So we can all agree that this is the best Civ game, and maybe even best 4x game of all time right?
>this thread againV is actually the worst. You just have baby duck syndrome.I started with 3 and played everything including SMAC, and I can tell you that IV is the best hands down due to moddability. The best that V can do in terms of mods is "custom civilization with anime girl as leader".
>>1876964Launch V I'd agreeBut post BNW civ 5 is just as good as 3 and 4. The mod scene is lacking yeah but mods aren't watch make a game good anyway, it's vanilla that counts.
>>1876937nope. V had a brief period of being good, but VI eclipsed it and prior civs did non-hex civ better. V suffers badly from 1UPT not working with the AI.
>>1876937It started as the worst but has climbed its way up near the top somehow, probably the most a game has ever been saved by expansions.>>1876964I used to be this but playing civ iv lately this game has really really started to show its age, I usually don't mind dated game/engines but man does this game look and feel like crap now even with moddability.Civilization III, Alpha centauri, and Civ V are my favorites in the series. I started with Civilization III also back in 2004.
>>1876976VI is utter shit
>>1876937>>the best Civ game, and maybe The game where you only build 4 cities max since you are shooting yourself on the foot if you build more.>even best 4x game of all time right?AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAA!!!I know you are baiting but damn, this is like the Zelda community worshipping Majora's mask.
>>1876937only thing you show with those shitty threads that Civ 5 players have nail stuck in their brain and in general are very stupid people
>>1876992I don't get why everyone acts like going wide in Civ 5 is straight up impossible. It's really not that hard to keep happiness up by picking spots with luxuries, and religion/ideologies help keep happiness in check too.
if the game had better diplomacy i would play it all the time
>>1876937>even best 4x game of all time right?SMAC politely but firmly disagrees
>>1876981If you think VI is utter shit and V is good you're a cultist or have sincere brain damage.
>>1876992>The game where you only build 4 cities max since you are shooting yourself on the foot if you build more.Skill issue, bro. I recently completed my immortal game with 11 cities and it was quite manageable all things considered. Tall build is only viable if you go for a culture victory, otherwise you'll get rect by the AI on higher difficulties.
>>1876937uw yikes very ugly
>>1877049It's actually the best looking civ game to date, kek.
>>1877026he is both, literal mental retardation
This teeny little part of your screenshot alone makes this a bottom 3 civ game.
>>1877058>filtered
>>1877051that kek at the end indicates youre kinda maldingtaste is subjective, its just hideous after playing more modern 4x titles
>>1877074>that kek at the end indicates youre kinda maldingNo it just means I'm making fun of civ 6 graphics and art style. You are bad at humor.
ROBBIE ROBBIE SAAAAAAAAAR
>>1876937Is the beyond earth expansion worth picking up?
>>1877058god don't remind me.I'm so sorry sid sama! I will never build a fifth city again!
>>1876937Not really much reason to play this. 6 is better as a modern version of the franchiseand 2/3/4 all have better features removed from 5.
>>1877058Unironically skill issue
>>1879497civ5 is the most simplified civilization game to date
>>1879163>6 is better as a modern version of the franchiseI agree, but I think that 6 is overloaded with different mechanics. Sometimes you just want to play something less loaded with bullshit.
>>1879163>>1879672my problem with 6 is (most of)the civ and leader traits being attached to a victory condition
>game too fast on normal, feels like rushing till industrialization>its cool after that>game is fun on epic speed all the way to the industrial era>but then it becomes a fucking tedious slog which I always quitsheeeeeeeeeeeeeeit
>>1879724which leaders specifically
>>1879780dynamic speed coming in civ VIII!DESU it's just lategame slog in general. If you reach certain thresholds of world ownership or tech/culture you should be able to hit an 'end game' button.
>>1879825what bothers me is that theres no world war. ive seen it once in a civ5 mod, it was janky but fun.ai just fights his stupid war where barely anything happens. late game is fucking boring
>>1879846All comes back to the AI never being properly re-worked to handle 1 UPT hex combat. That further links to the AIs never properly fighting each other, just constantly hovering over the player.
>>1879563How exactly? And please don't begin with muh unit stacking because that mechanic was actually awful. Civ 5 is by no means perfect, but its certainly the most complete in regards to content.
everyone who knows civ knows fall from heaven 2 is the best civ game
>>1876937I did a multiplayer game of the Civil War scenario with one of my homies a while back. It was going well for Souf FC at first but eventually I got so drunk that I started making bad tactical decisions, couldn't speak properly, and eventually passed out on my keyboard. Good times.
>>1879163Name one thing Civ V removed that was worth keeping. Trading technologies and natural disasters were fucking stupid.
>>1879863>That further links to the AIs never properly fighting each other, just constantly hovering over the player.I don't think civ 5 has this problem, desu. I've been playing it a lot lately, and the wars between the AIs are pretty intense and they actually engage in combat, capturing each other's cities, even capitals. I believe that in civ 5 AI was programmed to spread as wide as possible, so when it runs out of free land it attacks the weakest neighbor and that's not always a player. Unlike in civ 6, where it really does seem like the first AI closest to a player was programmed to completely lose its mind the moment it meets the player and then proceed to obsess over the player, completely destroying its own development in the process.
>>1876992>>1877058>All this bitching about universal happinessGet good.Yes happiness is a restricting factor, yes Civ 5 is more of a tall game than a wide game (why is that a bad thing again)But you can totally play with 7 to 8 cities as long as you know how to manage happiness.The key thing, I find, is religion. Get one or two happiness bonuses in your faith and that will allow you to keep growing.Also, learn what to prioritize, focus on luxuries, make strategic city state alliances, pick an appropriate ideology in the late game.
>>1877074Not really.I mean Civ 6 and even 7 have these very cluttered visual designs, with over-saturated color schemes which poorly showcase the distinction between different types of terrain.The Endless Legend games and Humankind also look like shit, with ridiculously overly filled maps and whatnot.
Doesn’t matter how hard I tried never got how you win in this game.
>>1880201climate change and terraforming
>>1880601How come?It's fairly simple.
>>1880568>WHY DONT THEY BRING BACK THE BROWN PISS FILTER AAAAAA7 looks fucking good thobeit fr fr
>>1880601i accidently win my first game with a culture victory
>>1880601>make city>make city>check if there are zulus nearby>if not, make 2 more city>if yes, make some units, then 2 more city>camp until spaceships>make spaceship>????>profit
>>1880624Civ 5 doesn't have a 'brown piss filter, what the fuck are you talking about?
>>1880601doesnt matter how hard I try to create artificial challenges, once I start snowballing, I become unstoppable and end up quitting the game.
>>1880659What difficulty do you usually play on?
>>1880673Not him, but the game is too easy on immortal and too annoying on deity.
>>1880566>Bitching about Happiness>OOH CORRUPTION AND HEALTH YES GIMME MORE. Filtered by fucking happiness of all things.
>>1876937Dude I'm so sick of Civ 5 fags. EVERY FUCKING POST OR THREAD IS THE SAME HURRR CIV 5 IS DA BEST. Dogshit artstyle, presentation, music and aesthetics aside, 6 is better than 5. You're not on. Civ 5 has fantastic presentation everything else just sucks.
>>1877058Holy based and true. It doesn't even make sense logically. Why should one city care about how the next city is doing? Single handedly ruins the game never seen a worse mechanic in any game
>>1876937The Rome 2 Total War of the Civ franchise
>>1876937>didn't push the climate change religion in the form of an obnoxious game mechanicbased for that
>>1880879tru dood
>>1879846I had agame in Civ5 VP on a huge Terra map and Epic speed where I had a pretty comfy game of taking a few neighboring cities and vassalising two neighbors by the renaissance and focused on colonising after that. Since I had angry barbs on, the other continent was full of barbs units which made it more difficult and required more of an effort, both for me and the AIs. Until Rome got to the continent tho. Augustus was doing ok before that, beating on one of his neighbors and holding against an alliance of the others, but he popped off in the in the new continent. I had a comfy ~15 cities, but he started colonising like crazy and had like close to 30 by the end.When I was getting close to the diplo victory, he went on a warpath which resulted in a world war involving nearly everyone on both continents which made me scramble to hold the lines at ally civs in the Old World, to keep their fleets out from my tradelines, and to execute an orderly retreat in the New World. His war-machine was relentless - he'd bomb my colonial cities down in a single turn and break through with air and tanks, or just use nukes on the cities. If I hadn't been close to diplo victory I would have been in some deep shit. And it's not like I had a small army - it was in the 80s - but his was something else. I only had an edge in ships, but with his air force and production capabilities both being staggering, it probably would have whittled me down in the end. Getting the diplo win felt like cheating honestly.
>>1880879Dude I'm so sick of Civ 6 fags. EVERY FUCKING POST OR THREAD IS THE SAME HURRR CIV 5 DA WORST. Great artstyle, presentation, music and aesthetics included, 5 is a valid choice alongside 6. You are not in a zero-sum game. You can enjoy both or either or neither. Other peoples' enjoyment or preference doesn't detract from yours. You don't need their validation for your opinions in vidya preferences.
>>18769375 on Deity rivals 3 in how much asinine bullshit the AI gets away with.>Always 2 techs ahead of you minimum, especially early on>Neighbor civ always beats you to settlers and forwards settles right next to you, killing growth>That same Civ? Also always just so happens to completely eclipse you in military tech, strength, and numbers. While also declaring war at the drop of a hat.>You straight up cant win the religion game, even as the celts. AI always ends up dominating the entire map with their chosen faith by the industrial era.>Hard as shit to go tall thanks to the previous point about neighbor civs, and even harder to go wide thanks to the happiness mechanic making even 3-4 cities a hassle on Deity.Civ 4 and 2 are the only ones that do high difficulty right. civ 6 has the inverse problem of being too easy on even the highest difficulty.
>>1880959>blaming Civ 6 fags when they're in the same boat as youThe complaints are always about things like 1UPT
>>1881547I'm actually blaming the civ4 autists who created this atmosphere here of only being allowed to like one civ game and god forbid if you like the wrong one. It's the gayest attitude imaginable and whoever espouses this exposes himself as a hopeless cock-gobbler and probably thinks that feminine penises are a real thing.My first civ ever was 3 and it will always trigger fond nostalgia and the compfiness of childhood wonder. Due to circumstances civ4 passed me by, tho I can recognise that it's an upgrade over 3 in every way except the aesthetics. I started playing civ5 with G&K so I never experienced the blandness of vanilla and hence have had a rather good experience with 5. Learning the mechanics and gradually mastering the nuances was an enjoyable journey. The kick that I get from civ5 - the challenge from high difficulty and mods and seeing the line go up to the stratosphere - is completely different to the one I get from 3 - comfy aesthetics and nostalgia - but get this, I still like them both. I can still relate to friends telling me about their civ4 games. I played civ6 and it was fine, though it didn't click for me. I'm sceptical about civ7, but I'll give it a go regardless.There's no compulsion to champion only one of them and to shit on anyone who like any of the others. I'd rather have everyone sharing stories from all of the games than have every thread devolve into autists fighting over how much better they are for liking the correct civ game over the wrong ones. It's such a fucking gay reality to participate in and perpetuate endlessly. At the very least have the courtesy of staying in your own threads instead of making every thread the same shitfest every single time.
>>1877058Why did they go with this? Civ 4 already solved over-expansion, why the fuck would they do this gay ahit?
>>1879863The funniest part is how people mainly use the heckin tactoocs as an argument in favor of 1UPT. Because spamming archers and killing the retarded AI that has x10 of their units, But is unable to use them correctly is so fucking smart
>>1881589>I'm actually blaming the civ4 autists who created this atmosphere here>I'm actually blaming the civ4 autists who created this atmosphere hereHeadcanon.>My first civ ever was 3Typical reddit gamer. Anybody not starting with 2 is goyslop enjoyer.>I started playing civ5 with G&K so I never experienced the blandness of vanillaGK has all the same issues as vanilla. All it added was religion and more aggressive AI. 1upt and general playstyle was the same.>Learning the mechanics and gradually mastering the nuancesSo what did you do after those 5 minutes?>There's no compulsion to champion only one of them and to shit on anyone who like any of the othersThere is. Civ v butchered future games and killed practically all of 4x because of 1upt.Every modern 4x is the same 1upt brainded AI civ v aesthetic.Fuck civ 5 and 6 and you for liking them.
>headcanon>there it isIndeed, there it is. It being the civ4 autist sperging out when people express opinions different from his own. How about you make a civ4 thread where you can circlejerk eachother over your euphoric superiority and tip your fedora to some miladies' cocks as you destroy your opposition with facts and logic, instead of coming into every civ thread and regurgitating the same thing you've been saying for over ten years. We heard you in the first thousand times. Just fuck off already.
>>1881766Okinstead of sperging out about a game that's not even in the OP, why not talk about what you like the most about Civ V?
>>18769376 is the best, it just tickles my autism in a way that hasn't been tickled since i first played alpha centauri
>>1881772>implying I who has professed to liking civ5, haven't already posted about civ5 in a civ5 threadI'm "sperging out" over civ4 autists such as yourself, not the game. Kindly do follow the open invitation to make your own thread and/or bugger off, okay?
>>1881783Anon I agree with you and prefer Civ 5 too.Just saying, why not talk about the game you like in it's thread, instead of fighting with some random boogyman?
>>1876937VI has better gameplay and IV had more soul. V was a fine stepping stone but I can't think of anything it does that VI didn't improve on massively, no reason to go back to it
>>1881792I haven't had the chance to play VI yet. How does removing workers improve the gameplay?
>>1881799there are workers in VI
>>1881788I did, here:>>1880930I like looking at the graphs and how they manage to go to the moon each and every era. It almost like the satisfaction you get when you expand the factory in factorio. I like the the Terra map which makes the start cramped and everyone angry and aggressive, but scrambles the cards with the rush for the great potential of the new world. I like how the onset of air opens up combat. I like how can go from six core cities to 12 in the renaissance to 24 in modern eras. It is just so comfy making a multi-continent empire.
>>1881807Are there? I thought you could only build district tiles directly in that game instead of producing workers and physically moving them.
>>1881829>I thought you could only build district tiles directly in that game instead of producing workers and physically moving them.No, it'll be in VII. In Civ 6 there are workers but they also have charges and need to be build anew every time.
>>1881792I can't agree with VI having better gameplay, but that's mostly because I genuinely hate the focus on districts.
>>1881993have you tried city lights yet? its is exactly how urban and rural cities gonna work in 7
>>1881829workers have limited charges so you don't build 2 of them and be done for the rest of the game
>>1882010Scaling costs and extra charge unlocks mean that the meta is holding off until and then building a bunch to improve all of the infrastructure available at once. Kinda weird.
>>1877058I had to fucking launch a genocidal war against fucking india in the jungles of god damn south america because of this shit Cultural influence my assThey were fucking communistsNo I'm not sorry, world congress and yes I will do it again
What is it with communists and fucking jungles anyway?
>>1882059gibs
>>1880566Git gud, yet relies on rng strategy ( especially higher difficulties) to manage a stupid limiting factor.>ut you can totally play with 7 to 8 cities as long as you know how to manage happiness.7-8 cities? Bro, if you don't have 10 cities before mid game you are a failure.> focus on luxuriesRng.>make strategic city state alliancesAnother rng.> pick an appropriate ideology in the late gameIf you haven't solved your happiness problem by the time you get an ideology, you deserve to lose.Now name a single rng factor when it comes to the civ 4 equivalent? You can't.
>>1882059guerilla warfare
>>1881993I really enjoyed districts but I can see how they'd be annoying with a wider playstyle, and inheriting AI district placements sucks ass. They do a good job of adding an extra layer of strategy for choosing city locations beyond "next to a river and near strategic resources"
>>1882145It’s frustrating when the map gets so cluttered by late game that it becomes visually overwhelming with all the improvements. A potential solution could be to limit mine placements,so that not every hill on the map can be dug up for le +1 prodcution.
>>1882006I haven't. I might give it a try when I'm in the 4X mood and see if that does it for me. If not then I'll have to wait and see how 7 is or if I'll just keep to the past. >>1882145I can understand why they wanted to create more depth. I'll admit I actually liked how Millennia did it for their workshop chains and how it felt less like an issue. I hope that one doesn't perish personally as I enjoy it.
>>1882145Wide loves districts anyway. Best way to win science and culture victory is going wide and just smashing campus/theatre in every city.
>>1876980>this game has really really started to show its ageIconic zoomer comment.Games don't age, you were simply raised on mobile games so you've developed shit taste.
>>1876937Why is Greece such a cockblocking piece of shit in this game on Deity? They counter virtually all your victory type paths if you don't go early war with them.
>>1877058Bitching about global happiness invalidates your opinion.>>1882095Mapgen and bonus opportunity RNG isn't bad. It's a strategy game. You figure out how to make it work and devote your resources to keeping your numbers high.
>>1882059>In-gameHardest to attack before the lategame, with poor yields for non-science/domination, and Order makes playing catch-up easier.>IRLCommunist revolutions often mean masses of poorly-equipped ideologues facing down smaller numbers of better-equipped soldiers struggling with a lack of government control. The rougher the terrain is, the better these massed forces can apply their numbers, and the more difficult it is to define and win set piece engagements, especially with the militia accompaniment tactics Mao so loved.
>>1881601They wanted people to play tall without having a tutorial pop up and just say directly to stay at four cities because we designed the UI burden for that
>>1883648>Mapgen and bonus opportunity RNG isn't bad. >and devote your resourcesBeing illiterate is a civ fanboy requirement, it seems.
>>1881792V got better mods than Vl and lV . Community patches, ai improvement, compilations like vox populi or gaia make it even much better game, ai in vox vs moded ai in Vl is like comparing adult to 5yo inteligence-wise. The only type of mods that are better in IV are the mods that change the setting totaly, V modscene lack this, its simply not as diverse as lV.
>>1884085ai sucks ass in vp. once you best their army which is only initially a challenge, you won
>>1884107I dunno how is vox ai atm, i remember like 5y ago it used some ai additional script from some mode but it was night and day. Like 90% of 4x games have braindead ai, also vox ai/gaia dont/didnt rely to much on ai bonuses. If you want some chellange than put some less optimal mapscript, with mountains.Vox and gaia is like adding 3-4 levels of difficulty without adding flat bonuses.Give me some examples of 4x game post 2000 that have better ai.
>>1884235can't give ya any I play mp
>>1884366What multi 4x?
>>1877058Happiness isn't the best mechanic but it's not as bad as people say. Even ignoring the civs that directly fix it like India, you just have to plan out your expansion more towards land with luxuries or focus on citystate missions.
>>1885864Gee, i wonder if any of those things are dictated by rng?Had 4 copies of the same luxury in all my expansion spots. I guess i should just git gud or something?
>>1885943>Trade luxuries>Sell luxuries>Expand elsewhereYou've got options.
>>1882059In real life south america has a ton of jungles with large trees that make for the perfect spot to set up camp, organize and plan, and hide from the army or opposing ideologies.Ironically there was a far right facist group in Colombia who got their start by being funded by the president and the U.S to take out the commies.
>>1876937>So we can all agree that this is the best Civ game, and maybe even best 4x game of all time right?
>>1885943Consider playing with abundant resources.>git gudyes.Learn how to manage happiness with city states and religion, and you can play wider.>>1882095>if you don't have 10 cities before mid game you are a failure.Not in 5.5 is a taller game, to play wide in Civ 5 (assuming you aren't doing a world conquest) having 7 cities is quite wide and 3 to 4 is tall.It's not worse, it's just different.>RNGno, it's not, git gud.>What about Civ 4Civ 4 sucks dick without global happiness
>>1876937i genuinely like civ 6 the most and ive played 4, colonisation & 5 a lot.but then again i only play mp.
>>1889730I only play as Sam the Banana Man. Spreading my banana's and influence everywhere
Civ 5 happiness defenders deserve the rope
Just stupid fucking anime images. I hate you people.
>>1890424>I hate 4chan.
>>1890424Posting a Seinfield image is ironically the most reddit thing you could possibly do as a human being. Next you'll link a deep fried office reaction GIF.
>>1891397
>>1891450>Winter is the narwhal, it's coming when he bacons.
Civ 5 style Spain is apparently making a comeback in Civ 7
>>1890424If you don't like anime maybe you shouldn't be on an anime website :^)
>>1898811Popura is so cute
>>1876981The problem with 6 is that it's too damn easy, deity or not. You need a mod to make it remotely challenging.
>>1882260Games can age in the sense of becoming tedious to get running, i don't get his argument since he claims to like 3 though
>>1898921A shame she's barely in the anime and you get to hear about autistic dyke's issues instead of cozy wage slavery.
>>1899676>>1899676>it's too damn easyThis also applies to V given how passive of a game it is.
Explain the pros if 6I thought vanilla was alright despite it's a bit barebones compared to full dlc and modded 5, districts can be annoying but is good overallThen I tried it after all the dlcs were out>Immortal, meet 2 civs>Get blocked in by AI city spam and declared on>Takes a 1 city out of 3 from the AI>Wins the war as a defender, get reparations>So far so good, this is turn 12ish>Suddenly denounced by this bitch I never even met>Muh you mistreat your newly conquered citizens>Next turn city flipped to her>Couldnt even raze it in time had I known this bullshitHow do you tolerate bullshit like that, the AI aggressor was poor as shit so it's not like I can get ahead jewing 300 gold a turn while being trapped in 1 mid city
>>1900329Nope, Civ 5 ai is way more aggressive than Civ 6 ai. The contrast between Civ 5 deity and Civ 6 deity is sharp.
>>1900596While the Civ V ai is more aggressive, its so bad at combat wars that you really don't need to worry about it.But that's not what I was really taking about, my point was that overall Civ V is a passive game in that there isn't as much of an onus on the player to make things happen like with previous entries into the series.
>>1900600You do have to worry about it depending on your neighbor(s) and what kind of victory you're going for.
>>1900596you've obviously never played 6 on deity.
>>1900671I have and it's very easy. Perhaps you should disable your mods and try a vanilla game in 6.
>>190067290% of the time on deity the nearest AI zergs you with its starting units. You either haven't played or downsize civ numbers for your map size.https://youtu.be/dsJvCJlJ93I?si=_ZobzmYJlLTcBsi2This sort of thing happens 9 games in 10.
>>1876964Started with IV but Civ V is still the best. Anyone who says "mods suck" clearly doesn't have voxpopuli
All the people who say >IV is the best 4x ever V is dog shitand vice versa are retarded. If you like one game you'll like the other. You'll only not like one or the other because of cultism. They're both good games. I love both. They are my #1 and #2 favourite games ever. IV has nice moldability and is more flesh. V has a better frame and combat. Stop being >Noooo you can't like this installment because it competes with this one!!!Let's come together and shit on paradox games like Sid Meiers would want us to
>>1901778the only correct take>Let's come together and shit on paradox gamesbased
I like the space one
Any tips for a beginner? I don't even know what I am doing most of the time.
>>1901778Truke
>>1901778Same. 4 and 5 are my favorites in the series. They look and feel so different and play so differently that any kind of "rivalry" between them is forced. When you're in the mood for 4, play 4. When you're in the mood for 5, play 5. It's as simple as that.
>>1901821I actually liked Beyond Earth too. Just felt like it needed one more DLC..
>>1901778>If you like one game you'll like the other.No, I don't you pentuple nigger and I'll explain why. Because while Civ V certainly isn't bad, its good ideas are very much let down by poor execution, and what you're ultimately left with is a strategy game with few interesting and meaningful choices.
4 is great5 is ok6 is good
>>1881766That's pretty accurate. For me though, it's all about cannons. Once you get them, you've basically won the game. One thing I'd add is that diplomacy is very exploitable and you can easily cheese your way to a diplomatic victory with the Apostolic Palace.
>>1901910>Few interesting and meaningful choicesI will literally spend 10 minutes a turn debating where to put a city down. The amount of thinking I put into Civ V is like twice what I would in IV or VI. I love all three games but the reason I love V is because I feel it doesn't leave a lot of room for mistakes. Policy trees aswell make me debate with myself a lot. Do you have GK and BNW? If you don't then yeah Civ V is pretty brutal to play, but it's movement and combat is literally the best of any Civ game.>>1902004>VI ahead of VDo you have GK and BNW? If not I have literally ideas how you came to this conclusion. VI is so easy it annoys me. Was definitely dumbed down to reach the largest audience.
>>1902366lmao, Vfag asking "DO U HAVE ALL OF THE DLC?" as if the answer to that isn't obvious.VI is better than V. This is a fact.
>>1902380Okay I don't mind the IV guys saying it but you're just retarded. I highly doubt you've played the other Civ games
>>1902366>Policy trees aswell make me debate with myself a lotThe policy trees are pretty unbalanced, some are far more powerful than others, surpassing even what Republic was as a government type in 3. >Do you have GK and BNW?Yes. And when I got them over a decade ago they didn't make me want to play the game much more>movement and combat best of any Civ gameStopped right reading right there, tile yields had to be crippled after launch because any player that knew what they were doing was able to build so many units that "carpets of doom" were the problem. And even with the nerf, UPT1 doesn't actually make for interesting war because the maps in Civ are no where near big enough to do Panzer General II type warfare and the AI is trash at it. Civ isn't a pure ware game (if I want to play one I have HoI3) and fucking up some other core mechanics for muh tacticool combat was not a good trade off.
>>1902468Nothing in 5 is as unbalanced as Slavery or AP diplo victory in 4.
>>1902527There are more reasons to switch away from slavery early in Civ 4 than they're are to not choose tradition in 5.
>>1902612Nope. In Civ 4, you do slavery no matter what, peace or war. In Civ 5, you go liberty or honor if you go war, unless you're bad.
>>1902612Liberty is objectively the better choice than tradition for Civs like China and Egypt, since they are at their best playing wide and Liberty makes early expansion alot easier.
>>1880601>start 1v1 game on tiny map>play Attila>build battering rams>crush opponent's capital cityThat's the basis of winningAnything else in the game is just messing about until you get that final moment of taking the last capital
>>1902612What. No, you slavery no matter what. Hammers are fucking king. It's like saying you don't chop forests, its something you DO.
At least we can all agree that VI was shit and VII will be worse.
>>1905401Ya
>>1905401I'm not gonna bother with 7 at all. Switching civs is beyond retarded.
civ 1 is the best, it's like civ 2 without the nauseating isometric view
>>1906270same
>>1906270>humankind's big selling point is switching civs>it's a complete mess with it>game bombs>goes down to a peak of like 900 players>firaxis decides to rip it off for civ 7why
>>1906509Where else are they gonna rip off ideas from?
>>1876937Thats not Civ 4.
>>1906271Civ 1 didn't age well visually. Civ 2 still looks clean and beautiful.
Bros, is there a way to totally turn off edge panning in Civ 5? I've looked everywhere
>>1876937>Civ 5 updated after years of nothing>Update is not only for something completely worthless, but has straight up broken the game on steam>Also killed a bunch of modsWhat in the fuck was Fireaxis thinking?
>>1908139Huh? Everyone has been using the legacy version ever since they introduced their cancer 2k launcher with civ6 launch.
Has the launcher removal borked anyone's games? I got mines working again after it broke after installing vox populi via removing the 2k folders in appdata and unchecking read only in the my games folder
>>1901835Practice settling 4 cities with libraries and building national college by turn 120.
>>19054016 was a major step back in terms of war. Mobility and positioning are restricted by 6's movement system, and you can't manually build roads, which cuts out the logistical aspect of war in 6. Roads were a big, big, big part of war in 5 and added a lot of strategy and skill.
>>1910201>Mobility and positioning are restricted by 6's movement systemSo you actually have to think instead of having horses run across the continent?>and you can't manually build roads, which cuts out the logistical aspect of war in 6. Roads were a big, big, big part of war in 5 and added a lot of strategy and skill.Good, road were cheese that the AI couldn't counter. You just build a road into their cities and you blitz them. Wow, so much strategy.
>>1910205civ 6 combat is fundamentally flawedhttps://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/combat-bonuses-a-thread-comparing-the-combat-of-civ-v-and-vi.683682/
>>1910207>https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/combat-bonuses-a-thread-comparing-the-combat-of-civ-v-and-vi.683682/How about posting your own opinion instead of just linking me to somebody else's?And both civ 6 and 5 combat are terrible dumbed down wargame imitations.
>>1910286how about you kys
>>1910290Nice comeback, did you google that too?
>>1910205Roads are based. By your retarded logic, you might as well take out half the mechanics that make up Civ because the AI can't deal with them.
>>1910355In 5 and 6, yes.Removing elements that make the stupid AI even easier to exploit should be removed. In earlier civs not so much.I am sorry you need to neutralize the actual movement planning part of the warfare to win against a retarded AI.
Yet the earlier games are dominated by a meta which disregards every mechanic besides hammer hoarding and unit spam. Curious.
>>1910379There is a difference between meta and stuff the AI has no idea how to play/counter.
Why would anyone play civ if all they would do is spam units? Surely they'd play one of those war games instead.
>>1910384The 5 and 6 brainelts tried and got their ass kicked. So they go back to 5/6 and demand stupider AI so they can feel good.
But that's like just your headcannon, bro. The question is why aren't you playing those wargames. Someone might even propose that you must have tried and gotten your ass kicked. So you went back to civ 5/6 threads and make offtopic posts so you can feel good.
>>1910394>The question is why aren't you playing those wargamesBecause i prefer empire management and don't play aggressively in 4x games?>Someone might even propose that you must have tried and gotten your ass kickedNah, been good at them ever since Eastern front to vietnam 65. They are easy game sminus the UI being made for ants.> So you went back to civ 5/6 threads and make offtopic posts so you can feel good.Posting here is certainly not making me feel good.
There's only 1 way to play Civ 4, and that's slavery.Also, Civ 4's early diplomatic victory cheese is probably the most busted mechanic in all of Civ.
>>1910403>civ4>empire managementlollmao even
>>1910404Nah,you only choose slavery every time because you are a meta bitch.You don't need slavery unless you are in a shit start position and playing on deity.>>1910409Yes,4x games are empire management games and not wargames, Shocking, i know.
>>1876937What are those weird blue plants?
>>1910417Retard, slavery has been THE way to play Civ 4 for 20 years now. Meta my ass.
>>1910403>Posting here is certainly not making me feel good.Damn those dastardly enjoyers-of-civ-that-is-not-4 forcing you to be here. How can they keep getting away with living rent-free in your head??
>>1910427For meta try hards maybe. Not my problem you have to play meta stuff in every single game for some reason.Just play the game and pick whatever you want.>>1910428More like damn those civ 5 fans who want easily abusable gameplay elements to make a stupid ai even dumber.
>>1910429>Just play the game and pick whatever you want.Take your own advice and stop fucking whining and crying about Civ 5.
>>1910429Is the civ5 illuminati in this thread with you right now?
>>1910433Look in the mirror buddy, you are gonna see one.>>1910431None of civ 4 elements are easily abusable without some drawback compared to roads in 5. And please don't use the zoomie slavery meme.
>>1910435>he thinks some rando civ5 boomer has the power to influence, nay, dictate the development of a civ title on a whimliteral schizo confirmed
>>1910440Literally can't read.Not really a surprise for nu civ fans.
>>1910435Nothing in Civ 5 is as ridiculous as slavery lmao. Also, every Civ 4 player who isn't a scrub goes for slavery.BTW, maintenance for roads is much higher in 5 than 4. In 4 you fucking spam build roads (and eventually railroads) on EVERY SINGLE TILE YOU OWN. You can't do that shit in 5, you also can't spam build units nonstop because maintenance will cripple you.
>>1910442>Nothing in Civ 5 is as ridiculous as slavery lmaoEverything in civ v i ridiculous since the drawbacks for most stuff are nonexistent.>BTW, maintenance for roads is much higher in 5 than 4Road maintenance is a joke in civ v. If roads are bankrupting you you are shit at the game.
>>1910445Now you're just exposing yourself as a scrub.
>>1910441If they aren't the illuminati then it's just some irrelevant boomers living rent free in your head.
>>1910435>the cheesy roadsCan you guess which cities were developed by the AI?
>>1910420hallo
>>1910446Compared to the genius civ v player who can't afford roads?>>1910451Chhesy as in "building roads into the enemy cities". It would solve the dancing issue the AI has.
Anons, I have only played HoI4 but I have a question about trying out Civ, please don't mind my question if it is stupid, it is quick and I am sincerely curious, but what is the gameplay of Civ? Is it similar to the kind of fantasy I am going to describe?Is the focus of Civilization more on nation and culture building? I am looking for a game where you can ally nations and leave alliances depending on convenience, the narrative is not a stale always the same adventure but sometimes you have the usual world war and other times you have idk USA plus Austria vs France plus Germany vs Britain plus Ottomans and all courting Russia, or even entirely new countries and reasons for a world war!. Is Civ like that? alliances of convenience and backstabbing and your own lore, Idk, I have only played hoi4 and I hoped paradox had a hoi4 game where wars are a thing but it is not the same railroaded experience every single time, I do not care about the army micro and stuff, I love the idea of Civ of dropping in any sort of world and continent shape and stuff and going from caveman age to space age and building your culture and shit, but Civ too for some reason feels... weird, too cartoony maybe? Idk, I just hope you can tell me if Civ is like what I describe, a world where you build your own lore and create alliances and backstabbing and cultures in your nation and not blobmaxx, that feels stupid, too, I want nations and realistic expansion and some diplomacy, not an eternal NATO alliance but rather for example a nation called chickenland allying wolfland to attack catland for resources and their claims and then the catlands even after the war is over can still ally wolfland conveniently and attack the chickenlands because they want their core territory back and shit and look, now you have interesting lore!. Anyway, is Civ like I am describing or not? From gameplay on youtube it seems like simple blobmax and not even too into culture building...
>>1910429>Meta TryhardDo you even chop forests bro?
>>1910493You can't build in enemy territory and your units don't benefit from enemy roads (excepting the scout line with upgrades), so the "cheese" will only ever reach up to their border.
Why are 4fags here? Shouldn't they all be playing the greatest Civ ever with a sense of smug superiority?
>>1910526Yes and no. Civ(5) is a 4x with a good world generator and flashy AI personalities, where get addicted to making your civ incrementally better one more turn at a time, snowballing into sprawling empires, massive yields and armies with unit counts over a hundred. There aren't alliances or claims as such, more like declared and undeclared intentions which aren't as reliable as alliances or claims in pdx games. The AI can be deceptive tho and are willing to backstab others. This can be frustrating since their reasoning is always clear and can seem random. The AI personality values having a bit rng variance means that even the same AI leader will act differently each game which is great for replaybility. Compared to hoi4 which has a fundamentally static startpos, civ(5) is nigh infinitely more replayable. If you want to larp tho you have to do more legwork since civ(5) is closer to boardgames(or cartoony) than hoi4. Hoi4 has the narrative events and focuses and decisions which can lead you down a larping path quite nicely. In this sense hoi4 for is much more like a vn. With civ(5) you can have emerging narrative, but it's on the level of "Rome stole my land after foward-settling in my face!? I hate that guy! Gonna start gearing up for war to burn that city down while I bribe Japan to attack him." It's not realistic or "lore", but it makes sense withing the limited systems of the game which does lend itself for larp as long as you are fine with most of it staying in your head.
>>1910613They are trying to "win" by slavishly spamming the "enemy" threads with the same cookie-cutter arguments. Just one more shitpost...
>>1910589>You can't build in enemy territoryGee, if only there was a thing called open borders?
>>1910846For what purpose if you can't benefit from roads during war?
>>1910886The roads you build into another civ are your roads. They don't get the penalty. And please show off the original game and not modded.
>>1910983I can't believe I spent like 30min testing your bullshit claims. You've been wrong on every single point. How about you stop yapping about stuff you apparently know nothing about. You're like a babyboomer giving advice based on the times of his youth without realising that he is woefully out of the loop by now and everything he says has long since stopped applying to contemporary life.>And please show off the original game and not moddedWhy not? Civ5 devs haven't touched the game in ten years and they only released a handful of patches when they did. You may not agree with their design for whatever reason, but the VP guys have been actively developing their mod all this time and will continue for the foreseeable future, fixing, balancing, adding-removing and reworking bugs, features and design issues. VP has long since surpassed whatever state vanilla was left off at by the devs. Again, it's fine to not like it and be an anal purist (for example, due to focusing on MP only), but the fact remains that VP has objectively addressed and fixed the roads issue (and probably most of your other grievances) that you have been moaning about in this very thread and probably every previous civ5 thread for the last decade as well. It's your choice to play the game at a state that you apparently hate. Expecting others others to do the same as your dunce self is reaching new depths of stupidity, though.
>>1911035DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT MODDED CIV IS NOT THE SAME AS THE ORIGINAL GAME!!!!Seriously now, just play the original and test it there. Do not care about modded which change stuff anyway.Especially vp.
>>1911067Are you a literal autist? Why wouldn't it apply here? There's a bug/issue which has been fixed by a mod. Tons of unsupported games have community patch efforts which fix bugs and iron out obvious kinks that the devs didn't care enough to bother with. Hell, every memendalore video about an old game starts with patching instructions to get it to a playable state. Should those also not count?You are literally bemoaning about the flawed state of the game and at the same time berating people for playing with mods that fix (or do their best to fix) said flawed state. You are literally an idiot of the highest order.
>>1911073>Why wouldn't it apply here?Because when talking about game mechanics nobody takes in account mods except autists like yourself.>There's a bug/issue It is a feature, not a bug.>Tons of unsupported games have community patch effortsVp changes way too much to be considered a community path by any means.>You are literally bemoaning about the flawed state of the game No. This entire thing started because a civ 5 fanboi doesn't see roads as an exploit that nullifies an entire point of warfare(movement consideration) yet loves to harp on on how slavery is the biggest exploit in the civ series.> berating people for playing with mods that fixNever did that. You brought in modded mechanics for the discussion for whatever reason? My preferred way to play civ is superpowers/Gaia, i don't have a beef against mods.They save nuciv from mediocrity, especially codex for beyond earth.> You are literally an idiot of the highest order.Talk about game mechanics.BUT WHAT ABOUT SOME MOD AND HOW IT CHANGED THOSE MECHANICS?Not the point, nobody brings in mod mechanics for vanilla discussion.NOOO,WHY ARE YOU BERATING ME!!!You look like a idiot doing this.
>>1911079>Because when talking about game mechanics nobody takes in account mods except autists like yourself.Yes, they do if a game has been unsupported for a decade. Especially if the mechanic has such an exploitative facet as you keep claiming.>It is a feature, not a bug.How can you be sure? Maybe it's an unforeseen and unintended side-effect that they didn't get around to fixing. That they changed roads in civ6 might be an indication that wanted to address this, but were focusing on civ5 anymore. Listen to yourself: you are saying that the devs intended for warfare to boil down to building roads in enemy lands and then blitzing units in, in your own words.>No.So, what? He is allowed to think that. How about you gracefully allow someone to have a differing opinion to yours? His view on the matter doesn't have any bearing except on the devastation of your anal-cavity apparently inflicting immense pain upon you. If only said cunning anon didn't hold your mum's OF nudes as blackmail material and force you to keep reading this thread.>You brought in modded mechanics for the discussion for whatever reason?Because I consider it to be of a much higher quality than vanilla and, honestly, see it as the standard way to play. I really wouldn't recommend anyone to play vanilla over VP outside of some niche cases. >Talk about game mechanics.We are. I literally went and tested your claims mechanically in my previous and current saves. Can't you see how a mod which fixes a flawed mechanic and makes the AI able to utilize roads properly would be relevant? Why shouldn't the fact that a flaw has been fixed be talked about? VP is still based on the civ5 mechanics and it has addressed one of the issues you brought up. It's up to everyone to decide for themselves whether to try it out or stick to "flawed" vanilla. Your insistence on >NOT MUH VANILLAAAAH reeks of cope and moving goalposts.
>>1911093>Yes, they do if a game has been unsupported for a decade. Especially if the mechanic has such an exploitative facet as you keep claiming.No? Like, seriously, i have never seen this line of reasoning? It is still a mod that changes mechanics.>How can you be sure?Because it has been in the game from the beginning and they nerfed other stuff that were much worse.>He is allowed to think thatDo you not understand the point of an argument?>How about you gracefully allow someone to have a differing opinion to yours?This isn't a blog, people will disagree with you and have that right.>Because I consider it to be of a much higher quality than vanillaYes, and that is again beside the point?> I literally went and tested your claims mechanically in my previous and current saveYou mean modded saves?>Can't you see how a mod which fixes a flawed mechanic and makes the AI able to utilize roads properly would be relevant?No, because again, the discussion is about vanilla.>Your insistence on >NOT MUH VANILLAAAAH reeks of cope and moving goalposts.The discussion is about vanilla.Autist come sin and starts talking about mods.Gets butthurt.Again, this is a you problem.I am feeling sorry for you so i am gonna help you. You can easily shoot down my argument and the civ 4 slavery is op argument by pointing that they are exploits that are not needed whatsoever and you can play the game however you see fit and by thus using said exploits against a weak AI, the player skill is being shown. You see, no need to resort ro mods.
>>1911100>No, because again, the discussion is about vanilla.This is what sparked the discussion. Everything this anon said about roads and warfare applies for VP. No one but you has claimed this was about vanilla civ5. You followed up with inane claims about civ5/6 players wanting dumbed down AI and exploitative features, even agreeing that "exploitative elements" should be removed. So here's a civ5 mod that removes said flaw and improves the AI. The fact that you have since moved the goalposts to be about vanilla only, reveals that this was never about the exploits for you and only ever about your own ego and your need to feel superior.
>>1911100Man you are gonna be shocked by things like the OXCE 4chan general that has people talking about X-Com using a modded platform because its become the default for that game.
>>1910613>>1910621Forget this rivalry between IV and V. Right now, everyone should come together and play some VI since it turns out that Luigi interned on the dev team.
>>1911111>Everything this anon said about roads and warfare applies for VPIt also applies for vanilla.Gee, i wonder did the person who never once mentioned the word mod/modded/vp think of vanilla or modded when he wrote that?>So here's a civ5 mod that removes said flaw and improves the AIForgetting to mention that it changes the happiness/combat values/ diplomacy options and practically everything else making discussion about it meaningless because it is practically a different game compared to the original in terms of mechanics.Who gives a fuck about vp when talking about civ v except you for some reason?>>1911202Yeah and it is stupid because oxce has mods and sub mods and everybody is talking about some random version of the mod instead of talking about vanilla.
>>1910420>blueHGELOOO
>>1911393>It also applies for vanillaIf it applies for both then why are you so adamant on excluding VP? Surely not because you care more about trashing civ5 than objectively discussing and possibly addressing some of its flaws.>Who gives a fuck about vp when talking about civ v except you for some reason?It's relevant since it addresses major concerns people have had about vanilla civ5. We've been over this: you've identified a flaw and I've pointed out how VP fixes (or at least attempts to fix) it. It couldn't be any more pertinent regardless of your subjective feelings on it. I'll stress this again: you are saying that civ5 is has exploitative mechanics and AI and at the same time don't want to allow discussion about a mod which deals with both of those things. This is how much of a hypocrite you are being. People can choose to play civ5 vanilla with all its flaws (or "flaws" if you want) or they can use a mod which has addressed many of those - both are equally valid - including the happiness mechanic that you mentioned which has been one of the main gripes for many vanilla critics. Well, VP has long since done away with global happiness and has introduced local happiness instead, with only pan-civ effects kicking in when the number of unhappy pops exceeds happy ones and even then the effects is rather mild until you get to around 2/3 of people being unhappy. This seems very much relevant to the potential experience of civ5 in current year. And that's besides the already mentioned detail of civ5 having been unsupported by the devs for over a decade and VP being still actively developed. It's completely ok to not like VP over vanilla, tastes are subjective after all and though VP is modular it has become pretty extensive with its scope over the years at full application, but it's ludicrous to demand that people not consider or bring up active community driven mods when discussing essentially an abandoned game.
>>1911416Let me simplify this for you.Game has mechanic B which is being argued over.A mod fixes mechanic B. But also changes mechanic D,E,G,H,Z...What if i don't like the other changes? What value does this mod have for me other than fixing mechanic B?
>>1911461Just don't build roads you fucking retard.
>>1911461>What value does this mod have for meNone, since it doesn't cure level 3 autism.
v is shit, it's unbelievably boringit gets S+ for presentation, fantastic production values, but virtually everything else is awfuli feel like people who profess to love it have never tried to push the game at all and only turtled on the lowest difficulties, because the base game doesn't work at all if you take it seriously
>>1912782git gud fag
>>1912785i can beat v deity basically 100% of the time assuming i don't get bored firstmp is boring as fuck because everyone expands at the same rate
>>1911111>he doesn't use tomorrowArgument lost
>>1912782I feel sort of similar about six (sans presentation, that shit is awful). The way how higher level civ6 devolves into a single pattern of gameplay truly breaks what I'd consider a civ game. I want the experience to be the opposite of railroading and fixed meta strats, where I can play any way that I want pivot strategies at any point of the game. Civ6 felt very much like a>have a victory-type in mind and pick one of the civ tuned for that>scout your surroundings for optimal cities with that in mind>instanty develop your infrastructure with feudalism charges>ride this surge to the planned victoryformulaic repetition every time. It's like you had already won as soon as you pressed play and just have to go through the same rote repetition as the last dozen times. It doesn't feel like a civ game, but more like a minigame or another game that's using civ6 as a game-engine vechicle. It's just so disconnected from what I consider core gameplay for civ that it's more like a timings simulator or something tranny&gay like speedrunning. Playing civ3 as a clueless kid was much more fun and engaging than whatver this over-optimized civ6 meta is. Modded civ5 on epic speed evokes that nostalgia for me while letting me have comfy non-repetetive games that provide the right amount of challenge where it doesn't feel like the AI is stuck playing a wholly different game and can't even hope to compete with the human player. It feels like civ.Modded civ5 just clicks for me in a way that civ6 never has, I suppose. This is my personal experience and I don't expect everyone else to share it or see things my way, and that is OK.
>>1913010>It doesn't feel like a civ game, but more like a minigame or another game that's using civ6 as a game-engine vechicle. It's just so disconnected from what I consider core gameplay for civ that it's more like a timings simulator or something tranny&gay like speedrunning. REALI hate how timing based it is, maybe its because of the policy cards / eurekas.Which civ5 mods do you recommend ?
Terrible games in general.AI is retarded you HAVE to play in hard difficulties, so you're always trying to play catchup against their +9999% production bonuses.Or you can play online which is worse because it's full of people too shit to play RTS.
>>1914388Do try VP, it does attempt to flesh out and expand civ5 features. It's not perfect and you could make an argument for bloatedness or overengineeredness- for example, a substantial amount of yields are awarded outside of the regular means which can make tracking your expected and full yields troublesome - but after having played it for years it does feel like a better and more complete version of civ5 with improved AI. For example, you know how vanilla has the weird unit upgrade paths? VP introduces clear unit lines spanning the whole tech-tree. You can have a skirmisher cavalry corps as part of your army from the very first age up until armoured units. I also like how the scout-line complements the regular army through-out the game by providing vision and healing and opportunistic pillaging. In vanilla the scouts felt much more like mono-functional hut-hunting units.I also play with modded mapscripts since I really didn't like the way base maps have featureless planes and very few rivers. AI in VP can usually handle rivers and rougher terrains since they get easier access to promotions and hence can largely negate the movement penalties just as the player can and would. And I like Terra since having a cramped start means a lot of wars while having an extra continent means that you can get interesting colonial developments with multiple 20+ city empires on Large maps.
>>1876976>V suffers badly from 1UPT not working with the AI.1UPT is better for multiplayer than stacks but I don't think that was intended given how shitty the netcode and multiplayer balance is.>>1876937Civ 5 is one of my top strategy games but I wouldn't say it's one of the best of all time, it's heavily flawed.>>1879780Late game is generally more fun (at least in warfare) so I don't mind rushing for it. Epic speed it at least playable. I did a game on marathon once and it took like 1300 turns to reach the atomic era, most of it was just clicking "new turn" without actually doing anything at all. I have no idea why they included marathon speed except as maybe a joke.After somehow putting almost 1,000 hours in this game I can't find anything except naval domination victories fun. Plus playing wide becomes a lot easier with the exploration policy tree. If only the AI wasn't so shit at naval warfare and archipelago maps. While most strategy franchises suck at naval warfare this game actually does it right and shows what a strong navy can actually do with coastal bombardments and capturing coastal cities. Paradox games should really buff coastal bombardments and allow navies to capture coastal provinces.
Civ 5 was designed and balanced for small map size, not standard. Small has a normal 100% research cost, but standard has 110%. Small is also the default map size.
I wouldn't know, I've only ever played huge maps.
>>1921419I find that small map size usually has better resources density too which makes settling cities better. Standard is probably the shittiest map size because it increases research costs and lowers resources density while also not reducing city happiness cost. At least on large and huge there's a happiness buff to cities which means you can settle more to actually take advantage of the larger map size.
>Restart 20 times in order to make sure I begin with 3 salt, 3 wheat, river, mountain>"heh, easy game"
>>1921419I've been playing a lot of small, 6-player maps and I have to agree. Non-scaling stuff like religion also seems more balanced on small maps.
>>1921419I find that small is more accurate when it comes to starting bias, at least on pangaea, which is what I mostly play. On standard, I have to roll a bunch of times to get a desert with Morocco, but on small, I get desert very consistently. Even if I don't start on a desert on small, I can usually find a desert maybe 1-2 tiles away. Also, it feels less crowded despite being smaller because there are fewer city-states. The number of city-states on standard is too high. Small seems to have the best map balance and getting a religion is less frustrating, which allows more playing styles to be viable rather than the typical 3/4 city trad.
Everyone complaining about not being able to play wide due to happiness is oblivious to the greater issue about playing wide which is the fact that if you settle a bunch of cities most of them will be playing catch-up or have sub-optimal yields in food and production. The +1 hammer policy from liberty mitigates this a bit but generally it doesn't compare to the extra production you get from extra pop from tradition. This means that spamming cities will have most not give net positive yield in science and will not be able build anything necessary for victory like units or wonders because they're so behind on their build order. On top of that the time spent building settlers and workers for those new cities in your other ones is just more wasted production for a city that won't ever pay itself back. In this image even though Boston is paying for itself in happiness because it has a unique lux the tile yields are still so garbage it makes me regret settling it, it's behind the rest of my cities in growth and build order and had to catch up all game.Even if you don't too settle many cities, if you settle a city too late it will still have to catch up and might not have a net positive benefit before the game ends. Captured cities are also generally terrible because they lose most of their pop and buildings when captured and the AI doesn't know how to settle cities, but at least they have improved tiles to help them re-grow and re-build quickly. Generally just raze most of your captured cities until they have a unique lux or good strategic resources, then puppet for a few turns until it's rebuilt enough to be worth annexing.In order for playing wide to be viable new cities need to be to build/grow faster on top of fixing the well-known shitty happiness system. Even when liberty with 5+ cities is viable because of plenty of space and luxes, 3-4 city tradition still usually just ends up being flat out better because the tile yields are concentrated on fewer cities.
Wide only works with *some* civs, like Ethiopia or Egypt. People need to get rid of the mentality that every civ should be able to do everything.
>>1922014Yeah, another weird mentality is that you should be able to do anything you want regardless of your start.
>>1922014Weird take. Every civ should be able to do anything in the sense of attaining win conditions, but every civ can have a specialization or a niche which makes some easier than others. The Huns, for example, should be able to go for a science victory even if they miss or fail their niche of early-game agression snowball into domination victory. It shouldn't be as easy as Babylon going for science, but it should be theoretically and practically doable. Otherwise they's be a dead civ by mid-game, a nothingburger just occupying space on the map like something between a barb camp and a city-state. What would even be the point of such a civ?A design-philosophy where the only viable civs for any given victory are the ones specializing in each one leads only to failed game-design.
>>1922717You're putting words in my mouth. I never mentioned victories. I'm talking about strengths and strategies.
>>1922719Sure, I extrapolated a bit from>should be able to do everythingThe argument would remain the same, though. Every civ should be able to go tall and wide, but some civs should have an easier time than others, just like every civ should be able to go for a military build-up and put up a fight for survival or domination. Otherwise you'd get absurd gameplay situations where a player would be justified in quitting just because they were attacked as a non-militaristic civ or failed to get a pantheon/belief which complements their strategy.Or to use your own words and formulations: both wide and tall should work for *every* civ, but only the civs specializing in either one should be the best at it.
>>1922724>Every civ should be able to go tall and wideI gotta disagree. I agree that every civ should be able to achieve any victory, but the way(s) in which they achieve them may be very different.
>>1922731>I gotta disagree. I agree that every civ should be able to achieve any victory, but the way(s) in which they achieve them may be very different.Agreed, civ 6 did the opposite and everybody just feels the same only with slight bonuses toward their preferred playstyle. Civ v actually made civ's unique.
>>1922858>Civ v actually made civ's uniqueI like this about Civ 5 but I also think that it didn't go far enough in this regard. I would like even more uniqueness and specialization, they should really encourage certain civs to go hard on specific aspects like trade or culture or science with their unique bonuses but also provide a way to pivot each of these into multiple victory conditions. It sucks to invest heavily into tourism as a civ like France but then fail to get any of the key wonders required for a culture victory. Ideally France should get even more culture/tourism bonuses and then there should be a way to use culture/tourism to do more than just a culture victory.Fortunately there are plenty of mods that make each civ more unique but none that really give multiple avenues of victory from specialization.
>>1922731I respect you opinion even if I disagree with it..Perhaps it depends on how you view wide&tall. For me it is just a function of settling cities, with how many the player can and wants to settle being dependent on the specific circumstances of any given map. One of the defining features of civ in my opinion is having every strategy be valid on turn 1 and having the player define and formulate a best one as he explores the map, meets other civs and familiarized himself with the game state and attempts to predict future ones. That's the civ experience for me. Having wide&tall be merely a function of civs themselves sounds very limiting. It's like having, say, naval combat be limited to only naval civs with everyone else being unable to contest.>pick the Huns>spawn on an archipelago off the continent>the nearby coast is occupied by two naval civs>gg no reThat sounds like it would be horrible for a civ game.
>>1876964>the best hands down due to moddabilityk but we're talking about the base game, not your tranime coomer mods
>>1923101Base civ v is atrocious. It is slow, focused way too much on small cities ands the AI can't play the game.It is the mods that make it decent.Civ 4 has the slavery meme, but the base game is generations above v.>>1923098The only way to get archipelago is to choose it.So that is a extremely rare random case.
>>1923129Pic related is a map posted in this thread. If it were not for the Terra ruleset, it wouldn't be impossible to have a civ spawn on the islands in a similar huge map.
>>1923132In this case you restart because city states ate up all the good locations.How i hate city states.
>>1923003I always liked Venice. It was a novel idea that didn't work because it didn't go far enough, but it was always fun.
>>1921973>Playing Spain>Get Uluru and King Solomon's Mines right away at start.>Immediately go Liberty to try for spamming pagoda/mosques and getting 9 cities established before even reaching medieval>Get Temple of Artemis for extra food>Get Colossus and Petra for extra trade routes>Generating 100+ faith per turn before even getting Education>STILL can't industrialize till 1200AD since science for going more than 3 cities is utter dogshitYeah you can dick around playing pretend and going wide, but the fact of the matter is that you are so crippled by suboptimal trade routes, increased science cost, and increased culture cost that's there's just no sane reason to do it. Any civ that can go wide may as well just go tall since it's faster, cheaper, safer, and most importantly 20x less tedious.
>>1923133Kill zem
>>1906996Endless legend but I guess that's more of a civ 6 thing
>>1923344BUT, BUT, MUH RELIGION AND CIV 4 SLAVERY....Gods and kings was such a good expansion. You could actually go wide and civ's were aggressive compared to this shit in boring new world.
>>1923133I've started playing my games with reduced or no city states at all and find it to be more fun although it could just be the novelty. There's a lot more places to settle cities. Some civs really benefit from city states though so it nerfs them, but city states do give a lot of free shit even if you're just friends with them so I think it makes the game more balanced overall.>>1923372Killing city states is sub-optimal unfortunately because of the severe diplomatic penalty on top of the fact that this game punishes unnecessary expansion quite harshly. You get a lot more from a city state by even just being friends, not full allies. I really only kill city states if they have a really good natural wonder in their borders or if they're in the way to my next domination victory target.
After putting nearly a thousand hours into this game I can say that it's not really that good. I haven't played much of the other civ games to compare it to though so I'm mostly speaking in comparisons to total war, paraslop, and some RTS games.>inb4 "you played it a lot so it must be good"It might just be that I've played it enough to know the most efficient way to play and that it's a solved game for me but there really isn't much variety outside of changing the map types and maybe playing one of the civs with cool units or abilities and the game punishes you harshly for not doing tall/tradition as other posts in this thread has pointed out.It's great for a babby's first 4x or historical strategy game (it was mine) but there are better games for both strategy and history.One thing somewhat minor thing I like about the game that I think more strategy games could do (although there are also many others that do this) though, is that unit production and building production isn't split, this means there's an opportunity cost to either developing your empire or building an army and can create situations where you have to balance between building units and building buildings and if you go all in on a tall playstyle you also can't just conquer everything, likewise if you focus solely on military you also can't just win a science or culture victory. I think it adds much more strategic depth and makes the game much more fair, and you know that if you can outlast the onslaught of a domination player then you will have a chance at winning since they've put themselves so far behind by only building units.
if i have the steam edition can i just download piratethe dlcs and put them in or would i need to crack the game files?
>>1928932If downloading and placing the files on their own doesn't work, you can probably use CreamAPI alongside them. Shouldn't need any crack beyond that.
how long should a standard length science game take?my average is like 400 turns to win on prince and i dont think i can go faster though i'm quite new to the game so there's probably things I'm doing wrong
>>1931267It depends on difficulty, higher difficulties go a lot faster but 400 turns isn't terrible for standard speed prince difficulty. If you minmax really hard it would probably be possible to get it down to 250-300 turns.Are you saving your great scientists until the information era and making sure you work lots of specialist slots for the bonus science from that rationalism policy?
>that little wink theodora will sometimes do when proposing deals
I play V a lot, or VP rather, but I can’t remember the last time I finished a game…
>huge map size, continents, low sea level>22 civs (only 13 remain)>41 city states>marathon>standard resourcesWhich ideology should I choose? I want to expand a bit more eventually but I also want to keep wonder-spamming. Victory conditions are a non-issue since I disabled all victory types.I know Philadelphia is a shit city but I thought it would be a cool place to settle, I regret it now though.
>>1932545>Victory conditions are a non-issue since I disabled all victory types.
>>1932545Rule of thumb is order for wide, freedom for tall, and autocracy for conquest. Seven cities isn't super wide for a huge map so it could go either way. Between order and freedom, I'd lean toward freedom, but order would alright, especially if you plant to settle more cities. If you want to expand through conquest, then definitely take autocracy. You've already got a few annexed cities that would benefit from police state. If I were you, I'd take autocracy and conquer the world, marathon gives you plenty of time to move your units around.
>>1932800I went with autocracy because the world conquest idea sounds nice, although it might take a while because at this point there's 45 seconds between each turn while it processes AI's turns. I also want to build a massive army consisting of tanks and rocket arty and see how many nuclear weapons I can stockpile so autocracy will really help with that.I'm always amazed at the sheer scale of huge map size. Even with the maximum amount of civs and city-states it still doesn't feel that crowded. There's still a massive Dark Souls fog wall large enough to cover the screen even when all the way zoomed out. The oceans are also absolutely massive but I hope there's some unsettled islands or smaller continents left for me to colonize.
>anon is being amazed with size of a mere 128x80 mapgrim times
>>1933255>although it might take a while because at this point there's 45 seconds between each turn while it processes AI's turnsThis is why I don't play huge maps anymore,
>>1876964what are the best civ4 mods then?
>>1877058Civ 5 was my first civ game but I've played 4 and the abortion that is 6 and honestly 5 is better than both, especially with vox populi. The problem with you and civfanatics forum faggots is you mistake 'optimal' with 'the only way to play'. And it's literally not relevant unless you play multiplayer.
Beat the game on deity with 90% of the civs now. In conclusion, the Huns are the strongest civ in the game (at least on pangaea, which is the most popular map). Just get ONE horse archer with logistics, and you've won the game. Nothing is more OP than a 4 movement ranged unit that can move after attacking IN THE FREAKING ANCIENT ERA. The Honor tree is tailor made for them. The single most important thing is to get that first unit with logistics as soon as possible, and the XP boost from Honor is pivotal. Getting that first logistics horse archer is tricky, but once you do, you'll easily get a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. Tradition and Liberty are pointless with the Huns because you're gonna win in the classical era at the latest. Just go straight full Honor, left tree first for the XP bonus.Huns > poland/babylon/korea/maya
>>1933863oh and do NOT settle cities with the huns
Anyone have any success with deity OCC? I've been struggling with finding some way to defend against the inevitable onslaught of units that come, with only 1 city you're lacking in GPT and force limits so it's hard to keep an army large enough to fend off the horde while working towards a science or diplo victory. I think a domination victory would be more practical but the issue I mentioned earlier still comes into play, you would have to capture some enemy cities before the lack of GPT and force limits starts to fuck you over.I'm tempted to try >>1933863 but I don't want a victory with one of the best civs in the game because it feels cheap, ideally I would like to come up with a strategy that works for any civ.
>>1876937I just can't go back from this, adjacency autism is helluva a drugand that's just the basic workshop
>>1876937II is the best, and always will be.
>>1934456I don't understand how the new game will work, but isn't the adjacency game being done away with? There are adjacency bonuses, but I think they said the previous disappear entirely at the end of ever age.
I really liked the visuals and sound design of Civ V, but I had a few major complaints:1. The horrendous, Frankenstain's monster that was the luxury/happiness/trade/pop-growth-limitation mechanic. 2. Snowballing was horrendous and made worse by Vox Populi (which was otherwise a great mod). If the Iroquois spawned on another continent then kiss any hope of winning the game goodbye, because the AI would just suicide itself into Iroquois forests and then get conquered, leading to irreversible Iroquois blobbing.
Something I really hate in this game is how strategic resources just end up going obsolete. There's no use for iron past the renaissance, for some reason modern armor uses aluminum instead of oil, and late game naval units require no resources. The only resource that makes sense as going obsolete are horses as it happened historically but having access to iron has always been critical for war and securing iron resources was a major part of the strategy for Japan and Germany in WW2. It also absolutely kills any use for army variety since people are just going to use their limited resources on the most effective unit, which tends to be either stealth bombers or rocket artillery for aluminum.I'm pretty sure mods fix this issue but it seems like something the devs should've noticed in playtesting, unless the intent was to make certain resources not do anything except give bonus production after certain eras. It honestly feels like each era's military and strategic resources were all designed independently with the only consideration being upgrade paths.
>>1934471If only I can get it to work without a bunch of tedious BS.
>>1934553On immortal/deity, obsoleted strategic resources remain useful because you can sell them to the AI who constantly runs out of them because they keep building units.
>>1934798If you're on Windows, just using this makes it run even on Windows 10/11https://github.com/FoxAhead/Civ2-UI-AdditionsI'm running it on Linux and it took less than 5 mins to set up.>Download the RIP version from myAbandonware>put the UI additions .exe/.dll in the same folder>load up Lutris, add the UI additions .exe to it and run via Wine>just werks
>>1934841>MGEDang, I was hoping it was for the original. MGE botched the single player AI.
>>1934844>MGE botched the single player AI.The UI additions fixes that problem.>Finally fixed AI attitude calculation. Due to the uninitialized variable, every turn the attitude of the AI changed to the minimum, which made the AI very aggressive towards the player. This bug turned out to be so obvious that it was decided to completely remove the option to enable it. This bug is fixed by default without any options. Unlike the previous version of the patch, which originated somewhere in the deep history of this forum, and which completely cut off the change in the attitude, now the calculation of the attitude should be performed as it was intended by the algorithm.Its the 44th bullet point on the list of things it fixes. It should be nearer the top honestly.
>>1934848>The UI additions fixes that problem.Oh shit, nice. I'll try it out.
>>1934456such an extremely ugly game
>>1935334yeah 5 aged like milk
>>1933444Rhye's and Fall of Civilization. CivIV is unplayable without it.
>>1937422Not him but any other suggestions for mods or mod managers if any exist? I'm completely new to the game and just want to learn how to mod the game properly as quickly as possible.
>>1934456I wish the districts integrated themselves with the city center graphically
>>1937688ok so the best place to get Cib4 mods is civfanatics.comhttps://forums.civfanatics.com/forums/civ4-creation-customization.158/this is the subforum for civ4 modding. The big ones are in "modpacks". Realism invictus is great if you want to play a realy long and detailed game and enjoy some funny history elements added in. But its huge and as civ4 cant use multiple cpus you WILL have long turn times in the late game. Rhyes and Fall is popular as well, but its mechanics can feel annoying bc they punish wild behaviour. If you dont do what the dev thought to be right your nation breaks apart. It often feels more like a puzzle, not like a strategy game. Still nice
