What made Civ 4 so special that people designate it as the cut-off point from when the series started declining?
>>1711562Leonard Nimoy's voice.
>>1711562It was mostly at the right moment with the right difficulty. It released at the same time youtube started, so until civilization 5 came it had near total dominance of vst genre over the millennial web. For majority 30-year old probably this is their starting point, and hence why they have rose colored glasses over its memories.Also Civ 5 wasn't bad as a series, but base game was just mediocre until gods and kings came out. Hence why a lot people waited off or never got it and just played Civ 4 (with a lot of mods).
>>1711562First off, One-Unit-Per-Tile (1UPT) is an abomination, so it's perfectly natural that the last game without it would be seen as the last hurrah for the series.Mainly though, Civ4 almost by accident got a lot of things right. The city maintenance system meant that you wanted your empire to be large, but not too large, at least until you entered the steamroller phase (after which all difficulty evaporates anyway).The cottage economy vs. specialist economy distinction, while arguably a false dilemma, at least gave the strong IMPRESSION that there were at least two ways to play the game, rather than one always-optimal style.There were the right number of viable social engineering choices to provide player agency without overwhelming the player - essentially you have "war" (police state - vassalage - theocracy) and "peace" (hereditary/representation - slavery/caste-system - bureaucracy - organised religion/pacifism). in economic techs free market, mercantilism and even state property are viable in different situations.finally the micromanagement around things like timing of forest chops, managing trades (especially tech trades) and the overflow from whipping, while they can be annoying, at least give the player the further feeling of making important strategic choices.Yes, it has a doomstack problem, but collateral damage made it much less than it could have been.
>>1711562Non gimmicky gameplay from the previous 3 Civs is perfected in 4. Fast, balanced, fun, simple to learn and with enough depth for autists to sink their grubby little hands into numbers and spreadsheets. Last good Civ AI that can get a hold of the mechanics and actually provide you a challenge.It's also the Skyrim of strategy in terms of mods, so many great mods that other hames simply can't compete - Rhyes and Fall, Fall from Heaven, Pie's Ancient Europe, Civ 4 it's the unquestionable GOAT in terms of mods and I doubt things like the historical civ spawn in R&F will ever be done again.Why yes, I've been playing Civ 4 for 15 years and I've no intention of stopping
>>1711562Veterans of the series really hate 1UPT because the AI is really dumb with it and they don't have friends to play multiplayer games with
>>1711562>>1711599>>1711600>>1711616Okay but really, why is Civ V so fucking good and still has an active modding and multiplayer community while Civ IV is completely dead?
>>1711619I'm beginning to get the feeling that you aren't engaging with this discussion in good faith
>>1711562It was a huge jump from what came before it. The overall quality was very high: The music was excellent, the UI was clear and "happy", the design of the icons for units buildings and all were cool, the game mechanics worked well, the difficulty was ok (for people who didnt yet have 1000h in it)...Who would have thought that if you make a game that does well what it is supposed to do and dont spend time of crap and forced innovation it turns out to be fun?
>>1711623You can go on the Civ 5 steam workshop and find 20 new mods ever week. Custom civs, new features, tons of shit.Civ 4 mods are broken, not updated and half of them don't even work anymore. Civ 4 has only one playable mod and that's History Rewritten and it hasn't been updated since 2021. The game is dead.All of Civ 5s faults have been modded out. The game is perfect.
>>1711626>All of Civ 5s faults have been modded outThat's because you don't see the vast majority of its faults as faults in the first place
>>1711628Well going off this thread, there's a whole page of mods to fix 1UPT and balance it. Civ 5 is objectively better than 4, and has far more complexity
>>1711628>game is new therefore badsorry, I'm just not autistic.
>>17115621) Peak of the design going since the original Civ2) MONUMENTAL modding capacity3) Expanding and polishing ideas from Civ 34) Probably the best counter-balance for expansion in form of maintenanceWhen it came out, it was somewhat contested, since it has its issues and problems, but then came the shitfest in form of 5, and thus whatever problems people had with 4 instantly disappeared in comparison by just how brain-dead 5 is and how bad the release state was on top of that. And since 6 continued the trends started with 5, it's hardly a wonder people cut-off at 4
>>1711631Here, grab some (You)s
>Civ5 schizo made yet another false flag civ4 thread to jack off his garbage game
Hey guys can I have a quick recount on the points here? I'd like to know who is winning this argument on the internet.
it's shit
>>1711633I endorse all of this, especially point 4. All releases from 1 to 3 tried to make corruption work to counter the obvious advantages of ICS. It never worked. Civ 4's system made ICS a genuinely bad strategy, without going too far in the opposite direction (like the 4-city tradition meta).I'd also add that it fixed basically all the problems of doom stacks. Every unit has a counter and poorly constructed stacks are vulnerable to collateral damage. The people who still, in anno Domini MMXXIV, keep bitching about doom stacks in 4 are just unfathomably retarded.>>1711567>For majority 30-year old probably this is their starting point, and hence why they have rose colored glasses over its memories.For context I'm early 40s and started with Civ 1 which I played at a friend's house because my family didn't have a computer till the late 90s. The SNES release of civ 1 was a very happy day for me.Not saying this guy is necessarily wrong, but nostalgia does not really factor in for me.
>>1711562I'm a zoomer that mostly played Civ5 but Civ4 is just a way more memorable game. Leonard Nimoy delivering bible quotes while classical music plays is a level of classy that none of the other games approach. I guess they used up all the good quotes by 5 because man I don't remember a single one in 6 that wasn't laughably bad
Civ 4 is the best Civ game in the series.Civ 5 is the best game in the Civ series.
>>1711629>there's a whole page of mods to fix 1UPT and balance it.Give me some examples. Not for the sake of argument, but for the sake of me actually wanting to play a version of V that doesn't have >carpets of death>slow marches across continents or oceans where units can get stuck on each other>AI that throws numeric superiority making dumb decisions>units that are untouchable to the AI like camels
>>1711676Vanilla Civ 4 looked and sounded great. Was also highly polished (except the Qin-Kublai portrait mixup), but the new content from the expansion packs clearly clashes with the original stuff visually and sonically (e.g., different artist for the unit portraits, different narrator in BTS -- I know it's Sid).
>>1711676The best/worst part about Civ 6's quotes is Sean Bean giving them a gravitas they don't deserve. My favourite is "It was luxuries like air-conditioning that led to the Fall of the Roman Empire. Their windows were shut - they couldn't hear the barbarians coming."Of course a fan favourite is Churchill's "I am fond of pigs."
>>1711680It's amazing how terrible Civ 6's presentation actually is.>cartoony units, LE PUPPERINO pandering, shitty tech quotes that might as well be scraped from reddit, sean bean's voice every few turns, slapping noises
>>1711626>Civ 4 mods are broken, not updated and half of them don't even work anymore. Civ 4 has only one playable mod and that's History Rewritten and it hasn't been updated since 2021. The game is dead.Okay, now you are straight up bullshiting>PAE, my favouriteLast update October 2022 (v. 6), very polished and few to none crashes/bugs, in-depth systems civV can only dream of>Rise of Mankind, successor to Rhyes and FallStill supported by dev team, many different iterations and submods>Fall from HeavenDeep gameplay in a fantasy setting, extremely high quality and polish, many submods (Fall Further, Master of Mana, Orbis, etc)Those are just the three main ones imoFivebabies can't just compete with the sheer quality of the CivIV modding scene, but I'm sure spamming 20 useless extra civ mods a week really revolutionises gameplayMy main gripes with CivV:>Bullshit global happinessIt's my nation winning a war and taking territory? Agh, that makes me so mad, I'm gonna revoolt, oh God I'm revoooltingt. CivV citizens>1upt, obviouslyMakes war a chore, makes the world feel tiny in comparison to IV, AI can't handle it>No civics, culture treesI like culture trees, but they should be traditions that define your nation and you still should had civics that you change accordingly to your needs. That way you might have two seafarer nations, one is a large monarchy and the other a small merchant republic>Shit diplomacyBorderline useless in V and I want to judo throw whoever came up with denouncements into a wood chipper>No wonder construction videosAnd therefore, no SOVL>Finally, the most egregious of allThey made my country, Portugal, led by a shit Queen who did very little good for the nation was nicknamed "The Crazy", instead of the absolute Chad João II, the Perfect PrinceThe only part I like better about V it's the Religion and Ideology Systems Tourism it's ok but I rarely bother with it
the funniest thing is civ 6 is an improvement over civ 5 in every aspect. Theres no reason to play boring four city garbage but they love their over simplified slop for retards.
>>1711680>“I love watching my mom argue with the GPS on the way home.”
>>1711562civ 3 is better :^)
>>1711562Being made when said people were at the prime age for nostalgia.
>>1711700Rent free
>>1711677Based post
>>1711684>that might as well be scraped from redditin many cases they literally were. the rest were from travel guides.
>>1711718Worst combat in the whole series.
>>1711731>mass replies in civ4 thread and posts his worthless opinion about babies first civ>rent freewhy wont you faggot stick to your containment thread presume made by the same retard.
They hated jesus because he spoke the truth
>>1711567But I'm 30 and my first was civ 2, and I've never heard different from others my age
caveman2cosmos is genuinely such a garbage piece of shit I am consistently baffled by the ignorant yeasternyuros retards that flock to it and try to bully the devs into "fix damm ai!!"
>>1711680I am fond of a coal miners wife
Why is Alexander wearing the civic crown?
>>1711562More atmospheric. Everything from the sounds to the graphics keeps the immersion level high. Everything after became too board gamey from the aesthetics to mechanics. Civ 6 does such a shit job of making you feel like you're passing through time as everything looks the fucking same. Also, Civ IV setting the good standard for mods and them dropping the ball for achievement fags is sad as fuck.
Civ4 sucked until Beyond the Sword
>>1713018His portrait was probably meant for a Roman leader in Civ, but they just gave it to Alexander.
>>1713784>in CivI mean in vanilla Civ 4.
>>1711562this screenshot makes me want to play civ4, nothing from civ5 or 6 gives me that feeling
>>1713707The only part of BtS I liked were the random events. I hate all of the balance changes
>>1713124>Everything after became too board gamey from the aesthetics to mechanicsInterestingly there was a board game craze in the 2010's, so this probably is the source of the aesthetic shift.
>>1713124>Everything after became too board gamey from the aesthetics to mechanics.Weird. As a long-time Civ IV player who has many immortal wins under his belt, I think of Civ IV as a board game. I guess what is a board game for you and what isn't depends on how clearly you can predict a game's flow of events.
>>1711562You transition into relevant music as you pan across parts of the map that are under your control, other nations, or different types of uninhabited lands/ocean. They got rid of that in V and VI. V might honestly be a stronger contender for the best in series, had they kept that.
>>1711562Civ VI's art style, whatever you call that tranny slop, is the corporate memphis art style of games,
>>1712667>me and my two autistic friends all started with civ2ok bro
Is Pangaea Noble considered the most balanced map/difficulty in Civ 4?
>>1717768Pangea is a great way to learn, but I'd personally play on Prince if you're relatively unskilled, since the AI isn't smart enough to keep up with the player without an advantage.
>>1717800oops sorry, I meant Prince (as in difficulty 5), not Noble. I heard about how "Pangaea 5" is kinda a standard in Civ 4.
>>1711562it had Baba Yetuhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e0Qelqp-Cc
>>1717401Actually it's a shift in Firaxis design philosophies. I suspect the way Firaxis designs their games is they make a board game prototype first (not with pieces, probably just shit on paper) to plan things out and see how everything should work without actually committing huge amounts of resources.Nu-XCOM is an example of this. Ultimately, it's a vidya board game. Not bad, but still a board game. There is little in the way of actual simulation like the original XCOM had, both in the combat map (where fucking trees could get in your way, no cover vs half cover abstraction) or in the global view (which was more a tycoon game). This isn't 'bad', as the original XCOM still exists and thus we have two cakes, but realizing that nu-XCOM and Civ6 are just virtual board games has painted a very different picture of modern Firaxis for me. Everything is very simple and game-y, there are no fun attempts at immersion or depth. Reducing governments to cards you swap around whenever kills all sense of history and story that a game like SMAC or Civ4 would possess.
>>1711562OooooouuuUuuuuu UOoooouuuuBaba yetu, yetu uliyeMbinguni yetu, yetu, aminaBaba yetu, yetu, uliyeM jina lako e litukuzwe
>>1718763> I suspect the way Firaxis designs their games is they make a board game prototype first.Interesting theory. It does kind of explain why mechanics became simplified and streamlined, aside from the general "trying to bring more casuals into the genre." The analogue test would limit more complex simulations without a computer, so it would make sense (as well as you can license the prototype as an actual boradgame, lol).
>>1711562There’s a ton of reasons, one I always bring up is that Civ 4 remains the only Civ that solves the expansion curve. Every other game in the series save 5 gets broken to shit by hardcore REXing and 5 goes in the complete opposite direction by rewarding tall play so much that it doesn’t make sense to do anything else.
>>1718841I don't think the prototype is intended to be resold as a board game, usually the board game versions are pretty different from the actual game itself, I just think when you start having governments with literal "cards" or districts that may as well be your cities blobbing out across a Catan style board, the only conclusion you can make is that this is just how Firaxis thinks about their game design now. It's not wrong, it's just not what some Civ fans want. That niche is instead increasingly filled by grand strategy.
I don't realy undestand the "boardgame" complaint as a derogatory term. Civ has always been a computer-assisted board game.
>>1719350For me it's less derogatory and more overall aesthetic. Civ has always been very board gamey, but 3 and 4 always felt more immersive because the theming done on top of that board game was top notch. 6 feels like a board game and more importantly looks like a board game with how static and unchanging everything is. People don't just want the table top experience, they want flourish.
>>1719389Yeah 6 and its choice of aesthetics just rubs me the wrong way. It's not even the caricature leaders (after all 4 has them too) but the general look of the terrain just puts me off.
the problem with 6 is that they design systems in isolation or at best paired with a civ - this civ has that gimmick and that civ has this gimmick
>>1719350It's not derogatory. You want an excellent example of a virtual boardgame, try Egypt Old Kingdom. It wears its board game inspiration on its sleeve, and it's a really good game. Another is the generically titled Terraformers. Have 60 hours in that so far.But when I play Civilization, I don't want a franchise that increasingly feels like it should be played with beer and pretzels. I want to feel like I'm playing through history. Maybe not entirely realistic, but the modern Civ games like 5 and 6 have serious presentation problems that have alienated older fans. Maybe become more accessible for newer ones, but a lot of soul has been lost.
>>1719804Agreed. Board Game in itself isn't derogatory, it just they do it to a point that it totally kills the original immersion in some genres. Obviously there's a threshold that's like relative to everyone's taste, but I think the far extreme of "too board gamey" is like Humankind (especially compared to Endless Legends, and their other stuff). It had balance problems too, but it just didn't feel like you were building anything but just gathering points.
If the AI ever used boats, Inland sea would be a fun map to play on.
strategy newfag here, i want to get into civ and anno.which game do i pick for each series?
>>1720165>Civ The games diverge in gameplay between Civ 4 and Civ 5.Civ 4 is more similiar to Civ 2 & 3, while Civ 5 is more similiar to Civ 6 than to Civ 4.Start with Civ 4. If you like it, try the older games. If you don't like it, try Civ 5.>AnnoAnno 1404 is very easy to learn and also quite comfy. It's not very complex, though.
>>1718879>niche is instead increasingly filled by grand strategyEU started as a boardgame.
>>1720679What's your point?The fact is Civilization now caters to casuals, and grand strategy caters to simulationists.
see also the decline from Railroad Tycoon 3 to Sid Meier's Railroads! as another example of the casualisation/board game trend
>>1720702Paracucks are also now catering to casuals, other than Johan with eu5
>>1711562civ 5 was better sorry boomers
>>1711616why don't they just play vox populi? completely solves ai
did this man just solve Caveman2Cosmos?
>>1722671no, because caveman2cosmos is a fundamentally shitty mod
>>1711562For me it was the automation.>City's can build themselves >Workers can do worker things themselves Civ V removed citys building themselves.Civ VI also removed workers doing worker things themselves.This forces me to be an autistic fuckstick like the rest of the civ community and micro every goddamn thing I don't give a shit about. Instead of my previous way of playing which was using civ as a glorified map painter and diplomacy sim, aka having fucking fun.Plus a lot of other points people have made already 1UPT being fucking shit for example.Also Alpha Centauri was peak not Civ IV.
>>1720702>grand strategy caters to simulationistsHasn't been the case since HoI2.
>>1722685I agree with you. It's weird how modern strategy devs seem to think that more clicks and more busywork means more gameplay. Vic3 had the same problem.
>>1711562i remember my father playing this
>>1722685>>1722945Funny that you say that, I actually loved the micro-managing in Civ IV, which is much more intensive than you think, if you factor in stuff like >whipping>switching to a commerce tile on a dime to research something faster or to amass wealth to compensate for unit maintenance>swapping a food-rich tile between two cities to mitigate whip anger>checking the AI for a tech trade every few turns>checking the AI to see if they're plotting every few turns>managing citizens in a specialist economy>pre-chopping forests while waiting for mathematics or a better unit>binary research>failgolding the same wonder in several citiesThe only time I automate my workers is when I know I'm going to win, anyway.The only time I automate my cities is in the final few turns.
>>1722685Optional micromanaging really was the key to my enjoyment of 4. As you said, 5 wasn't too bad, but fuck 6 forcing me to babysit my workers.
>>1722945Yeah, even weirder with the current atmosphere of AI and automation everywhere. Give me my Alpha Centauri style city governor back -_->>1722967>I actually loved the micro managing Yeah you're the majority of the player base it seems. Gratz.>>1723006Yah I could tolerate 5 but fuck 6 indeed. There's no reason they had to dick us over when the automated stuff was as you say, optional. Micro fiends could do their thing and so can us lazy map painters.
>>1711562Nostalgia.
>>1722685>Civ V removed citys building themselves.you could still queue buildings, at least. in civ6 they fucked that up too.
>>1711562Civ 5 felt like the board game rather than a strategy game. Same thing with the XCOM games, they don't feel like video games.
>>1718763>>1719891>a shift in Firaxis design philosophies>Bland Board GameyA bit connected to this. There was a lecture/workshop at GDC2008 where Soren Johnson talked about the difference of a "good/challenging" AI vs "fun AI." Basically a good AI will try to match a human player's skill doing all the shit players will do, while a fun AI cannot ever match the player but will have a memorable personality. Civ4 Montezuma is a fun AI in a sense, because his AI roleplays a role of loveable psychopath. I wonder if Firaxis shifted their design to be more human (due to various reasons like hardware advancements) and in that kinda made it more bland post-2010.>Lecture:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7AWHT7j3V4
>>1722685As still a noob for IV are you then supposed to just blitz through turns? Cause it feels like so many rounds are just me spamming the next button while workers are automating, the deathstacks are building up, etc.
>>1723797>Queue buildings>AI do it all for youNot even remotely the same anon.>>1723975Yeah. Until a war inevitably starts.
https://nitter.poast.org/TheBlackHorse65/status/1777720922184843426#m
>>1725571https://nitter.poast.org/TheGameChief/status/1777789826596741506
>>1725585I like how it devolved to nothing after the first post from 1 angry dev.
>>1717490Is that the only knock against it?
>>1711562i reinstalled it today after almost a decade since i played it and by god, i really don't miss stack era. I used to love and miss it in civ 5 but nothing is more boring and painful than sit through 20 attacks at one turn, also ai will try to sneak cities in all possible spaces with complete disregard about if that space is a good place to have a city. STILL really good game, a classic but 3 was better
>>1725620>but nothing is more boring and painful than sit through 20 attacks at one turnOne thing that's cool about civ4 is that it lets you customize things. You don't actually need to sit through 20 attacks. You can just turn on "stack attack" and everything is instantaneous. You can also turn on quick combat if you still want to micromanage the battles unit by unit, but skipping the combat animations.By contrast, in civ5, by design, you are forced to manually make every single unit in your army move, one by one, every turn. There's few units, sure, but the amount of clicks and waiting is still going to be longer than a properly-configured civ4.
>>1722685>Also Alpha Centauri was peak not Civ IV.As someone playing through SMAC again right now, you could not be more right. The amount of little features is fucking amazing. I just had to deal with invading a small archipelago using nothing but customized amphibious units. A very minor customization as far as SMAC goes, but it'd be impossible in Civ here in 2024.
Any fun mapscripts to try out outside the usual fractal/pangaea/continents?
>>1725588To be fair, Brian Reynolds is basically second only to Sid Meier himself.
>>1725620turn on quick combat my guy
>>1725624I like Totestra. It produces the most realistic maps I've ever seen in a game.
>>1725627>start game as Egypt>spawn in tundra>next to Aztecswhy would you even need realistic maps in a board game
>>1723973Thanks for the link to that lecture Anon, interesting stuff.
>>1725620why are you still playing with full combat animations ON after early game?
>>1725627Would adding this mapscript to a mod be as simple as dropping it in a specific folder? I want to try this with C2C since I play with Perfectworld2 maps in the mod solely.
Civ 6 is the best by far and it's not even closeMuh one unit per tile is basically the only thing it does poorly, but districts improve the game so much that it's not even funny. Districts make non-war engaging.
>>1725884>Districts make non-war engaging.That's because tiles don't feel so unique, anymore.In Civ 4, at higher levels you'd be contemplating citizen placement and switching up tile improvements during peace time.If you're running slavery, you want to micro back and forth between production and food tiles to satisfy your lowered happiness cap.There are also specialists, so sometimes you don't work any tiles and just micro citizens into specialists for great people generation.Not to mention that tiles with resources on them are so much better. Irrigated corn farm gives 6 food per turn, while a regular farm on grasslands gives only 3.
>>1725884i honeslty prefer the way millennia did it. You build the improvement and "districts" by yourself.
>>1725571>>1725585>old man finds out the hard way that he is no longer the target audience and corporations didn't even hesistate to drop him
>>1725884vi districts suck because they force you to have planned out the entire game by turn 50
everything after you placed down the markers is just busywork
>>1726075>>1726076>New resources spawn>Wonder you wanted to buy gets builtWhoops, there go you plansNot to mention that it's not 100% solvable. There is often a choice between keeping a high yield tile or getting really nice district adjacency 100 turns from now. Lots of short term vs long term reward.>busyworkCity management is always just "busywork" if you're being reductive about it. Once you learn the mechanic it always becomes solvable. That's how it is in every Civ game. The difference is that districts have a way higher planning requirement and rewards thinking in advance much more than city management in the other civ games.
Put over 300 hours into civ 4 and beyond the sword and I'm just now playing colonization for the first time. Pretty comfy.
>>1726238my tip for you is to abandon all your coastal cities and build a fortress city in-land. Can't be specific because last time i played it was 2017 KEK
>>1726105>New resources spawnHaving strategic/luxury resources block off district placement is so dumb. There should be an option to harvest them, keeping them as a resource off the map. Or just let players build over it and get the bonus like with a regular fucking city center (like in EL?). There's better ways to have randomness than this annoying asterisk of a rule
>>1711562The thing I loved about Civ4 was that you had several strategic level choices you could make about your overall strategy used to win the game. The economic system allowed you to choose your strategy based on your situation. This offered a lot of replay value. In one game, you might find yourself with lots of green land around you and employ a rapid expansion strategy, spamming cottages everywhere. You fall behind in tech in the early game as your maintenance costs are high, and you need to whip up armies to defend yourself. The early game is a struggle but when you make it to the late game and switch to a free speech/universal suffrage economy, you gain economic dominance and can win a space victory or military victory because you're ahead in tech. In another game, you might play a philosophical leader with a good capital starting position but not enough room for a large empire. You could settle specialists and build wonders and gain a mid game tech lead. From there, you could push for a cultural victory. Or, depending on the circumstances, you could take that mid game tech lead and turn it into a military edge and try to conquer the world with an advanced army. In yet another game, you might be playing a military leader and start in shitty land. Your only hope of winning is to take the better land by force - so you go on a rampage in the early game and conquer a huge empire. Doing this, however, puts you behind in tech and your economy is in rough shape. You decide to catch up in tech via espionage and focus on that - stealing technology to gain tech parity with your rivals and using communism, state property, to boost your industrial production and then build a vast military to conquer the rest of the world. Civ 4 got so many things right. The expansion cost mechanic is still the best of any 4x game ever made. It's so simple and yet it works so well and makes so much intuitive sense.
>>1711619civ 4 predates Steam so if you're judging it by whatever it's doing on Steam, you're retarded.
>>1718763I see your point, but Xcom Ew/EU and Xcom 2 are really good games. They're different from the original but they're very good in their own way. I played Civ 2-4 for over a thousand hours each game and put several hundred into civ 5, which was alright. For the life of me, I can't get into civ 6, at all.
>>1727044It's not a matter of good or bad, it's a matter of "do you want to play a board game or a tycoon game, y/n?"So if you're coming into nu-Com thinking you're getting a tycoon game, or coming into Civ 6 from SMAC, III, or IV, then you WILL have an extremely bad time.
>>1711599meanwhile I just played by autistically keeping all my forests so I could build lumbermills and national parks and admire my pretty cities in the late game.
>>1712672c2c was made by a literal, clinically diagnosed autist.He defended his design choices by saying that if you could find a building in a city - be it a McDonalds or a bodega or a tranny strip club - it should also be included in the game. So 90% of the gameplay loop consists of scrolling through literally hundreds of PDX style 5% boost buildings for every city every turn.Bloat the mod.
>>1727041all of that sounds fine and dandy if you're a noble/monarch playerimmortal and deity will beeline you into very specific routes where there's little room for maneuver on deity, science and culture difficulties are a wet dream, if we're talking random/fractal gensyour most optimal and usually the only route towards victory is tech trading wisely and opting for one of the rushes that are available to you, elephants, horse archers, cuirrasiers, knights/trebs..
>>1727267victories, not difficulties*
>>1711565I miss him, some times I play without BtS just so I can only hear him.
>>1727083>c2c was made by a literal, clinically diagnosed autist.really need a university education to figure out that one
>>1727267I agree and that's why I don't play 4x games on the highest difficulty. They're not fun anymore because 90% of the game's content is no longer relevant. That's why I liked XCOM so much, because you're fighting an asymetrical war anyway, so giving the AI bonuses didn't make the game unfun. In a 4x game, everyone is supposed to be playing the same game so when the AI gets absurd bonuses in one area and not another, it just means you only have one or two strategies that work against it.I did beat immortal a couple of times but I had to play in specific ways and there was no strategic flexibility. Also, playing on high difficulty feels like what I do doesn't matter. I could have the most land and pop and spam research labs everywhere but still won't get a tech lead. Some people like it, I don't. To me, the game stops being fun past emperor. Fortunately there are enough games out there that I can just play something else once I get that good.
>>1725571Cool schizo thread
>>1725571>>1725585kek
Sufficiently advanced trolling.
>>1727559you missed the best part
>>1726075If you don't plan out your empire by turn 25 are you really playing Civ?
So what do the posters in this thread mean when they are complaining about being boardgamey? You've always been able to play the entire game in your head if you felt like it. Scrolling through this thread it just looks they mean aesthetics. Is this just a indirect way of complaining about hexes? I don't get it. Why not complain about the gameplay instead, there's plenty of problems there.
>>1727653yes, one of the good ones. most civs have loads of contingent choices to the degree where you fill out the details of a general plan as you go. unlike 6, where you start with the details and fill in the general plan over time. completely ass-backwards.
>>1727654It's 'boardgame-y' in that it replaces stuff like social engineering with literal cards for government policies. The fact that they're called 'cards' is what's boardgame-y about it. This isn't a bad thing on its face, in fact the general idea of swapping policies to match your present needs is fine, the issue is that it takes you out of it. You're not playing a game about charting the history of a civilization, you're playing a board game that's history-themed.Compare SMAC, which was the opposite in its presentation, going so far as to have short interludes that describe some significant event related to the game's plot. If you didn't care about the story of your empire vs the awakening planetary god, this interlude could be considered 'too wordswordswords', which isn't a bad thing on its face either but it isn't what you might want in a game.
>>1727508There's still room to go for off-meta strategies like full religous on immortal, and even to dick around a bit, provided that you play it smartly. Which is fine in my mind. Obviously on the second to hardest to difficulty you shouldn't be able to do just about anything stupid and win.But yeah deity is another beast.
>>1727671It's not about "just doing anything", it's about how high difficulty skews the game and imbalances it. Let's look at an example: In Civ 4, you could expand wide in the early game and focus on cottages, get more land and pop and eventually have a huge economic lead in the late game, provided you could survive the early game. You could use your specialists for academies and some golden ages, etc. This would be a strategy to dominate the late game. Or, another thing you could do is keep your empire small, focus on specialists, get more science in the early game, and then start bulbing your GP to gain an immediate tech lead. This tech lead would not last. You would need to push your advantage in the moment. You could extent it for a while by trading techs but eventually that would no longer work. You could take advantage of a short term tech lead by reaching a key military tech, like unlocking cuirassiers, and then going on a rampage. Hopefully you could conquer so much land that you would then be competitive for the late game. Either strategy should work, the game clearly allows you to do either one. They both have pros and cons. If you were playing multiplayer, you could go either way, though what you'd probably do is a mixture of both. The problem is that when playing against AI with handicaps, there is no point in going for strategy one. Strategy two is the only option here. You absolutely cannot have a better economy than the AI over time on high difficulty.
>>1727671>>1727764cont. Another example of imbalance is that the AI gets all these cheat/handicap bonuses on higher difficulty but it doesn't actually get any better at fighting and its units aren't any stronger than yours. This is why when you play on high difficulty you usually need to be waging a lot of war to win. This is simply because the AI gets somewhat of an advantage to war but gets a relatively bigger advantage to peace. It skews the balance and it forces you into a specific way of playing. It's not just Civ 4, you see this in all games. In Warcraft 3, for example, the AI sucked at fighting but you could give it cheat bonuses to its resources. This made playing against the high level AI boring because, again, it skewed the game. Rushing was always the best strategy because you could never get more resources than the AI. If you decided to rush it, then the AI on hard was just as easy to kill as the AI on easy. On the other hand, if you opted to creep and expand you would face a crazy huge army if you were playing against hard AI. (this is what I did because it was fun, but the optimal strategy was always to rush). You see the same thing in Age of Wonders 3. When you play on a medium difficulty level, you have different options as to what you want to do. You can go for a rogue rush strategy, where you spam scoundrels and rush your opponent in the early game. It can work. Or, you can play as a dreadnought and have a slow early game but become powerful in the late game and dominate that way. On high difficulty, you have no choice. The rogue rush strategy works because you don't give the AI time for its cheat bonuses to kick in. Rogue rushing the highest level AI is exactly the same as rogue rushing the lowest AI, because the actual tactical ability of the AI doesn't change. On the other hand, trying to turtle up as a dreadnought against the highest AI doesn't work well.
>>1727671>>1727764>>1727769cont 2. Even with double the land and much better developed cities, the AI will still outproduce you. You can still win as a turtling dreadnought against emperor AI's, but it will be an extreme challenge and you will probably lose. Compare it to the rogue rush strategy and it's like night and day. Rogue rushing is so easy even against emperor AI's. This is boring. Rogue rushing is not a superior strategy to dreadnought turtling. Both can work. The problem is that when you give the AI bonuses you only give it bonuses in some areas, not others. The AI's economic output is like tripled on emperor. The starting army? The same. The AI's ability to fight? The same. Thus a rush is no different on easy vs hard because the economic bonus doesn't matter much at that point in the game. But going into the late game vs an AI with a 3x economic cheat is a very bad strategy. Unfortunately, the skewing of the game just makes it less fun for me because it removes options. Let's look at another example - in Civ 5, you could play as Korea and get bonus science, or you could play as Assyria and get science for killing cities. Both options should be viable and they both are when you just compare them. In a multiplayer game, a person playing Korea would have just as much chance of winning as a person playing Assyria. If I'm Korea and I have the exact same number of cities and pop as you, I should have a tech lead. I can use that to have better units and better defense. The person playing Assyria can also win but it's not like Assyria is better than Korea, it's just different. They need to fight and win wars and get tech that way. However, when you play against an AI that double food, production, and beaker output, then the Korean bonus doesn't matter. You can play as Korea and have more cities and pop than your opponent and they will always be ahead of you in science. No matter what you do, you will always be behind in science.
>>1727671>>1727764>>1727769>>1727773cont 3. The Assyrian bonus, however, works well on the highest difficulty level because the AI can't fight for shit, so you can still fight and win wars and you'll get your tech that way. It's not that Assyria is a better civ, it's not. It's just that both civs are fine but on the highest difficulty level, the Korean bonus becomes irrelevant. You see the same sort of thing happening in Civ 4. You can't just build a stronger economy and be a balance of power player. Of all the strategies in the game, 90% of them become irrelevant when you up the difficulty level. I suppose you could say the imbalance exists on lower difficulties as well since the AI isn't as good at fighting and therefore winning via conquest is easier than winning via another method. But at least the feels feels more rich when you're playing on a medium-high difficulty as it feels like there are so many options and different things to do. On the highest difficulty you have only a few options. And it's not because those options are inherently better, they aren't. It's not like they're the best in multiplayer. When you're playing against an opponent who just gets double of everything you get, it breaks the game. It's the common problem of all 4x games and it's why I think I'm getting bored of them. The only way to solve it is with better AI. I think the 4x genre is getting really stale these days. Why do we need to play the same game as the AI? I think the 4x genre needs a shakeup. I loved playing Xcom EU/EW and Xcom 2 on the highest difficulty because it was fun. It didn't feel like it broke the game at all. All strategies were still viable. The computer, my opponent, wasn't playing the same game as I, so it didn't matter if it got bonuses.
>>1727671>>1727764>>1727769>>1727777cont 4The problem with 4x AI and giving it cheat bonuses when it's supposed to be playing the same game as you is that it breaks the game and it forces you to do things that you wouldn't be doing against an actually good opponent. Look at chess. Playing chess vs the computer is fun because the computer can just kick your ass and doesn't need to cheat to win. Now, imagine chess AI was like 4x game AI and just sucked ass. Imagine playing chess vs the computer on hard difficulty just meant allowing the computer to cheat. Imagine you had to start with fewer pawns, or the computer got extra pawns, or its rooks moved like queens, or something stupid like that. Would that be fun? The problem with that is that you would no longer be playing chess. All the strategies and interesting openings and stuff that you could think of would not apply to that game because it wouldn't be chess. Playing against a computer that got extra pieces wouldn't necessarily help you get better at actually playing chess. The experience wouldn't transfer very well to playing against human opponents because you would not be playing chess, you'd be playing some weird asymmetrical version of chess. It's not the same game. Like imagine playing vs the computer on hard just meant you had no knights. Is that fun? I'd argue that's not fun. What if you love the knight and it's your favourite chess piece? Now you can't work on any knight strategies. To me, that's what playing against the cheating computer in a symmetrical game feels like. Giving the computer moderate cheat bonuses is fine because it still feels like the same game, but once the bonuses go off the charts it just becomes absurd and unfun. At least to me. I'd rather learn a new game. /rant
>>1727627>Everyone that plays it is a man>Talking about a series with one of the most even gender splits in gaming.
>>1727764>>1727769>>1727773>>1727777>>1727779tl;dr lolPretty good exposition Anon, keep up the good work.
>>1727508you're absolutely right. What I hate the most about immortal and deity in specific, is the fact that they aren't necessarily hard in terms of straining your judgment, knowledge of the game and the ability to calculate properly, but rather, it becomes a tedium of tracking a small myriad of tiny variables just so you can clutch out that small bit of advantage - minor things like delaying your research for the first 5 turns tech discounts, heavily microing your tiles just so you can scratch off one turn from a pivotal tech you need, making sure a particular tile is fogbusted properly etc etcI view it as a tedium, because it leans more on the side of busywork rather than straining the depths of your strategic ability
>>1727764>>1727769>>1727773>>1727777>>1727779very insightful posts. I've been ruminating on the same topic for quite a while lately, because I've been trying to get better at both immortal and deity games. Alas, I don't see a solution to this conundrum other than the radical advancements in the way the AI plays and how advanced it is, because simply handing out ridiculous bonuses to even out the playing field is both lazy, stale and most of all - an artificial challenge that results in you playing a different game alltogether, on a more meta level, while the AI is still bogged down with limitations in terms of in-game logic, like how some leaders for example, can't plot while pleased and such, not realizing the greater picture of "game theory".Maybe one of the solutions here is to "nerf" the player instead in this regard - make him consider the game in terms the AI would by providing proper ingame incentivesAs in, spreading your religion is a good example of this - you get a prophet building that benefits from it so you are incentivized to do it in gameplay terms, but simultaneously, the AI also does it because their leaders are coded to do it from the personality factor basis
Insightful my ass, it's just an autist sperging out over the simple fact that higher difficulty levels require better play - that you can't make bad decisions and still win.Which is the fucking point.
>>1727993>higher difficulty levels require better playShit take.As an example, why does the game have wonders at all, if you're not supposed to build them? On Deity, you just don't get to build wonders, especially ancient/classical ones. If you try, you'll waste crucial turns when you could have built infrastructure or military, since you will always get beaten by the AI.If "good play" is ignoring entire systems in the game, then the game is badly designed.
>>1727993retardthey do not require better playthey require THE ONLY PLAY because due to inherent flaws in the game's balance, some shit will work and some won'tIt drastically cuts down your strategical variety on game to game basis and pigeonholes you into a small number of strategies that can work, which leads to repetition and dullnessLike, I know founding a religion is absolutely useless if not detrimental on deity (since you have to burn production to spread it instead of letting the AI do it and then capping holy cities for benefit) and is a needless hassle in most of immortal games, which reduces the amount of playstyles I have available to win the game
>>1728005this is also true and shows how limited your playstyle becomesin ancient/classical, wonders become a betting game and your odds vary from game to game depending on a shitload of factorsGreat Library might be the only one that is semi-guaranteed due to the AI's reluctance to go Aesthetics in favor of Alphabet/Math/Iron (which also makes it a monopoly tech to trade early game, something you can rarely go without on deity games).. but Pyramids, Great Lighthouse, Colossus? It's a gamble that'll cost you the game if it fails, more often than notAnd forget that Oracle even fucking exists, even IF you have a perfect spot and leader to rush it. It'll come at such a high expense that your production and expansion won't catch up to the AI
>>1728005>As an example, why does the game have wonders at all, if you're not supposed to build them? Which difficulty? You'll obviously almost never build a wonder on Deity, but certainly on Immortal. But even if you can't build wonders, you can put hammers into them for failgold, which allows you to turn 1 hammer into 1-2.5 commerce, depending on if you have the strategic resource for it and whether you're industrious.And even then, if the AI builds a wonder that you'd like first, you can try to conquer their city.All that being said, the game is not meant to be exclusively played on Deity difficulty, nor are ALL the wonders unavailable on Deity, so I don't see the point of your complaint when you can just pick a lower difficulty.It's also the case that most other games played on their highest level will only have a handful of viable tactics left.
>>1728022>they require THE ONLY PLAY because due to inherent flaws in the game's balance, some shit will work and some won'tif all options are equally good there is no meaningful choice. as difficulty increases each sitation will approach having exactly one correct solution.again you brain-damaged idiot, that is the point of higher difficulty in a turn based game.
>>1728043>as difficulty increases each sitation will approach having exactly one correct solution.no shit retardthe point of discussion is that it's inherently unfun and tediousthe difficulty should gradually scale with the AI's ability to play the game, not from receiving gibbs and handouts like nigger on foodstamps in downtown Chicagoalso, you braindead faggot, there's a big difference between playing optimally with a meaningful choice and playing optimally with a minimal choice - deity on civ 4 is the latterAnd when the game, as demonstrated, cuts out a vast portion of its content due to it not being optimal and viable (like lol, who has ever used fucking serfdom policy above Noble), then it's a matter of lousy design
just install the better AI mod and play lower difficulty where it cheats less but still is "smart"
>>1727654There are two different types of justifications for a game mechanic. There are "simulationist" justifications, where the mechanic attempts to directly represent something that exists in reality; and then there are more "boardgamey" justifications, which vaguely wave at reality if they bother at all, and the important thing is that it provides interesting choices that deepen the decision-making of the game. It's basically the difference between American-style board games and Euros.Civ has always straddled the line between the two (if you want a deeper simulation of history, you'd play a grand strategy game instead), but most of the new mechanics in Civ 6 lean further in the boardgamey direction. The city district system is interesting and makes for interesting choices, but there's nothing "real" about it. You're never going to find "this city abuts a conveniently-shaped mountain range, and that's why it became the premier center for scientific discovery" in a history book. It barely even makes sense (telescope observatories? hermits meditating?). The upside is that the gameplay is interesting. The downside is that it hurts the impression that you are guiding an actual "history could have happened this way" civilisation, and at some point you see through the illusion and realise that you're just moving numbers between different resource piles.
>>1728048Thinker AI of SMAC do makes the game much harder, if I'm not paying attention I'll get my ass kicked fairly. But it exposes that the civ 2 model of ICS is fucking shit. Everyone spams city by 4x4 grid and then every war will be a grind. Including Morgan who logically by game design should do that but by lore shouldn't.
>>1728046>the point of discussion is that it's inherently unfun and tediousYou haven't demonstrated how it's "inherently" unfun and tedious, though?>the difficulty should gradually scale with the AI's ability to play the gameThe developers of this game literally went on a GDC talk to explain why they specifically avoided this.They wanted AIs that the player can manipulate to his will and create actual personalities, while still presenting a challenge. Whereas you want everyone to become a generic chess opponent who plays to win.Think of Civ 4 opponents less like other players and more like NPCs. >there's a big difference between playing optimally with a meaningful choice and playing optimally with a minimal choice - deity on civ 4 is the latterDeity absolutely has "meaningful" choices. Just go watch any Lain video where he gets extremely unlucky, gets cornered by 2 AIs, is extremely behind in tech, yet still manages to squeeze out a victory by adapting to the situation.>cuts out a vast portion of its content due to it not being optimal and viableThen you go on to name the one only civic that is undebatedly bad. How fucking dishonest. And no, serfdom DOES have a niche use, for spiritual leaders, e.g. temporarily transitioning into a different economy like workshop spamming a bunch of newly conquered city that have fuck all for cottages.
>>1728166Oh, not to mention, serfdom is especially useful for spamming railroads after the tech is unlocked, since you want that extra hammer and extra movementspeed ASAP.
>>1728166>Excuse me sir why is the AI in your game so terrible at playing?>uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh we did that on purpose because it's more funyeah
>>1728207This but unironically.
What's your favorite civilization to play as? It has been a long time since I played civilization 4 and truth be told I have never played on higher difficulties, but I always liked Portuguese the most. Especial on archipelago maps since you get a leg-up in colonization thanks to carrack. Joao II also had a fine traits if I say so.
>>1728215The point that 4X AIs are terrible that have to be buttressed by absurd bonuses to be difficult is one that applies to all sorts of strategy games, but Civ 4 is kind of a bad example because the Deity AI isn’t absurdly difficult because of those bonuses, it’s all a result of the tech trading system throwing the pacing of tech progress out of whack.I maintain that every game of Civ 4 should be played with tech trading off, as that strictly improves the experience with no downsides.
>>1728281Shit I was replying to >>1728046 my bad
>>1728281tech trading makes the game easier, not harder
>>1728322Nah, at the beginning it’s the same but tech trading is what allows the AI to absolutely blitz through the Classical and Medieval techs with zero effort and ensures that nearly every AI opponent is equally overpowered instead of just the select few that benefitted from a good start. In any case, tech trading is the reason Deity play is so inflexible because your only option to do anything is to exploit the AI for favorable trades, and most of the efficacy of the exchanges is almost entirely out of your hands. If your trading partners hate you cause of peace weights or because you denied a request or even if one of the AIs decides now is the day to rush Aesthetics then you’re just kinda shit out of luck because if you don’t trade with the AI, they’ll trade with each other just as well.No tech trading may make the game “harder” in the sense that you have no crutch mechanic to catch up to runaway AIs, but it also means less successful AIs can’t really catch up either, which potentially gives you a lot more room to breath and to exploit them in other ways. And even runaway AIs can’t win the game nearly as quickly with tech trading off so you have more time to get the snowball rolling and pursue alternative late game win conditions.Of course sometimes the runaway AI is the one next to you and they have no qualms sending a doomstack to just kill you, but that’s the punches you have to roll with when playing on the literal highest difficulty.
>>1727779>>1727777>>1727773>>1727769>>1727764
>>1728215Aztec. Whipping and Jaguars. Time to put every neighbor on edge
>>1725590And it seems slower. And more restrictive compared to Civ IV.
>>1728281Tech trading is super gay because when one AI researches a tech suddenly everybody has it. Except you.
>>1728166>You haven't demonstrated how it's "inherently" unfun and tedious, though?It's been explained above and mostly refers to the busywork of micromanaging city screen yieldsYou'd know how tedious deity can get if you actually played on that level and didn't resort to watching your betters do it, but that's ok>The developers of this game literally went on a GDC talk to explain why they specifically avoided this.I don't care. You can have your cake and eat it too in this scenario - as in, you can have an AI gradually increasing in its competence while retaining unique inclinations and focuses towards achieving its victoryCiv 4 AI determining its victory condition is notoriously bad and focuses on flavor and score only most of the time - this is again, a well known fact if you're a proficient civ 4 player>Deity absolutely has "meaningful" choices.I guess it would seem that way to a novice. Most deity victories are domination/conquest for a reason - because ultimately, you are railroaded towards war as the primary means of winning the game>And no, serfdom DOES have a niche use, for spiritual leadersChieftain player detected. You're literally better off running literally anything else, even for upkeep purposes, than using serfdom lmaoand serfdom is just an example to show an intrinsic imbalance of choices - slavery too is an example, of how it's an inevitable and optimal choice for every game - regardless of civ, map or difficulty. To whip well equals doing well in civ 4it's not rare for game not to even reach emancipation stage or for you to have a combo of civs/wonders/religion to utilize caste system
>>1728281>because the Deity AI isn’t absurdly difficult because of those bonuseswrongthey get absurd discounts on everything and the free starting techs allow them to snowball with early expansionAI's can easily shit out 6 cities before they even have alphabet, while you're barely on your thirdtech trading just helps them later on
>>1725590AI is so retarded I managed to cripple one (on Deity on my first run no less), by parking a warrior outside of its city and regularly killing settlers.
>>1728472>It's been explained above and mostly refers to the busywork of micromanaging city screen yieldsCitizen micro-management is literally the best part of Civ 4 and what prevents you from snoozing off during peace times. It's what seperates a good player from a casual player.>Civ 4 AI determining its victory condition is notoriously bad and focuses on flavor and score only most of the time That's... literally what I said. The AI plays to roleplay, not to win. Again, you should be treating the AI like an NPC that you can manipulate, not an elite-level AoE 2 AI on the highest difficulty. Having Mansa Musa as your neighbor will demand a different playstyle than having Hannibal as your neighbor. These scenarios create variety and their unwillingness to win creates an entirely new experience. >Most deity victories are domination/conquest for a reason - because ultimately, you are railroaded towards war as the primary means of winning the gameYes, but everything around the war, like preparation, trade, settling a new city, deciding to build new improvements, diplomacy, all these things present meaningful choices.Also, a good number of deity wins are also diplomatic victories. Again, watch Lain videos to find out.>You're literally better off running literally anything else, even for upkeep purposes, than using serfdomNope, a spiritual leader switching to serfdom is very situational, but it is viable and has been done on archived deity games on CivFanatic, before. >slavery too is an example, of how it's an inevitable and optimal choice for every game - regardless of civ, map or difficulty. Slavery is very powerful, but slavery in itself adds a whole another dimension of strategy to the game, so I find it acceptable. Food tiles would be pretty useless without slavery. You usually temporarily switch to caste system to get great people out for beelines, or to work workshops after chemistry & state property.
>>1728281Oh yeah I turned off tech trading a long time ago and never looked back. I also played with Kmod where you would get a small amount of tech cost reduction when you had trade routes with civs that had tedhs you did not. It made things a little more interesting.
>>1728372So I'm guessing you rush iron working and spam Jaguars? Jaguar always seemed to me like a weird uu since it has lower strength that the unit it replaces. Of course it's 5 hammers cheaper, you don't have to relay on iron spawn which is nice and it get a free woodman promotion, but it's still a downgrade in term of offensive.
>>1728648Yeah Jaguars are probably pretty underpowered but its a funny little thing to do.
>>1728474Let me put it this way, tech trading off games are harder to win because you don’t have a bullshit catchup mechanic to abuse the AI with. At the same time, there are many more viable strategies and avenues to victory because you aren’t pigeonholed into abusing said bullshit mechanic to win.YMMV as to what you prefer but I obviously find the latter to make for far more interesting games.
>>1728648I think jags are fine units in and of themselves. Their main drawback is requiring iron working, which is not the cheapest tech in the early game. Since they require IW, you're not likely to get them before your target has strategics hooked up. For choking purposes I'd rather have an impi or even a holkan. Dog soldiers work, too. Still, I've had some fun doing jag rushes. Only on emperor and below, though. I'd never try it on immortal.
>>1728926Without tech trading I feel like diplomacy is a bit lacking in options (although I tend to play with no vassals as I don't really like that mechanic.)
is colonizing early in terra maps worth itt. poortugal
>>1728992Colonizing before astronomy trade routes is not woth it. Whick makes the portuguese unique unit not only useless but detrimental.
>>1723973I think they actyally tried something along withe a thought of "a fun AI" with the AI incentives but it ended up being doubly retarded with with ragnar dissing your landlocked civ for not having a navy. And even if you had a navy it would be very counter-intuitive for a navally oriented civ to like someone with a navy. Naturally they would like landlocked nations as they would present no competition.
>>1729029Colonizing the new world as Portugal pre astronomy is pretty much the only time that the colony independence mechanic can have any effect on the game. It's still a roleplaying thing to do but remember you can trade with your colony while using mercantilism and you can tell them what to research and then tech trade with them.
>>1729295Oh yeah I kinda forgot tall about he whole releasing of colonies mechanic and holy shit do I hate banking and mercantilism.
>>1711562It's the last one that had some semblance of simulationism that would appeal to certain people. Civ V/VI design choices are too gamey for that sort of playerbase to stick with and so they completely abandoned Civ. Similar to how historyfags abandoned TW.
>>1728043Huh? All options should have circumstances in which they are good or best otherwise why include them in the game?
>>1728568>Citizen micro-management is literally the best part of Civ 4 and what prevents you from snoozing off during peace times.No lol, not when you have 7+ cities and you constantly need to squeeze as much as possible out of them. It's repetitive and tediousWhat separates a good player from a casual player is meta knowledge of the game - especially how and when to tech trade. Every retard can do "OH I CAN HASTEN UP MONARCHY BY ONE TURN IF I SQUEEZE OUT 9 MORE COMMERCE BY MICROING"You conflate tedium and strategy.>That's... literally what I said. The AI plays to roleplay, not to win. Yes? My point is that you can have the AI RP and be better at the game simultaneously. The way Civ 4 AI is set up is, they're just punching bags or bullies because they're coded to be such, not because they perceive a winning condition.>Yes, but everything around the war, like preparation, trade, settling a new city, deciding to build new improvements, diplomacy, all these things present meaningful choices.That's like saying using civics presents a meaningful choice - it's a fundamental part of the game. The problem with the game is that you can safely disregard too many choices and tactics in favor of blatantly more optimal combinations. >Nope, a spiritual leader switching to serfdom is very situationalYeah, for memes maybe. If your aim is to get the infrastructure up for say - a blitz attack, you're AGAIN better off just doing slavery and whipping out extra units instead. You'll be hard pressed to find serfdom be useful even in 1 out of a 100 games and that's bad game design>Slavery is very powerful, but slavery in itself adds a whole another dimension of strategy to the game, so I find it acceptable. I wish there were more alternatives, because something being a no-brainer pick forms a meta and there being meta takes away from the strategic aspect of it all
>>1727042Nobody plays their physical copies anymore lol - they got scratched, lost, etc. Even the few physical disks I still own that still work I have simply rebought the game on Steam/GOG.
>>1733075I still use my physical copy of Civ4 complete edition
>>1733093also unlike civ5/6 it has Complete Edition released on GOG you can buy for pennies
>>1731119you're conflating [option A is correct in situation X, option B is correct in situation Y] with [in situation X option A is optimal]
Fall from Heaven II and dozens of other mods. i wouldn't touch this game with its kiddy models otherwise. unmodded it is forgettable goyslop.Every civ after 4 was unmoddable and thus goyslop for subhumans. Civ 3 was the last good vanilla civ.
>>1727042>civ 4 predates Steamyou fucking piece of shit zoomer. >>1733075this has to be a troll post.
>>1733014>You conflate tedium and strategy.I didn't say it was strategic, I said that optimizing your cities keeps you busy when you'd otherwise keep pressing end turn. It doesn't become very tedious, either, unless if you're already winning. >My point is that you can have the AI RP and be better at the game simultaneously.No. The reason many people like Civ 4 is that the AI /doesn't/ play to win. This makes every leader's personality more profound. "Playing better" is anti-thetical to that.But at this point we're not talking about objective game quality. You just prefer an opponent who tries to win, and I prefer the NPC-like approach that Civ 4 chose.>The problem with the game is that you can safely disregard too many choices and tactics in favor of blatantly more optimal combinations.It's a relatively minor problem because the choices the games does give you still provide you with a challenge, unlike future Civs.>Yeah, for memes maybe. nope>and there being meta takes away from the strategic aspect of it allYet Civ 4 is left with enough strategic depth to majorly challenge even the best Civ 4 players on deity.
>>1733345>I said that optimizing your cities keeps you busy when you'd otherwise keep pressing end turn.Hey, if constantly swapping out tiles is your idea of fun, go at it. I'd prefer that the player wastes his turn thinking the greater strategy behind it, rather than tedious micro optimization deity is notorious for>No. The reason many people like Civ 4 is that the AI /doesn't/ play to win.No, they like it because there are still many aspects to the way AI plays and it can indeed still challenge the very best in the world, on its higher difficulties. You present a false dilemma - again, the AI can have biases and leanings with an understanding of winning conditions. Slapping ridiculous bonuses on a largely RP AI is a lazy band-aid, not a design choiceIf it truly was a design choice, they wouldn't code AI to march and attack you half across the globe because you failed an opinion dice roll. It's ridiculous>It's a relatively minor problem because the choices the games does give you still provide you with a challengeIt depends on how you look at it. I'd prefer an AI who is able of calculating the weak spots in my empire and striking with precision and out of opportunity, not brute forcing its way with 10 gorillion troops printed out via 10 gorillion artificial bonuses that I have but a handful of choices to counter with>nopeI mean, we've already established you can only watch and not play. Truly, only a chieftain player would claim that serfdom is of any use whatsoever, beyond that 1 absurdly specific scenario that happens in roughly 1 out of 100 games>Yet Civ 4 is left with enough strategic depth to majorly challenge even the best Civ 4 players on deity.Not really, no. I again refer to my argument that most victories end up being conquest or domination which pidgeonholes you into choosing between a few viable rushes depending on your position and circumstances.It could be so much more, but some things simply aren't viable on deity
>>1733107No, you're the one who can't follow a conversation. The entire complaint was that only a few options are viable no matter what the circumstances when you play on deity.
>>1733338Are you retarded? It does predate steam so using steam metrics like the use of mods on steam is not a good measurement of the modding community. Dial down your autism.
Does anyone play with random events left on? How do you deal with slave revolts?
>>1734353Kill the pop. It's pretty simple.
>>1711562Civ4 was decent but Civ3 was where the series really hit its stride. Stone Age spear chuckers shredding my tanks while I'm smashing the keyboard. Good times.
I love, love, love the look and sound of Civ 4. It's maximum comfy. The zoomed out globe view, the zoomed in music, the units yawning, etc. Stuff like that just oozes charm.But I'm finding the gameplay rather tedious. You're constantly accumulating units. You never stop accumulating units and occasionally whipping them out with slavery. It feels like I'm running a factory.Still, the game is so damn comfy. I want to get good at it.
My biggest problem with Civ 4 is the low movement. 1 movement for most melee, 2 for most horse units.
>>1735189You make it sound like organizing armies in Civ4 is somehow Vicky2 tier but at least on land you can just mass move everyone easily. What I hate the most is the combat being so ridiculously driven by RNG. Two death stacks meeting pretty much have a single RNG roll standing between a stalemate or one side crippling the other. Civ5 making it so that combat wasn't always to the death was definitely a better way to do things
>>1711562Best design, atmosphere, music, and gameplay.
>>1735455The RNG is fine for doom stack situations since you get more rolls. You can make an estimate of what portion of your army will survive if you commit to an attack, you just can't guarantee which unit exactly will live and die. The system only sucks in early game situations where, given enough games, you'll sometimes lose one-on-one against a stray barbarian and lose a city at 5% odds.>Civ5 making it so that combat wasn't always to the death was definitely a better way to do thingsKeeping units alive through micro feels nice but it's part of the reason the AI is so easy in that game, it can't micro. Civ 4 forces you to take calculated risks and make sacrifices which often stings but I kind of like it more.
>>1736399>You can make an estimate of what portion of your army will survive if you commit to an attackMe to half my stack that's nothing but Swordsmen with City Raider
So what are the best mods that aren't total conversions?
>>1734166>It does predate steamSteam released two years before Civ 4, you could have done a simple internet search before making this embarrassing projection-filled post
>>1736650K-mod probably
>>1738163pretty sure advanced civ is newer version of kmod and maintained even to this dayhttps://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/advanced-civ.614217/anyway he should check modpacks and various mods on this site
>>1738127and was civ 4 available on steam when it came out? No? That's right, it wasn't. Was anyone even using steam before Dota 2? No? That's right, no one had even heard of it.
>>1738166does advanced civ have the Kmod balance changes, though? I actually liked the small balance changes, like lumbermills coming earlier. I also liked the global warming system because it made happiness important in the late game. Without global warming, happiness becomes trivial in the late game.
>>1741204i think it has a lot of them but changes/adds to/removes some of them. it's got an autistic 600 page long manual that explains every change and specifically pages 13-15 describes any changes to kmod balance changes
>>1711562>Civilization III>What made Civ 3 so special that people designate it as the cut-off point from when the series started declining?FTFY
>>1718841This board game was actually really good. Better than the sequel game that came out imo. Although the sequel had an interesting game mechanic I've never seen in a board game and strictly-speaking looked much better
>>1727844Anon, I have this awesome bridge to sell you, great deal, I have many buyers you're missing out
>>17115626 is better
>>1741270>produce highest attack unit or settlers and found cities 2 squares diagonally apart: the gameThe only reason for prefering III over IV is being an ironic hipster who hasn't really played either or literal, severe autism with particular love for repetetive tasks and III just happened to be the first one you tried and hyperfixated on.
Unlike IV where producing less powerful units is the preferred strategy.
>>1743134explain pls
>>1743436lots of times I've seen players deliberately disconnect their metal so they can build super-cheap warriors instead of axemen. later in the game Riflemen are a one-pop draft whereas all later units cost two pops to draft
>>1743478what do they do with the warriors though? aren't they too weak? do they upgrade them later?
>>1743484There are a few phases of the game where you need military units for happiness. For that purpose, a warrior is just as good as an axe or spear. I've definitely churned warriors in inland, non-river cities that were not on the trade network yet. I guess disconnecting iron and copper are just more extreme versions of that?I'm not sure about upgrading more than a few of them though.That can get expensive.
>>1743484Fogbusting and Monarchy filler yes not combat.>>1743532Oh thank god that's what you meant. I was in the middle of trying to math out how many warriors you would need to edge out an equal amount of hammers spent on archers or axeman, then I realized you have to account for whipping. Not that you need to go that far to get the answer but still. Anyways warriors do not trade well at all without a ridiculous numbers advantage because of the way combat strength differences work. Simply put two 2s does not evenly match one 4 in this game.
People forget that civ 3 was a bit of a downturn for the series, then there was all that call to power shite that muddied things too.Civ 4 was the true successor to civ 2 and as a result one of the greatest games of all time.
>>1743532>>1743540damn, that sounds like a brilliant strat for monarchy. what's the next step after monarchy though? how do you deal with unhappiness after monarchy?
>>1743796>how do you deal with unhappiness after monarchy?generally you've traded for a bunch of luxuries by then, so some mix of markets/temples/mp keeps the worst of it in check
only faggots disconnect metal. whip more axes and cats bitch
>>1743806ah, i see. what's mp?
>>1743796after Monarchy comes Representation which is +3 happiness in largest cities (which inherently require happiness the most). don't know what mp is unless it's military police (but that would imply keeping monarchy)
>>1743787>civ3 was actually a bad game okayyeah
>>1743897honestly there's a strong argument to keep hereditary rule well into the industrial era.representation is mostly for people who fell for the specialist economy meme
>>1744338>memewhat do you do then, chieftainlet, when you're on a zero commerce/no river start with an abundance of food, with marble/stone and a viable opportunity to go mids/great library and/or an industrial leadergood luck getting the value out of your plains cottages at turn 180 while I effortlessly bulb my way to lib, you faggot
I really enjoyed citybuilding in Civ 4, to this day it makes complete sense and every other citybuilding mechanic in any other 4x game isnt as robust. The citybuilding depth really enhanced the rest of the game too and turned sieges into proper chess moves, and made maintenance a much deeper mechanic. The closest comparison is civ2/3 and alpha centauri which are the complete opposite balancewise, where you want to focus on mass spamming cities and getting appropriate techs, and maintenance tends to swing alot more wildly. Something about the citybuilding in civ 4 feels truly mature and the mods definitely explore that particular side. I don't feel punished for microing cities in Civ4 at all mentally. Managing these cities is intertwined with every other choice made in the game, and even at 8 cities I don't feel particularly overwhelmed.Actually I played Old World recently and the city management in that kind of reminds me of civ 4 characterizations, but the UI leaves me underwhelmed for whatever reason.As for what other civ4 specific things would be important, ocean bodies and region effects (natural wonders but better) became more robust which had a very significant effect on the rest of 4x games. Playing king of the hill in these kinds of games over not merely small areas but much larger areas is the drama that players needed so that it wasn't merely a numbers game. You can still mostly ignore these benefits as they tended to benefit specific civs more often but still, why not offer an objective that doesnt upset the balance of the game? It just makes damn sense in civ 4. I really think civ5 removed too much of what made civ4 actually good and refined and is a different game entirely, much closer to its tabletop ancestors. The speed at which combat occurs is perhaps the worst offending change going from Civ4 to Civ5. Tabletop wargaming isnt even this bad, they actually have some idea of how to expedite actions.
>>1741513>or literal, severe autism with particular love for repetetive tasks and III just happened to be the first one you tried and hyperfixated on.I feel targeted by this statement. (1k hrs in civ3 btw)
>>1711562Civ V is better, thoughever?
do you guys know about the secret flying camera mode? it's comfy af.
>>1744542I completely agree with this. Civ 4 got empire and city management right. I'd say that civ 5's religious system was a fun improvement and so we're city states, but just about everything else was a downgrade. The ramping city maintenance of civ 4 was the perfect way to balance expansion and no 4x game has improved upon that.
>>1746433>thougheveris this new buzzword discord troon obsess over nowadays? havent seen it posted by anyone whos opinion wasnt absolute shit
How often do you adapt your strategy to your leader/civ in this game?Maybe I'm bad but I swear >95% of my decisions are unaffected by who I'm playing as. Most buildings are useless and most units are either bad or are only available after the game is virtually over. I just build more cottages as FIN and settle 2 tiles away from resources as CRE.
>>1749742That's because Civ IV actually has good game design where your strategy is more centered around the developing context of your current playthrough as opposed to nuciv's highly specialized civ traits and bonuses that force you into a specific style.
>>1749742Almost constantly in subtle ways. The map determines the best overall strategy, and leader traits mostly just affect the order that I build things in my cities, though some traits let you skip some details almost entirely. Like skipping monuments when you're creative, or using warriors to defend against barbs if you're aggressive instead of rushing out a chariot or something, all of which saves turns.If shortcuts like that happen to change the pace of my tech so that I get a better chance at a wonder or at rushing someone, then I'd say I'm adapting my traits to my strategy.There's only a few really gimmicky unique units/buildings that are worth focusing on, even if just for fun. Like rushing cho-ko-nu's for collateral damage without catapults, or upgrading gallic warriors to guerrilla 3 and throwing them at a hill city with guaranteed 50%+ survival odds.
>>1711562it was the last Civ to use all the Xs of the 4X, V onward actively punished you for playing wide
>>1751640>t. didn't play VI
>>1751651>Didn't even play V either.
>>1711562hexagons are better than squares/thread
>try out advanced civ>bored as hell on prince, already conquered most neighbors>ai launches a naval invasion in tandem with a land invasion on a different front and shreds through my citiesholy shit
>>1751815Yes, civ 4 with hexagons would be better than civ 4 because squares are objectively flawed. Both civ 5 and civ 6 are instead inferior to civ 4 despite the hexagons. You're starting to get it./thread
>>1744517Representation does nothing for you if you bulb all the time.
>>1711562Sorry for the stupid question, but if I have the complete edition, which .game do I play?If I install BTS is that all I need or do I still install base CivIV and Warlords too?
>>1753515just need BTS
Is Civ 4 good for a strategy game brainlet? I like the genre but I don't know what kind of strategy games I dig.
>>1753525thanks
>>1712667Same here, Civ 2 was my start after I found it in my dad's office.
>>1753530Civ IV is the last one that really lets you automate away the micromanaging bullshit. I think it's a fantastic introduction.
>>1753530>I like the genre but I don't know what kind of strategy games I dig.I'm not sure hot this works but at least it's like 5 bucks whenever there's a sale on
>>1733075>reboughtcuck
>>1753530If you're a brainlet then turn off city cultural flip, the most annoying feature of this shitty game.
>>1756735So the other way dealing with captured cities with no workable tiles, besides eliminating the enemy civ completely, is settling cities near their border for tile flipping right?
>>1711562Well, remember that Civ 3 was a total pile, loathed by all. Then along comes 4, and it’s great, has a fantastic soundtrack and Spock himself narrating the whole thing.And then five sucked too, so lots of people stuck with four.I actually really enjoy six, I don’t think I’ll be going back to four anytime soon. But I don’t play much Civ these days anyway.
>Civ 3 was a total pile, loathed by all
>>1756735the most annoying feature is peace-vassaling and it's not even close
>>1757377Either zoomer or forgets that everyone complained hard how different CivIII was compared to 2.
Civ 3's UI looks awful.
>>1757392Its still the one I hate the most. I can't tell you why fully either.
>>1757439Shit taste. 3 has timeless aesthetics with the palace minigame, the rich semirealistic art, comfy buttons and impactful sounds.
>>1757390>doing well in a war>suddenly lose all progress because the faggot begged other civ to turn them into their vassal
I should really get around to playing Fall From Heaven someday, everything I've heard about it sounds cool.
>>1711562After years of playing Civ V, I've been getting into IV lately and enjoying it.Are the dlcs worth it too? I've checked that there are three of them, but while Colonization seems to be its own game, there doesn't seem to be an option to play both Warlords and Beyond the Sword at once, unlike the Civ V's dlcs which simply update the main game.
>>1759451Yeah, you really, really want BTS. Similar to 5 without BNW, 4 vanilla is very bare-bones.
>>1759452Thanks, anon. What about Warlords? Are the two dlcs really incompatible with each other?
>>1759456Warlords supplements BTS, but not vice versa (because BTS came out after Warlords). If you have both installed, BTS will have all the stuff from Warlords. If you only install BTS and not Warlords, you'll miss out on are the Warlords civilizations. So, after you installed everything, play BTS for the full experience.
>>1759467Downloading them right now. Might give Colonization a try too, but I dunno about the change of making 'defeating the motherland' your only victory condition.
>>1759500Aight, have fun. One thing to keep in mind when playing 4, prioritize building units over buildings and wonders. Except for a few, such as granary, buildings are not crucial.
is this true?
>>1759605Looks true to me
>>1741197i'm sure no one ever heard about half-life 2 or was enraged about steam requiring always online connection. i sure hope you're a troll.
>>1759605>>>/vg/478146154As opposed to nu-/gsg/ where the only activity is off-topic shitposting and chatroom bullshit?
>>1760071yes thats unironically your two options
>>1757592It's due to how corruption was implemented. When I played Civ3 a large part of the gameplay was keeping my population happy. I remember reading in Civfanatics that blanketing your land with cities was the way to go. Civ4 simplified that mechanic into maintenance.>>1752313AI is great in Civ4. If your military doesn't keep up they will gang up on you. However, you can also friendly relationship with AI that will last through the entire game. I like that. >>1749742Leader/civ matters big time. If it's pangea+Ceasar I'm going for domination. Spiritual leaders are very flexible to any situation. Financial can maintain a small but powerful empire. I like how the designers gave England stock exchange and redcoat to make them leap ahead around the industrial age as in history. Random civ and random map on prince is a nice way spice up the gameplay.
>replace the binary religion mechanic with percentages like with culture/nationality>make religions customizable like in 5improved you're religion mechanic
I think it comes down to this.Civ 5's happiness mechanic really limited what you could do and led to the 3-4 city tall meta for higher difficulties. Civ6 after all the patches is alright, but there's so many systems to juggle and micro manage it quickly becomes decision paralysis and often the AI just runs circles around you in the early game but fails to properly use districts so mid-late game you steam roll them regardless of the difficulty. I enjoyed 6 more than 5, but 6 often feels frustrating to play when the AI is cheating and able to pop out districts and units, while you're struggling to get a campus and religious district up while also defending your self. Civ 4 doesn't punish you for playing how you want, the later civs do.
Which is the best AI mod for Civ 4 as of now? I used to use Better BAT AI and even ported Next War features for it few years ago.
i thought i was going to win a game of advanced civ on warlord but i didn't realize an AI leapfrogged ahead of me in tech and flooded me with infantry when i had just started to get riflemen. either this ai is really good or i'm just dogshit
>>1764444i hate civ6 traits and religion more than anything
>>1711567This. None of the main line civ games are bad. Its just all preferences and nostalgia.
Any advice on how to balance science/money? Should I go as much science as I can as long as I'm not losing money? Or should I try to accumulate some money throughout the game? Also, do you guys upgrade your units? Seems expensive.
>>1770843Generally you wanna go 100% science or 0% to avoid rounding errors. if you have enough cash saved up to research the next tech at 100% science, do it, otherwise do 0% science, as a rule of thumb.Often pro players seem to upgrade their units but it seems quite situational. can't really give you more advice than that. one thing I will say is that they don't seem to do it piecemeal: they will stockpile cash until they can upgrade an entire army in one go.
>>1711562Remember how Jon Shafer pretty much got all the blame for his part in V? I remember, around the time of his kickstarter game, he did a few interviews looking back at V's design and some of the controversial design decisions he made including 1UPT. How it was inspired by the Panzer General series and why it didn't work in Civ.
>playing ashes of erebus>legion of undead>bunch of barbarians around me>get a bunch of slaves and new city spawners>steamroll from thereThat was really fun.
>>1711562for me it was 5 being shit, not 4 being that special
>>1711562Never played it i still play civ 3
Can't play 1UPT after trying civ 4, simple as
>>1733338If you think that this HAS to be a troll post, you must be genuinely out of touch with the current reality of things.
Civ 4 is about actually building and managing an empire, with a lot of freedom at your disposal.Civ 5 feels like a hybrid RPG/strategy game and your empire is a character. Not necessarily a bad thing; some people may prefer this.Civ 6 feels like a mix of 4 and 5.
C2C was such a clickfest I had to quit it 700 turns in on normal speed, but the slave mechanics (with the leader traits) made it kinda fun to rape and pillage for super slave specialists. Kinda reminded me of CK2 vikings. Are there any other Civ 4 mods which has a similar population stealing mechanic?
>>1771375>Civ 5 feels like a hybrid RPG/strategy game and your empire is a character. Not necessarily a bad thing; some people may prefer this.autism speaks: the postthere's nothing RPG like about civ 5RPG/strategy would be something like Heroes of Might and Magic you settler difficulty playing, reddit spacing, pseud fuck really tho, can you elaborate?
the real reason civ 5 onward are shit is because they're so damn sterile. the games try too hard to be balanced and fair and play more like a boardgame than a fun, asymmetric video game. civ 3 is peak, civ 4 and civ 2 are tied in a close 2nd place.
>>1771858That makes no sense. Civ5 is a lot more asymmetrical than its predecessors.
>want to get better at civ 4>all the strategy guides on cfc are either for the base game/warlords or used fucking photobucket to host the images and the images in "illustrated" guides aren't there anymoreit's an abstract kind of hell
>>1771909Just go watch youtubers. I recommend Lain.
>>1771858Every civ is a damn board game. That was the goal from the start.
>>1771855Nta but it feels more like a build for a single character than an empire at some times. At least thats what i think hes saying>>1771858None of that sounds right.
>>1771911thanks, i watched through his most recent playthrough and there are a few things i've noticed immediately, like only building plantations on calendar resources (even if that means leaving it unimproved for 60 turns), being too conservative with chopping and whipping, and not being more active with tech trading
>>1774215Yeah, he really goes nuts with the whipping. I'm looking forward to seeing if your gameplay improves now.
>>1771619Fall from Heaven 2
>>1771855Nta, but I get what this guy >>1771977 means. The design of the social policies as trees, as well as addition of city-state quests, was definitely inspired by RPG elements that was the rage in the early 2010s. I would even say that the "your Civ as a character" feeling is by design. Even FPS like Farcry 3 had it
>>1760071>As opposed to nu-/gsg/ where the only activity is off-topic shitposting and chatroom bullshit?
>>1711562>cut-off point from when the series started declining?For me, it’s Civ 2
>>1752313It's honestly pathetic that a couple of modders working on a nearly 20 year old game have created a better AI than anything Firaxis has released since like 2005.
>>1775372>anything Firaxis has released since like 2005.Comes back to this honestly >>1723973. I think a lot people working at the industry now don't know what their series is about or even tried the past games.
>>1711562Nobody does that.Civ V has by far the biggest fanbase in the series.
This isn't related to Civ 4, but it's not worth its own thread. Is there a way to mod civs in Civ 3 to change their culture? I've always hated how America uses native city/citizen sprites.
>>1775188imagine the smell
>>1775913I think the easiest way is using the vanilla editor, make an custom scenario, and edit the civ's "culture group" tab? You might need to make a new civ by copy pasting the original one. https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/how-to-add-a-civilization-to-sid-meiers-civilization-iii-conquests-part-1-adding-the-civ-v01.667242/
>>1776045Thanks anon, you're super skibidi.
>>1711562I'm replaying it now. I've always been a civ4 fanboy and said it's the best civ. Goddamn is the combat ass. I could only compare it to other civs before and 1upt combat broke the AI so it was inferior. Now that I've played tons of other 4x games like aow, EL, and galactic civ, I can say civ has always had bad combat and 4 is no exception. It's just slam catapults into stacks. It's boring and tedious. I still love this game but I'm having a hard time actually enjoying it now. The design makes no sense. Why have unit counters in stacked combat? Defender chooses best unit. It makes no sense. It forces you to just slam catapults into stacks every time and the whole unit counters things ends up being so stupid that it's kind of worse than civ3 combat.
bts has a leader for each trait combination except for PHI/IND, CRE/CHA, and ORG/PRO. which leaders and optionally new civs would you add to fill these slots? my picks would be>PHI/IND: Matthias Corvinus of Hungary>CRE/CHA: David of the Israelites>ORG/PRO: either Constantine of Rome or Alexios of Byzantium
>>1777154Phi/Ind would just be broken OP so that's why it's not in the game. Those other two combos are fine.
>>1776666>What is Flank attack game mechanicadd cav units to your stack
>>1711562boomer game, V is best.
>>1777321Yes, you either use flank HAs or catapults. I mean... It's just not every fun. Have you played other 4x games? The civ series has the worst combat of any 4x series. Every other game has better combat.
>>1777348do you seriously think endless legend clusterfuck combat is much better, lol. Civ5/6 1UPT is the same shit you click on enemy units theres no depth but now you have 50x times more micro management and vastly inferior empire building, theres aow planetfall/4 and its just bad nucom combat over and over again with simplistic empire building which gets old super fast. The only hex games with combat which would work well in 4X are wargames but there arent any 4X like that besides maybe shadow empire and that game has its own issues.
>>1777590I actually enjoy endless legend combat a lot and think it's some of the best 4x combat out there. I know a lot of people don't like it but I think that's because they don't understand it. And fair enough, amplitude doesn't do a great job of explaining it. But if you watch some YouTube vids that go into depth about it and understand how it works it really is interesting. It's good because it's deep enough to give the player real choices as to how to design their army but it's fast enough to not steal the spotlight away from the rest of the game like aow. Aow combat is good but that's because the whole game revolves around it. Yes 1upt in civ 5 is broken, I agree with that, which is why I said the civ series had shit combat. I barely played 6 so I can't really comment on it's combat, couldn't get into that game. But civ 4's combat is also fundamentally flawed. It's like the devs wanted 1upt but didn't commit to it. Collateral damage rules all and then you have unit counters in stacked combat which makes no sense. I say this as someone who played civ4 for 15 years and put thousands of hours into it. I still love the game but it's more nostalgia now as I find the combat tedious and boring. Better than civ 5 but that's a very low bar.
>>1777590>do you seriously think endless legend clusterfuck combat is much better, lolI love Endless Legend, but this anon is right. The game is worse for the combat system, not better.Unless I'm trying to cheese out a battle I shouldn't win with archer spam, I just auto-resolve battles. I frankly would prefer even Civ 2 combat to EL.
>>1777659I like it. It's a hell of a lot better than civ 4.
>>1777693personally i hated it so much i dropped EL, even ignoring stupid rules everything about it sucked , it has super unsatisfying sound effects, limp dicked hit animations, the fact you couldnt change animation speed without restarting a entire campaign. I honestly prefer Master of magic 1994 combat over this.
>>1741197Why even argue with him? He's probably younger than Steam, and he's started this discussion in bad faith, just trying to prove to us that Civ5 is superior. Hes not open to having his view changed.
>>1777711That's a common opinion. But anyway this thread isn't about EL. I have just grown tired of civ 4 combat and it's basically ruining my desire to play any more of it. Part of this is that I play with kmod which means I'm just fighting the entire game because the AI is bloodthirsty, but without kmod the AI is too passive. It's not just EL, I find any franchise has better combat than civ. I played a lot of galactic civ 2 and it had better combat than any civ game. Hell, you didn't even command your ships in battle, combat was just a very simple matter of designing your fleet and positioning to be in range of starbase reinforcement.
>>1777748but you claimed EL has better combat which is a dubious claim, most people hate it so much they auto resolve which makes it even worse than civ4, gal civ2 is actually very similar to civ4, auto combat where stack composition and counters decide outcome, but improvement it offers in combat is completely nullified by vastly inferior empire building. Im honestly convinced AoW: Planetfall offers the best of both worlds it just feels super dull and i just never could get into it.
What's the best vanilla++ mod in the current year
How do you guys transport your stacks of 50+ units to other continents.
>>1778078I don't care which opinions are popular or not. When my opinion is against the popular opinion it means nothing to me, especially in matters of taste. I'm not sure why you care either considering we're talking about civ 4, a game loved by a few nerds like us and derided by the masses. Almost everyone thinks civ 5 and 1upt were better, and nearly everyone thinks civ 6 is better. So why should I give a fuck what the average person thinks? I have the opposite tastes of the average person. The fact that the average person doesn't like EL combat tells me nothing. If anything, it suggests I might like it.
>>1778083Kmod>>1778134Transport ships
>>1778134just right-click your galleon stack m8
>>1778136civ5 was disliked by old civ players, new players who dont know any better like it but the fact that even die hard shills say to use game overhaul mod instead of vanilla shows how rotten the core of that game is. As for popularity you really cant compare gamin in early 00's to post 2010's, the popularity and acceptance of gaming as a hobby blew up and increased ten fold.
>>1778154You're the one who brought up popularity.
>>1778134Just play Pangaea like everyone else. Water maps is easy mode because the AI is ass at naval shit.
>>1778136Your zoomer hot take (see: parroting a streamer) is completely worthless, like your life. Consider suicide.
>>1778386I'm older than you. You're on 4chan arguing about a 15 year old game. Neither of us have valuable lives. Parroting a streamer? I've never watched anyone talk online about civ 4 it's way too old for that. You know, sometimes opinions converge organically on topics because different people come to the same conclusions. But you sound way too upset over a video game and aren't making much sense. You sound really emotional. Maybe tweak your estrogen meds.
>>1775619It's honestly not an easy problem to solve, though. Should AI play like humans in multiplayer? And should it play like average humans having fun or like super competitive humans in a tournament? I played a lot of MP and it wasn't as fun as I thought it would be. Human players do weird shit and roleplay. They don't always play to win. They hold grudges. Or they will target you because you played an OP leader, or whatever. Or you beat them to a wonder on turn 35 and this is the reason they throw the game attacking you on turn 180. Playing mp was not really what I expected and it was a giant clusterfuck of people doing completely random shit. After playing well over a hundred mp games I came to realize the AI actually isn't bad and is often more rational in its decision making than human players. If you play with kmod or advanced civ, it can even fight and play better than 99% of players. I used to think that an AI that perfectly replicates high level human play would be best, but now I'm not so sure. It really fucks with the game. For example, if you play against high level human players, you want to hide your progress and not get too far ahead. You will purposely play worse than your potential to not become a target or you get dogpiled. I don't find that fun. If I can get a tech lead, for example, I want to go for it and can vs the AI. In MP, you get punished if you're the best player in the game and are in the lead. You get rewarded for being the noob in last place because everyone ignores you. I don't find that fun.
Last time I played Civ4 it was with the, now fairly old, Civ4chan mod. It was fun.https://www.moddb.com/downloads/civ4chan
>>1778451dont bother arguing with that anon. Niggerfaggots like >>1778386 think everyone watches streamers, lets plays and goes to reddit like they do
>>1778523How does this play?
>>1778530I do watch streamers and let's play vids sometimes so that I can learn a new game or get better at it. I have never done that for civ 4, though, because back in my civ 4 obsession days it was too early for that and I read civ fanatics articles instead. They did have a podcast that I listened to occasionally, you know the one with the guy who liked whales.
>>1778523>The BUG integration seems to prevent the mod from correctly running on Steam copies of CIV4This should work with the gog version, however?
>>1778343Not if you play with an AI mod like kmod. I just had a game that involves modern age naval warfare with battleships and carriers and all that. I worked hard to hunt down AI fleets and it still managed to sneak a convoy of transports around my sub screen. It's not quite as competent as land war but it's not too shabby at it. It's certainly capable of amphibious invasions.
>>1778655Works on mine.
>>1778537About like what you'd expect. Some boards are better done than others of course. It does also have custom resources too which is fun.
>>1778655GOG version works with if just fine, yes
>>1744338The SE is not a meme lol, wow. Way to out yourself as a complete fucking noob who knows nothing about the game. You can win diety with two cities if you use rep and settled specialists.
>>1753177>passive science boost from all the non settled specialists does you no benefitretarded fuck
>>1711562Civ4's manual had this nice little afterwords by Soren Johnson talking about the game's design process and how they wanted to iterate and improve upon Civ3. By contrast Civ5 was "how can we do things differently?" rather than "how can we improve on past success?" Hence all the massive changes like hexes and 1UPT that they've been trying to course correct from ever since.
>>1753530Go for CivRev if you're a brainlet - it's Civ 2 but with a few balance nuances and Sid Meier actually said "This is the game I've always wanted to make" about it.
>>17792360/0/6 is a terrible yield
>>1780917CivRev on ds is actually peak sovl and you cant tell me otherwise
What good ideas can actually be taken from civ BE
>>1778978>>1779236>t. seething, samefagging specialist economy memertry not playing a water map and see if you still win with 2 cities lol
>>1780984Not everyone who agrees is a samefag, fucking retard. Go look at civ fanatics.com and look at the deity wins posted. You'll find pangea wins using settled specialists and rep. It's actually one of the strongest strategies in the game with the right map for it.
>>1780884I hope this came out legible
Any tips for a beginner?
>>1771619>Flavor text for grade schoolers.
>>1711562I'm pretty sure Civ 2 was the cut-off, with Civ 4 being a "WE'RE BACK, BABY!" Nobody played Civ 3 because we were all busy playing Alpha Centauri.
>>1782025build more knights
>>1782025Spam cottages and build tons of catapults
>>1782025don't spawn next to Montezuma, Bismarck, and whatshisface from Mongolia. all niggers
oh wait it's not Civ 3. still, just to be safe, don't spawn next to them
>>1781920what in God's name is that kerning?
>>1780884Yeah and all the normies bought it because of the shit changes killing the Civ series forever.
>>1782025Rule number one: Population is power. Slavery is the best civic, and the incredible bursts of production that it enables is what sets Civ 4 apart from the rest of the series. Settle only locations with food resources and exploit pop whipping as much as you can, though be careful when whipping more often than once every 10 turns. Also look for city sites with at least one forest nearby and chop it to get your cities going even faster.If you don't have other sources of commerce, build cottages. If you don't have abundant sources of happiness already, hereditary rule + spamming warriors lets your cities grow as big as you want or as much as health allows fairly early in the game.
>>1782025Don't build buildings you don't need. Spam units.
>>1780928>6 science (not-dependent on slider) is a terrible yieldretardI'd like all these self-proclaimed pros to post their ingame results. Obviously, you're so good that you beat immortal and deity on the regularbut nah, you just talk shit until your betters have to slap you back into the chieftain difficulty line
>>1784627Yeah he's dumb. It's not 0/0/6 anyway. If it's a grassland tile it's 3/0/6 or 4/0/6 after biology. Towns can be 7 commerce but that's reduced by the slider and only with free speech.
>>1784629no, he meant specialist scientists, not tile yields.he just equated it with commerce, which is wrong, because you get beakers from specialists independent of your slider
>>1784633Fine, then compare by pop, it's the same thing. It's 6 vs 7 but the 7 is diluted by the slider. The real strength of the cottage economy is the hammer from US and the gold buy. But the SE has things like the industrial park to also be competitive late game.
>>1711562Civ 5 is better
>>1785045
>>1785045kek, civ5 being undisputedly worse than civ6 mind broke civ5tards so much they come to civ4 threads to shitpost
Do people use anything but pangaeas in civ4? It's well balanced and all but I'm getting tired of the neverending land wars desu. advciv user btw
>>1785329Fractal and Continents seem to be the runners-up in terms of popularity
>>1785131Civ 5 is better than 6 but only because of its more advanced AI mods. Firaxis are doubleniggers for not releasing the dll source code.
am I the only autist who preferred Civ3?
>>1785450Far from it, but Civ 4 is in many ways simply a more polished Civ 3. Whenever I see people talking about how they prefer Civ 3 it involves things like the art style. What do you prefer about it? I'd be interested in a more fleshed-out response.
>>1785450Me too but only with unmodded.
>>1785468probably nostalgia and the fact I played 3 first and for longer, I liked things like the art, the music, the leaders changing clothes, the advisors, then I remember the units/wonders as more powerful and iconic: I really loved getting to Cavalry and unlocking the 3 movement unit, getting the golden age with the unique unit, railroads for infinite movement, getting to bombers and abusing them to wage war against a giant AI, maybe a powerful wonder like the Pyramids... I disliked some things about 4: promotions system, the fact that my pet strategy of spamming cities everywhere and becoming huge wasn't good in 4, great people weren't as impactful as I'd like them to be, and above all religion: leaders asking me to convert, and being happy/unhappy for those reasons really annoyed me.
>>1785559also I don't know if it's like this also in 4, but in 3 it felt like winning a game at high difficulty levels was logically impossible... and then when I managed to still do it by abusing clear exploits like republic, tech trading, artillery, wonder rush (or even micromanaging cities and battles really hard, which the ai cannot do)... it still felt earned.Maybe I just wasn't as good at civ4 as I was on civ3 and that's why I didn't like it as much
>>1785329perfect mongoose/perfect world generates some interesting terrain
>>1785131Nah, 6 is objectively worse than 5 because it has a dumber AI.
>>1785571You want Totestra instead, it's an updated and superior version of PerfectWorld.
>>17851314 is better than 5, but 5 is better than 6. I think 6 might be the worst. I haven't played 1 so I can't be sure but 2-5 are better than 6.
>>1785329I play hemispheres. With kmod, the AI is good at landing amphibious invasions and repelling them. it's not quite as good at fighting naval battles but I think it can make up for that in the fact that an AI will vassal its whole continent before I can meet it's neighbors and stop that from happening.
>>1785468I prefer the economic management of 4 and think 4 is the best overall, but I've grown to really despise 4's combat. I think it's probably the worst stacked combat of any 4x game. The whole collateral damage and unit counters in stacked combat is retarded. The combat in 3 is better. While I maintain that the move to 1upt on the strategic map was a horrible decision that helped ruin the franchise, I can kind of sympathize with the devs for wanting to make a radical change. 5 and 6 have the worst combat, but 4's combat is really, really bad compared to other 4x franchises and even compared to 3.
>>1721727>vox populi>completely solves ailollmao
>>1717488i liked how each empires music theme evolved through the ages
>>17858374's combat is bad tactically but ends up being good strategically because units have really low movement so war is more about preparation, planning and supply.
>>1785869almost like civ 4 is a strategy game, not a tactical wargameweird
>>1784633it's wrong only insofar as 6 science is always worse than 6 commerce
you have to be some special kind of retard to think that the slider matters
>>1785923What makes you think so?
>>1785837What about this combat change I read>remove or greatly restrict collateral damage>any time the defending stack has >4 units, a subset of 4 units is randomly chosen to be the "defenders">this subset functions as a stack for the purposes of choosing the appropriate defender>once combat occurs, the selected defender is removed from the subset and another defender is chosen from the defender stack at randomDefenders may not have access to the most appropriate counter in any given combat instance so it's possible for the stack to be worn down by attrition without the attacker needing to sacrifice units at the cost of not being guaranteed easy combat.
>>1785887Yeah but that's why the whole unit counters things makes no sense. If you're just meant to smash stacks together, why have it? And collateral beats all but you need to suicide the catas. It's just so boring and stupid. I honestly wonder if civ players have ever played any other games.
>>1785996I'd honestly rather just have an auto resolve function that would decide outcome based on army composition and promotions, etc.
>>1785923wrong1. you get beaker multiplication buildings earlier during the crucial early game period, like library and academy, whereas markets and grocers are too production costly and come later, meaning it helps you snowball much better. You won't find games where markets are utilized as a core of the strategy to win on either deity or immortal2. direct beakers do not depend on your commerce, meaning you can run the slider down or not have your tech suffer so much because of a low commerce start
>>1786090you can do that but only offensively, it's called "stack attack"
Why was Civ 4 the best in the series, bros? I've been playing this game for nearly half of my life at this point and just decided to get back into modding it after a few years hiatus.
>>1785450Besides the artstyle, isometric tiles are simply better than hexes or the weird oblique projection Civ4 went with. But mechanically, Civ4 is far superior to Civ3.It's funny if you play SMAC, and realize a lot of the game's mechanics like production/research overflow and unit abilities were stripped out in Civ3 and then brought back for Civ4.
>>1786241No, that's not the same thing. Stack attack is still one vs one combat? Just going through the whole stack one at a time. That's not what I'm talking about.
>>1711567For me civ 4 always felt more fleshed out with its expansions adding so much options and ways to play the game. Even with all its expansions civ 5 is not even close and stuff like religion is more meh in civ 5.
>>1785468>>1785450Civ3 isn't the best of the series, and I'm probably biased since it was the first I played, but it had a nice sense of scale. Cities and units were more numerous and less individually important, meaning conflict felt like true civilizational conflict, with plenty of units dying even when you were winning, and conquests took a long time, spanning dozens of cities. It also meant that you could lose a war yet retain the ability to come back. Meanwhile in 5 it felt like I could surgically strike even a peer enemy losing one or zero units, making them eternally irrelevant within a few turns. You'd quit the game if you lost even one city, since every civilization might have only a few, even on huge maps.Plus the style was nice, even if it falls well short of 5's. 4 felt like an awkward intermediate which tried and failed at a lot.
>>1711619I think Civ4 has received so much recognition and attention that it defends itself quite well on its own and doesn't need any additional help. bye
>playing Venice, buying up city states as you do>my far northern neighbor Darius asks if I want to help him kill Denmark as they’re sandwiched between us>fuck it why not, dudes got some nice coastal cities to puppet>forget that Denmark is allied to that jeet Gandhi and Sweden>Darius calls in England a few turns later for some reason so it’s an even 3v3>we eventually win and I peace treaty the others pretty earlier so I can focus on Denmark>quite some time later on, Darius conquers Sweden and vassalizes England leaving me, him, and the jeet who keeps stealing my spices with great generals on the continent pre-ocean travel>at this point me and Darius are pretty chill, defensive pacts and the like, I’ve got my coastal cities and he’s got his autistic land sprawl, so now comes the time to end the jeet menace>this time Darius doesn’t even ask for assistance he just declares war and I decide he’s strong enough to take it himself, I’ve already reclaimed the land I want from Gandhi in a previous altercation>fast forward many turns and Darius had conquered Gandhi, leaving all at peace in the eastern hemisphere… or so I thought>Darius never got to found a religion before they were all created so I converted him to mine early on, meaning all the cities in his substantial empire followed my religion and he was quite happy about it>but then, the holy city of Delhi was conquered and Darius decided that Hinduism looked pretty cool after killing an untold number of jeets>queue him soon denouncing me and screaming that we could no longer be friends due to our religious differences despite all of his cities except the annexed Indian ones still following my religionNow I’ll probably have to kill my old friend. Why is the Civ V AI so retarded? Annexing a holy city should not make you immediately renounce your old beliefs, it makes no fucking sense
I finally got the DLL to compile which means I can make source code changes, new modifiers, and shit. My changes will be very small and very meaningful, I swear there will be no scope creep and this will not end with me bloating my OC DonutSteel mod with endless meme mechanics. R-right?
>>1711700I just hate the art style.
>>1711562I stopped at Civ3. Civ4 is when they started really catering to mass-audiences.
>>1711700another case of "retard thinks bloat equals depth"
>>1794846who are you kidding m8, V has no depth
>>1794864managing happiness is unironically more depth than anything in civ6
>>1711562Civ IV is good, but it is the middle child between the last true Kino Civ III and modern Civ V
>>1711567Civ 5 was atrocious on launch, that didn't help. I also remember driving to EB games to buy it only to find out the CD contained a steam installer and made me download the game.
>>1711562I was eight
>>1711567I'm 32 and Civ 2 was my first, but Civ 3 was the first i got pretty into. skipped 4 entirely, there were just too many other great games coming out at the time.
>>1795823I like 4 but I couldn't stand 3 as a kid. My dad preferred 2.
>>1722967>>checking the AI for a tech trade every few turnsabsolute least favorite thing about 4would turn off tech trading every single time>stalin discovers the wheel>next turn everyone knows it>mao discovers animal husbandry>next turn everyone knows it>repeat with every techfeels like everyone is playing on a team
>>1771121Favorite modAlso love the Illians and covering the world in ice.
>>1796195install BUG UI mod and you will have all available tech trade options on one screen in diplomacy card.
>>1796222> you don't like something about this game? here's a way to more efficiently not like itI don't think that's gonna do it for him
>>1796441i honestly dont give a fuck if you play with or without tech trading , i just saw you complain like little bitch about having to check trade options which honestly is not an issue with the BUG mod.
>>1796447> anon still doesn't understand not everyone he talks to on 4chan is guaranteed to be the same person
>>1796195All those techs are pre-alphabet (which enables tech trading) if you are going to make stuff up at least make it believeable.
>>1796222That's not a BUG mod thing
>>1797119maybe you have outdated version or messed something with the mod settings
>>1797129No, I just loaded up the game unmodded that diplo screen is there even unmodded.
>>1797131oh cool then even less reason to complain about tech checking, i thought guy was whining cause he was talking to every leader to see his tech trade options.
>>1797138Tech trade checking was never an issue the more annoying and gamey thing is checking if your neihbours have "enough on their hands right now" something that the bug mod does away with the fist icons.
>>1794867True.
What games remind you of civ 4? For me, galactic civ 2 is similar to civ 4 in that there are a lot of different economic strategies to use and empire maintenance and management are similar. Combat is a bit simpler, though.
>>1771121Would you care for a skeleton? I have plenty.
>>1712667>>1753555I am another 30s fella whose first Civ was Civ 2.
>>1798972Same. My uncle played civ 2 and then I got hooked on it in high school in the 90s. I enjoyed it a lot, and loved 3 and 4. I hated 5 at first but eventually played it for 500 hours, even though I never liked it as much as 4. I just couldn't get into 6. I have it but I never play it. I think I finished one game on it, a very long time ago.
>>1711567I'm a zoomer but I played the Civs in order starting from Civ1 as a 3 year old. My first PC ran DOS as a low effort means of childproofing unsupervised computer access. That being said, Civ4 and Civ4Col are _by far_ the best in the series.
>>1799113This but SNES firstAll have their charms except 6, too repetitive and all the artstyle is fugly there.
>>1727275at this point there should be an AI Nimoy mod for the expansions' tech's lines
>>1727844>>Talking about a series with one of the most even gender splits in gaming.god damn, 50% of the Civ players are trans women?
>>1711567As a civ V faver, thanks for the explanation. 4 is the only one I didn't play ever, and I had been playing since II.
>>1727627lol that's a funny troll but I'm a dude and it is cool that they include females. I am kinda tired of female rulers for england thouh, while they legit have the highest relevancy female rulers in all of history, Let's get some Henry's up in the bitch. Also, if I had a nickel for every time a King named Henry killed a holy man named thomas, i'd only have two, but it rhymes, like star wars.
>>1727080I play V but I do either this, or I burst harvest to secure wonders.
>>1748017it's a forced meme by a mexican on /int/ who's been spamming anyone who uses the word 'though' since 2020
Which FFH2 modmod should I play? Is Ashes of Erebus really that bloated? I wouldn't mind it if it actually works well
I remember my dad picking up Civ IV when we were all big Civ III players-- tried it out for a bit; found it too different, and went back to III
>>1785450No I liked it
>>1799387actually based, "though" at the end of a sentence is an amerimutt negro habit, even worse when they spell it "tho"
>>1799387It's also funny, so shut up.
>>1799742>It's also funny, so shut up.
>>1799806Cope, old man.
>>1799387That based spic crusader helped get rid of the habit of using though at end of my sentences
>>1711565FPBP Thread over
>>1800318the american desu, extinguished
>>1799387>I REPEAT MYSELF WHEN UNDER STRESSI REPEAT MYSELF WHEN UNDER STRESS>I REPEAT MYSELF WHEN UNDER STRESSI REPEAT MYSELF WHEN UNDER STRESS
>>1799806
>>1711562is there a mod that adds COLONIES to V? thats the only thing I am missing from the game I swear.creating a city on another continent and it becoming a colony with a new ruler was cool AF and gave lots of RP opportunities in gameplay.
>>1804405This hurts.
>>1804405Based.
>>18044054chan’s colorful culture didn’t die with chanology faggotry and le epic raids but this nigger wouldn’t know that because he never stepped outside of /b/ once in his life
>>1711562>Music so good that it ended a real life war
>>1806030>reading comprehension