Realistically, what are our expectations of Civilization 7?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Realistically, what are our expectations of Civilization 7?
Realistically, what are our expectations of Civilization 7?
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Worst game in the series.
They will copy Civ 5 to appease the piss babies but couple it with a dogshit art style.
>dogshit art style
Honestly, Civ was always ugly. 6 could've been nice looking, but they went with that goofy ass art direction
Civ 5 was peak artstyle tbh
The art deco ui was cool, but the map terrain was pretty ugly
It was literally the best
To the point many next TBS started to ape it
it was blurry unreadable mess, i honestly think civ6 map is better (leaders and other art is garbage tho)
you got that exactly reversed
I never liked the character models either, but the scenes they were in were cool.
It had the best minimap, the borders looked more natural than a bunch of squares or hexagons like the other games
The art deco aesthetic and the backgrounds are the only redeeming factors of V's art style.
you're nuts. civ 5 was aesthetic as frick.
Isn't that what 6 was?
I'd love to have V one-unit-per-tile and the later BNW trees, but on a 4th square/octagon map, and with more of it's mechanics (and with less of VI mechanics). Also would be fun if they gave you the voiced and animated goofy-ass advisors that were in I can't remember which one. I know there are still culture/military/science advisors in later titles, but they feel like a book tab, something like an extended tutorial instead of a whole part of the game that gives it unique feeling (and which could be dlc marketed and expanded like new civs are, without the need to code a new civ, which I know is a sad reality of modern times)
I don't mind Global warming mechanics, I do mind making it a VERY BIG FOCUS that every Civ in the game needs to be aware of and do somehing about NOW or else.
I mean honestly, I give less of a frick about global warming in game, that world leaderrs do irl, and I'd like the game to reflect that, as just something that is slowly happening in the background, that could probably be stopped if the players worked together, but realistically for most games none of the players will give enough of a frick to.
>non-cheating AI
pipe dream, imo, but if possible I'd like that too.
I do however want to see Lincoln wearing a cylinder hat in tribal era.
>Humankind
>Humankind
I heard it's not very good.
Indeed.
But it tries to hit your "dgaf" about historical figures, while still trying to emulate historical developments and civilizations.
I like how meta-game in terms of army building was large stacks of units since CivNet but then they listened to the fans and removed it in Civ V only to reintroduce limited unit stacking in VI.
V with BNW is still kino. If I'm not mistaken, the rules of the game are in XML or YAML files for V and the game is relatively simple enough, all things considered. Alpha Centauri and the other off-brand Civilization games were neat. There was one where they made a scenario based on X-COM (Microprose, not that new slop), it had custom units, sprites, and land tiles to match the setting IIRC.
They should just remaster V but improve the AI and use GPU acceleration for it. I wouldn't mind waiting an extra half minute a turn if the AI civs weren't so predictable one can build a state-machine based computer in game.
troonyslop art, sub Saharan Egyptian units, DEI and affirmative action on the tech tree. "Equity's" gotta get mentioned once.
I don't think the art can get any worse than civ 6
It absolutely can. 6 is cheery and inoffensive. It can get purposefully uglier.
Hopefully it won't get too bad, considering designs like picrel got enough pushback to force them to change it.
Would be great if military and city production were seperated like in paradox games.
Galactic Civilizations series does this, if you're looking for a 4x with that option.
That's a bad thing to add to the Civ series, having military and city buildings use the same production line creates trade-offs between internal development and military conquest. Every time you build a building or a unit, you have to consider the opportunity cost of what you could have been building instead. This in turn requires the player to actually strategize about what they're building and focus on their victory condition. Having military and building production separate would also make empires with a lot of production even more powerful since it means they could have both the largest military and most internal development, while without that, an empire with low production could still catch up in one of the two areas by just focusing on one of the two.
Brazil will be a first Latin America pick again, despite being very generic compared to Inca or Aztec.
Russia will not be base game for the first time
Akan/Ghana/Ashanti or another African civ will be picked for the first time
Another completely meme female pick for a classic civ. Thinking Japan this time and maybe Germany.
The multiplayer netcode will probably be as shit as it is in every other game
there's no reason why a turn-based game should have so much lag and so many resyncs
>Angela Merkel will be the leader for Germany
>Russia will not be base game
They might do Olga of Kyiv for Ukraine to fill the East Slavic quota and Northern Asia TEM space
>the 'Kraine
Ew. Poland is a better choice. But Civ without Russia is ridiculous
Agree, they should change it to Kyivan Rus.
Civ never does that, VI had Indonesia as Indonesia instead of Majapahit. Double points that the Rus in Kyivan Rus evokes Russia too much. They will 100% just call the Civ Ukraine
that would be absolutely ridiculous
theres more sense in taking texas and calling it its own nation in civ
>that would be absolutely ridiculous
I agree, but that's not going to make it any less likely
They could make Muscovy with Ivan, Novogrod with I dunno the frick who, I never cared ablout this place, but it was very prosperous once, and then just do Kiev(Or Zaporozhia, or broudly Ruthenian) as a civ.
It's ridiculous, but just as ridiculous as dividing Byzantine from both Greek and Roman, or Holy Roman Empire from German(Or, like some people wanted, Prussian civ) unles you're specifically pertaining to times when they were ruled by the Czechs.
I myself, am slightly pissed that there is "Ottoman" instead of Turkish or Turkic one. Ottomans, were one family/Clan of dudes, that's like calling France the Karling or the Capet civilization, just to exclude any possibility of peopl asking for Napoleon (Guess who is it analogy to)
In other news, Poland would get it's third in-game leader.
Or we'll get Casimir again (by the way, half of the land you'll see Casimir attaining on the maps was already in Polish hands at the time, just not in fealty to the Kingdom, but in hands of independent Princes and Dukes. More than anything he was incredibly lucky that he was the last son, as both of his older brothers died before his father, so he inherited the whole part of Poland that came out as the strongest during the previous dance, meaning he could mostly finish the job, and funnily enough, only have two daughters to avoid yet another dance after his death.Truly the greatest uniting force of Poland was daughters,so if there is one place that CK2 inheritance mechanics were entirely accurate, it was there)
Ottoman and Inca are probably the civs that should be renamed the most. Ottoman more because people would still understand Turkey, while Inca is the only thing normies know despite just meaning emperor/king.
Are you an idiot? Inca are one of the big three native civs, only morons don't know about them. Turkey has existed a little over 100 years, Ottomans existed for over 500. If you want to make a modern turkish civ go ahead, but renaming ottomans because zoomers are illiterate is a terrible idea.
I think he meant the word Inca.
Imagine how odd it would be to call the Germans the Kaiser civilization.
There's an entire new-world civilization named after an Italian dude. History works in funny ways. No need to rename things just because they might not be accurate to what the people called themselves. We don't call Germany "Deutschland" or Greece "Hellas" after all.
Imo the best way to represent this would be like Rise of Nations did, call civs by the people rather than the state: French, Nubians, Mongols, etc. Not 'France' or 'Mongolia' or whatever. Or maybe have the civ change its name according to era and/or social policies chosen.
>Another completely meme female pick for a classic civ. Thinking Japan this time
Funnily enough, Japan has actually had competent female empresses before. Suiko-tenno was the empress during one of the most pivotal times in Japanese history, and is notable for her relation with a Japanese historical hero Prince Shōtoku (who has been on several Japanese yen notes from 100 to 5,000 to 10,000)
Japan is like England in that they have a plethora of actually competent and pivotal female leaders. I'd still prefer Minamoto no Yoritomo (the first Shogun leader of Japan), Oda Nobunaga, or Tokugawa Ieyasu, but there are some good female picks. Just like I'd prefer Alfred the Great or Henry VIII or Oliver Cromwell, but I'm fine with Lizzie, Mary II, Vicky, or Anne.
pretty much the same as civ6
>release base game
>it half ready, full of bugs, clunky mechanics, easy exploits and no quality of life feature
>wait for 2 years of deveopment, maybe fix the worst bugs that make the game unplayable and address some of the game breaking exploits
>release 2-4 expansion in the following additional 4 years for more money full of features that should have been in the base game.
>these make the game decent and playable and things start to make sense
>collect all the quality of life improvement mods the community made and release them in a patch. Then pretend that you did something useful.
>release more PAID expansions until the game finally gets to a point where it is "good enough"
not buying poz shovelware
>incomplete game, 6 million patches just to make it barely working
>even more cartoonish graphics
>mobile version
>literally a cookie clicker, gameplay is overrated
You just KNOW it's gonna be like this
I expect it to be mid until it has 2 DLCs. Like the last 3 civs.
You really deserve everything that comes to you if you buy this peace of shit of a game
barely touched 6, but I hope for two things:
more "serious" graphics
era-appropriate clothing for leaders like in III
everything else is probably going to be shit so hoping for better gameplay is pointless
You can't actually have more serious and era appropriate at the same time. Can you? Medieval Lincoln and Babylonians becoming Arabs then businessmen was inherently silly.
eh, I could handle that but cartoon graphics were too much
or they could just do away with leaders and have national archetypes instead
whatever it is it will be a complete husk of a game until multiple expansions like usual
I've still never been able to get into 6 because of how moronic it is visually and they will probably double down on that
even worse AI
I won't buy it until they release a couple dlcs and there's a good sale.
i'm bored of this franchise. It just feels outdated now. It's not really educational at all and is almost entirely about build orders and luck. It's like playing monopoly by yourself, and nobody wants to play multiplayer because the winner of the game in decided so early on, and what just lose for like days of gameplay?
This, if they want Civ 7 to be competitive in the strategy game market they'll have to overhaul the formula, but they probably won't bother with that and instead just add more empowering blacc kweenz as leaders and simplify the gameplay. It's really unfortunate because there is the potential for a lot of depth in these games but due to poor game balance and pointless simplification, such depth only comes out in heavily modded games or on the unfair higher difficulties where you're forced to use every trick in the book to win.
I expect it to continue the downward spiral for the series that started with 4. I don't know how they can make it worse than 5, but shit, uh, finds a way
>expectations
Its gonna be continuation of the neo liberal propaganda that is 6. Noble savages, climate change bullshit where the sea sweeps over coastal regions the moment someone builds a factory, magical green tech, they gonna add identity politics somehow and so on. Overall production value gonna be low despite bigger budget.
Civ being woke is no surprise.
https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Women%27s_Suffrage_(Civ2)
https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Darwin%27s_Voyage_(Civ2)
Earlier than that.
https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Women%27s_Suffrage_(Civ1)
https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Darwin%27s_Voyage_(Civ1)
>ESL morons performatively pretending to not believe in evolution
I know IQ levels are low in Bulgaria or Brazil or wherever you people come from, but none of you actually believe that shit lmao
Was Alpha Centauri the earliest one to implement global warming, btw? I wanna get better at recognizing newcomer morons that don't belong.
Civ II had a mechanic where the world would desertify and water levels rise if you dropped too many nukes and didn't clean up the fallout, I think very very productive cities could rarely spawn a pollution tile debuff too, but I may be misremembering. Either way it wasn't global warming, just don't use too many nukes.
>Nuclear plants pose the unique danger of a core meltdown, resulting in a destructive blast equivalent to a Nuclear Msl
Oof.
>released 1996
I swear, The Simpsons completely sabotaged American public's understanding of nuclear power.
I hate this shit so much, it really warps how people think about the world
>nuclear power is uniquely dangerous and has its own mechanics dedicated to it
>no mechanics for oil spills or tailings dam failure
>nuclear weapons cause unique environmental damage
>regular war doesn't make land unusable for years (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_rouge)
I think some of the games have nuclear winter as a mechanic too, which is just scientifically unsound
SimCity not actually having parking lots commensurate to the amount of car traffic you have is another one that really bothers me, you're just misleading people. Sure, it's only a game, but it's meant to be based in reality and it's not something people obviously realize is unrealistic
>unusable for years
i tried to find these areas on the google map but couldnt
europe doesnt have unused land, especially france
It's been a hundred years of work to reclaim the area, you're not going to see that much from satellites. Places that don't grow won't look much different from places that are deliberately kept bare
There's still tons of UXO left though and a lot of areas where you can't use the groundwater to drink. They still get rid of 900 tons of WW1 junk every year. More immediately after the war it was just completely devastating to agriculture and forestry, it's part of the reason truffles are so expensive
so what do you want?
10 turns to restore a tile? it being rendered unusable for the rest of the game the moment someone attacks it with shell weaponry?
you already have destruction and restoration and nuclear should take priority because its the most dangerous and environmentally destructive weapon to date
turns to restore a tile would work fine, but what I really want is for people to stop believing
>nuclear should take priority because its the most dangerous and environmentally destructive weapon to date
This just isn't true, well, the environmentally destructive part. We've used nuclear weapons pretty extensively and never had the kind of "cleanup" that civ depicts. Radioactive material is nice in that the problem literally goes away by itself, pretty quickly for most nuclear weapons. Yes, there's background radiation in steel now but in general the effects have been pretty mild. Even in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the negative effects were contained to immediately after the event. They lifespans of survivors weren't affected that much (survivors in general only died 2-3 months earlier than others according to recent studies) and the cities are perfectly fine now. Bikini Atoll is basically a marine sanctuary.
Contrast that with Laos and Vietnam where the remnants of Agent Orange are actually something that needs to be actively cleaned up and is still causing birth defects and the growth of forest is still affected.
Anyway yeah just do some pollution stuff for battlefields in the modern era, and stop focusing on nuclear weapons and nuclear power as something uniquely bad for the environment. Also have oil spills and coal mine tippings as randomly occurring disasters.
>We've used nuclear weapons pretty extensively
We have literally used them twice, ever, and any prior or subsequent detonations were made under the most controlled situations possible given the circumstances. Saying that we are entirely sure of the possible ramifications is being pretty generous.
>We have literally used them twice, ever
try 2000 times
the radiation doesn't behave differently just because there's a city beneath
>most controlled situations possible
yes, they're "controlled" in that you're keeping people away and getting lots of measurements but we're still talking about just blowing things in the desert/sea/underground.
>Saying that we are entirely sure of the possible ramifications is being pretty generous.
If we're not sure about the ramifications why have them in the game as a super special pollutant that needs manual cleanup? (And, I think I've said this several times already, we're pretty sure about the ramifications, they've been studied extensively for the past 80 years)
The trinity test site is regularly open to the public. The radiation is not a significant threat.
>Because the Trinity Test was relatively close to the ground, it shot large amounts of radiation up into the atmosphere. Radioactive fallout descended to the northeast over an area about 250 miles long and 200 miles wide. Scientists tracked part of the fallout pattern as far as the Atlantic Ocean. The greatest concentration of fallout settled on the Chupadera Mesa, 30 miles from the test site.
>Scientists also purchased some of the cattle that sustained severe burns to study the effects of radiation. They did not collect any data about civilian exposure, concerned that this might alarm the public. The novelty of the Trinity Test meant that civilians did not understand the severity of radiation exposure, even after the government disclosed that the blinding explosion on the morning of July 16 had been an atomic bomb.
>In the years after the Trinity Test, people living in nearby Lincoln, Socorro, Otero, and Sierra counties began to report health issues. Diseases such as heart disease, leukemia, and other cancers appeared in families who had no prior history. People who reported these incidents became known as “Downwinders” because they lived near or downwind from the test site.
obviously nuclear radiation isn't harmless, especially for earlier bombs. But it goes away on its own relatively quickly in civ terms, and the amount of people affected here is pretty small, as are the ways they're affected. "Elevated levels of cancer" is just not that big and shouldn't be represented in the game if dozens of other far more serious ones aren't first. It's just fearmongering.
it was in civ 1
how is darwins voyage woke? hitler had no problem with it, it made him realize all races are not equal
>The whole core of the fedore tipper reddit atheist ideology
>Not woke
Are you insane?
>when you deny natural selection to own the woketards
Is this reverse-Lysenkoism? You know the Soviets were actually responding to a Europe obsessed with eugenics and doing abhorrent shit. What the frick are you doing?
t.
>see a post that is 90% buzzwords
>reply anyway
Come on man.
The mainstream has become pro-science, so reactionaries must become anti-science.
The mainstream denies science, anon. They do not value truth, they value ideology, and any statistics that disprove their ideology are suppressed. There is no substance behind the complains of "systematic oppression" that can be scientifically verified. Instead, the regime is propped up by ideologues masquerading as scientists building their theories off of long disproven research like that of John Money's.
Oh mein Hyde, is this a freakin' based schizo post? SJW Cultural Marxists and Soros will be seething!
I'm a racist because I acknowledge the science of statistics
>Women's Suffrage
>Creates a police station in every city because women voting makes everyone less safe
Dare I say... based?
Why don't they just adopt the Paradox model and keep reworking and adding to a single game? Should be cheaper and less effort than releasing a whole new game.
>Russia out
>Ukraine with heroic zelensky leader in
>libertarianism is the future version of fascism
Expectations, not your wishes
wouldnt surprise me if russia was replaced by kievan rus, with a leader that looks nordic to piss russians off further
russians are the whitest people in Europe. Cope seethe and dilate.
did you not see any war footage? they all look like mongol rape babies
that's because based russia is sending their minorities to die while their white population stays intact.
white Russians (the few who don't have AIDS) are being sold to Israel to debrownify them
look at the IDF heckin hottie soldier psyop videos, those women used to be big schnoz slightly brown women like h3 guys wife, nowadays they look like they're from an amateur facefrick compilation, because they're the exact same people
I'm not even being heckin edgy, this is literally what's happening
>looks nordic to piss russians off
how would it piss them off
they don't like being reminded that they're the spawn of sw*des
first time hearing about it
to my knowledge nobody was ever ashamed of being related to the vikings (besides its only the origin of the ruling dynasty, not the people)
arent swedes themselves have a french usurper king
Yes. And their queen is Brazilian
lol, putin literally gave his 30 minutes autistic history lesson reminding everyone of it, they are more proud of it than the mongol heritage
theres no heritage, its western cuck fantasies just like orientalism, the reason kazakhs and such have mongoloid features is migration
Get fricked zigger, should stayed in your own cointanment zone
gay Black person and transgender civ leaders.
Shit until after two expansions it becomes bloated shit like 5 & 6
>Literal who female leaders in at least 50% of civs
>Irrelevant brown civs instead of European (especially colonial) powers. Want to focus on trade? Have fun with the Onga Bonga Tribe that dominated the seashell trade in East Africa for 20 years, instead of the Netherlands/Portugal.
>George Floyd will be a Great Person, probably a new category of "Great Reformers"
>Units, no matter what civ, will be composed of ethnically diverse men and woman
>Like other Anons said, no Russia, replaced by Ukraine
>Gay butt sex will be a "technology"
>Everything trivialized and dumbed down
>Shitty cartoon art style and mobile UI
>Literal who female leaders in at least 50% of civs
>Everything trivialized and dumbed down
>Shitty cartoon art style and mobile UI
these are the only likely things, the rest is just you being a whiny little b***h pretending to be oppressed
Civilization VII will be pro-Ukraine and anti-Trump, but as game mechanics.
>you can destabilize your enemies first by bribing and blackmailing its leaders, and then later by colluding to secretly fund and astroturf their political campaigns, with vaguely anti-Trump flavor text
>you can bankrupt your enemies by engaging in proxy warfare, supporting your enemies' enemies by donating funds and research and intel until your enemy gets locked in eternal stalemate, with vaguely pro-Ukraine flavor text
U guys are being obnoxius for no reason, civ is not paradox, they always avoided current issues in their games, at best they will include a cossack leader but that's it
I dunno, rebuying games at full price for things that Paradox would make a rework patch or DLC is kind of annoying to me. Besides the improved graphics, was there anything all that different after 5? I stopped buying after it.
NEW TERRAIN: PERMAFROST
1% chance to pillage any tile improvement built on it every turn
Faster movement the closer you are to the poles so the world feels less like a cilinder and more like a globe. No movement cost at all on top and bottom hexagons
More meme irrelevant civs like Australia and Canada
What I want from Civ7:
- non-cheating AI;
- realistic style characters instead of Civ4-6 cheap stylization;
- leader presentation matching current period, I don't want to see Lincoln in a cylinder hat during tribal era.
Alright. Then in what should an ancient era Lincoln be?
What should a future Gilgamesh wear? The clothing of their colonizers the Arabs? Does Caesar become Italian/Lombard? Montezuma should start to dress like a Spaniard? Does Constantine wear a fez and becomes Turkish?
I don't care about historical figures and I would be more than fine with just some dude representing a civilization.
Without characterization is not civilization, just a generic tbs
Honestly, what Civ needs is violence and blood. No more of this silly quirky vibe of peaceful writers and scientists and stuff
>inb4 ow the edge
I know I know
t.
Kek
He was the best advisor that I never listened to.
theres a mod that matches spawn dates of civs with their historical arrival and gives them compensation bonuses and units
>Then in what should an ancient era Lincoln be?
Celtic and Germanic tribal wear
>What should a future Gilgamesh wear? The clothing of their colonizers the Arabs?
Yes, maybe throw in some Babylonian patterns
>Does Caesar become Italian/Lombard?
Yes
>Montezuma should start to dress like a Spaniard?
Either this or just go full Aztec fantasy
>Does Constantine wear a fez and becomes Turkish?
No, he will dress like the Greeks did in whatever period he's in
So he will wear a Fez and become Turkish, like majority of Greek population, then?
Civs should wear clothing closely resembling the civ who have culturally (or through tourism or religion) influenced them the most
They could pick one from the freecivs and allow a civ editor in game
0.
Fricking Zero. Let Civ rest.
I expect it to be shit
Barbarians is a problematic concept im surprised they didnt get rid of them in civ6
Their adherence to ideology is exceeded by their incompetence in game design, they're not going to take out something that works because they have nothing to replace it with
barbarians are not problematic according to the current woke order as long as you exclusively present them exclusively as white germanics who would later become future colonizers and nazis
To be honest i wish they implants the barbarian clans mechanic as part of default rules
Having barbarian change name to anarchists or terrorists after certain age would already be pretty good. Also change random knowledge village to be an abandoned lab or something
Maybe if they could start spawning in already owned but unimproved territory. Like if you have a hex of tiles in your empire without any improvements, a group of terrorist/partisans/anarchists could spawn in it.
SMAC2 & BE2 as custom mods bundled into the base game, frick DLC
You guys have expectations?
There's a trailer shooting in London and Croatia soon (around April). It's gonna star Gwendolyn Christie climbing some victorian stairs and looking into a tree made of tubes into different ages of human civilization. She then reaches the top and looks into a tube with a satellite inside it. The narration says "reimagine possibilites". Working title, at least for this commercial, is Inverness.
They should tease "multiple units per tile" by having her step on me.
all english and french leaders are femoids in 6, i guess the only way forward is to make them all brown now.
Not an art style that belongs on an iPad game.e
They're not going to cut Russia, I know you guys like to imagine scenarios for yourselves to get mad at, but the idea of a civilization game without Russia is ridiculous.
I hope they do, I like watching ziggoids getting assblasted. They should replace it with Kiyvan Rus or something for a complete meltdown effect.
delusional, kievan rus are russians you fricking moron.
Nah. They descended from that but they aren't it. Just like Spaniards aren't swedes because of Visigothic ancestors
but anon they held that territory from the beginning up until 1991
As a Soviet Republic.
soviets were the ones who decided to separate them in to their own nation, kinda counter productive, almost as if lenin was a foreign agent or something
It's not because Lenin was foreign, but because he was a Communist. One of the main tenets of leftist ideology is the "universal man", IE that humans are inherently fungible and just have to be reeducated out of being different. It goes as far back as Rousseau and even Plato philosophically, and every single Communist nation decides to frick with national and ethnic borders in some way to prevent dissent along racial/ethnic lines.
doesnt look very universal to me, looks more like a plant for the future separatism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korenizatsiia
It's not. It's just an example of progressive intersectionality and a roadmap for how communists intended to govern the world post-global revolution. Your conspiracy theory rests on the idea that the USSR was some sort of prank upon the Russian state, when in reality it was communists trying to manage a post-imperialist empire WITHOUT it splintering to pieces.
Wrong. After the Mongols, territory of core Kievan Rus (modern day centrsl Ukraine) wasn't conquered by Russia until 18th century. Kiev itself was gained as late as 1772. Learn your history, moron.
so true ukraine land belongs to mongols ackchyually
puccya is the complete opposite of civilization, if anything they are already in the game in the form of barbarians anyway
> troon obsessed with pussia
Must be time to dilate again
Why do russians always think about troons?
Civ 7 things that I need or else I kill myself:
Relationships with Ai can be improved if heling clear barb camps or destroying enemy units they are in battle with.
Being protectorates of civs with much smaller armies and economies than you
Calling Ai out on their bullshit for the hypocrites they are.
I hate the eureka mechanic where i have to chase certain tasks to lower my research time. annoying shit
More horrid mobile UI, more ruined leaders and more microtransactions.
Finally adds Hitler, its a disgrace to not have the guy despite how you might feel about him.
Add Deng and Nero
Only have the crazy nutjobs as civ leaders, it would explain the schizo AI.
Eh, germany has had more relevant leaders than dude that ruled for 12 years and got half of the country genocied. As funny as he would be as a pick they never put losers or madmen as leaders. Same reason we’ll never get caligula.
Surprised we never got a confederacy leader
Ideally:
- AI
>Each AI difficulty is trained by modern generative AI so they're much more complex and less easily exploited on higher difficulties
>Due to the buffed AI, the AI no longer receives horrendous bonuses on higher difficulty levels so it's really just about outwitting the AI
- Leaders
>Leader scenes are done in a more realistic style than Civ VI
>Leaders also interact with their environments a la Civ V
>More voice lines per leader
>Multiple leaders per scene for "power couple" leaders like Ferdinand & Isabella, FDR & Eleanor, or Justinian & Theodora
>Leaders chosen for being interesting rather than race/gender balance
- Balance
>Districts gone
>Loyalty gone
>Civ VI builders stay, but workers from previous titles are also available so you can choose between immediate improvement construction or permanent units that take longer to build
>Wonders continue to take up individual tiles, but you get the yields from the tile underneath
>Government system is overhauled entirely. No more 3 governments per era or policy cards
>Civs retain Civilization abilities, leader abilities, and 2 unique units/improvements/buildings
>Civ III civilization traits return as well
- Misc
>Artstyle strikes a compromise between Civ V's realism and Civ VI's stylization
>Era-based music a la Civ VI with certain civilizations with many notable songs from their history having a new song per era (eg, for America it'd be Ancient | Swanee River -> Medieval | Hard Times Come Again no More -> Industrial | Oh Susanna -> Atomic | Battle Hymn of the Republic)
>Each AI difficulty is trained by modern generative AI so they're much more complex and less easily exploited on higher difficulties
being trained by AI would require ai acceleration hardware to run properly and efficiently and the only chip on the market that can utilize that for cpu logic is the appleslop shit in their laptops
>Leaders chosen for being interesting rather than race/gender balance
lol
gone
Loyalty was unironically the only good part of civ vi wtf are u on
There should be more ways to boost loyalty though. I feel like you should always have the option to forward settle if you are willing to bankrupt yourself doing it.
Loyalty mechanic should only really come into play when you're switching govs. There should be more pushback from switching from monarchy to capitalism or anything else besides a simple single turn debuff
Good take.
Can weadd the natural disasters from VI too? i kinda liked that feature
and i fully agree on the music. VI had an amazing system and soundtrack
I don't care, I ceased playing this series with Civ V. They can make every leader a black troony of all I can, there are better strategy games these days we only really played Civilization back then for lack of better alternatives.
I always thought that more prominent civs should have a "great" and an "evil" ruler for some flavor. That way you can include more vile rulers without pissing too many people off. For example:
>Russia: Stalin/Catherine the Great
>America: Andrew Jackson/Woodrow Wilson with Wilson being the evil one
>Rome: Hadrian/Caligula
>China: Qin Shi Huang/Mao Zedong
>Germany: Frederick II/Adolf Hitler
>England: William the Conqueror/Elizabeth I
>Egypt: Ahkenaten/Khufu
Missing the evil leaders for russia, germany and china on your list
>Hegelian morons
>Not evil
Here's to you, Rationalist wiener holster.
My take -
>Civ: Good/Bad
>Russia: Ivan IV/Joseph Stalin
>America: Andrew Jackson/Woodrow Wilson
>Rome: Augustus/Nero
>China: Zhu Yuanzhang/Mao Zedong
>Germany: Frederick II/Adolf Hitler
>England: Edward I/George III
>Egypt: Khufu/Akhenaten
>France: Henry IV/Louis XIV
>Babylon: Hammurabi/Nebuchadrezzar II
>Persia: Cyrus II/Xerxes I
>Ottoman Empire: Suleiman I/Selim I
>Byzantine Empire: Justinian I/Basil II
>Arabia: Saladin/Umar
>Japan: Meiji/Hirohito
>Mongolia: Kabul Khan/Genghis Khan
>Spain: Alfonso VIII/Philip II
>Sweden: Sigurd Ring/Ragnar Lodbrok
>Hungary: Matthias I/Árpád
>India: Ashoka/Babur
>Greece: Leonidas I/Pericles
>Norway: Harald Fairhair/Harald Hardrada
>Brazil: Pedro II/Pedro I
>Ethiopia: Menelik II/Haile Selassie I
You accidently put two good leaders for russia, china, germany, japan and mongolia
>Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all good
There is no political worldview which would reconcile this statement given the contradictory politics involved, the only reasonable conclusion is that this was a sad attempt to seem edgy on Ganker of all websites
Sorry, by "bad" I didn't mean they were actually terrible leaders, but "bad" as in more tyrannical & potentially evilish. By all means, they're still famous leaders who excelled at rulership.
Hey, that's pretty goo-
>Greece: Leonidas I (good)/Pericles (bad)
???
I'm not sure Louis XIV counts as a bad leader unless you're trying to tell France's story through the lens of the Huguenots. Personally I would've went with Clovis I (since he WAS a barbarian warlord) or Napoleon III.
I put Louis XIV there because he absolutely was a menace in Europe with all the conquests he made and the power he consolidated. He also succeeded in taking control of the Spanish crown as king of France and fought a giant war over that as well. Also, he built the palace of Versailles and pretty much cucked every noble in France with it, becoming almost a tyrant in many ways. Still a fantastic ruler, but "evil" per say.
>Philip II
>Bad
He was pretty awful for everyone who wasn't Spanish. I can see what he was going for with Genghis Khan, Hirohito, Basil II, and Harald Hardrada taking the villainous rolls since other civilizations would've certainly considered them villains.
We still wouldn't get Hitler even with the good/bad leader setup. It'd probably be Wilhelm II or Ludwig II as the "evil" leader.
To continue from
>Gallica: Vercingetorix/Ambiorix
>Georgia: Bagrat III/Tamar
>Phoenicia (Should be called Carthage though): Dido/Hannibal
>Poland: Bolesław I/Sigismund III Vasa
>Portugal: John III/John V
>Scotland: James VI/Robert the Bruce
>Aztec: Montezuma II/Montezuma I
>Bolesław I
Give us Jan III Sobieski or we riot
The evil Spanish leader should be Ferdinand VII or Philip IV. Also Alfonso VII was only king of Castille not Spain so not valid, and if you were to pick a Castillian one Alfonso X would be better.
The problem with this is that the leaders are the largest hurdle in creating a new civilization. The programming and balancing is like 10% of the effort put into making civs as it is, so if you doubled the largest part of the workload you'd made adding new civs into the game prohibitively expensive.
Makes me wonder how you'd do an evil Woodrow Wilson leader scene. Perhaps have him sitting in the Oval Office in a swivel chair? The first lightbulbs were installed in the White House just a decade and a half before he took office, so you could have the lights flicker menacingly when he's angry with the player.
Honestly, if we were going to go with a more menacing US president to serve as the "evil" leader, you'd probably go with James Polk (the guy who declared war on Mexico and took their claimed land from Texas to Oregon). He served only around a decade after Andrew Jackson though, so you'd probably want to choose a president from a different era to balance things out. Abraham Lincoln was a contemporary of his so you'd need to go more recent, and I'd be afraid of FDR being the "good" leader pick because of how much I hate that socialist bastard.
With any luck we'd get Eisenhower and Polk, 2 of the top 5 best presidents we ever had.
>Woodrow wilson
More like Lyndon B Johnson
>"great" and "evil"
Gay. It should be tall and wide instead.
id prefer the simple(not extremely pushy in either direction) leader traits to create this rule rather than what we got in civ6
Are they going to decolonize the civs and everything? Get rid of horribly Eurocentric view of historical development?
Civ has always been heavily European and Asian because those are the historical civilizations we actually have records of. Thousands of African tribes and we only know of ~10, with Ethiopia, Mali, Zulu, and Songhai being basically all there is before European colonization.
Civ isn't Eurocentric, it's histori-centric.
>civ V
>shit art
are you Black folk blind or something
Wow a photo with some cheap editing and filters!
>farm the desert
>leave the hyperproductive river banks alone
That's a painting
This is the game
Civ V is quite ugly owing to its age. A realistic artstyle can be done well, but Civ V is not that.
derp a dom
yea, proportions are all fricked up and perspective is wrong
Other than art, name one way civ 5 is better than civ 6. I really can't think of one, I love civ 6.
I'm going to go against the grain and say I unironically think Civ VI looks better than V in the leaders department too. I like the caricature look. It's visually more pleasing than the models from Civ V, and Civ has always had a history of cartoonish leaders up until Civ V. Civ VI's leaders doesn't look any more wacky than Civ IV's leaders
It's time for an anime themed Civ game.
>Western anime
Not necessarily western, but you want it too, don't deny it.
We'll hire Japan.
>Civ VI's leaders doesn't look any more wacky than Civ IV's leaders
Hard disagree, they're as cringy as in CivIII but without the era changes.
You taking the mick? Civ IV leaders were just as goofy.
Imma keep it real with all you chiefs, Catherine slapping you when you offered her a shitty trade deal made my 10 yo PP hard af
It's normal for boys these days to get their first boners to cartoon women.
still not as goofy as civ6 which also uses stupid quotes from twitter moronic ecelebs
That's just cope. Hatshepsut looks way goofier than Cleopatra
Not as uncanny.
duckling syndrome
>gandhi
Civil-ACK-zation
I don't think Firaxis is /that/ far gone. They still seem to have some sensible people even if they are a bit feminist.
Agreed, Civ still has actual nerds in charge which is good
woke this, woke that
post bangers
>press play
>Shitpost Music
That's what makes Australia so great.
>Australia hits the Industrial Era
>Didgeridoos start blaring
>You declare war on them to stop the music
>They get double production
>You try to live peacefully with them
>They steal your tiles buy putting some fence around their sheep
who cares about this shit for children lmao.
I genuinely don't get how you can be a fan of this series.
It's fun
i was children once
Multiple? Did you play hotseat Civ multiplayer against eachother?
Is it possible, in any conceivable way, to make combat remotely interesting or fun in these games? I kind of think it's impossible
Not fundamentally, no. Endless Legends tried to change the way combat worked but no one liked that. If you made every combat encounter a minigame a la HoMM3, it /could/ be more interesting, but it'd also double or triple the length of games. A 100 turn Conquest Victory game would take twice as long as a 300 turn Science Victory.
Only aesthetically, I think, with well done, historically accurate units and equipment, and nice animations and sounds. Turn based 4xs like Civ don't leave much room in the combat department mechanics, only numerical variables like flanking bonuses.
That I'd rather play a true successor to Alpha Centauri than another fricking historical game, especially given how saturated that market is becoming in recent years.
Yes please, EA just released the game on steam agains, for the love of any divinity give us at least a remaster
The lack of people asking for this in this post makes me understand that the other part of the problem is the consumers, who want the same shit over and over again, and not something different (and ultimately good) like REAL successor to Alpha Centauri (and not the abandon mutant child that is Beyond Earth).
*like THE REAL sucessor
It will probably be hard to implement but her what i wish for
A leader for ever era with there own bonus ( optional rules for a mythical/semi mythical ancestors in ancient era that gives huge bones)
More options for district building
Make having a navy actually important
>Make having a navy actually important
Navy was typically very strong in previous Civ games because you had to have a coastal city to trade over water or get coastal bonuses. The district system in 6 is why so few cities are settled coastal since you can settle inland and build a harbor.
Only 20 civs to start with, those being:
>Ukraine (St Olga of Kyiv)
>Haiti (Francois Duvalier)
>Palestine (Yasser Arafat )
>Londonistan (Rishi Sunak)
>The Paris Commune (Louis C. Delescluze)
>The Turkic Republic of Germany (Rosa Luxemburg)
>Ireland (Brian Boru)
>China (Deng Xiaoping)
>Japan (Empress Suiko)
>India (Indira Gandhi)
>Korea (Seondeok)
>Aztecs (Moctezuma II)
>Native Americans (Sitting Bull)
>Incans (Pachacuti in drag)
>Brazil (Dilma Rousseff)
>Zulu (Shaka in drag)
>Zimbabwe (Robert Mugabe)
>Egypt (Cleopatra VII)
>Carthage (Hannibal (Black))
>Sumeria (Gilgamesh)
>Dilma
I would shit my pants laughing if that ever happen by the end of the century on civ XX
I could imagine whatever civ game comes out in 2094 having Kim Il-Sung as the Korean leader too.
Unless you're a particularly young Zoomer, you're probably not going to make it to the 22nd century. I was born in '96 and I'll probably make it no further than 2070 or 2080.
Bro, life expectancy is growing every decade, besides my family had a lot of members reaching 100yo
Yeah dude, we're gonna magically jump from 79 years expectancy to 100 in just decades!
Get real, we gained 10 years over centuries, there is no magic potion coming to save us.
>no america
They couldn't get the rights to use George Floyd as the US leader so they decided to wait for the DLC and try again.
>cis man leader
George Floyd is a canonical saint. There is no one more holy than him. He surpasses even Rosa Parks and Helen Keller
no women
no colored people
that's all
Go to a sauna then gay
Huh, I wasn't aware civ 5 was disliked. I thought it got a bare minimum, "It's aight," from everyone.
Thinking Civ V is ugly doesn't mean you think it's bad. Civ has always been ugly.
all leaders will be women
we dont use that word anymore
its birthing people now
graphics go full mobile, basically 1:1 clash of clans artstyle-wise. Fonts included.
Mechanics are even more simplified and diluted, game's target demographic is humanoid shape aged 3+
Absolutely every leader is black or asian or both.
civ 6 is more mechanically complex than any of the previous games
you could even say its too complex for the average normie
>graphics go full mobile
Christ I hate these imbeciles.
>graphics don't matter zoomer
>MUH UI
Graphics don't matter. Civ has always looked like shit. We can handle another game that looks like shit.
Shut the frick up, graffix homosexual. I want content in my game, not assloads of dev time being poured into rendering pores.
Functional UI is required to play the game, graphics are not you zoomer homosexual
Late game is always boring. I want late game crisis'. Alien invasions, AI takeovers, Asteroids you name it.
Make AI a requisite tech to get a Science Victory but have it start spawning Rogue AI units you have to fight off as they try to ravage your empire.
> you have fight off as they try to ravage the world
fixed
>Science civ speedrushes AI tech
>You're stuck in the Industrial Era fighting off units 2x as strong as yours while the Science civ gets to turtle and win harder
I suppose you could make them like barbarians that spawn in your territory but can attack others.
K I N O
I
N
O
I like the barbarian clans gamemode, they should have the civs that weren't civilized until later be barbarian tribes that can join conflicts between civilizations and invade weak ones.
Also since it's customary for civ games to borrow aspects from successful competitors they should borrow the nation jumping idea from humankind but instead of the moronic jumping to completely different civilizations just different countries of the same.
This could replace government types as well and give alternate leaders.
Example
Italic civilization
>Ancient era
Barbarian tribe
>Classical
Roman Republic vs Roman Empire
>Middle
Papal states vs Venice (or continue as the last ones)
>Modern
Kingdom of Italy vs Italian Republic
It would also be cool if they fought actual wars to decide and other civs could get involved to benefit themselves.
That's a wacky version of what Humankind was going for. It's pretty much a pipe dream since Firaxis wants to represent as many cultures as possible, and focusing so many resources into making civilizations more deep would conflict with their ability to represent civilizations without interstitial cultures. Mongols basically don't exist from the 1400s through to the 1900s when Mongolia gets revived by an outside power, and before the 1200s they're nobodies. You've got a civilization that everyone wants in that only has 2 major eras of history that couldn't work with the in depth cultural evolution.
>That's a wacky version of what Humankind was going for.
I think it's a lot less wacky than jumping from Nubia to the Franks to the Mughals. Just going from different states in one big overall civilization makes a lot more sense.
>Firaxis wants to represent as many cultures as possible
I get what you're saying but I think it could help if you zoom out your idea of a civilization "Iberian civilization" for an example could include Spain, Portugal, and maybe even Brazil or "Germanic" that includes Germany, Austria, and Holland.
>Mongols basically don't exist from the 1400s through to the 1900s when Mongolia gets revived by an outside power, and before the 1200s they're nobodies.
I imagine it would work if the barbarian clans angle was really developed like I mentioned and players could play as tribals, only really settling when convenient. I imagine it could also work kind of like the ryhs and fall mod for players too where you spawn in an already developed world as barbarians a few centuries prior to the era they existed in. The Mongols abilities and gameplay id imagine would make them excel as tribals and revolve around a world conquest in the middle ages like everyone wants to play them so they'd be a bit unique too.
This way civ would feel like a fun history simulation instead of a shitty board game where Gandhi fights Washington in the classical era.
That changing of civs within their own cultural context was what I wanted for Humankind too. For civ it would work well, I think. But the leaders would have to be 2d stills or simple animations, because they'd be many.
They already started reusing animations which is even easier if they all look more like humans and less like cartoons. They could just have like 10 based on personality and go with that for all of them.
I wonder if that would bother a lot of people
That could work too, but there's also voice acting and stuff
>It's unfortunate Firaxis's historiography is anglophile boomer tier
True, and Civ 6 was the worst offender. The writing should make you want to play as the civ or research some tech not going 'Warfare/communism/fascism/empires/etc are bad mmm'kay' without any subtlety
>True, and Civ 6 was the worst offender. The writing should make you want to play as the civ or research some tech not going 'Warfare/communism/fascism/empires/etc are bad mmm'kay' without any subtlety
And then somehow it lets you make giants military robots...
I would prefer this too. Civ does this weird double standard thing where colonial settler cultures coexist in antiquity with the indigenous people they replaced, which comes off as laughably wewuzy. American knights or Washington in the Classical Age has been a meme for years. Conversely, civs that reasonably should culturally evolve never do. Spain is keyed to its golden age, for example, and Phoenicia or Egypt never evolve past their ancient achievements. The existence of civs that are actually different periods for the same cultures makea things worse. Macedon, Greece, and Byzantium are all different variations of the same people living in the same place speaking the same language just over different centuries.
> I think it's a lot less wacky than jumping from Nubia to the Franks to the Mughals
This tbh. I wish Civ had something akin to Age of Empires 3's revolution system, with branching choices into new subcultures, with crossover for related cultures. The Mongols, Turks, and Indians should all be capable of evolving into the Mughals for example. Both the Dutch and the English should be able to evolve into the United States. Conversely, the guy who wants to stay Roma Invicta for 2000 years should get to do so, maybe getting decadence debuffs for not going through things like revolutions or similar.
It's unfortunate Firaxis's historiography is anglophile boomer tier. The Civilopedia is easily the worsr writing I've seen about the last ever. It makes me ill to read it.
Civ 7 will be made for the female audience because Firaxis or whoever thinks they'll no longer be able to compete with Paradox for the primary audience of strategy games (autistic men). In the same way that Hoi4 CK3 and Vicky3 made paraslop mainstream for the male casual audience, Civ 7 will attempt to make strategy games mainstream for the female audience.
A majority of the leaders will be female, much of the gameplay will be simplified, and AI leaders will be made less aggressive to not scare the woman players.
Male-coded war and micromanagement of build-orders and tiles will be toned down and instead there will be a steer towards "female-coded" "gameplay" like "nurturing" your empire and happy-go-lucky diplomacy. There will be a lot more bright colors and relaxing UI and sound design, similar to Stardew Valley and the Sims. The game will be intended to run on mobile devices, consoles, and low-spec PCs since that is what the majority of women play on, but because of jeetdevs the game will be poorly optimized and run like shit on all those machines regardless. Victory conditions will be heavily biased in favor of culture and diplomacy as opposed to the traditional male-coded science and domination. Things that were historically considered oppressive towards women like religion will not be in the game at all, or will be simplified and whitewashed.
The marketing will be focused more towards the female and casual audience, social media shills will try to generate discussion in female-dominated websites and spaces like tumblr and twitter, corporate vtubers will be paid to shill the game. There will be a lot of pop-history facts sprinkled throughout the marketing and the game itself, making the pre-existing issue of civ games oversimplifying or having outright incorrect understandings of history worse.
The game won't be a blockbusting success but it will have enough sales and an impact that makes the entire genre shift even more towards casualization and women.
shes the only (most likely) female ive seen in all my life who actually plays strategy games
1/10 for effort
what an awful temple of artemis.
>autistic men
*transgender women
Sounds nice. I would like an idle civ game
Please just stop making the leaders look like they walked out of Despicable Me
wow they still haven't announced it properly yet, moods probably low at Firaxis after a ton of people got fired due to Midnight Suns flopping
As long as they keep making the Egyptian leader a sexy female idc what else they do
Woke beyond comprehension and an even uglier artstyle than 6.
This, and I can safely assume it will be roughly the same thing with XCOM 3. Chimera Squad was a gigantic red flag that Firaxis went full moron.
How can anyone still care to play Civ? I can't imagine any strategy player, be it paradox gsggay, total wargay, rtsgay, wargamegay and other gays switching to it.
Civ is a game for facebook moms and next title will be made to appeal to them even more.
actually big maps. make the tiny in 7 be larger than the huge in 6. make it possible to play with every civ at the same time. i want every turn to take 5 minutes to process even if you have a nasa computer.
Best in the series graphically
worst in the series gameplay wise
I just want more advanced diplomacy options with the city states and barbarians.
Every time someone tries to fix the Americans in the bronze age "problem" Civ supposedly has they make their games far worse, far more on the rails, alienate the players and ultimately create a solution that is as historically incoherent.
Yet autists in this thread will continue calling for the -issue- to be fixed.
Mixing up modern and historical nations was always a mistake. Should have just all started as cavemen.
But then it was never supposed to be taken seriously. It's just a game. Humourless autists were the worst thing to ever happen to videogames.
Its worse than autism.
Its mid-witism.
All nations in the game are as incoherent as caveman america with its war elephants under washington.
In a random map, of a random world, are you telling me that a France would exist isolated from Celts and Romans, in the middle of a tropical island? Are you telling me China would exist with the same names, leaders and aesthetic, had it "spawned" by the deserted shores of a peninsula just south of the future Aztec kingdom?
And not only looking at the past, the way nations evolve change a lot depending on their interactions. Rome was redefined what it incorporated from competition and trade with greeks, iberians and punics, It changed to adapt to the pressure of germanic tribes and the persian empires. Have Rome competing with China, or Slavs, or a surviving Babylon, and it would change in different ways
And then there are the wonders, I don't need to point out why its odd for any nation in the world to build the Library of Alexandria or the Great Wall of China or the Temple of Zeus.
Simply put, its impossible to have a realistic Civilization game. To accept the absurd with a straight face, to accept it is just a game, is the way forward. Attempting to fix it just ruins the game then crashes and burn without making the game even an ounce more realistic, just look at all the morons trying to fix stuff in the thread.
All that text just to say "just turn your brain off lmao"
>Every time someone tries to fix the Americans in the bronze age "problem" Civ supposedly has they make their games far worse, far more on the rails, alienate the players and ultimately create a solution that is as historically incoherent.
Wow that's blatantly false it was tried once in civilization with rhys and fall and everyone loved it. Humankind fricked up but it was moronic to begin with. 50 percent success rate.
>In a random map, of a random world, are you telling me that a France would exist isolated from Celts and Romans,
Easily solved by making them emerge from or on the periphery of the romans
>in the middle of a tropical island? Are you telling me China would exist with the same names, leaders and aesthetic, had it "spawned" by the deserted shores of a peninsula just south of the future Aztec kingdom?
Civ V solved this with preferred terrain starts
>Attempting to fix it just ruins the game then crashes and burn without making the game even an ounce more realistic, just look at all the morons trying to fix stuff in the thread.
Again not sure what you're specifically referring to, it worked great in Rhys and fall
I have played both it and the European focused submod, they work as a scenario
(Still extremely unrealistic mind you) but they are not a whole game.
And even there. After you sacrificed symmetric starts, random maps and a lot of player choice. You can cuck Arabs and have Persia conquer the entirety of central Asia and still get the Turks popping up all over your Greeks.
You can conquer Rome early and still have Kaisers and Tzars all over Europe. Its a massive example of how no matter how much you sacrifice it still is non sense, except now it's less fun.
Rhys is less of a civ game than historical puzzle game. I remember trying Malay and can't win it unless I trial and error searching the islands
Some of the civs very much are a puzzle game. The Khmer, which I assume you're talking about, are probably the most puzzle-like, though there are a few other contenders.
Others are not though. For Japan's UHV you basically just have to play a good game of Civ. Russia too for that matter.
Most of the civs are somewhere in between.
From a very abstract perspective, all strategy games are basically puzzle games. Deterministic, turn-based strategy games could still be considered puzzles in a stricter sense since there's guaranteed to be a set of moves or algorithm that can beat the game no matter what, meaning it is solved.
Dogshit at release and then mid after an expansion
I'm surprised they haven't given us the "create your own civ" option at this point
>civ 4 cartoony artstyle good
>civ 6 cartoony artstyle bad
can't you just admit you got filtered by rudimentary district mechanics?
why do 95 IQs think the district minigame is complex?
I don't know, ask the Civ 5 babs
their common cope is "it's tedious"
and city state bonuses
I actually liked the district stuff. I just wish they integrated themselves with the main city, or became little cities on their own.
But the leddit artstyle is ridiculous anyway
>civ 4 cartoony artstyle good
>civ 6 cartoony artstyle bad
Yes
And it's ironic for someone who got filtered by superior stack-based combat to pretend anyone got filtered by any of the babby-tier mechanics in 6
Left is full caricature, right is a disgusting mishmash of that and V realism.
Been playing a lot of Civ 4, and the forced meta is stronger in it than 5 or 6. The higher the difficulty, the more you're forced to play for conquest. In fact, conquest is probably the ONLY victory you can do on deity. Civ 4 is by far more conquest oriented than the later games. It's stupid to not go for conquest, because no matter what victory you're aiming for, you're going to have a stack of doom (if you specialized cities, which you should be doing if you know what you're doing in 4), so why not use it? So what I find is that Civ 4 gives you more options in the early game, but less options in the late game, while in the later games, it's reversed.
I except it will be similar to civ6 i.e. terrible ai, cringe visuals, micromanagement hell, boardgame mechanics like cards, combat is shallow rock paper scissor shit, every victory type is a "collect points to fill a gauge"
Reinstalled Civ 4 and started playing it again. Last time I played it was Warlords back when it came out. I forgot how slow and methodical the series used to be. Don't get me wrong, it's nice and comfy, and it's true to the original, but just something I remembered.
No white males
I want it to support inputs from external AIs to every possible action so that my custom civs will act in character.
Does Civ 4 have a lot of micromanaging? I'm just getting started and it seems like it. I have to turn on avoid growth quite a bit.
>2 was the best, 3 was only okay and I quit the series there
Feels good man
How do you play 2 in 2024? And I'm talking about the original, not the multiplayer edition that fricks up the AI behavior.
> How do you play 2 in 2024? And I'm talking about the original, not the multiplayer edition that fricks up the AI behavior.
No idea, I played it in the 90s. What was it on, win 3.1? Win 95?