Despite playing 1000 hours of EU4 and many hours of Total Wars.
Should I try a Civ at this point? I have understood that in comparison to something like EU4, they are filthy casuals and so easy that even a toddler can master them.
If so, what should I start with? Civ 3 complete?
 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
SEXOOOOOOOOOOOOO
NAKADASHI
I don't think a eu4 player can go "back" to a turn based game.
t. Played 6 millions hours of civ 5 and can't go back now because of eu4
I actually HATE the genre now. I strongly recommend 5 tho, Dido is juts best waifu
Personally, I went back from EU4 to Diplomacy
But simulation is a completely different beast to basic turn-based.
Neat. I kinda envy you
fricked it up, with
>But simulation is a completely different beast to basic turn-based.
I meant
>"But simultaneous turn is a completely different beast to basic turn-based"
Diplomacy is a completely different genre, though, and very cool, also can only be played properly against other people. EU4/Paradox games in general and Civ both share the civilization builder/blobbing niche, and EU4 feels much closer to 'reality' than Civ does, though both are obviously still vidya.
>1000 hours of EU4
>6 millions hours of civ 5
Have you considered professional medical help?
>in comparison to something like EU4, they are filthy casuals and so easy that even a toddler can master them.
Lol no. Civilization is very much more board game than historical simulation and is more accessible to a general audience but it's not "so easy a toddler can master them". It arguably shouldn't even be compared to something like EU4 but not because EU4 of all things is like way more complex and smart or anything.
Higher difficulty Civ you will get fricking rekt if you don't know exactly what you're doing, but admittedly that's just because the AI is given ridiculous bonuses. People are still picking apart the meta and discovering new things to this day for the good entries.
3 might be fun for a few games to get your feet wet, 4 is generally the favorite for powergamers, some grognards still play 2.
>it's not "so easy a toddler can master them".
Civ forums are full of mothers posting pics of their 3-year-olds playing Civ
Do you really think they "mastered" it and weren't playing on the easiest difficulty? I played Age of Empires when I was sub-10 as well and had a fantastic time btfoing everything on easy as well, that doesn't somehow negate that it's still a strategy game that requires skill to play competitively, don't be dumb.
>Do you really think they "mastered" it and weren't playing on the easiest difficulty?
Maybe Civ V
homie even I played civ as a toddler, but most of that time was spent going bankrupt on chieftain difficulty
>some grognards still play 2.
I'm 33, so hardly qualified for a grog. Yet I still play 2 on regular basis, more than 3 and 4 combined.
And I fricking started with 3.
Shadow Empire
Shadow Empire
https://store.steampowered.com/sub/4323/Sid_Meiers_Civilization_IV_Complete/
This will be on sale next month.
https://store.steampowered.com/bundle/575/Sid_Meiers_Civilization_V_Complete/
It's on sale now.
https://store.steampowered.com/bundle/12218/Sid_Meiers_Civilization_VI__Platinum_Edition/
It's on a fake sale now, but the real sale for maybe 1/3 this price will be next month.
And if you're a pirate then you have no reason to not try all three ASAP.
how are coomer mods for this? I have understood moddablity isn't as flexible as PDX
>This will be on sale next month.
Or can get steam key for it now for $4.31 from G2A
Though I haven't used G2A before, apparently, there is a 50% chance key won't work.
Be prepared for an AI that makes even less sense than in EUIV and shittier diplomacy
The economy and larp game is way better in civ over Paradox though
be sure to go for civ4
I still don't understand how inflation works.
>Civ 3 complete?
Überbased. Don't listen to any civ5/civ6 toddlers
Sure.
The trick is to start with Civ 2 MGE and fan patch to it, and then progress chronologically.
>b-but what about Civ 1
A historical curio, and horrible starting point
>b-but Civ 2 is older than me
Doesn't matter. Game is the perfect starting point, especially for someone who never played Civ prior and has only vague idea of 4X games
>b-but squares
So you are new to this, or are just seeking attention?
Also, if Civ 2 is genuinely too antiquated for you, then yeah, Civ 3 with both expansions is a decent replacement. But you should genuinely give Civ 2 MGE (Multiplayer Gold Edition) with OBLIGATORY fan patch a try first.
Give me qrd on the path
What contains?
Are these ok?
https://www.myabandonware.com/game/civilization-ii-multiplayer-gold-edition-3hr
https://github.com/FoxAhead/Civ2-UI-Additions
where can i get the game and patch otherwise?
play Hegemony Gold
I dislike games where you can have tactical control over every unit, even if you can auto-solve
Hegemony is one of the most under appreciated (grand) strategy games out there. Once I picked up Hegemony 3, I could not go back to Total War.
This is the unfortunate part of the game but luckily it doesn’t matter if just you bring more troops and have them more supplied.
I say start with Civ IV. Lots of mods to try out, and it is a fun casual game to play when you need to rest from playing EU all the time and need to relax your brain with.
I have always wondered how is this combat?
Is just like in EU4 dice roll?
varies significantly from game to game
I tried FreeCiv, I don't get the appeal.
The appeal is mostly about the most cucked Ameritard mentality (which sadly doesn't even take to be Ameritard in the first place), the "I can only play games I've acquired legally and ones that work straight after a single click". Everyone else is just playing Civ 2
Eu4 is similar to me in simpleness now. Both games are just knowing about the mechanics. Take 5 though
You can't go wrong with 2, 3, or 4. Personally I like civ IV with the rise of man mod, vanilla is hard to go back to. 5 is a soulless copy of the first four with less flavor and better graphics. 6 is a trash fire that retroactively made 5 look good. One unit per tile in 5 and 6 are failures that they are sticking to. It was them trying to make the game more "tactical" and it is absolutely stupid for a strategy game.
good advice in thread OP, definitely give 5 a pass. the best part about it you already posted in your pic.
god i need to get a med gf so bad
I watched some let's play of Civ V, I don't get the appeal.
I just don't understand why is Theodora (wife of Justinian) a leader... You know if you wanted female leader for Byzantines, there was actually Theodora Macedon and Irene of Athens who were actual rulers.
At best Theodora ruled for a few months as regent when Justinian was sick, and gave her some advice, she wasn't a real ruler.
All Civ leaders must have some normie factor. Based civs (Byzantium) must have normie leaders from popular historiography who were mostly irrelevant (Theodora).
I don't think normies knew anything about Theodora before this game or Justinian to that matter.
Constantine the Great would have been the normie choice
burger here, we learned about justinian and theodora in the week we covered the byzantines in 7th grade history class. We may have even devoted more time to theodora than constantine iirc, maybe my teacher was just a byzaboo girlbosser
That's fun to hear.
In the Finnish education system, we didn't even cover Byzantine Empire, alone more detailed history. It's weird, it like jumps from fall of West Rome to the Crusades
>It's weird, it like jumps from fall of West Rome to the Crusades
that is because the between history is just made up, check phantom time for more info
t. Fomenko
Most normies don’t know what Byzantium even is unless they’re Greeks or Turks. Theodora got in because she’s hot.
some intern read procopius and was like
>lmao, what a seething homo-simp, i'm gonna put theo into the game, haha
>I don't understand why they elevate irrelevant historical figures to be leaders of countries
It's annoying when people bring politics into everything, but it's also annoying when people are completely culturally/politically oblivious. There's a strong push to put women into everything.
Just look at Boudicca. She won like one or two skirmishes and then was completely decimated due to poor decisions while outnumbering the enemy incredibly. And she is in every such game.
I get the need to appeal to women and coomers.
Thought there is an obvious way to appease everyone. Look how many tv-show are hosted by a male-female duo, similarly, civs could be led by similar pair.
Imagine:
>Spain led by Ferdinand and Isabell
>Byzantine Justinian and Theodora
>France Napoleon and Josephine
>Rome Caligula, and his sister, Agrippina the Younger
>Russia by Catherine and Potemkin
>USA Nixon and Shirley Chisholm
>Persia Xerxes and Artemisia
>Egypt by Cleopatra and Mark Anthony
Their interactions could even be animated, they could disagree, fight, or flirt with each other.
But they obviously won't ever do it, because they want their girl bosses.
Personally I prefer the girl boss thing than this middle of road not making choices strategy.
If anything game developers are too scared to make choices and take chances. I dislike the girl boss thing because it comes from a creatively bankrupt source, like christian rock. It's ideologically rather than creatively driven.
But having a concert and trying to do some diplomatic appeasing of "we invited both christian and non-christian rock" is such a wishy washy thing to do. Just have 2 events and let people choose that way.
Of course with the high cost of games compared to the cost of adding one extra skin/character, it becomes very appealing to just offer that choice, but that's also why every game does it and it becomes boring.
Sometimes I genuinely think what would happen if a team of bodybuilder nerds would make a game.
>Should I try a Civ at this point?
Definitely, although it's different from GSG as other people already mentioned. Shorter games, I'd say 5-15h depending on game / mod. It's more of a board game with well defined phases.
>If so, what should I start with?
Civ 3 and 4 I played the absolute shit out of when I was a kid, but I haven't played them in a long time so I'm not sure how well they hold up. Actually reading this thread and thinking about the games really makes me want to play them, not just for nostalgia but because they are some good fricking games. I remember playing almost all of the mods and scenarios that came with Civ 4 and Afterworld scaring the shit out of me.
For the newer games Civ 5 is much better than Civ 6. There's also a huge modpack for 5 (vox populi), it makes the games a lot longer by just adding a lot of stuff and it makes the AI much more competent.
I don't really see a point in playing 3 when 4 exists and I also don't see a point in playing 6 when 5 exists. So my recommendation would be:
5 > 4 > 6 > 3
Go for 5 if you like the idea of more tactical combat with hexes and one unit per tile similar to Age of Wonders, Endless Legend etc (if that means anything to you). Or 4 if you would rather have the combat be more hands-off and if the game's age does not bother you.
don't believe brainlets who tell you that you can't go wide in civ5
That's not Civ 5 in the screenshot though, obviously you can go wide in VP
civ5 doesn't begin and end with vanilla
You can also play Fields of Glory : Empires
The Kingdoms for medieval era should be released soon(TM)(may wary)
>Should I try a Civ at this point?
Yes, you should play an actual strategy game for once instead of a historical LarPG.
Why is it called Ottoman civilization? I thought they were supposed be civilizations not dynasties.
Why is it called the Byzantine civilization?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_calendar
reposting from my /vg/ post
i like civ 6, i think mechanicall speaking it's a height for the series (imo)
but there is this thing where compared to old civ games, it's more cheerful?
i miss how dark older civ games felt, like alpha centauri or even civ 5 felt more serious
this one feels way too bright and cheerful
thoughts?
Agreed. One of my main gripes with Civ 6 is tat overall cheery tone. Besides the silly art and graphics, warfare is ridiculously goofy, battle sounds are lackluster and there's little cultural variation in skins and uniforms. War is important in a 4x game ffs
Mechanically I think Civ6 is mostly good but the tech quotes are so awful that it keeps me from playing it over 4. Civ 4 tech quotes were powerful comments from infamous generals and theologians but by 6 they started quoting random twitter posts and Nancy Drew
Unless youre running windows 7 or earlier your probably going to need this to get the iconic advisors to work
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/problem-with-advisor-screen.465859/
Something I never understood, what prevents the player from just conquering all others by the mid-game.
Are the wars actually more expensive than in PDX games?
yes, and every time you conquer you increase your tech costs by a % and the city wont produce shit for a while and will have 0 loyalty
>every time you conquer you increase your tech costs by a %
just like in EU3
>the city wont produce shit for a while and will have 0 loyalty
just like every PDX game where conquered province won't produce anything for 10 years
It's mostly that wars are difficult. Unlike PDX games, all countries are the same strength level (roughly), so there won't just be a shitty OPM that you can steamroll the second nobody is protecting it.
And yes, wars are costly in the sense that you have to sacrifice economic advancement to increase your military strength. You have to beeline techs that give you stronger units instead of techs that give you better economy and you have to spam build units instead of building something that improves your economy.
With all that said, wars are a very good way to get stronger if you do have good science and production. If you can pull it off and take all of your neighbors land, you will be much stronger than before, even if you spent the last 30 turns neglecting your economy.
also conquered towns dont really give immediate benefit cause of riots and foreign culture, if they are far away from capital the costs of maintenance might be so high sometimes its not even worth to keep them
Generally killing your nearest neighbor as soon as the game starts is the most optimal strat even in 5 that goes so far out of its way to punish that sort of thing.
I realy do not understand why people prefer civ V over VI, i am a long time civ IV fanboy and when V came out i dropped it nearly immediatly because of disappointment at what a fricking abortion it was compared to IV. Civ VI actually added a lot more interesting mechanics to the game, and fixed at least one really moronic issue with V (worldwide happiness pool), improved the AI, and didnt punish me for playing wide.
Why do people prefer the worst game in the series over VI?
People tend to latch onto and overrate their first civ. It's why I think 2 is the best civ after VI, even though it's probably 3.
VI is the actual worst game in the series. You like it because it does away with some of V's more controversial mechanics, but the trade-off is that it's actual soulless slop. Preferring IV over V, or V over IV, is a matter of preference, but VI is actual shit and objectively worse than both.
>V's more controversial mechanics
like what?
Thats funny because "souless" is exactly how would describe V.
Elaborate what exactly V does better over VI
SEXOOOOOO
Do people prefer Dido V or Dido VI? I hate how smug VI is.
She's smugly.
mobile game aesthetics and terrible leader portraits aside i think civ6 map readability is a lot better than civ6.
*better than civ5.
bump