Is this the worst feature ever added in Civ?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Is this the worst feature ever added in Civ?
Is this the worst feature ever added in Civ?
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
No, it's the best one
>NOOOOOO BLOOBING BAD STOP BLOOBING
Why are they like this? Civ4 already had the perfect answer with its maintenance costs but here they go reinventing the wheel again
the maintenance cost thing isn't a good solution because 1. it's not intuitive 2. it's not visible. same problems with happiness in civ6.
it really made no sense that it was based mainly on population size. made it close to impossible to larp as colonial power.
>if I take this city my slider will go down for a while
>can I afford to take a hit yes or no
Maintenance costs are a bit esoteric but it's not hard to plan and play around.
>made it close to impossible to larp as colonial power
That was my biggest gripe with loyalty in 6. Kinda underwhelming when you can't settle or conquer distant continents as England or Spain because of loyalty pressure. It should have been based on ethnicity, religion, or maybe even other stuff, not just pop
> made it close to impossible to larp as colonial power.
Never had a problem with this tbh. Most of the Europowers that historically had colonies have something that helps colonialism, either through fast pop growth, loyalty buffs, religion or culture production. In factt, one of the best ways to keep your colonies is to genocide all of the browns and have high Kultur production, making Civ 6 unironically one of the chuddiest takes on colonization I've seen in a strategy game. Playing gigacolonial Spain is max comfy.
Rather, I really wish there was a way to puppet cultures without taking them out of the game entirely because a purely Anglo British Raj or completely Dutch Oost-Indië feels super weird. No revolts or revolutions unless you frick up big time (no Quit India or Java War).
>it really made no sense that it was based mainly on population size. made it close to impossible to larp as colonial power.
There's no bigger indication that someone is bad at the game than this complaint.
did you played the game? There's literally a card for it. Gitgud
Civ had revolts and city flipping, moron
>Why doesn't everyone want to autistically manage 50 cities like I do?
Ikr. Everyone should just play civ like i do, as venice.
people do not like thinking about maintenance costs in general. it's a huge problem in democracies. people really be hating on the impermanence of all things and entropy and shit and don't like thinking about it.
>people really be hating on the impermanence of all things
This “added” feature has existed in some form since Civ 3. You’re really exposing yourself as a civ 5 zoomer.
>in some form
Yeah, but not as braindead as it is in 6
>that projection
>wtf I can't forward settle like a Black person anymore?
OP being a homosexual as usual
It can be very annoying in some situations making the game practically unplayable.
>Civ 3 had it
>Civ 4 had it
>Civ 5 didn't have it
>Civ 6 has it
>moron who started with 5 loses his shit yet again when playing any other Civ than 5
And I genuinely wonder what would you do if I would simply incite population against you, like it did non-stop with infiltration in Civ 2 and SMAC
Wasn't it just a culture thing in Civ4?
Not only was it a "culture thing", it was actually even more cutthroat as you could culture bomb with artists and completely obliterate enemy territory.
or you just could not use exploits? It's not even as bullshit as all the microoptimization techniques necessary to play on higher difficulty
The problem with it in 6 is that the districts are permanent, so if you lose a city temporarily and the AI places a district in a bad spot the city is ruined permanently.
I don't know if it's a well-designed feature or not based on how obscenely difficult it can be to conquer specific cities depending on the territory. It's not uncommon for a swathe of territory to be effectively unconquerable because the terrain is to difficult to launch an efficient siege, or because the enemy's defenses are sufficiently advanced that by the time you conquer another city to stop the bleeding, the first city rebels and you're back at square one.
It's incredibly frustrating, but it's probably how a lot of historical conquerors and colonial powers felt.
Not a problem on PC, which is what you should be playing on. Mods to remove districts and harvest strategic resources are mandatory.
>Mods to remove districts and harvest strategic resources are mandatory.
I am not even sure if you are baiting or simply crazy.
>research ironworking
>iron spawns on a tile surrounded by 6 geothermal fissures
🙂
>conquer city
>have to live with the AI's dog shit district placement
🙂
You just have deal with being presented with tiny-tiny sliver of a challenge and not being able to 100% optimize everything. You know by not being given the perfect setup on silver plate every time and making it even easier for yourself in a game where a monkey with only 2 active braincells can beat Deity difficulty.
The fact that "good" players will actively avoid researching a technology before it has a chance to frick them over is a sign that your gameplay mechanic has failed, simple as. Harvesting a strategic or luxury resource is actually a much higher opportunity cost than harvesting a bonus resource; the only reason it isn't allowed, most probably, is because it prevents unwitting players from fricking themselves over or clever players from trolling their opponents by conquering cities and then harvesting all of their resources before handing them back over.
tl;dr if I want to trade my only source of iron for a +2 campus, I should be able to.
Just get a mod from the workshop to let you remove districts. Problem solved
just use mods, they always fix devs moronation.
>just use mods, they always make the game more braindead for you
are you a console player?
The worst "feature" in Civ is its absolutely garbage AI.
just like in real life, if you invent the religions first you get all the gold. in civ 3 (iirc) i would invent all the religions first and get free gold for the entire game.
Yes, if only because independent cities don't use player mechanics. They just exist to be retaken.
Guys, I never played a Civ game. Which one is the best?
Look at which one vst seethes the most about. It will show you the best option
any of the ones that have districts
Just play "classic" Civ or VI. V "Chads" are the only ones who feel the need to constantly remind others of their superiority, which is a sure sign that you should avoid the game.
homie are you serious?
It's the same behavior that Dark Souls 2 fanboys engage in
Nibbas be sucking elden wiener and still shitting on chad 2 that is basically the foundation of it
according to metacritic, which, once you have grown up, is the only source you will ever consult in gaming matters, it's V.
2, 4 and 6 are all good in their own way. Each one of 1, 3 and 5 is a flawed protoype for the game that came after it
Alpha Centauri is really fun as well, mainly for all the wild terraforming and other mechanics added to Civ 2's core gameplay but it's not balanced at all
Correct
6 is unironically the best. People pretend to like 5 on here to get (You)'s.
(You)
I'm a 5baby but I prefer 6
Districts are breddy neat
4 is the best one
5 is good too
6 is slop for NPCs
the first one because with out it the others wouldn't exist
6 has the highest production value
also theres a big difference depending on if you play with "gathering storm" dlc or without, the sheer amount of changes justifies some other studios (paradox) to call it a new game
It depends on what you are looking for. I would argue that if you can only play a single Civ, to play through Civilization IV with the Beyond the Sword DLC. It’s a crystallization of the entire series imo. The rest of the series have innovations that come with a number of things which potentially harm the experience, though I would argue all are worth experiencing at least a few games.
I will say that I am absolutely sick of V and VI however. I really hope VII is a breath of fresh air but I’m not holding my breath
Flipping cities using culture in the older games was way better, I appreciate that it tried to be like that but they should have just kept it the way it was in the older games. That would require culture to work differently too though.
>I just conquered all of france, why are they forming a resistance to my nation's occupation?!
you, elitist shizoids, are the worst
6 is a great civ game, its complex, its beautiful, it has 50 official civs and plenty of mods, many qol improvements (like quick search for specific things on the map), it can entertain you for hundreds of hours, it is an objective improvement.
the only grievances i have with it is all the liberal bullshit like muh noble savages mother gaia protectors civs, the tech and culture quotes are some of the dumbest shit said by literally whos and the climate change propaganda is ridiculously exaugurated and still the overall game is so good that im willing to forgive it all in this case.
>still desyncs in multiplayer
idc about multiplayer in 4x, being 100% focused on one thing for 4-8 hours is not fun.
Civ 5 happiness is maybe a top ten worst game design decision
every civ plays the game because you're effectively locked to four cities