It's the best Civ game, frick your nostalgia. The traits system for Civ 4 leaders is bland, and doesn't change much about the game. Civ V has flavour and interesting playstyles. Venice, Maya, Polynesia, Iroquois, all play extremely differently and all are viable. Civ V also actually has more than 2 victory types that are actually fun to go for.
With a few mods, Civ V is even better. Stacking actually works with V's gameplay and allows for real strategy.
Cope and seethe, I don't care that you have fond memories of playing Civ 4 while your parents beat each other, it's shit.
>Nostalgia
Tell me what nostalgia do I have for Civ 4, given I've played it for the first time in '19. Go on, explain your shitposting, OP
Civ 5 is just a shitty hexcrawl skirmish game, with completely busted trade system and AI that can't wrap its head around one unit per tile
Civ 4 is everything you described, but with cumbersome unit stacks and movement, terrible victory conditions, bloat, shit music and atmosphere and a mobile game artstyle
>Civ 4
>hexcrawl
Yeah, you don't even know what's inside Civ 4, so guess my estimate was wrong - you didn't even bother to install, not to mention being filtered by AI
I just feel bad for zoomers, imagine all the games you grew up with being objectively worse versions of older, better games.
You say its better but you're not giving any real reason why. Personally, I enjoyed 2 and CTP2 more than 4. 4 just felt tired.
becoming smug about the things you enjoyed as a child is the final stage of becoming old and out of touch
I remember having fun in the late game, when ideological wars start popping up, great Cold War feeling
Civ V deity is equal to Prince difficulty in Civ IV. It’s barely above facebook game tier in terms of challenge
>Be zoomer
>Start with 5, because you're a zoomer
>Think you've got a big brain, because that's what marketing told you
>Try Civ 4
>Get beaten by AI
>Try Civ 3
>Get beaten by AI
>Don't even try Civ 2, for you can't install it, as it's not on Steam
>Meanwhile Civ 6 comes out
>Get beaten by AI
>Cry like a little b***h ever since, because you barely stand a chance over AI in Civ 5
>Overdose on copium
>Start attacking other games in the series, because you can't play them for shit
>Beat your chest over being big-brained, despite being a moron
How far off I am from your story, OP?
I started with Freeciv, then Call to Power 2, and then 3 and then 5 so close enough.
moron
civ 4 is way easier than 5 what are you talking about
>civ 4 is way easier than 5
Then why are you struggling so badly with it?
That's not me. It's not controversial to say that Civ 4 is easy, it is. You're acting like people play Civ for the difficulty lmao what a gay
Why do IVirgins love to pretend that the reason people dislike do stacks is because they’re difficult to deal with? It’s the complete opposite, they make the game way too easy
doomstacks*
People just look for anything to complain about. There are genuine reasons to prefer Civ 4.
But people complain about Hexes and 1upt just because it's different. They aren't bad mechanics at all.
At most you can say that 1upt made the AI bad at war.
That's more of an issue of the AI then 1upt though.
And the vast majority of Civ players aren't that good at it, so there is a real design incentive to make the combat more forgiving
>They aren't bad mechanics at all.
Hexes aren't bad. 1UPT on the other hand...
>Civ4
>make a well rounded army without one or two unit types and a shitload of catapults, like 70% of your army is just siege units
>kill the moronic AI that doesn't know to make enough catapults or horsemen to counter them
>still lose most of your army in the process
>warfare sucks but at least guaranteed costs tie well into rest of the game
>Civ5
>make an army that covers half a continent
>other half is covered by AI
>because units can't stack, you have to move every single unit individually
>because units get in each others way you have to move every single unit individually EVERY SINGLE TURN
>your units die very rarely because if they get wounded you can just cycle them
>because of 1UPT even if you are outnumbered the AI can't use all of it's forces to kill you
>it's too moronic to cycle it's units properly so slowly but surely you kill all of it's forces
>eventually win
>warfare takes 95% of game time, is just mindless grind, and because your units can survive if you know what you're doing, you can just make a large enough army in early game and keep it until end
And while 1UPT is the biggest sin, global happiness making having more than 5 cities unviable, and science not being tied to commerce (thus in city planning hammers are always the superior choice compared to money, and there's no strategy in always rushing science buildings) are huge flaws as well.
Hexes are also bad when you are designing a video game
>Has a literal computer to do all the required math
>Uses board-game simplification of movement
Imagine if diagonal move cost 1.41, or even 1.4, like in any sensible game. But nah, let's use hexes, because diagonal shortcut bad!
I swear, Jon Shafer is a genuine sub-90 IQ moron. Pretty much each and every of his brilliant ideas boils down to either not understanding the very rules of the game he was "fixing" or picking the dumbest possible option, completely ignoring the fact he's making a video game.
You don't even need to overcomplicate it like that, just make it 4/3, so it sticks to the pre-existing math of each "1" of movement being actually 3. Diagonal this way is still slightly cheaper than the L move, but not much, and you don't even need to invent new scripts in the long run. Win-win.
But since Panzer General had hexes, then Civ obviously needed hexes, too, for we all know Civ is actually a tactical battle strategy game with tokens representing separate battalions, and not globe-spanning strategy with simplified combat using abstract tokens due to world's size.
That's stupid. You want 50% of all movement to be fractional? What's the benefit gained from doing this except for having a circular movement pattern that actually makes it hard to tell how far away things are and when they'll arrive? There's nothing incongruent about measuring distances in tiles. It's a tile-based game, not a simulation of euclidean geometry. A tile based game that has distance measured in tiles is much more internally logical and has less weird effects than lmao 1.4 movement cost everywhere.
>>kill the moronic AI that doesn't know to make enough catapults or horsemen to counter them
I'm not sure this is really a good thing, and I don't mean this in defense of Civ5 or 1UPT. But the AI being unable to handle a core gameplay element like warfare seems like a scathing indictment of a game
Why are these threads filled with functional illiterates? Is your brain so fried from social media that you forgot beginning of this post before reaching the end? Was your teacher too busy teaching you about homosexualry to have you learn that you have to read entire text before answering? The greentext clearly paints both systems in negative light (keyword "warfare sucks" is applied to civ 4) but proves 1UPT with its doomcarpets is even worse than doomstacks. No one welcomes your shitty takes if the task of reading and understanding a Ganker post that has more than 5 sentences in it is beyond your capabilities.
Just download a stacks mod for Civ 5. Stop b***hing about 1UPT. It's like you're solely focusing on that because you don't have an argument for the rest of V being vastly superior to 4
>you're solely focusing on that because you don't have an argument for the rest
This's like to talking to an Alzheimer patient or a lobotomite. You should get yourself checked.
How about you start because I see nothing in here about how Vs economy or empire building or diplomacy or tech tree or whatever is superior to what came before. All I see is mentioning traits and victory conditions in the OP. And I wouldn’t rely on “just use mods bro” because if you’re going down that angle IVs modding blows V out of the water.
>you forgot beginning of this post
Terribly ironic
nuance and granularity are beyond the ken of your average zoomie
they could never make well reasoned arguments for and/or against both sides of a debate
this, the AI fricking hated the stacking system and that made it so easy to frick it over
im not him and im not struggling with it
game is actually really easy compared to 5 and any other civ (and is probably why morons like you like it so much)
For me it's the opposite, I play on Deity in Civ 5 but can not go past Emperor in Civ 4
Oh please. Talk to me when you've beaten civ4 vanilla on deity
i beat both 4 and 5 on deity
civ games are not hard by nature stop embarrassing yourself with your child brain
No one that has beaten both games on deity would possibly think civ 5 is more difficult.
But like he said, neither game is hard, so it doesn't matter.
you need to let it go bro
shafer can't hurt you anymore
you're safe to ics and doomstack as you please
civ5 can't stop you from having fun
but listen to me bro
you need to let go of the butthurt and seething
you don't need to prove anything to any one
just let it go and play games
god speed poor soul
The AI is harder in 5 than 6 though
Yeah I dont know where the idea of 4 being harder than 5 came from but its actually mindbogglingly moronic.
Difficulty with war in that game comes from having every Civ just throw a coalition against you at once. On its own the AI wont react the shit you do and will often just blow resources on 2-3 stacks, loose them, and then just fall back to build another stack to repeat a few turns later.
>Be boomer
>mad that the youth don't share the same fondness for your old games as you do
>post 15 lines of bitterness and cope on the internet
>be zoomer
>shit taste
>be boomer
>get increasingly angry and bitter as you age
>seethe endlessly about what people who are enjoying their youthful prime are doing with their lives because you can no longer experience that
>be zoomer
>play 5 first, 4 only recently
>recognize 4 as the better game
What now, homosexual?
boomers will never accept you even if you pretend the crusty old games they like are good
>>Be boomer
you're arguing with millennials, and genXers, kid
Being good at Civ isn't really a matter of intelligence, it's just knowing the optimal build/research order for each victory condition.
Civ VI is better because the focus is playing wide like in every other game except V where you run a small kingdom and not an empire. Global happiness is terrible too.
basically spam arty till domination victory got it
this so much
>basically spam arty till domination victory got it
that's Civ 3 mate
It objectively has the best music in the series
>1UPT
Yawn, this is why Civ4 will always be superior to me
You're probably right, but Civ 4 is still more engaging.
civ 6 for me combined the best parts of 4 and 5 so ive nothing to complain about anymore
inb4 people get mad at my opinion
As a massive casual, I like that 4 and 5 allow me to automate out the shit I don't want to frick with. 6 bombards you with a ton of shit that you have to handle. Builders that have to be replaced constantly, district tetris, etc. The expansions make it even more tedious. Civ 4 only gets tedious at high level play.
>With a few mods, Civ V is even better
If we count mods Civ IV blows V out of the fricking water. It’s time to go home, Redditor.
I keep wondering what people are smoking when they say Civ IV is harder to get into because of the complexity. 5 isn't too bad, but 6 beats you over the head with so many tedious options that it bogs the entire game down.
we play a lot of civ here
https://discord com/invite/beTwDNgv2P
you should frick off back there
How come there are never any threads on VI?
because it sucks
we are busy playing it instead of b***hing about it
It grew on me, Civ III and IV are still better though. Civ V is playable at least, Civ VI is just a fricking heaping pile of garbage still.
>vanilla
no
>VP
yes
>doomstacks
That's not what you think it is. Is civ V the only strategy game civVzoomers ever played? Civ 4 stacks are just that - stacks. Armies. A very basic concept that can be found in all strategy games with campaign map from Total War to Homm to Age of Wonders to Empire at War to those risk maps in Dark Crusade and Bfme2 to Paradox gsgs to many others and to Civilization before it went moronic. Mongol Invasion that spawns multiple, elite, fully upgraded and fully trained armies in Med2 is something that can be called doomstacks. Normal way to implement armies in a strategy game, which is what Civ IV does, is not something that can be called doomstack. Doomstacks can be called those legions of hell spawning in Fall from Heaven 2.
Doomstacks are just a copium, in tune of "oh shit, AI concentrated its forces in a single spot".
However, the term dates all the way back to Civ 2 and part of the reason why Civ 3 introduced AoE attacks (for entire tile, rather than top unit) other than nukes was to allevate the issue. Civ 4 mastered the mechanics, making stacks both easy to use (no pathfinding issues) and great for power-concentration, but also a double-edged sword, since they could be beaten.
From Civ 5 zoomer perspective, that however means something unthinkable for them - AI concentrating its forces and rolling over them, rather than having a front made out of 5 randomly selected units, each on separate tile, and rest of its armies tailing behind them, thus not allowing to just grind AI down. Therefore they b***h and moan about "muh evil doomstacks", because they are too fricking stupid to deal with AI giving its units on a platter in a single tile.
Same applies to zoomers completely falling behind in development after first 100-150 turns, because they are so wired for the Civ 5 logic of "5-7 cities is a huge empire" they copy that into other Civs they try and obviously are completely overwhelmed. When Suede started taking savess from people for his Civ 3 guides, he eventually started asking them about their prior Civ experience. And each and every single homosexual that had by 1 BC less than 9 cities (not to mention the sad sacks that had less than 9 by 1500) was a Civ 5 player. Because hey, why expand in a 4X game, right?
It's depressive how fricking dumb average Civ 5 zoomer is. You would think they should be able to adopt to other games, rather than just trying to play everything as if it was still Civ 5
>civ = easy ics
what a limited mind
>Things nobody said
Random insult line
>ZOOMERS FAKING moronic ZOOMERS ZOOM ZOOM ZOOMERS YOU WILL NEVER BE A WOMAN ZOOMER ZOOMER AAARGH ZOOMER!!!!!
you are definitely not seething because somebody dared to question your sacred cow
i wonder if you are even capable of saying half a sentence without this modern day bullshit lingo you halfwitted apes brought from your shitty subs
Cope harder
>Zoomie has a meltdown
Cute
>Games play differently
Who would've thought. Sorry, Civ 4 isn't this perfect masterpiece you like to imagine, it's very worn out and in some places, clunky and mediocre. 5 in general has a better gameplay loop with well fleshed out victories.
As someone who hates domination and science victories, Civ 5 is objectively better.
Only a finite amount of people can occupy an area at a time irl. This causes you to need to consider the broader battlefield, troop compositions, flanks, terrain etc. Total war limits how many brigades you can have in one army and how many armies you can have in a battle.
Doomstacks take away anything strategic and just make a part of the map something you can utterly obliterate anything nearby with since you can just stack as many units as you please in a tile. It's not realistic and doesn't make for good strategy.
In civ5 I have to keep melee units inbetween my range units and the enemy to protect them and have to worry about the flanks where the enemy can sneak around me and attack. If a city is largely surrounded my mountains or is on an island or other kinds of defensive terrain I have to be smart about attacking it with my troops and if I'm defending it becomes a force multiplyer as I can bottleneck my enemy. With doomstacks all these critical features don't exist unless they have some kind of a cap on what can and can't engage like combat with in PDX titles.
both infinite stacking and no stacking are moronic
how big is a tile? if a forest tile is supposed to represent an entire forest, it is certainly big enough to hold more than one unit
the ideal game would have stacking limits, like many tabletop wargames
some units stack better than others and some units don't stack well with others
I know an army medic who told me he saw a guy who was sleeping and got run over by a tank, so maybe stacking infantry and armor leads to some penalties
This. You can shit on PDX games for a lot but they at least try and simulate logistics buy limiting the amount of troops in one tile
You have to consider the troop composition and terrain in civ4 too, it is just that the troops are all on the same tile. You need make sure you build exactly the right amount and right composition of units, so the game focuses more on strategy rather than quickly learned tactics that the AI sucks at.
>Civ 4 stacks are just that - stacks. Armies.
literally this. stacks were always a brainlet filter and i lost my comfy army comp minigame.
>kill off pops for cavalry and artillery
>repeat 20 times
>put all units on one tile
>move stack onto tile with enemy stack
>kill enemy stack
>move onto city tiles
>take city
>don't even account for unit diversity or resources
>just stack and move
>old people convinced this is harder to understand than 1upt
People raging on civfanatics about warfare being "unfair" because they couldn't understand how probability works was pretty common back in the day. Also, 1upt is easier because you can go whole game without losing one unit. In 4 if you fight you will lose some units along the way and warfare is a drain on your hammers.
>move stack onto tile with enemy stack
>>kill enemy stack
you will get BTFO if you just soak cavalry and artillery
lmao look at this cope
>It's the best Civ game
Not much competition.
Mechanically I'd probably prefer Civ6 but I’m still not sold on the comic look
there is a mod that fixes the look of civ 6 iirc
Vox Populi got a new fat update
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/new-version-2-6-august-16-2022.678491/
>- Scout: +1 CS (now 10)
Holy shit shit shit (wasnt it 10 already?)
Any mods to make wide civs possible? I really don't like how the AI can plant 17 cities with no problems while every citizen in my civ loses his mind just because we made a new 1 pop city kek
Vox Populi is essential to enjoy Civ V; it fixes this and other design issues and makes the AI far more competent in general.
Frick no. VP has become so bloated and shitty compared to how it was a year or two back. It's got so bad it's not worth using anymore.
Civ 4 isn't this boomer gem, it's pretty zoomie itself.
>It's got so bad
Just use an older version lmao. Also, elaborate what did they frick up? I was under the impression that the mod was finished and they're just making little tweaks and fixes by now.
>Just use an older version
Could do, but I'm using my own workshop collection which makes the game better than VP imo, such as a stacks mod, a mod which adds a Scramble for Africa esque midgame with imperialism as a policy tree and a mod which adds the Enlightenment era.
I just thought the tech tree was far too bloated, the added buildings were unnecessary and the AI wasn't challenging but instead just overly aggressive and cheap with surprise wars and constant forward settling rather than developing their own cities. VP felt very homogeneous in the way it gets you to build your cities.
If I could get the UA changes as a separate mod, I'd be thrilled. I'll have to look into that.
Could you please tell which mods are you using fren?
>I-it's not boomer
... yes, and...?
You do have an actual point... right?
I fail to see why you're spazzing out about zoomers. V and 6 aren't zoomer games, and 4 isn't some massive filter. You just sound like a gatekeeping gayged, which is odd because 4 is so fricking easy to play, so why?
>Frick no. VP has become so bloated and shitty compared to how it was a year or two back. It's got so bad it's not worth using anymore.
You don't even have to use any of the added features, you can just choose to install the shit that balances the game and fixes its issues. Not installing that at minimum is fricking moronic.
I'm talking about the gameplay, not the UI. The tech tree is just nasty
Yes, and you don't have to install the stuff that adds to the tech tree if you don't want to.
>MUH VOX POPULI
why does 5 only have one good mod?
Because larger mods require autism and nearly all Civ-playing autists refuse to play V or VI, but loved IV.
It doesn't need more
Embarrassing cope.
>games need 9001 ultra realism hardcore mods where everything takes a week of planing to complete
>muh fantashit
Cringe moron
What mods does Civ V need?
>tfw fencka doesn't play civ 5 anymore
i gotta learn battle brothers i guess. it just looks so generic and boring, i'm having trouble clicking with it
i've only played civ 5 but it's definitely the best
>fisher price civ 6 is the best civ game
>Incan foreign legion fights a heroic last stand in the ruins of Madrid against Danish battleships
I love this game.
>Venice, Maya, Polynesia, Iroquois, all play extremely differently and all are viable
But they're the exceptions. Most civ uniques just aren't that impactful. Wow +1 sight and tiles are cheaper holy shit this is revolutionary. Wow I get culture from water resources and I have 5 of them, 5+ culture per turn holy shit I have to rethink the entire game now, OMG +3 gold and 1 culture per trade route to different groups, this is really fricking cool when internal trade routes are superior for most of the game and it doesn't scale! 25% production for buildings I already built in the capital, wow that's like an inconsequential amount of hammers saved and totally different than Organized in Civ 4 saving hammers by reducing some building costs IT'S LIKE I'M LEARNING THE GAME FROM SCRATCH
Every time I see one of these threads I'm more and more convinced that V fans just don't enjoy Civ games or even understand them, really. Which is fine, but you don't have to be so upset over it.
Civ 4 sucked. You cant top 3.
Civ 3 sucked. You cant top 2.
>open thread
>feel like playing V again since it's been a while
>it keeps crashing before I can make it to the title
Welp
I dont know why i struggle so much with Civ games before 5. I have no problem playing older games, even from the 80's. But i got absolutely no fun out of playing Civ 3 or 4. Knowing that older games are 95% of the time better, i assume the fault lies with me though.
Idgaf about zoomers and boomers in this site, I'm going to play V create my own religion about anime pornography and make everybody pay me for that
How the frick do I make money in this game. I'm playing on normal and I'm barely able to make money in the classical era. I can barely afford to keep 3 cities, 2 archers, and 2 workers. I even have my caravans on money missions
4 is objectively better. It inspires the highest elements of the human spirit, mods that have stood the test of time.
The entire Fall From Heaven ecosystem
Caveman2Cosmos
Realism Invictus
Rhyes and Fall
History Rewritten
5 is normie garbage. Its top mods are trash. It cannot inspire true love or the weapons-grade autism that 4 can.
ONE 'total conversion' at the top of steam subscribed. And the Game of Thrones mod isn't even good, it's just a few new civs and some units. The rest is just embarassing fixes for a fatally flawed game.
Very good post, my friend. I shall even allow the reddit spacing.
4 will be played forever. 5 and 6 are infantilisation.
>mods
WOAW I LOVE BLOAT! AND FANTASY DRAGONS!
Frick off, you can paint shit gold but it's still shit
This. Civ 4 is better for autists and Civ 5 is better for the rest of us.
>better for autists
This is an Autistic man’s board. Normalgays can go back to Ganker and Plebbit.
>want to attach city state (Geneva)
>they're protected by Sweden and Siam
>they're also my ally
>my spies say that Sweden and Siam have been gearing for war with each other for over 15 turns
It's all so tiresome. I don't want to have to fight both of them just for one city state
can I get a recommendation for a WW2 scenario that includes the whole world and incorporates all the WW2 leader mods?
I want to use non-conquest wars to win, and I don't want to play as the Aztecs. Who should I play as, and how can I turn these wars into practical victories for myself?
6 is better.