try Old world

>filtered

>>2161291
Not OP, but I've been looking for something like this. Unfortunately, Oldworld doesn't quite scratch the itch. The Thea games were the ones that got closest.

I guess Thea is kinda like this on smaller level but I only played it for a couple hours.

>>2161270
git gut noob

>>2161270
Just play civ without AI competitors or set them to easy difficulty then?

>>2161270
You can literally set the game to Always Peace so there is no war you mongoloid.

>>2162031
To add to that, play the Realism Invictus mod if you want a more advanced economy. Allows you to manufacture products from resources harvested to trade instead of just trading natural resources like in the base game.

>>2161270
welcome to the real world

>>2161270
Try the Ancient Europe mod. The economy is pretty elaborate (the initial exploration stage as well!) and the power curve on units is *very* gradual (as opposed to steep) so it's easy to keep up. Feels more like a nation building game. Play Rome on one of the earth maps for a so called peak.
that said, the AI is dumb about the new features and rigged to compensate for it so pick a chill difficulty.

>>2161270
>while you were busy building a nice country another player was just spamming troops and rushing military technologies so you just get stomped with doomstacks for merely existing
historically accurate

>>2161270
Have you considered not sucking?

File: 8e4.jpg (40 KB, 591x583)

40 KB JPG

>supposedly "superior" and "intelligent" civilization cucks
>loses to 100 000 guys with bow and arrows riding horses
me lmaoing at your non aggression principles.

>>2161270
If you want to be a carebear you go religious and become the merchant ally of the resident hungry bear.

>>2161270
Try against the storm.

>>2161270
>I want to pretend a large part of the game doesn't exist
play something else you retard

>>2164393
Historically accurate would be
>while you were busy granting civil rights and debating issues that don’t actually matter the other country was actually focusing on science and physics

>>2164519
and they're only able to because you kept throwing resources at them in previous turns, hoping to sway them away from your rival at the time?
I feel like this actually happens to me in civ all the time, down to luxury shortages causing unrest...

>>2161270
It's exactly how I play Civ 5.
>Persia
>huge map
>marathon speed
>Deity difficulty
>versus 10 Venice
>Venice never expands, so I have plenty of time to build up, then go to war if I choose

>>2161270
You now understand how most of the world felt when Europeans colonized them.

>>2164550
they never even attempted to develop their economy or infrastructure and were constantly at war with each other

>>2164574
They were bad at real life so they lost. Just like OP loses because he is bad at the game.

>>2161270
This is the problem with most strategy games, the AI is just being designed to 'challenge' the player by spamming the fuck out of armies or some shit and usually by cheating through having unlimited funds or some shit depending on the game.

Devs never make more organic AI that are actually trying to 'play' the game like a player would. This is why I got tired of singleplayer strategy games like Civilization, they aren't fun.

>>2161270
go play Colonization
or i guess Fagtorio kinda fits if you squint

>>2161270
>be turtle strategy player
>get mad when the steamroller strategy player rolls over you

Civilization is not sim city. You are supposed to be actively monitoring and working against the other Civilizations. You should be forcing strong opponents to waste resources fighting proxy wars. You should be forming trade alliances and negotiating trade embargos against stronger players. You should be forming coalitions and yes you should be building up your own military to defend yourself. You should be using espionage and privateers to undermine your enemies.

You should NOT be sitting in your base playing Bob the builder while ignoring the rest of the world.

Barbarians units and settlements are only supposed to be an exp bonus for your own military units, they arent meant to be a serious threat or force in the world.

You should honestly be playing a colony sim or something.

>>2161270
that game has like gorrilion map settings, all victory settings are customizable.

>>2161270
So play Anno then? You can't develop military there without somewhat developing economy unless you're REALLY feeling balsy and if you fuck up you will be in debt.

>>2165171
>Civilization is not sim city.
This is what 5 and 6 have done to the franchise. Everybody plays civ now like simcity.

>>2166195
god I hate schizophreniacs. Just kill yourselves already. No, not "everybody". Just like /vst/ isn't one person, civ players aren't one person you personally know and project to be everyone either. Imagine playing mongols like a simcity. God you're fucking stupid. Just abort yourself and snip the balls so you can't reproduce, for the good of the genre

>>2166282
shut up sperg

>>2166195
wrong
civ series up to 4 were grand strategy games about building an empire, civ 5 and up are more like board war game

>>2166282
>Imagine playing mongols like a simcity
You mean the current meta for Mongols?

>>2161270

You could try Warhammer 40k Gladius, or wait for it to be free to grab&keep once again.

It's a 4X game that surprisingly has a strong PvE element to it. You can start a game without any enemy faction present, meaning it is only you vs. neutral mobs and events.

Each faction has a kind of "storyline" that plays out via events. Iirc finishing them is a win-condition.

Some of these events can be really tough though, but if you prepare well you shouldn't struggle.

I don't recall any other 4X game allowing you to start a new game without at least 1 enemy faction present.

>>2166400
>gladius
kek
i remember getting roflstomped by some random "neutral" AI shit
absolute bullshit

>>2166288
shut up nigger

>>2166388
>he autistically follows "meta" in a single player game
Oh I am laffin

File: IMG_4845.jpg (53 KB, 415x498)

53 KB JPG

>>2167236
Always funny to me when people brag about getting filtered like that’s a reflection on the game rather than the player.

>>2161270
Well have you tried civ 4 colonization?

>>2169438
this mod specifically my negroman
https://youtu.be/si91CnO3O1Q?list=PLKFBBf1WhFzSaGmdu17Q1eMMc3EEliTSO

>>2169478
I like TAC more WTP is kinda bloated

>>2161270
thats how it went irl didnt it? carthage and rome etc

>>2164574
to say that the world was peaceful before europeans ruined it is dumb, but to say natives in america didnt develop their economy is dumber
china india north africa etc also had a developed economy befire being raped by the industrial revolution shooting europe ahead

>>2170002
WTP 3 it's just right, WTP 4 it's an unstable bloatfest that only germanic autism could create

>>2169478
>>2170002
is there a way to mod this map texture to vanilla civ4?

>>2170014
You would prefer that those societies continue to live in mud huts while the west reached space?

The industrial revolution was coming no matter what, whether it was europe or elsewhere. It's not something that could be contained to one area, it was going to engulf the world no matter what. Better it was under Europeans who at least developed concepts of humanism, under Chinese they would have exterminated the entire world to make way for them.

>>2170384
>american education system working hard for us all
Fixing you seems impossible.

>>2166195
I can agree with that opinion when it comes to Civ 6, but Civ 5? I've won games through culture while being invaded by the Zulus and Egyptians at the same time.
I still remember how Shaka sent hordes of tanks at me while I had to weaken them with artillery, and I knew that the only reason I won was because of that citadel I built between my city and the Zulu border.
I think 5 is fine, but 6 on the other hand... I've seen city-states that are better armed than many military civilizations. Winning by military victory in 6 is a joke, and the only consequence is that you get on other civs' bad side, which doesn't matter because you're going to conquer them anyway.

>>2161270
Honestly, I think the continued biggest problem with Civilization as far as its core systems go is the necessary decision between building troops or developing cities. It should be the case that a military exists regardless, you should not have to forego having any military simply because you built granaries in your cities. Instead, bonuses should be granted to militaries whose civilizations have developed more training facilities for soldiers and for those cultures that concentrated towards militarism. A better method, though it is more complex, would be to have 2 different types of production, one that is used for infrastructural development and another for traditional unit-based production. Cities could have a flat amount of unit production given to ensure they can maintain a present if weaker military, population and treasure chest allowing,

It's a rather blunt mechanic but the point is, Civilization needs to move beyond having to concentrate so strongly on developing your cities versus developing your military. Sadly, due to Civ VII's colossal failure any further tinkerings to the formula from VIII are a foregone conclusion.

>>2164980
The easy way around it is to just never learn the deeper mechanics of the game and most effective strategies. If you do so, Prince difficulty is indeed a fair challenge. I never had a single problem with IV's design and was consistently challenged in every game I played over almost 15 years, until I actually spent time learning everything from the ground up. Now I have to play on Deity or there is literally no challenge and even then it's an unfun challenge.

>>2177040
Firaxis should simply implement logistics and recruitment, so that troops don't appear out of nowhere but instead reduce the population of the city in which they were created.
Also, maintenance should not only cost gold but also supplies, and these supplies should have to be delivered to your units by carts or trucks so that they don't weaken.
The point is that cities with high growth and food production should be rewarded, and if you want to invade a city on the other side of the map, you need a good logistics network.

>>2178392
historically up until at least the middle medieval period armies just sustained themselves off the countryside/forage/peasants that lived around where they were going through. real proper supply lines didn't come along until later.

>>2177040
>Honestly, I think the continued biggest problem with Civilization as far as its core systems go is the necessary decision between building troops or developing cities. It should be the case that a military exists regardless, you should not have to forego having any military simply because you built granaries in your cities
I disagree, part of strategizing in civ games has to do with the fact that building stuff has an opportunity cost. Players have to make sure what they build will progress them towards their victory condition and this means spending more production on building units if you're going for a domination victory while spending less production building units for other victory types. Your civ can't be good at everything so you have to choose and balance between what you need, and this sometimes means sacrificing buildings for units and vice versa. The simplicity of having a single resource and production line to dedicate to both units and buildings ends up creating a lot of strategic depth.

However your proposed system probably would help mitigate the fact that civ games are incredibly snowbally and whoever has the best land in their capital or first few cities ends up having a good chance of winning the game. What you suggested would help players/AI with shittier starts stay in the game longer and give them more options for winning as they would be able to both build units to defend against stronger players and build buildings to catch up.

>>2179011
I am far from being someone who is knowledgeable about history, but what I do know is that in the Punic Wars, Publius Cornelius Scipio, father of the famous Publius Africanus, already commanded guerrilla forces to attack Hannibal Barca's supply lines.
I'm not saying that ancient armies didn't loot, but I don't think they could sustain themselves solely on looting.

OK, I read Wikipedia and Hannibal's armies did use logistics, so at least historically it could be implemented.

File: 9E03F3C9-1032-4015-9C4C-0(...).jpg (88 KB, 1200x630)

88 KB JPG

>>2161270
For me it's the opposite
I would like to play Cities Skylines except with war

Balance income/amenities and durability, defensive ability etc

A steady stream of infiltrators, roving warbands and later on entire brigades and armies will pay you a visit as you expand

>>2161270
You don't develop all of your cities. Just like in real life. Some regions are richer, some poorer and design to be cannon fodder and your hammers are making only units there.

>>2177040
>>2178392
good posts

File: 1750295083155.jpg (83 KB, 500x750)

83 KB JPG

>defending your borders from barbarians is fun

>>2161270
Play a city builder then. In the past I have tried to manipulate Civ games to be more peaceful, by reducing the amount of civs on the map for example, and it's kind of fun a couple times but gets stale quickly because there's no conflict, and no narrative to the games past a certain point. It's more fun and more immersive to have conflict. If anything, the AI isn't good enough at warfare. They don't really know any strategies beyond spamming units in the early game, so once you get past the initial hump you're rarely threatened again.
One thing I would like to see though is more depth to diplomacy and trade, so that there are ways to build conflict and inter-civ relationships in ways other than warfare. I'm not sure exactly what that would look like, but if they can't make an AI that can keep up with military strategy, then make it so in the late game it transitions to conflict being more centered around international relations and diplomacy, and make those things have serious consequences so you can't just ignore it. Expand the role of trade, spying, science and cultural exchange, border disputes. Maybe introduce like an immigration mechanic so you could siphon population away from other civs. Idk.

I think BtS is shit.
>random events aka quests
>Statue of Zeus, a magical wonder that doubles war unhappiness (?) and never obsoletes just because
>imbecilic AI asking to "liberate" cities which have zero culture overlap just because they are near their borders
>espionage which makes impossible to look at fucking graphs without fidgeting with incredibly useful (it's not) espionage points
>AI for some reasons spends like 20% of their income on espionage points which amounts to blowing up a random pasture in some Bumfucknowhere
>shitton of irrelevant new units with minuscule practical application

>>2177040
While the game is flawed in a number of ways, I very much like how Oriental Empires handled military recruitment and wish we'd see another game copy its model.

In that game you don't get a unit production queue and instead have a pool of units available for recruitment which can be instantly drafted, most for zero upfront cost. Every city gets a small pool of elite 'noble' units and a large pool of peasant militia which is mostly based on city size, not military buildings. Replenishment of troop stocks happens automatically some time after drafting them. Upkeep is also high to incentivize not keeping large armies when they're not being actively used.

The way this tends to play out, at least in singleplayer, is that most military is drafted as needed and you don't need a massive standing army just in case someone decides to go to war with you. Military buildings give access to better troops and more troop variety, so a city which has been built with a military focus has a significant advantage even if just using peasant levies. But someone who went almost all-in on economy can still field a scary army by being willing to throw money (and lots of peasant spearmen) at their problems.

>>2186366
Learn to click a checkbox retard

>>2161270
Just lower the difficulty or use mods that change the AI behavior to be more inclined towards diplomacy and trade. You can effectively turn Civ into a game where combat is borderline optional.

>>2186433
There is no checkbox to disable any of this except for random events, fuckface.

>>2161270
KWAB

>>2186793
And espionage

File: file.png (3.2 MB, 1920x1080)

3.2 MB PNG

>>2162034
I knew starting a game i know nothing about with mods was a bad idea but oh well...
How do i turn this game around? i heard that slavery(hurry production) and drafting is op in vanilla but i have none of that here.
I spent like 200 turns at war with the Hungarians to reclaim 2 of my cities, now that i got peace i get attacked by the poos with elephants, the only resource i'll have is iron when the mine finishes in 5 turns. Even if i beat them and recapture my city i feel like im really behind

I have to say im impressed by the ai, in civ 5 it's passive as fuck and suicides it's units in stupid ways

>>2177040
Maybe in harder difficulties where you have to minmax, I don't play those. I usually have one or two cities dedicated to military production in early game and I am fine

>>2186366
>>2186793
I disable espionage

>>2190672
damn, I feel like those guys feel dumb now. I was gonna maybe screen shot the option.

>7 installments
>dozens of irrelevant "civilizations" of assorted spearchuckers, British colonies, and Poland
>still no Tibetan civ which is apparently more taboo than adding Hitler because there have been at least some official WW2 scenarios shipped with 2 and 4

>>2197551
you are not allowed to even wrongthink about china. It's a thoughtcrime and a revenue net loss as a result

File: 1000x1000.jpg (91 KB, 1000x1000)

91 KB JPG

>>2197551
>>still no Tibetan civ
sounds like a skill issue

>>2183762
>Maybe introduce like an immigration mechanic so you could siphon population away from other civs.
In Call to Power there were slavers that could steal population from enemy cities and convert them to slaves in your cities (eating half the rations of the normal citizens and not requiring salary); conversely there were also later abolitionists units that could stage slave revolts.