguing semantics
6s entire gimmick with how it wants to make Civs unique is just homing in on one specific gameplay element which helps with not making any of the Civs feel useless (Iroquois in 5) but the consequence is a lot of the Civs don't actually feel too unique because said gameplay mechanic is some shit like domestic trading or making enemies loose loyalty
America, Gaul, and Hojo Japan all have gameplay mechanics that fundamentally change how you play the game, what the frick is going on with Persia or Egypt before they added the culture bonus for building
>scout passes by Chinese capital for one turn in ancient era
>ARE YOU TRYING TO INVADE??? YOUR MILITARY IS AWFUL CLOSE TO MY BORDERS
>justpassingthrough.jpg
>hundreds of turns and thousands of years later, China has two aircraft carriers with atom bombs on my coast, and diplomacy overview says they're "hostile"
>sink one of carriers
>YOU LIAR I KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO INVADE ME
What a masterpiece
a realistic depiction of china ngl
But that's how China actually is
mp mods
>is still the king
of zommers
I can't even recall when was the last time I've played it. I had a session of Civ 3 yesterday, played some vanilla 4 back in May, did SMAC MP in July and save file date suggest the last session of 2 was week after Easter. 5? I don't even have a torrent file, which means it had to be prior to 2015.
>4 cities meta
>Calls it's self a Civ game
>People think it's any good
Not as autistic as Civ 4 but not as dumbed down and abstract as Civ 6.
The perfect 4x game.
Still think IV is better but V had better combat
How can morons actually claim 1UPT introduces strategy? What's strategic about obsoleting all units types other than archers?
>1UPT isn't strategic, now stacking 50 units into one tile and running that into everything, THAT'S strategy!
unironically true, 1upt introduces a lot of tactical decisions at the cost of large strategic movements, while stacking has almost no tactics and it's purely about strategic allocation of your units across game world
>Spam archers
>Press on the mouse to shoot if there are nearby units
>"I'm a strategic genius!"
Funny how all 1UPT morons keep saying this about stacking while forgetting how unit attacking a stack works(The strongest counter is selected to defend vs the attacker) or how collateral damage can frick up a stack and make it seem just like its just big stack vs smaller stack = automatic win for the bigger one
>makes a gross simplification to make his opponents look bad
>accuses opponents of making gross simplifications
the duality of the self-righteous boomer
>what is collateral damage
>what are bombers
>what are unit compositions
why are you homosexuals who have have 0 idea and have clearly never played it talking about civ4
also civ5 1UPT combat is literal toddler tier, 0 strategy or thought involved
Collateral damage is only done by the attackers. If someone bumrushes your cities and armies on their turn with their deathstacks, no amount of siege units will save you.
>bumrushes your cities
even ignoring fact you should have decent vision of your borders and neighbors army size, its impossible to lose many cities in surprise attack without being massively behind in army, also holding a newly conquered city is actually a challenge and requires decent amount of time and big army
you also have
> city walls for def bonus early game to buy time
>cavalry to counter siege units with flanking
>If someone bumrushes your cities and armies on their turn with their deathstacks, no amount of siege units will save you.
Stacks don't magically teleport to a city. even if thr city is 1 tile away from the borders the attackers need to spend a turn to move there, So ignoring city bombardment(which could give the defender an extra turn or two) the defenders should always have a chance to use their collateral damage.
It is though. For most of human history that´s how it was. Wtf you think Napoleon did or alexander the great? Think of the wars of the romans. In terms of realism civ4 had 10 times the better idea of stacks into one tile then being unable to gather your forces.
Stacks worked just fine, they could have expanded on the idea, instead of just costing gold to have units in enemy territory they could have used food as well. Maybe the great big stack can only follow roads or some shit.
I can´t even play 5 or 6, it´s so fricking moronic I can´t gather my army I just can´t get over it.
Even the tile system is worse, instead of each tile being surrounded by 8 other tiles you are limited to 6, it´s so fricking bad.
I always hated in the late game you'd still have larges part of land unclaimed. Is there a mod that fixes it?
At least in VP i've never seen unclaimed areas in the late game
Did you play at settler or something? This is late early-game on the onset of medieval era with VP. It's already cramped and relations are already breaking down due to border-tensions..
>with VP
opinion discarded
If you play on Emperor or higher difficulty the AI is likely to spam cities late game, so by end game most land will be taken up.
Playing on a smaller map or setting ocean levels to high also help there
>reroll map spawn ten times until I start with 3 salt, 2 gold, and 2 wheat
civ 5 is the best civ game for role playing as a real empire
My brother in Christ why are you playing in windowed mode
My beloved sister-fiancée in Islam, it is so because I will it.
since I have zoomer tier attention span and constantly alt tab to Ganker, obviously
Civ V in fullscreen is janky as shit, and it somehow doesn't have borderless
>roleplaying
>rome
>didn't capture all city-states on your continent
>noob doesn't want to keep the city state bonuses
>he doesn't know
Now that is the Rome that should have been in the base game. Know any good ones for Mongolia? I'm just looking for actual bonus' that help you manage the largest empire in history instead of being able to easily conquer worthless city states on worthless land
I know that bloated piece of shit mod sucks ass, yes
/v/eddit still filtered by simple mechanics I see
Modding, simple as
Visually it still looks great, the 1upt added a fun tactical element to combat.
A good mix of depth without to much micro managing
I've heard, I don't know if this is true, but that the AI in Civ V and VI is trying more to "win" rather than "roleplay" and that's why the diplomacy feels more fickle/adversarial. Whereas the AI in Civ IV had real alliances/friendships/hostilities, etc.
At least from what I can remember, AI was more active making lasting alliances in IV, leading to some good large end game wars. Especially in VI nothing tends to happen in late game, which is so fricking boring.
Combining corruption and city happiness into global happiness plus getting rid of the science/luxury sliders cut down a lot of the micromanagement. Culture was actually made useful with social policy trees. Unique civ abilities are fun. Religion and ideologies from the expansions were great additions.
On the other hand, 1UPT has a whole heap of problems. It's fun when it does work but usually it's a slog and the AI can't handle it.
I mostly play III and V, very different games but both pretty well-rounded. Every time I play IV I feel like I'd rather be playing III or V. Never had a reason to play VI when V already exists and VI doesn't fix any of the problems with 1UPT.
goyslopper opinion
I beat the game as India on Emperor difficulty. The achievements for that say only 6% of players have beat the game as India or on Emperor difficulty. I just got attacked by three different civs as India in my Immortal game. How do I win?
Redeem the nukes sar
People only talk about III to prove how old they are.
>was a kid walking through the store looking for things to ask for for Christmas
>suddenly there it is
>Civilization III Gold Edition
>the packaging is so shiny
>so golden
>oh my god look at those game screenshots
>I bet the manual is going to be fat
and it was
I'm a zoomer and Civ3 was still my first. Its not that old of a game
I remember playing OG Civ. Fricking fite me zoomer.
>III
>Not II
Hey frick you too buddy I'm not that old
unholy frickton of mods
I'll never play 6 and love 5 aton, but I swear the more I play the more I wish the game was different.
Tradition is way better then Liberty because happiness fricking sucks for Liberty. Honor and Piety are meme paths.
Barbarians continuing to spawn constantly in the later years is dumb. The spawn rates should at least be reduced, and have them renamed to fit the ages. go from barbs to mercs, rogue soldiers, etc.
I would kill for a patrol mode for your units so you can just have them constantly move a path until they encounter an enemy and then control is given back to you.
I wish new cities off of your main continent would be colonies with unique mechanics to allow for faster growth
Did I already mention how much Happiness can suck sometimes? If you play well as Rome, or just shit on the terrible AI as Mongolia you are punished by holding a bunch of unholdable cities which kill your happiness and take so many fricking turns to build courthouses, which then zaps your Gold
Finally city states- Annexing them is always useless because city-states always setlle in dogshit land with little land tiles, and few resources on most map.
tl;dr Civ 7 needs to take what was good from 5 and 6 drop all the bad shit and then it might be good
>Thought Civ 4 was the best
>Abused people that played Civ 5
>Years later move to Civ 5 and it becomes my favourite civ game
>Civ 6 comes out
>It's shitter than civ 6 but I move to Civ 6 anyway because new content
>This thread makes me reinstall 5
>Can't play it after playing 6 for so many years now
Are these games making me dumber? Or is it just like convenience baked into the game design that makes previous entries annoying to play?
>Allow stacking, Suffer strength penalties past a certain number
>Gold/Science/Culture/Espionage sliders
>Health
>Happiness based on individual cities
>Spies of 4
>Religion system of 5
>Civics similar to 5
>Slavery
>City states
>Art style of 5
>Unique abilities for civs
>Keep ranged attacks but limit their range to one tile until artillery and make them extremely weak when attacked by melee units
>AI on higher difficulties gets better instead of cheating
Here. I created the perfect civ game for you.
>this guy spawns next to you
>heart rate increases
>play civ 4
>go to war
>capture city, fight huge battle in a few turns, takes maybe 1 minute if ny tine
>play 1upt cringe
>have to tactically deploy my shit for 5 turns
>moving my 50 units takes eons
>30 minutes later i captured a city
the only challenge in civ 5/6 combat is dealing with boredom
>have to tactically deploy my shit for 5 turns
yeah no shit, you're playing a strategy game moron
you have to use actual strategy now instead of "build 30 macemen and walk into city"
>build 30 macemen and walk into city
That's a nice way to level up your enemies longbows/crossbows
you're right, I prefer my 30 macemen to minimally occupy the space of an entire continent
no doomstacks
treats things with ~some~ degree of reverence
does not look like a goofy chinese mobile game
The music man, the music. Civ V had the best music of all time. It is games like these that I was introduced to the greatest composers.
Video games only wish they reached the SOVL of Empire Earth, Civ 5, Age of Empires 3.
>Civ V had the best music of all time
wrong b***h
superpowers mod for Civ 5 is still the best mod out there.
V is gigabased for not pushing the global warming meme
ara history untold is gonna be the real civ killer, unlike humeme
>visit game website
>greeted with the image of a Muslim, a woman, and a Black
ESG slop from the same group who funded Humankind
I wish the japs would finally make a civ game combining waifu leaders with stylzed aesthetic and no woke shit.
woman leaders
>aaaagh why are they putting WOKE SHIT in my bideo games!!??
woman leaders, Japan
>oh my freakin' science,, is that a brown tomboy anime waifu leading the Ottomans?? sugoi kawai tbh!!
this but unironically. i want someone like pic related when i play britain
I'd like to storm her bastille.
same
There was that one Chinese game entirely based off that concept.
you mean the game this artwork is from? its more fire emblem like napoleonic war game
or a chinese civ like game? i can only think of romance of three kingdoms but its made in japan
Nobody would complain if western devs made the women leaders cute and sexy
The Koreans were certainly thrilled upon seeing who their woman leader was.
>Want to have female leaders in civ
>Want to have diversity
>For some reason, don't take advantage of Africans having plenty of female icons to draw on
>>For some reason, don't take advantage of Africans having plenty of female icons to draw on
I too was disappointed that they used Elizabeth I instead of Victoria
"Looking straight at you"
I have no idea how people enjoy 5, even ignoring all the 1UPT shit how tf do you enjoy a civ game where you can only play in one way? You can never play wide without getting fricked in the ass by unhappiness, You can't play a warmonger because again, you will get fricked in the ass by unhappiness. The domination victory condition is also silly, controlling the capitals of every player? Really?
So you can't play wide, you can't expand, how do you play this game? Watch numbers go up and borderline AFK, with the occasional defensive war where you press a button to shoot from your city and feel smart and "strategic" for slaughtering the AI that can't play 1UPT for shit, until the last era and go for science or culture victory everytime? How do people enjoy this shit?
Mod per-city happiness out of the game
Ezpz stop posting frogs loser
Maybe just acquire skill
>borderline afk
this is the biggest problem tbh and its made worse because cities never feel different from one another
best thing about civ5 is how they handle unique traits. the scope and power is just right
tall is meta, but wide is viable, and there are many situations when it's better.
>You can never play wide without getting fricked in the ass by unhappiness
Unhappiness isn't what gets you. It's the Gold.
>another civ v thread made by a fivelet who is terrified at the idea of managing more than four cities
Did you just play India? Unless you are building tall you are going to have more then four.
You can manage way more than 4 cities in V. Your post just shows that you don't know how to play the game and manage happiness.
Kek what a pleb
Giving specialists in Civ 5 awful yields was just a poor move.
?
Specialists are great.
With Freedom they take up half the food and happiness, which skyrockets growth, and with Rationalism each specialist gives plus 2 science.
And they give great people, and proper use of great people can determine who wins and who looses.
Now for a wide empire, it's less important, as there will likely be better tiles to work, so specialists are more relevant for taller play
>With Freedom they take up half the food and happiness, which skyrockets growth, and with Rationalism each specialist gives plus 2 science.
Yes, and both of those come late. The base output for an engineer is 2 production in a game where, if you even have that building in a city, you likely have multiple tiles with at least 3 production.
>Now for a wide empire, it's less important, as there will likely be better tiles to work, so specialists are more relevant for taller play
Yeah, but everything is better if you play tall. They should've made them worthwhile for their base yields, or at least made landmarks strong.
I can't even go back to 5 and 6 after trying 4 idk how tf do 1upt gays defend this shit
Doomstacks attract morons, common knowledge.
>No you can't have a big army because uhh...tactics! Better cover 50 tiles with units instead! I will feel smart when I press shoot on my archer this way because my enemy won't be able to use more than 3/4 units a turn most of the times!
Is Vox Populi the Mental Omega of Civ5?
Tried IV and the game felt moronic when it comes to units. Tried VI, and the eras, as well as the religion stuff turned me off of it.
I'd like if V was on 9 grid OR the cities actually took three tiles instead of one(i.e. the tiles are "smaller" representations than they are in V). Although the diplomatic AI in V is too broad about what constitutes war-mongering, and too unforgiving both to the player and each other, meaning that you either play squaky clean good boi, or you don't interact with ai after a period, but mods can thankfully change that
>inb4 AI hating you is pard of the already low challenge of the game
I don't mind AI hating me when i'm a c**t, or challenging me when it's in their best interest(One of the most fun campaigns was when AI ally and neighbour Brazil backstabbed me in a two block rivalry situation, leaving my allies confused, and me really pissed, but after I kicked Pedro's ass a little, meaning I took two of his cities, and then peaced him out from a position of his army being gone, and him begging me for peace, while he became my friend again due to a nice peace, all the other allied AI's didn't really trust "me" anymore), what I hate is AI being hateful even when everything I do benefits them and/or my best interest is in their best interest due to various rivalries and goals of other ai.
I remember once playing a game where me and Russia were allies for our entire history.
In 1900 or so, China declares war on Russia, I declare war on China and return a Russian city conquered by China, Then Russia and China peace out and both consider me a warmonger kek
Yeah, that's the biggest problem that I had, and the first thing I modded is neutering warmongering, because apparently most Ai modifiers in the game beside it are at least somewhat reasonable in ifluencing tha AI opinion. I don't even mean completely getting rid of it, just making sure that, for example, conquering 1 city doesn't ovveride half cumulative possible opinion modifiers.
>play Civ V
>game is all about pushing early advantages to snowball into the late game, most games are decided 50-100 turns in, the other 200-300 turns are utterly mindless
>play Civ IV
>game is all about pushing early advantages to snowball into the late game, most games are decided 50-100 turns in, the other 200-300 turns are utterly mindless
>people somehow think one of these games requires more intelligence than the other
>200-300
>more than half the game determines the game
Okay?
4 and 5 are the best ones, with al dlc included