>>2218452
>Not only it's more tedious, but the DLCs don't add anything fun, immersive (they just unnecessarily overcomplicate things
Electricity, Climate & Ages are fun and immersive.

Governors suck as a mechanic though.

>>2218452
>Is Civ VII worth it?
No it's way worse than 6.
The new mechanics are all terrible, the 'balancing' basically makes every single game the exact same.
The city sprawl problem from 6 is massively exacerbated with there not even being workers/builders.
The Aztecs aren't playable yet.

I really didn't like 6 just from the artstyle and the changes to movement.
I also don't care for that game's district system and the cultural policy cards. Too much micro.

I say you need to buy the DLCs for 5, vanilla is such a bad way to experience that game.
Maybe consider trying 4?

>>2218485
>Electricity, Climate & Ages are fun and immersive.
I guess it depends on the player, I found it "meh" at best.

>Governors suck as a mechanic though.
True, but the worst crime is the downgrade builders suffered.

>>2218494
>No it's way worse than 6.
Thanks, anon.

>The city sprawl problem
Funny how CA did this shit in R2 / Attila, it was a huge shit that bugged units all time and years later Firaxis did the same shit.

>there not even being workers/builders.
Wait what? Then how do you build stuff??
Why Firaxis removed the coolest unit of the franchise?

>changes to movement.
I knew that something felt different from / worse than V.

>I also don't care for that game's district system and the cultural policy cards. Too much micro.
>Too much micro
Yeah, what I said in OP, fake depth.

>vanilla is such a bad way to experience that game.
I have been playing vanilla since I bought the game in 2010, I never felt tired of it.
Also, as an atheist myself, the whole religions DLC felt unnecesary (btw I never found a game that allows you to create your perfect ultra-epic FUCK YEAH religion, so again, not having that DLC isn't a big loss for me), with nukes and mechas I'm satisfied.

>Maybe consider trying 4?
My first Civ, good memories, perhaps I will return.

>>2218523
I’m actually kind of impressed you’ve been playing basic V this whole time.
I can’t imagine playing without trade routes.

>>2218452
Luv me BNW.
Luv me Ottos.

>>2218452
>Civ thread
>Only discuss zoomer editions
Take a coin and make a coin toss between Civ2UIA and Civ 3
>when the gameplay (specially the combat) is going to be like in the cinematic trailers (massive cities, massive armies, massive world to 4X'd)?
Hopefully never

>>2218582
Thanks, anon. I appreciate it.

>I can’t imagine playing without trade routes.
"You just needs ROADS, mate." - CiV builder, probably.

>>2218620
>Civ2UIA and Civ 3
Ok, anon, why they are so great? What is the difference between them and Civ IV and V?

>Hopefully never
>*Filippo Tommaso Marinetti angry noises*
You can't stop the Future, anon.

File: Civ7_Win64_DX12_FinalRele(...).jpg (3.16 MB, 2560x1440)

3.16 MB JPG

>>2218494
>The city sprawl problem from 6 is massively exacerbated with there not even being workers/builders.
As somebody that loves the district systems in 6 i hate how much farther they went with it in 7. All these stupid ageless warehouse buildings that just take up space to boost rural tiles that you end up with less and less with as time goes on. And it ends up in situations where you literally run out of space to put stuff if you have a coastal city or ones with mountains. Like this city for example, granted i built a lot of wonders but its retarded i have THREE non trade good tiles to work in the city, and it will be 2 cause id have to dump the saw mill on one of them to build it.

>>2218824
What the FUCK happened to this series?
>t. guy who last played 2 and 3

>>2218638
The point is, first of all, for you to try something new. Not new in terms of new release, but a game you didn't played prior.
As to what makes them great:
>Civ2UAI
- the ultimate form of 2, ironing out all the bugs and AI behaviour
- the sheer functional simplicity of 2 to be experienced first-hand: because the game having not a lot of features dind't made it easy or simple as such
- can run on a build-in display of your fridge, never stutters, never slow downs, always max capacity
- supports MP (one of the main points of using it)
- you learn this game, you can play any Civ and Civ clone well
>Civ 3
- the last Civ game to be build as actual 4X; you MUST do all four eXs to win
- introduced bunch of mainstay concepts, but had them different than future Civs: unique units, civ specialisations, culture, borders (sic!), resources that matter etc
- best version of corruption/maintenance (sorry Civ 4, you suck in early game, trivalising the game)
- final itteration of old government systems
- the only Civ with truly locked on eras, shifting the gameplay significantly
- surprisingly robust modding scene (not in size of Civ 4, but still)

>>2218895
>- the ultimate form of 2, ironing out all the bugs and AI behaviour
>- the sheer functional simplicity of 2 to be experienced first-hand: because the game having not a lot of features dind't made it easy or simple as such
>- can run on a build-in display of your fridge, never stutters, never slow downs, always max capacity
>- supports MP (one of the main points of using it)
>- you learn this game, you can play any Civ and Civ clone well
Ok, this sounds cool.

>Civ 3
Is it there a mod that make the leaders less spooky? (Civ 2, Civ 4 or Civ 5 styles.)

Thanks for the info, anon. I still have good memories from Civ IV.

>>2218988
Some word of advice:
You really need to expand. 8 cities is fucking nothing and less than 16 is asking to be outpaced. If an entire mid-sized continent isn't your color by industiral revolution, you did something terribly wrong.
In 2, due to completely different support system for units, you really need to pay attention what the fuck you are doing, or else you can easily strangle your cities.
Oh, and in 2, rivers count as roads.

As for your mod question:
No idea, but I know there is handy UI mod that helps with diplomacy, unit grouping and similar, so you are basically handling diplomacy from a different window and that changes how you see the avatars of leaders
For 3, a very specific advice regarding diplomacy: ALWAYS play nice, ALWAYS trade techs. This can not be over-stated. It has a rather quirky diplomacy system, but one thing is true about it: you want to stay nice with AI you don't plan to conquer for the next 100 or so turns. It really, really fucking helps, especially on higher difficulties

>>2218452
>the DLCs don't add anything fun, immersive (they just unnecessarily overcomplicate things for the sake of it, to make you waste more time while trying to trick into thinking the game is more deep when it's not)
but midwits love that stuff, it's why civ 6 sold so well.

>>2219019
>Oh, and in 2, rivers count as roads.
Cool.

>If an entire mid-sized continent isn't your color by industiral revolution
I see, perhaps I will have some problems then.

>there is handy UI mod that helps with diplomacy, unit grouping and similar
Cool.

Thanks a lot, anon.

>For 3, a very specific advice regarding diplomacy: ALWAYS play nice, ALWAYS trade techs.
Understood. Honestly, something I don't like about modern Civs is that you can't just chill and developed your civ while being friendly, somehow despite you didn't do anything wrong, some faction hates you for some (literal) "unknown reason".
The worst part is that Firaxis hasn't updated the combat, so while in a RTS you could have won THAT crucial battle, in Civ you are fucked because "let the AI calculate probabities, sure it will be fair with the player and not cheat at all".

Idk if this change in modern Civs is done due lower attention-span in new gens, but it really ruins the immersion of "develop your civ and you want" that classic 4Xs had.

>>2219113
Unnecessary overdetailed / overcomplicated UI, ultra-micromanagement idolatry is truly ruining gaming.

>>2218620
the autistic "oldfag" has arrived on schedule.

File: contacts.png (935 KB, 871x653)

935 KB PNG

>>2218895
>- the last Civ game to be build as actual 4X; you MUST do all four eXs to win
What X doesn't Civ 4 have?

>civ specialisations,
SMAC did it first.
>culture, borders (sic!)
It always baffled me that you can capture enemy cities by strategically placing libraries and temples in your own cities. That's gamey as fuck.

In SMAC where the borders were drawn as equidistant from different factions' bases is much more reasonable.
>resources that matter
Agreed.

>best version of corruption/maintenance (sorry Civ 4, you suck in early game, trivalising the game)
How so? You have to be smart about your expansion in Civ 4: if you don't secure your economy by settling valuable river valleys or sea coast, you'll go bankrupt from settling worthless deserts and tundra. In Civ 3 cities are always net positive no matter how much worthless settlements you placed in every permafrost nook and cranny.

>- the only Civ with truly locked on eras, shifting the gameplay significantly
Significant how if you always can backtrack missing techs? Besides the gimmick of scientific civs getting a free tech, or barbarian uprisings when someone goes medieval, I don't really see the significance of it.

>>2219019
>ALWAYS trade techs.
Good advice in general but needs clarification. AIs have a preference for techs giving new units and government types, which gives you a leeway to research important but less prioritized techs that can be brokered around. For example, you'll almost never outresearch AI to iron working or horseback riding on higher difficulties but you absolutely can beeline to philisophy and get techs and good cash from AI for it.

If you sell a tech to one AI, it's guaranteed that he'll sell it to its other contacts in the next turn. So, if you're selling, sell it to all AIs that know each other.

Counterpoint: if you have contacts with AIs on different continents, you may hold on selling techs to one or another group of AI if they don't have something good yet.

File: grumpy.png (663 KB, 1024x768)

663 KB PNG

>>2219166
>some faction hates you for some (literal) "unknown reason".
In Civ 4 diplomacy is great exactly because it tells the reasons why AI hates/dislikes you or each other.

In Civ 3 it also behaves very logical and predictable it just doesn't tell you the numbers explicitly.
Here's the great post on the subject:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ai-attitude.44999/

It is not required to memorize this but it will give the idea what factors can influence relations.

And here's the data on the civ personalities (gives info on shunned/favorite governments types):
https://civfanatics.com/civ3/civilopedia/civilizations/

Is Civ III worth playing in the year of our lord 2025? My entry to the series was Civ IV for context and I've spent a good amount of time in both IV and V

>>2218452
if you are not an history flavor maniac, you should try Endless Legend far better implementation of most civ 5 and 6 mechanics.

plus you gets doomstacks for movement and 1upt for combat

>>2219914
>Endless Legend
Thanks for the recommendation, anon.
But please, tell me is more fun than Endless Space 2, I tried that game and I nearly die out of boredom (Nothing Ever Happens - The Game), the combat was the worst part, I literally felt that the devs were laughing at me.

File: revolts.png (1.14 MB, 871x653)

1.14 MB PNG

>>2219425
I've started with 3 but having played 1 through 4 I think the latter is better despite my nostalgic feelings for 3.

The one definite advantage of 3 over 4 is presentation. Terrain graphics, leaders with era-appropriate attires, city view screens are much nicer to look at than 4, IMHO.

In terms of mechanics, most things 4 did better than 3 except for those (strictly imho).

1. Ships in 3 are better than in 4 because starting with frigates they could bombard shore units and tile improvements actually projecting sea power inland.

2. City defense bonuses were tied to the population size, not their culture. In 4 cities way too quickly ramp up 40-60% culture making catapults a must and leaving practically no room for wars in the pre-classical era.

3. Demography was much more engaging: settlers and workers were actual citizens which you could resettle by joining other cities, and had their own nationality.

When you conquer a city, its citizens keep their nationality until being slowly assimilated into your culture. But every foreign national incurs additional unhappiness if you fight their motherland, and creates a risk of cultural flipping. You could raze a city, and get massive diplomatic penalty, or you could capture the city, set it to producing workers until it reached size 0, and then re-found the city with your own settler.

Foreign workers (as a unit, not a citizen) work half as effective as your own but require no upkeep. So, if you buy or capture slaves in your conquests, you could save money by resettling your native workforce, and using foreigners for improving the land which is neat.

>>2218523
Religion in Civ V is in a weird spot. I play on Immortal and it's highly recommended if not mandatory to get it to compete, but it's also fucking excruciatingly annoying to micromanage all your stupid little religious units and all the other shit. I ended up hating it and never engaging with the system beyond hopefully trying to snag an early religion/religious wonder. The DLCs add a lot to V, but I've despised religion in both 5 and 6 since its inception. If you're still playing vanilla, more power to you.

>>2219253
>What X doesn't Civ 4 have?
Exterminate. You can play the entire game in semi-peaceful way and by mid game, you can stop warring entirely, as long as you made your neighbours your bitches via dilplomacy. 3 would still fuck you sideways for doing so, and in 2, the level of diplo needed isn't even in the game
>SMAC did it first.
As you might notice, SMAC isn't a Civ. I'm not questioning the game content, it's that Civ 3 did it first within Civ
Similar how 5 is first Civ to use hexes, even if other games did that prior.
>In Civ 3 cities are always net positive no matter how much worthless settlements you placed in every permafrost nook and cranny
You still have plain old corruption present, which accounts both distance and number of cities (the optimal city number is probably the most important factor in 3), making worthless cities even more worthless. Add to this 100% commitment to EXPAND, and you end up with situation where you are going to cripple yourself one way or another: either you don't have enough cities to survive, or you build them wrong, or you build them too fast to counter distance penalty, or you build them too late to not get proper levels of corruption.
In the long run, this is far more demanding than 4's "pop a city in the right place every 25-40 turns (depending on difficulty), no harm done"
>Significant how
Can't rush techs outside current era.
The game also has a hard coded limit where you can't research faster than 1 tech in 4 turns.
This is the only civ to do something like that, and it does bottleneck you significantly.
And it is especially noticeable in chronological order (so after 2 and SMAC having free research and multiple techs per turn, not to mention ability to have 1 tech per turn)
>AIs have a preference
It doesn't matter one bit.
What you are explaining is the in-depth elements of techs and their value. And that doesn't matter in the end. You want to ALWAYS trade techs - because that makes AI happy

>>2219425
>Is Civ III worth playing in the year of our lord 2025
Of course.
Started with original, and up until 4's modding scene picked up the pace, 3 was the best one overall:
- AI can play the game without cheating (this is a big one)
- there are strategic considerations to your moves non-stop, but not all of them require autistic bean counting to figure out the best solution
- has governments, which makes playing the game different than any later civs, while the governments aren't as broken as they were in 2 and especially 1
- as far as I care, it has the perfect balance between specialists and citizens (pop types); 4 dropped the ball on this one with combo of Great Xs and also having capacity-based specialists

The feature I will always miss, however, are trade caravans and routes from 2. I kinda get it hey removed those, but they genuinely provided you with incentive to explore and make friends (no matter how temporary)

>>2219425
>>2220804
Also, there is a very important historical context that's easily to ignore, because it's kind of destroyed:
There was a time period where 3 had the perfect way of handling artillery and airforce, along with changing how missiles work.
It is lost, because expansions changed the way how those things work again, giving the game the reputation that all you need is building max number of bombers you can, but if you have a vanilla 3, pre-expansions, you have the best Civ in terms of warfare, dealing with stacks, dealing with lone troops and dealing with long-range counter-attacks.
Getting archers changes how the game plays
Getting artillery (especially actual canons) changes how the game plays
Getting airforce changes how the game plays.
This was not only a MASSIVE change from 2, but it was also balanced perfectly fine, especially when pre-expansions, pretty much all units required strategic resources to be made. You could simply starve "economically" your enemies by either denying them strategic resources entirely, or cut off their supply.
Expansions also fucked that up, adding no-resource units. This was the dumbest mistake ever done in Civ history, easily leagues ahead of hiring Shafer to make 5 according to his idiotic ideas (since that move is the reason why they got Shafer to handle things 8 years later)

>>2220816
>but if you have a vanilla 3, pre-expansions, you have the best Civ in terms of warfare, dealing with stacks, dealing with lone troops and dealing with long-range counter-attacks.
>Getting archers changes how the game plays
>Getting artillery (especially actual canons) changes how the game plays
>Getting airforce changes how the game plays.
elaborate

>>2220791
>You can play the entire game in semi-peaceful way
>you can stop warring entirely, as long as you made your neighbours your bitches via dilplomacy
If you're stuck with barren plains with no rivers and no iron in 4 you still HAVE to attack and expand, same as in 3. Not that you can just make AIs in 4 your "bitches" unless you seriously invest into having the same religion, trade deals etc with them.

>As you might notice, SMAC isn't a Civ.
As you might notice, from the game engine to basically all of the basic mechanics SMAC is 2 with some improvements. It's a totally valid comparison, and the fact that food/production/trade are named nutrients/minerals/energy doesn't change it.

>optimal city number
...affects only cities with city rank exceeding the OCN which means worthless tundra cities producing minimal 1 production/1 commerce are still better than 0/0 since they do NOT affect pre-existing cities, look up https://civfanatics.com/civ3/strategy/game-mechanics/everything-about-corruption-c3c-edition/

Meanwhile in Civ 4 any new city ramps up maintenance directly deducted from your budget meaning it's a net negative unless you really invest a lot of resource into turning profit from it.

>Can't rush techs outside current era.
A third of techs in each era is skippable anyway.

>And that doesn't matter in the end.
Yes it does. What exactly are you arguing here? It doesn't matter if you sell a monopoly tech to one AI only for it to sell in turn to all the others basically robbing yourself of your own profit?

>>2220804
>- AI can play the game without cheating (this is a big one)
AI in all Civs is cheating with discounts on higher difficulties. Plus in 1-3 it sees the map with all resources all the time. Which is also exploitable but still.

>while the governments aren't as broken as they were in 2
How exactly is the republic any less overpowered in Civ 3 than in Civ 2?

>balance between specialists and citizens (pop types)
Specialist in 3 are almost useless.

>>2220825
>Getting archers changes how the game plays
Archers and then their upgrades get to attack "from behind" when you are trying to attack the stack. In other words, you aren't just facing the top unit of the stack, you get first pelted by the "ranged" unit (even if in actual 1:1 combat archers fight like everyone else
>Getting artillery (especially actual canons) changes how the game plays
You can attack X tiles away from you. Depending on game version, you deal damage to either all units in stack or the top one, but the sheer fact you get actual ranged attack is massive
And naval units get that, too
>Getting airforce changes how the game plays.
You can simply use bombers. Depending on game version, airforce is either the best way of damaging entire stack OR the best way to REMOVE the stack.

Pre-expansions, this was all balanced differently (airforce was damaging units, but not removing them, artillery could remove them, but by default damaged, strategic resources were SUPER important past early medieval).
Add to this armies - the special feature of 3 - and you have a very different way of handling combat than 1 and 2 and and something that 4 didn't exactly reproduce (shame)

>>2220828
I implore you - reread this sentence
>AI can play the game without cheating (this is a big one)
Then ask yourself again how the fact the AI is cheating or not affects the fact stated in that point.
And I mean REALLY think this one

File: bombers.png (849 KB, 1024x768)

849 KB PNG

>>2220816
>>2220816
>because expansions changed the way how those things work again
Not "expansionS", expansion. They changed lethal bombardment and aviation states only in Conquests; Play the World was basically the same as Civ 3.

>Getting archers changes how the game plays
Archers are basic foot attackers, what's special of them? Unless you mean the defensive bombardment which was added only in Conquests.

>>2220825
Artillery in Civ 3 unlike Civ 4 doesn't suicide itself on the enemy units. Instead it can destroy tile improvements or barrage enemy units (but not kill them which is important). Plus, in vanilla and PtW when bombarding a city it could destroy a city improvement instead of hitting a unit. Conquests changed it to always hitting units which is too strong.

Planes are basically what they are in Civ 4 but they couldn't actually kill units; given their range and mobility it was a good balance. Conquests absolutely unnecessarily pumped their stats AND on top of that gave them lethal bombardment meaning they could destroy any unit by itself without any land army which is ridiculously overpowered.

If you play Conquests, it may be recommended to use this https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/mod-patch-suggestion-c3c-version.75580/ mod. It tweaks with some stats, notably removing lethal land bombardment from bombers but doesn't involve any drastic changes.

Note that if you install and launch the mod from the scenario folder as in the instruction, the city view will become unavailable (it's how it is with any scenario). I'd suggest backing up Conquests.biq and Civilopedia.txt files, renaming the mod file patch_suggestion.biq to conquests.biq, and overriding original file. That will allow you to keep the city view screen, and you could just use back up files to get back to the original game.

>>2220828
>As you might notice, from the game engine to basically all of the basic mechanics SMAC is 2 with some improvements
Let me ask you a simple question:
Is C2P a Civ? I mean it even had in the first game Civ in the title, clearly must be a Civ
Is EL a Civ?
What about Humankind?
How about Old World?
It's like you are too autistic to get half of the points I'm making.
>A third of techs in each era is skippable anyway.
AND YOU STILL CAN'T SKIP THE ERA YOU DUMB RETARD!
It doesn't matter if they are useful, you MUST get them to unlock next era.
>What exactly are you arguing here?
That you should ALWAYS trade tech. And you instantly started to dissect tech value and how to min-max it, missing the memo it was a simple rule of a thumb advice that is - wait for it - always true. You always profit on trading techs. There is no scenario where you don't, except your pointless re-calculations of tech values.
>How exactly is the republic any less overpowered in Civ 3 than in Civ 2?
Maybe because for starters, republic was kinda meh in 2 and you are probably confusing it with democracy from 2?
Or that, YET AGAIN, you are completely missing the point that is made with your own fucking re-evaluations
>Specialist in 3 are almost useless.
Unironically skill issue. Industrial era specialists completely change the city micro (not to mention making it viable due to having now removed pop limit)

All your points boil down to the same pattern of thinking
"How do I profit from this mechanic and why is it broken"
rather than noticing the point I am stating from the get go:
"This game plays completely different because of this mechanic"

>>2220881
>Play the World was basically the same as Civ 3
Except for non-resource units, in particular the medieval infantry

>>2220867
>just facing the top unit of the stack, you get first pelted by the "ranged" unit (even if in actual 1:1 combat archers fight like everyone else
That's called defensive bombardment and was added in Conquests which you deplore so much. Nice way to expose yourself as an amateur.
>>2220870
How is getting discounts on everything from production queues to research not cheating?

>>2220887
Defensive bombardment is already in the final patch of pre-expansions 3.
>How is getting discounts on everything from production queues to research not cheating?
How it relates to the question I am rising? The actual question i am asking, not the one you try to pretend is mine.
How it relates to the point I am making? Did you even notice the point, or run to conclusions?

Nigger, you are basically arguing with yourself at this point: making in your head your own statements (that have jack shit to what I'm saying), then "countering" them, all done for the sake of argument itself.
Are you genuinely autistic? Because you sure come off as such.

File: 1.png (512 KB, 920x791)

512 KB PNG

>>2220883
SMAC is mechanically the same as Civ 2 using its improved engine. Almost everything from teching to building and growing and improving the tile is the same as in Civ 2 discounting extra features which are built on top of the basics.

C2P and EL basic mechanics are different from Civ 2. Simple as.

>It doesn't matter if they are useful, you MUST get them to unlock next era.
If you beeline communism and ignore rifling in Civ 4, which you can, you'll get stomped by unfriendly AIs that will see huge power discrepancy, meaning that not everything you can do, you should.

>Maybe because for starters, republic was kinda meh in 2 and you are probably confusing it with democracy from 2?
Are you serious? Republic in Civ 2 was "meh"? The fuck are you about?

>Industrial era specialists completely change the city micro (not to mention making it viable due to having now removed pop limit)
Do you mean policemen and engineers? Which were added in Conquests which you hate so much? What a clown.

>>2220886
>Except for non-resource units, in particular the medieval infantry
Medieval infantry literally requires iron to build. Have you even played Civ 3?

>>2220889
>Defensive bombardment is already in the final patch of pre-expansions 3.
Stop talking shit out of your ass. Defensive bombardment is added in the editor by adding non-zero value to rate of fire and bombard strength, and leaving bombard range at 0. This way a unit can bombard defensively as any regular artillery, but cannot bombard neighboring tiles. You can add this yourself at vanilla Civ 3 without patches, they simply didn't until Conquests.

>>2220881
if I remember you can just easily modify units and in game values with editor

>>2220924
You absolutely can, including AI behaviour flags. The balance mod for Conquests which I suggested >>2220881 is basically that.

>>2220889
>Nigger, you are basically arguing with yourself at this point: making in your head your own statements (that have jack shit to what I'm saying), then "countering" them, all done for the sake of argument itself.
>Are you genuinely autistic? Because you sure come off as such.
"Cheating is not cheating because I said so". Wow, compelling.

>>2220499
here is an explanation of how combat works
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwyrpkE88l0

>>2221119
Thanks, anon.

>>2220771
>The DLCs add a lot to V, but I've despised religion
Is it possible to play the content of the DLC without the religion part?

>If you're still playing vanilla, more power to you.
Thanks, anon.

>>2221612
>Is it possible to play the content of the DLC without the religion part?
yeah it's called ignoring the religion mechanic

>>2218452
I’ve tried so hard to like civ6 over the years. Somehow I have vastly more hours in it than civ5, despite enjoying civ5 way more. That’s how much I’ve tried. Everytime I think I’m getting into it my brain and eyes just get exhausted with the stupid art style. I’ll play as Canada and get to the late game and realize how immersion breaking it is to have hockey rinks on every other tile. Then I remember how civ3, my all time favorite did things.


Yeah. I can respect civ6 for trying to innovate certain mechanics, but over all it’s a way gayer experience than civ5. My only complaints about civ5 were tall vs wide balance (it was cool to see them make tiny civs viable, but obviously it swung too far in that direction) and city combat/occupation mechanics. Puppet cities would have been cool in a game like civ3 but in 5 they just suck. The other major issue is the scaling, and how there is usually still unclaimed land well into the late game. Very immersion breaking. But civ6 didn’t really address any of these issues and just made things gayer.

>inb4 it’s a board game now

Yeah, it didn’t used to be and it’s fucking gay they turned it into one.

File: IMG_4171.jpg (84 KB, 883x960)

84 KB JPG

>>2218523
>as an atheist, this game feature was unnecessary
Picrel

the only real thing civ5 was missing was a religious victory condition.

Just make civ 5-II
Making videogames is not hard. Just stop fucking up and don't listen to women.

Any good modpacks or modlists for Civ V?

>>2223852
Lekmod if you want vanilla+, sapiens if you want 6's features and didn't like how vox populi handled happiness

>>2223475
Religious victories would've ruined religion as a supporting mechanic.

File: Civilization_Revolution_G(...).png (211 KB, 256x320)

211 KB PNG

Put this shit on PC Firaxis. It's better than VII

>>2224080
Its emulating fine
>>2224477
Civ 2.5 basically.

>>2224491
>Honestly, Civ could be so create if it was an actual autistic simulator in terms of diplomacy, cultural / tech development, economics, warfare
EU5. Go play that. Civ is a multiplayer game, not a sim.

>>2223475
>the only real thing civ5 was missing was a religious victory condition.
people saying this is why religion shifted from being a bonus mechanic to becoming an undercooked core mechanic in civ6

>>2224477
I wouldn't call it good but it was a competent consolization of the civ formula. It was simple but fun.

>>2223528
>Just stop fucking up and don't listen to women.
as an employer that's literally illegal

>>2223944
Not really a bonus if you have to spend ideology points or whatever the fuck and production on accruing enough faith for the mechanics to pay off or balance out, while your enemies can take advantage of much better trees.

We can agree that religion was undercooked in civ6 but that’s really because they didn’t make any substantive changes to it and just added a victory condition. But, in the grand scheme of things it does make sense for it to be a victory condition and it’s cool to see a parallel system for warfare for smaller civs that can’t meet the production required for unit spam. It aught to be fleshed out more but there’s no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

That raises another point though. The way production functioned in 6 was absolutely fucked since it didn’t scale with your pop like in previous civ games. Absolutely retarded and ridiculous.

>>2224691
>Civ is a multiplayer game.

No. Civ has become a multiplayer game. It definitely did not start out that way, and the older civs that have multiplayer do it better than the new ones.

>>2226202
>Not really a bonus if you have to spend ideology points or whatever the fuck and production on accruing enough faith for the mechanics to pay off or balance out
Have you even played this game?
>We can agree that religion was undercooked in civ6 but that’s really because they didn’t make any substantive changes to it and just added a victory condition. But, in the grand scheme of things it does make sense for it to be a victory condition and it’s cool to see a parallel system for warfare for smaller civs that can’t meet the production required for unit spam. It aught to be fleshed out more but there’s no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.
The reason it was a poor fit is because it made religion spreading a primary objective for multiple civilizations instead of an enabling condition. This meant cooperation caused you to actively lose the game in a direct way while costing you the ability to do anything about it.
If I'm in a game with Civ 5 Arabia, I can use my religion for an early bonus, then switch to Islam to get a get a tourism bonus affecting everyone we convert, as well as the free effects of Great Prophet enhancements and perhaps a Reformation belief. He gets the Founder's benefit and control over what the religion does, but I have no need to go out of my way to compete against him.
If I'm in a game with Civ 6 Arabia, his discount to worship buildings doesn't encourage me to convert because him converting everyone ends the game, and if I don't kill him, I lose my competing religion. Everyone is incentivized to stop that snowball in its tracks, no matter the (minor in Civ 6) perks.
>>2226209
>No. Civ has become a multiplayer game.
So, Civ is a multiplayer game.

>>2226329
> This meant cooperation caused you to actively lose the game in a direct way while costing you the ability to do anything about it.
Literally every victory condition boils down to this at one point or another within the context of cooperation. You don’t win as a team in civ.
>so, civ is a multiplayer game
Yeah, sure. Have your nu-civ slop I guess. Are you enjoying Civ7 so far?

>>2226662
>Literally every victory condition boils down to this at one point or another within the context of cooperation.
Yes, as an end, and it's structured that way. Science is a mostly non-interactive contest from start to finish, with the exception of research agreements. Tourism is a tool to attack other civilizations, and they can't negotiate their way out of it except by opening their borders.
Religion is designed as a cooperative element. Everyone can benefit, but some benefit more than others. It's like the research agreement, but if it replaced science outright.
If you make it a victory condition, it turns into shit because everyone has their own and has to burn faith trying to keep the others down and out. It's designed as an avenue for soft power, not as a victory condition in its own right.
Playing Civ 6 should tell you everything you need to know about this.
>Yeah, sure. Have your nu-civ slop I guess. Are you enjoying Civ7 so far?
No, I'm still enjoying 5. It's great. I love it.

>>2218452
Civ 2 Gold is still the best edition

>>2218889
they made tiles hexagons instead of squares in V
then in VI they made buildings go in districts which take up a tile (e.g. commercial hub has markets, stock exchanges)
then in VII they made each tile freeform, either fit an improvement or up to two buildings in them but require you to connect back to the city center
I like VII more than VI but that's mainly due to combat and not having governors

>>2220771
Religion is mandatory for maintaining your happiness (in V) unless you're doing a tall playthrough of 4 cities or less.
But on higher difficulties it can be near impossible to get, and then also the AI spams the shit out of missionaries which is massively annoying and means converting other civs (which is a pretty important mechanic for diplomacy) is basically not an option.

This is part of why I never play on deity difficulty. It just forces you to play in the optimal way and restricts player choice

>>2219019
Are you the YouTuber Suede?

>>2237185
That guy is too squeamish to come here

>>2220771
exactly

Did the games before Civ IV lack a tutorial? Pirated most of them and I have no idea what I'm supposed to do until I got to Civ IV.

File: civ1 manual.png (223 KB, 1433x1000)

223 KB PNG

>>2249900
>Did the games before Civ IV lack a tutorial? Pirated most of them and I have no idea what I'm supposed to do until I got to Civ IV.

>>2226769
>Religion is designed as a cooperative element.

That’s half of the picture. It’s a cooperative element if you get beaten out of it early, or don’t go for it at all. You will receive some sort of bonus. Whether or not it’s worth much is up in the air or depends on who converts you.
The other half of the picture is it becomes another vector for competition if you are a religiously focused civ (Byzantium especially) and doubly so if you’ve poured points into piety as a gamble rather than just taking tradition. This is why the lack of a victory condition feels incomplete. I’m totally willing to admit it wasn’t fleshed out enough in 6, but that’s a slightly separate issue.

The point is in most of these types of games when a religion mechanic is introduced, it tries to do both. It tries to do the soft power cooperative thing while also creating a ln avenue to hard power for those that lead in it. This of course because they’re basing it off of some sort of analysis of how it seems to function in history (just like everything else in the game, and we don’t need to get into the degrees of fidelity to history to acknowledge this). My personal take is that it’s a great idea idea and I like the idea of having it in the game. Devs just need to figure out how to make it more satisfying since every time it’s tried it has this internal tension when it tries to do both the soft and hard power thing vs when it’s just soft power it feels underwhelming and negligible.

>>2250720
What is this, /lit/? Get outta here

>>2218452
go back to Civ IV and play all the mods.

>>2220791
>You can play the entire game in semi-peaceful way and by mid game, you can stop warring entirely,

i won several games with peaceful kublai khanny though. not a single war. just expand fast and build build build.
of cose not on the higher difficulties.

>>2220804
>AI can play the game without cheating
wait it CAN or it does?

>>2220914
what is your picrel?

>>2251534
It can't.

https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Difficulty_level_(Civ3)

Plus, in Civ 3 AI always sees the whole map including strategic resources like iron or oil it can't legally see or use yet (it will prioritize settling them for future use when the appropriate tech appears).

>>2251545
From some mod, I dunno. I just needed a pic of the editor.

>>2252679
thanks

is Civ 3 worth my time? only ever played IV and V

>>2238210
He had a recent video bitching about Caveman2Cosmos being too inappropriate it is. He is far too of a bitch to come here.

Is way better than V lmfao

In V you literally settle 4 cities and do nothing, in VI you can and need to have a shitload of cities to win

>>2254051
It had the ugliest portraits ever

Picked up VII for the first time since launch. Noticed some welcome UI changes but the map variety and generation still leave so much to be desired. Continents are still the same rectangular blocks. I found myself just auto-piloting through my turns without much thought or consideration over my decisions. I felt overwhelmed by the amount of choices in buildings and research, yet it all feels like it doesn't really matter either. Planning out a city also still doesn't feel as intuitive or rewarding as it did in VI.

File: b1jv6cpn8lix.png (392 KB, 1075x276)

392 KB PNG

>>2255118
He said 3, not 6.

File: civ6ad.jpg (307 KB, 1467x705)

307 KB JPG

>>2218452
Is there a mod that removes the civ7 ad from the civ6 menu?

>>2250829
>It’s a cooperative element if you get beaten out of it early, or don’t go for it at all. You will receive some sort of bonus. Whether or not it’s worth much is up in the air or depends on who converts you.
The other half of the picture is it becomes another vector for competition if you are a religiously focused civ (Byzantium especially) and doubly so if you’ve poured points into piety as a gamble rather than just taking tradition.
Byzantium isn't locked into choosing Reformation beliefs, and if you're picking one, you've gone through multiple social policies and made it clear you want to make things work for YOUR religion. That's a choice made during the game.
>The point is in most of these types of games when a religion mechanic is introduced, it tries to do both. It tries to do the soft power cooperative thing while also creating a ln avenue to hard power for those that lead in it
Civ 5 already does this. Founder beliefs provide a hard bonus to the civilization that "owns" the religion, follower beliefs give everyone a reason to adopt it, and the soft benefits are in tourism and diplomatic victories since shared religions give a tourism bonus to all parties (and tourism comes with a host of soft power benefits, extending all the way to a constant happiness penalty to competing ideologies), and civs following a religion will support a "World Religion" WC vote.

It's both cooperative and tangibly beneficial. 6 just added a, "You lose the game if your new faith spreads too far" clause and the whole thing went to hell.

What are the Revolution games about

>>2218452
nah VI > V

>>2218452
Civ 6 is a great game you just need to treat it like a city sim and pretend the religion and domination victories don't exist. Sim citying giga yield maps with 20 pop cities is extremely satisfying

File: 20200225135454_1.jpg (633 KB, 1920x1080)

633 KB JPG

Anyone recognize what type of modded map script this might be?

I can't seem to recreate it with the Got Lakes mod, so might not be from that mod.

>>2262110
dang, didn't find it while googling for it and searching the workshop, but reverse image searching the image I just posted helped
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=871919588

File: col.png (230 KB, 425x208)

230 KB PNG

how is Civ IV Colonization?

>>2262654
Heard they botched the remake cause they tried to whitewash stuff

Well I'm down to trying out the original Colonization, Civ IV Colonization, Imperialism I, or Imperialism II

>>2262654
It's good, it improves some thins on the original but also is worse in a few ways.
>>2262672
You're thinking of the mod which has a very weird fixation on slavery and (literal)racemixing.

>>2260325
OP here, sorry anon Idk, I never saw an ad while playing it.

>>2260545
>The other half of the picture is it becomes another vector for competition if you are a religiously focused civ (Byzantium especially) and doubly so if you’ve poured points into piety as a gamble rather than just taking tradition.

To what end? Having a completely useless civ trait if you get beaten out of having a religion? The point I’m making is that the bonuses aren’t so powerful that they decide games on their own (and if they were, that would be OP)

>Byzantium isn't locked into choosing Reformation beliefs, and if you're picking one, you've gone through multiple social policies and made it clear you want to make things work for YOUR religion. That's a choice made during the game.

Have you actually played this game?

>civ 5 already dose this

I don’t think you know what hard power means.

>6 just added a, "You lose the game if your new faith spreads too far" clause and the whole thing went to hell.

That’s literally the opposite of what happens, and if you’re getting gang raped early on because you’re spreading your religion too aggressively the you’re getting filtered. It’s no different than doing the same thing by conquest in that context.

>>2218452
The world conference, artstyle, pacing of the ages and governor mechanic from civ 6 are all shit.
But everything else is a straight upgrade from 5.

>>2218452

>>2269315
>To what end? Having a completely useless civ trait if you get beaten out of having a religion?
That was the other anon's post. I missed an arrow.
>Have you actually played this game?
Yes. I regularly make a cheap religion to give me a small benefit, then pick up a neighboring one or the one with Sacred Sites for a Tourism advantage.
>I don’t think you know what hard power means.
I think you might be a bit clueless.
>That’s literally the opposite of what happens, and if you’re getting gang raped early on because you’re spreading your religion too aggressively the you’re getting filtered.
Are you illiterate?

Wat do u think ur ruler does when you're just completely assraping in a game?
Like whenever I'm owning in a game as Isabella I like to imagine if I were her I'd be getting dicked every other night to take the load off of running the world's greatest empire.
Like I'm not gay or anything but if I were a ruler that's what I'd do

>conquer english city as phoenicia
>we both have unique harbor districts
>harbor disappears when the city gets conquered
Is this just because we both have unique versions of the district?
Googling suggest that it should convert to your type of harbor.

>>2279627
Catherine is getting dick from the hottest enemy civ leader I've conquered
At least when I play

>>2279627
Bro. There's gay, there's gay and there's your post ie ultragay.

How many games did Sid Meier actually worked on? I heard he quit in one of the earlier games

>>2282918
Can't say for all of his games, but in Civ lineup he definitely checked out after the first one. Civ 2 onwards whoever is the lead designer, that's the guy who actually is responsible for almost everything in each new installment.

>>2282918
basically just the first one

>>2282918
>Sid Meier
Wikipedia credits him for all civs up until 7

>>2291392
>Wikipedia

>>2261724
>and pretend the religion and domination victories don't exist.
they don't exist if you, you know, turn them off.

File: civ 5 netherlands.png (3.23 MB, 1673x1011)

3.23 MB PNG

>>2255093
>In V you literally settle 4 cities and do nothing
why so many people spouting this lie? king difficulty btw

>>2292080
>renaissance era
>half the map is unsettled
Great way to disprove your point.

>>2291392
>Wikipedia credits him for all civs up until 7
In that the game series is called "Sid Meier's Civilization", not that he was involved in developing them.

Sid Meier appeared in Civ IV's tutorial, not sure if it's his actual voice

>>2292080
>why so many people spouting this lie?
>king difficulty btw
Because it's optimal.
If you're playing on deity, going for more than 4 cities is very sketchy(in BNW specifically, since that's when they added the tech penalty based on #cities).
I've had a good amount of cities on deity, but I was gimping myself.
On Emperor I've gone insane ICS with china on ynaemp, and my tech was on par with he AI, but it was emperor AI and my tech was relatively low compared to conventional games.

>>2292080
king is easy bud, post immortal or higher.

You can go wide on deity in 5, but it's only really viable (in terms of consistency, efficiency and replicability) with Ethiopia, and you want to keep your empire tight, not spread out. Large land mass isn't the point, the number of cities is.

Anyway, there are two optimal strategies for deity in 5. Turtling or killing. For turtling, you can do the meta 4 city tradition science victory, but you can also do stuff like 3 city piety diplomatic victory (with civs that have a faith bonus or building). Both are reliable. When it comes to killing, liberty and honor are objectively superior. Liberty has double healing with pyramids, which shits all over tradition for war all day, every day. Liberty is not "just" a wide policy tree. It's way better for war and maintaining new land that you conquer. So what about honor (because it has no double healing like liberty). Honor is viably only meant for like 4-5 civs; civs that don't need double healing... so, the Huns, Mongolia, China. Add the Zulus because the total XP bonus is insane and you'll have so many ranged-logistics units. It's OK that honor is only designed for very few civs in mind; not every policy tree has to be be 100% compatible with everything.

>>2292126
There is literally nothing "optimal" about four cities. It's just something retards parrot because of tradition finisher bonus.
Terrain is the only thing that determines the optimal number and there's no more sense in forgoing good fifth settle spot that can sustain another specialist-heavy city, than there is in forcing a shitty lux-less fourth settle just to get a free aqueduct.

File: 1765482296.png (1.95 MB, 1366x768)

1.95 MB PNG

>>2292080
More cities are more better, but on immortal/deity it will piss off the AI and cause them to print a million units to overrun you. 4-city tradition is safe and punches way above its weight class. You fly under the radar until you overtake the AI in tech, then you either take over the world with planes/artillery or build a spaceship. You can absolutely play wide, it's more fun for me anyway. I can easily settle 10-12 cities in my games. It's just that playing tall wins you games consistently, if that's something you care about.

Pic unrelated, casual emperor game. Assyria is a scary runaway with the free techs they get from sacking cities. Fortunately I had some really good chokepoints to keep me safe from the siege towers. I went Honor and there's a bit of a tech gap in the Medieval era where all either of us had was knights and musketmen. Many Dutch men died on the beaches of Nimrud, and I was repelled a few times, but I've finally made some inroads and have started liberating Swedish territory.

>>2218496
I like those 3 or 4 charges unironically.
Its less repetitive movement and clickining, the game becomes far less bogged down by tedious automation.

>>2292492
Vanilla casual, *YAWN*

>>2292500
I sort of liked it, it was a step in the right direction. It didn't really solve the issue since you're still clicking units around, only now you have to keep adding them to the production queue. For all its faults, 7 had the right idea with getting rid of workers entirely.

>>2292503
Still not playing bloat populi, sleepyhead.

>>2292514
if you think that mod is bloated you havent played that german BLOAT mod for civ 4 col.
anyway you should give it a try, ai can actually fuck your shit up on king and above easily

>>2292492
OP here, I swear CiV mogs the hell out of VI and VII, it's not even real how bad (aesthetics and gameplay) the franchise has fall.

>>2293736
civ 1? now thats some boomer shit

>>2293736
6 is fun if you like peaceful SimCitying and tile porn. If you like war, then 6 is awful because it rarely happens after the ancient eras. Even on deity, the AI turns into a lameduck after the first 50 turns or so. You just need to survive the initial aggression, and the rest of the game will be all goombaya because the AI's empire will be so poorly managed that they'll have absolutely no capacity to go to war with you.

>>2294510
>porn
What porn
Also the playdough mobile look + proportion differences take me out of city building, rather play an actual city builder

File: 1242423424.jpg (217 KB, 1280x720)

217 KB JPG

>>2262654
I got so into my playthrough of that jank-ass space mod that I wrote an entire breakdown of population statistics and subcultures within notable cities/"sub-nations" of that solar system after finishing it. Some of the best time I've had with a Civ game in a long while.

>>2294657
>What porn
it's what redditors call big yield numbers.

>>2292215
deity mainly depends on you having read up on how to exploit flaws in the game mechanics and ai. it's literal artificial difficulty.

>>2294510
Is that better or worse than the AI in Civ V blatantly giving itself gold so it can maintain and rebuy an impossibly large military?

>>2295871
Deity AI on 6 gets ridiculous bonuses too, but it has more things to juggle than 5 so it performs exponentially worse and digs itself into a hole. So, worse.

Lol at OP pic. I had spent some time looking around and in logs when I noticed my worker is not there, like, what happened, there are no barbs around, the money are positive, where the fuck did he go.

>>2294443
Civilization V = CiV.

I never played Civ 1, for curiosity do you recommend it?

>>2218452
>Civ V(anilla) still invictus
This but with the DLC. 5 is the best Civ game, simple as.

Is Civ V and VI what most people play these days? Civ IV seems to be the "gold standard" but I never saw it that high on the steam charts.

>>2296714
civ 4 is only played by boomers who refuse to move on to hexes and 1upt

>download mod
>try to reverse engineer it
>delete a part I don't like
>works
>realize a prior issue in the original mod
>don't understand it
>delete half of the mod to test what happens
>nothing happens
>delete other half
>somehow still works with an empty sql and lua file
civ6 and the 3 different locations it uses for storing mods makes it tedious to edit and test stuff

fuck it. I've been chasing that other Great Amazing 4X game to play and I just cannot find it. Civ IV is the answer.

>>2297267
4 had a pretty good modding structure, they sure fucked it up for 5 and onwards

Anyone else prefer vanilla Civ4 to BTS?

>homogenous art style
>no espionage (tedious and I never bother with it in BTS)
>no corporations (tedious and I never bother with it in BTS)
>no vassalage (way too overpowered and makes conquest too easy)
>minimal ooga booga civilizations
>no useless protective trait

>>2298116
BTS adds some bloat and a few outright bad features, but also a large amount of good balance changes. overall it's a net positive, but you're not wrong that those things all suck.

i modded protective to give drill instead of city defender, which made it significantly less retarded

I just want to use WASD to move the camera around in Civ IV - is this possible?

>>2298116
I'll have to try it. I'm not a huge fan of the stuff BTS adds either. I usually stick to playing III or V cause they feel the most streamlined.

civ4's lead designer was Soren Johnson, while BTS was headed by Jon Shafer, who also fucked up civ5, and by extension laid the groundwork for the failures of 6 and 7

>>2298116
wish we could get a remaster of 4 on the latest engine

>>2218824
>As somebody that loves the district systems in 6
You get what you fucking deserve

>>2298277
why? it's a worse engine

>>2296346
>Settle 4 cities then do nothing
what a great game

Should I read Brave New World (novel) before playing BNW

>>2298464
the story of civ 5 bnw is a sequel to the novel so you will miss out on story details if you don't read it first

>>2298375
>Settle 4 cities then do nothing
>still best game of the whole series

>>2298710
VI mogs so hard is not even funny

christ I don't know if I should reinstall Civ IV or Civ V at this point - thoughts?

Is there a history of them stealing features from mods? Like age switching from humankind and districts from endless legend

>>2299223
And urban and farming cities from city lights

>>2298369
in terms of what? modding?

>>2298809
6 has braindead AI on any difficulty.

>>2299241
Wait they stole from City Lights? Damn maybe I gotta check out 7 now

>>2299193
both

>>2299193
v is shit tbqh

for Civ V should I start with Vanilla or jump straight into the Complete version

>>2299639
Complete, base V sucked ass

>>2299639
If you like no religions at launch

>>2299639
Complete. More than anything, Vanilla uses a 10 HP system, so combat has a lot of jankiness. The expansions change it to 100 HP, which makes combat infinitely better.

Civ 3 is the best civ, and how a game release DOES matter.

>>2299639
You should play with Vox Populi, other Civ games cannot compete

>>2299769
>recommending bloat populi to a beginner
autism

>>2300006
Name your choice then.
Don't play civ 5.

>>2300006
You will built 15 buildings that increase their dedicated resource by 0.03 percent and like it.

>>2299242
yes

>>2300014
Civ 2

The Civ 5 Scramble for Africa scenario is fun as hell. I'm playing it as Belgium in the Congo and it's pure kino.
What are your favorite scenarios bros?

>>2307894
I kinda like the civ 6 australia scenario for the same reason. One of the most fun parts of civ is finding resources then hooking a city up to them.

>>2307894
I like the Conquest of the New World scenario. I had one game where I started right next to the Fountain of Youth as an American civ. The extra happiness let me spam cities like no tomorrow, was pretty fun.

The +15% growth from completing Tradition isn't that great. It's not added to total food. The free instant aqueducts are what's so good.

>>2308208
Is it +15% surplus?

>>2308253
Yeah. It's basically Fertility Rites but at 15%. It doesn't work like Floating Gardens which is calculated to your total food (insanely good).

Which civ's game music did you prefer? civ v and vi both used folk music but the latter is more authentic and the former is heavily edited if you compared it to the original.

>>2308277
Civ 5 is my favorite game in the series but for music, I have to give it to 4 and for me it's not even close.

>>2308277
Overall probably the old soundtracks from 1-3, they're memorable and entirely inoffensive. Civ 4 is my favorite game but I feel the music from mid and later eras brings down the mood.

Wish I could say that 6 is my favorite, because it has a lot of amazing tracks, but some of them are really annoying to hear over and over and the game insists on looping the themes of all civs that you've met in your current game. Some games I've restarted the instant I met Kupe.

>>2308277
Civ 3, Mesomerican and Japanese (which they used in Civ 4 for a Chinese mod) are some of my favorite songs. Also starsfull, smashfull, technomixfull and modernfull are pretty 'aight. That being said, some of the songs are pretty meh. That being said, I also like the xcom song from Civ 2.

>>2308277
6 7 easily

>>2308277
Civ 2 w/ redbook audio from Mechwarrior 2: Mercenaries

the answer truly is Civ V with all DLCs and Vox Pop. this is The 4x Game

>>2310173
>Vox Pop
Wtf does that do?

>>2310262
its a vanilla+ overhaul. however, just around a year ago, that gaia used to MOG the fuck outta vox pop. if only the dev didnt fuck it up completely with the latest summer patch

>>2310262
makes 4 city slop even better

4 city Tradition is the easiest and safest way to play Deity. But if you're good at war, you can get a way faster victory with Liberty or Honor.

>>2310661
What if you're not good at war but you think it's fun? What then?

>>2311092
What do you guys think of Venice in Civ 5? I'm doing a game with them now and my money and science are both rolling in really fast but nobody's tried to kick my ass yet so I dunno how that will go.

What is the best civ game if you hate fighting and just want to develop your civ and go for other victories?

Is anything besides Vox Populi worth playing? Once you've faced semi-competent AI you can't really go back.

>>2307894
>scenarios
never touched them, obviously

>>2296714
the dust has settled, 1 UPT is more fun.

>>2307894
Civ 2, WW2

>>2311611
if by fun you mean tedium! the kinda tedium that makes you abandon most 1upt 4x games

>>2296714
yeah since it's not a steam game

>>2311706
?
https://store.steampowered.com/app/3900/Sid_Meiers_Civilization_IV/

4 is the only good civ game t bh

5 blows

>>2219182
He’s right though, not autistic.
If you make a civilisation thread then you should expect all of them.
The original is actually the best though,

>>2311778
Yeah the global happiness system sucks

>>2311773
only z**mers and people adding it manually would show up on the stats. meanwhile v and vi launched with steam as their primary vendor

>>2311830
the shitty ai and map congestion are both worse than the shitty happy system

i'm not opposed to 1upt in principle but the implementation was awful

>>2311862
fix egs timmy

>>2311830
Filtered.

>>2311603
Civ 6, easily. On deity, the CPU is super aggressive in the very early game (due to CPU bonuses), but they become sitting ducks for the rest of the game because the AI can't deal with all the new gameplay features. This is especially true with the expansion packs; the CPU was way better in the pre-expansion vanilla game.

So for Civ 6, just focus on surviving the early onslaught and the rest of the game will be a walk in the park if you're fairly decent.

>>2312374
Declaring friendship with them just feels too strong.
Also just spamming a bunch of warriors(they cost no upkeep) boosts your empire's army strength so they no longer wanna fight.
Been playing a lot of coop recently, like 3vs4vs4vs4, me and my two friends and then 3 AI teams, and after the early scares the AIs declare war on each other, but pretty much leave us alone.


I'm thinking for our next game to just house rule it and say "no friendships with AI, and no warrior spam".
Maybe even looking into one of the AI mods.

I feel like the AI shouldn't consider army strength of units that are like 2 eras obsolete, or Warriors should cost upkeep, maybe the 6th warrior starts to cost upkeep, but the first 5 are free.
So if you're in the Renaissance, ancient era troops aren't considered a threat.

They should have released a leader pass for Civ V like VI. People still played it while Civ VII have dropped to third place.

>>2313113
Doing that means they admit civ7 is a failure, so they can't do that.

>>2313113
The diplomacy screens in Civ V were too expensive so they won't do that again

>>2310311
>if only the dev didnt fuck it up completely with the latest summer patch
im still seething at gaia for this since it became a crashing nightmare

spending my friday off work trying out Civ V, it has been probably 8 years since I played it. any overall tips? Playing as Washington.

>>2314017
>any overall tips?
I don't know how to answer this when you've already played the game before. Any particular area you're unsure about?

File: Washington_Turn_59.jpg (198 KB, 1487x839)

198 KB JPG

>>2314048
here is my current situation, I'm just looking for tips I suppose. Washington ; Turn 59. at the barest minimum my current confusion and headaches are around:
1) the city states to the East of New York and how to handle them - I suppose I certainly want to ally with them
2) Minor gold deficit now, not sure if that is OK or not
3) Regarding (1), I have been trying to maintain Friendly with a city-state that is north of Washington. It has been taxing to maintain this Status, and I don't have enough Gold to give them.

Since I'm on the water I plan to lean a bit into water-based technologies, not sure how worth it that is or not. I am playing on a big "landmass" map, and if I do lean into water-based technologies I'll be able to attach coastal cities

I'm on an easier AI difficulty and also with no Barbarians, and so far there has been no combat . I just have a Chariot Archer and a Scout. (I gifted my Warrior to a city-state to maintain Friendly)

>>2314069
Don't break the bank this early in the game over a city state. Just do whatever quests you can for them for now. If there's nothing you can do, wait until you can or you have more money.
As for your gold, make a caravan or cargo ship. I see you are 0/1 trade routes. Cargo ship is usually better income if you can build it but either will get you out of the red.
I find it helps to turn on the tile yields and resources on the map.
What difficulty are you on?

>>2314077
checked & thanks, I will make a Caravan. I have on Chieftain.

>>2314078
>Chieftain
Oh yeah you've got this. You can experiment freely. Other civs are weak and not likely to be very aggressive.

File: 20260103115405_1.jpg (576 KB, 1920x1080)

576 KB JPG

>Randomly decided to try Civ 4 Beyond the Sword after finishing a Civ 5 VP playthrough
What the fuck, there's barely any info on the UI, it's so fucking sparse
I zoom in on Frankfurt and I see fart gas and flies, I assume it has some sort of plague but I can't mouse over the icons and I can't find shit going into the city screen
The military advisor page is nearly useless to see if you have any idle units
Any mods to fix this barely usable UI?

File: 1237763381668.jpg (62 KB, 470x600)

62 KB JPG

>>2314403

Who are your favorite Civ 5 civs, bros?

Me when my neighbor has oil I need.

What is the best modmod of FFH2 in Civ IV?

>>2314418
OP here, for me are Japan, Macedonia and Germany.

>>2314418
china

>>2314510
I just raped a tiny archipelago game with Japan. Samurai and the bushido UA are great. I won before I even had guns.
>>2314526
I need to play them again. I remember liking them a lot.

File: g79wXs7PQEvYTqQquzPaleg6H(...).jpg (199 KB, 1920x1081)

199 KB JPG

>>2314478
I've heard it's MNAI-U, a modmod for MNAI. But it's information from 2022, it may be changed.

t. never played FFH2 myself

Gandhi as a modern leader fits more with the likes of Mao and Stalin in Civ IV. He should been removed since Civ V if they trying to avoid more recent leaders.

>>2314640
Nope

>>2260557
Babby’s first Civ.
I only played the first Civ Rev, but they kept it really simple to make it work on consoles. It was fun for what it was, but not worth going back and playing it when so many mainline games exist now.

>>2314640
He's the classic Civ 1 meme though.

>>2314685
You mean some guy who edited TV Tropes. That's where the meme came from.

>>2314686
Personally, I preferred Asoka as in Civ 4, but I think that's the reason Gandhi sticks around.

File: neb_turn17.jpg (206 KB, 1699x952)

206 KB JPG

>>2314403
well for me >>2314069 Civ V does just LOOK better than Civ IV, I can stare at it forever and the art deco style is nice. It is just "crisp". Plus there is a WASD mod for Civ V which let's be honestly you gotta have. I couldn't find a way to move the camera with WASD on Civ IV.

I stopped my Washington playthrough at about 110 turns now that I have a better sense of the game again, and now started a new game and bumped the difficulty to Warlord with 6 other Civs, and on Quick. Playing as Nebuchadnezzar and going to try for a Science victory. I have Barbarians on as well and they are a bit of a pain in the ass - do you guys play with them on or not?

Two confusing things so far:
1) Diplomacy with other Civs and how that works. My intent this playthrough will be to play nice and try to befriend everyonce so that I can get the Science victory, but I'm not sure how to increase relationships with Civs. I guess I can just "gift" them resources and hopefully that'll increase my standings?
2) Great People, Specialists, and their overall importance. I basically ignored putting my Workers into Specialist "slots" within buildings, and I'm sure that's a mistake. Neb gives me a Great Scientist quickly so of course I'll use him

Soundtrack while playing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZDE4hWZfkQ

File: neb_turn41.jpg (239 KB, 1690x954)

239 KB JPG

>>2314722
and of course someone built the Great Library before me, damn. juggling Barbarians has been a pain in the ass!

desert island 4x: is it gonna be Civ IV BTS or Civ V Vox Pop or Old World?

>>2314995
Civ 2 or SMAC

>>2314069
Press 'Y'.
As America, you want to find luxury resources and plant cities between as many of them as possible, then buy your way to them.

>>2314418
Morocco, easily. It's my favorite civilization.

>>2314761
Just take it lmao, would that push you too behind?

>>2314995
>desert island 4x
?

>>2314418
Germany
Arabia
Korea
Babylon

In that order

>>2314418
egypt
i don't care if i win or not, i will steal all your wonders

File: deleteThisUnit.png (6 KB, 52x53)

6 KB PNG

onto trying out Civ IV now. now granted I'm sure this is because I played on a lower difficulty, but Civ V felt too static and not lively with respect to the Diplomacy. I never felt like I was interacting with the Civ V civs. I want to play a game where I'm buying off Gandhi to take down Henry VIII, only for Gandhi to eventually try to take me down. maybe this is possible in Civ IV. (oh and I wish in-game music would start immediately! I have to wait to discover the Music tech?)

>>2314418
Shoshone
Mayans
Brasil
Germans
Russia
not in any particular order
special mention: Babylon

>>2314418
Rome. It bothers me a lot that most players don't know how strong Rome is. The key is Liberty early war rushing with them. Settle your free settler near your first target as a "bridge". You can build roads in 1 turn on normal speed with a stacked worker and legion. Rush the Pyramids, of course. Promote your warriors with Cover by hunting barbs, and upgrade them into Legions. The legion is the best damage sponge for early war in the game. With Liberty's double pillaging, they're super hard to kill. Use a mix of composite bows and ballistas and go conquer. Clean up the rest of the map with crossbows. Or chill out after conquering the number of cities you wanted and SimCity the rest of the game with Rome's sweet bonus.

One reason why so many players struggle with Liberty is because they tech like they're playing Tradition. Get Engineering BEFORE Education. Aqueducts are more important than universities in a Liberty game (or any non-Tradition game for that matter).

>>2315329
Oh, and Persia is fucking godlike with Liberty early war rushing, too.

>>2315329
>With Liberty's double pillaging
What?

>>2315374
With Citizenship (Liberty) and the Pyramids (Liberty wonder), your workers work 50% faster, so they can repair a pillaged tile in 1 turn. So, in a war, a military unit can pillage a tile to heal, and a worker can repair that tile immediately, and that military unit can pillage that same tile to heal again.

With Rome, you can build roads in 1 turn on normal speed the same way with a worker and a legion.

>>2315396
Does pillaging roads give you anything?

>>2315399
Nope. But you can pillage improved tiles that are outside any borders. Free source of income even when not at war.

>>2315402
>But you can pillage improved tiles that are outside any borders.

I meant to say you can REPEATEDLY pillage and repair improved tiles outside any borders.

>>2315403
>improved tiles outside any borders.
...And get what from it?

>>2315429
money

>>2315434
So, razing a city, then using a worker and legionary to raze/repair plantations?

>>2315449
you don't need a legion for double pillaging. any military unit will do.

File: 1090AD.jpg (265 KB, 1702x958)

265 KB JPG

>>2315220
enjoying this a bit more than Civ V. I am America/Orange, working with China/Red now to push out Queen Elizabeth. Diplomacy in this is a lot more interactive. Now, granted, when I asked China to go to war with England, they wanted a lot from me, but I think it will be worth it.

>>2315584
sasuga AI, still settling utter trash cities in tundra.

>>2315613
nottingham has wheat and riverside tiles, it'll easily pay for itself

canterbury gets iron and the only alternative i can see is even worse. plus all those forests can be chopped for a small army.

>>2315584
>watchington
>jewish synagogue
checks out

>>2315614
>nottingham
oh and furs

>>2315220
if you want more shit happening, turn on the custom game option Aggressive AI. it makes them build more units and be generally more proactive.

it's actually the baseline they designed it around, it just defaults to casual mode for the, well, casuals.

>>2315018
They seem really underrated. I kicked ass when I played them.
>>2315186
Why Germany?
>>2315396
Interesting, never even thought of this.

>>2315639
Germany is really really fun in huge mapa and marathon, they basically let you ignore army production in favor of wonders and structure

By late game in huge maps you will use your trade routes to trade with city states for insane productivity from the hansa, their unique unit, the panzer, is also super nice

>>2315243
>Mayans
Also a super nice civ and a favorite of mine

I'm playing Ottomans right now and I'm digging them. I'm on a small continents map because I like navies, and prize ships on every melee ship is a lot of fun. Not to mention the janissary that keeps its promotions. Sipahi is okay I guess, doesn't do it for me like the other shit.

just what DOES Vox Populi change with Civ V? should I just install it and dive right in?

>>2317390
Vox Populi is a total rebalance mod and I'd argue the definitive way to play Civ V. It makes every Civ reasonably balanced while maintaining uniqueness, and makes the game much harder and more competitive.

>>2317502
Did it have stuff ported over from VI?

What difficulty do you guys play on? I've raped my last few games on king and think maybe it's time to bump it up again.

>>2317502
Are they not already reasonably balanced? I haven't really found any civ to be shitty or OP.

>>2317390
It makes the AI not shit which is a first for the series

>>2318311
>What difficulty do you guys play on?
Emperor mostly, immortal if I want a challenge. I hate doing meme strategies like stealing workers from city states or micromanaging tiles, so I don't think I'll go higher than that.

>>2318327
It was good in Civ IV. They purposely dumb it down in V because the testers found it unfun.

>>2318509
>meme strategies like stealing workers from city states or micromanaging tiles
Redpill me?

Civ 5's default map size is small, not standard. Small has a normal technology cost modifier (1.0). Standard doesn't (1.1). If you're having trouble with Deity, try setting the map size to small. It's a good mid point between Immortal and Deity in difficulty. Tradition 3/4 city turtling is still the easiest victory, but you can viably do many other strats that would be harder on a larger map. Small is the most balanced map size and most likely what the developers balanced the game around.

>>2318720
>Civ 5's default map size is small, not standard.
Look how far Firaxis has fallen.

>>2318727
Small on Civ 5 has 5 enemy players and 12 city-states total.

Small on Civ 4 has 4 enemy players. Standard on Civ 4 has 6 enemy players.

The default map size in Civ 4 was standard, so there's not a big difference between the default map size in 4 and 5.

>>2318731
The last civs I played were 2 and 3. My point was, it’s fucking retarded on the part of the developers to have something called “standard” or “normal” and then to have akshually small is the intended size, or whatever.

Time to recreate the roman empire boarders as Caesar once again. Wish me luck lads.

>Loads up Beyond Earth and hopes nobody notices.

>>2319297
>boarders

File: 1760125003203903.jpg (67 KB, 488x512)

67 KB JPG

>>2319592
that's right carthaginian faggot

>>2319462
Why? The codex mod make sit better than 6 and rivals civ v vanilla.

>>2298710
>>2298375
this is redditcope that you are repeating because you are shit at the game, you can play on immortal and settle 8+ cities even with tradition. the only difficulty where this might be remotely true is deity, and deity is for sweats.

>>2314418
polynesia or aztecs are fun

>>2320662
>you can play on immortal and settle 8+ cities even with tradition
You can settle 50+ cities on deity and still win. The AI is retarded.
If you actually see the numbers you will notice that having 5+ cities would pretty much cause you to lose against any barely competent ai.
Percentage based research cost increase can't be countered with flat research gain.

>>2315186
Same but I also like the Maya very much

Anybody else ever played America and founded Judaism?

>>2322052
Doesn't America only have Judaism?

>>2322052
new american UA: American pops are counted for Judaism founder belief in addition to any religion they actually follow.

>>2318574
early game, go to a city state and grab their worker, declare peace. not much to it. you can micro city worked tiles to get stuff produced 1 turn faster than otherwise

I can't believe they only added religious victory in Civ VI. I wished they were in IV or V.

>>2322373
It's not a very interesting victory in civ6.
I feel like there should be more to it, or instead of a victory condition give you something else when you achieve religious dominance as a stepping stone for other victories.
Like once you've destroyed all other religions, you get access to a new wonder that give you +50% culture+tourism and +4 victory points, so since everyone loves Jesus you can leverage that into a cultural/diplomacy victory. Maybe getting to evangelize your religion a 3rd time.
I guess even without that, your founder belief would grow pretty strong with everyone converted anyway.

Kinda satisfying to do win that way once at least and kill missionaries with your apostles as you spread your religion, but even then it feels a bit anti-climactic.

>>2322373
...they were. You absolute moron.

>>2318574
>>2322271
The micro I was thinking of is the trick where you set your cities to production focus and then manually lock all your tiles. The way the game is coded, you won't get food from a citizen the turn it was born, but you do get its production. The extra production can add up to quite a bit apparently, but I kinda hate it.

>>2322052
>not playing venetians to go full jew

>>2322397
Ive only ever had one fun religious victory and it was with Tamar/Georgia and her golden era bonus. I kept taking the era buff that gives your missionaries extra movement, and the cheaper missionaries/apostles. Then the wonder that gives them more charges. So i was able to spam out religious units that had more charges, movement and less cost then all the AI could manage. And you keep getting golden ages since you keep getting era score for converting cities even in the golden age.

I dont know if that is "meta" or not but it was the most fun i ever had with it.

>>2322424
>And you keep getting golden ages since you keep getting era score for converting cities even in the golden age.
ohh, yeah I can see how you never leave golden age as a faith based Georgia

I had a mosque for extra charges for missionaries, but I still made a lot of apostles for fighting.
You get an unfair amount of value doing the religious fighting, since you can kill a bunch of enemy missionaries and apostles, and then go back to your holy site and heal.
Especially useful with an apostle that has 1 charge left, but he's got a promotion for extra religious strength. I feel like there's a critical mass of apostles you can reach with even basic tactics and the number is pretty small.

It's like war, but the AI is mainly just trying to move warriors past you, while you have swordsmen.

Going faith for other reasons is fun though imo, the various beliefs, faith buy stuff, districts with moksha, or even faith buying units and going faith-domination.

File: RFC Dawn of Civilization.jpg (1.05 MB, 1600x1200)

1.05 MB JPG

>>2322373
there are always mods. this one has different conditions for each religion.

>>2322404
oh fuck I forgot about that one

File: 20260116212139_1.jpg (406 KB, 1680x1050)

406 KB JPG

this has to be some of the most dogshit land I've seen in a while

>>2322734
kek
that's brutal

>Civ 4
If you like strategy.

>Civ 5
If you like tactics.

>Civ 6
If you like SimCity.

File: 20260116214836_1.jpg (456 KB, 1680x1050)

456 KB JPG

>>2322736
managed to roach a couple of islands but i think i'm going to be production starved all game

File: 20260116214843_1.jpg (501 KB, 1680x1050)

501 KB JPG

>>2322749
>cont

>Civ 2
If you like strategy
>Civ 3
If you like strategy with immersion
>Civ 4
If you like the aesthetics of strategy, but not the application of it

File: 20260116235752_1.jpg (475 KB, 1680x1050)

475 KB JPG

nippon is prospering.... where should i put my colony?

>>2322837
probably on the spices to the east of your settler
as japan I lean towards just going for more fishing boats though so the banana peninsula also look interesting

what's your pantheon?

File: 20260117004612_1.jpg (317 KB, 1680x1050)

317 KB JPG

>>2322869
Ended up settling near the Silver and Ivory as India settled Uluru. The Spices probably would have been a better call but I declared war on Mongolia right after to liberate some of India's territory and I was worried I wouldn't be able to hold it.
>Pantheon/Religion
I'm Shinto

>>2322872
>god of the sea
niceu

civ6 ost still mogs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZA7ARptg0M

>>2218452
I fucking hate how Civ 6 empires end up looking. All this disgusting urban sprawl everywhere from districts and wonders.

>>2322940
Map sizes for Civ5 needed to be roughly 3 times bigger than Civ4 map sizes to compensate for 1upt warfare.
Due to increased resource requirements Huge map size instead stayed at 10240 tiles.
Map sizes for Civ6 needed to be roughly 6 times bigger than Civ5 to compensate for the city district mechanic.
Due to increased resource requirements Huge map size decreased to 6996 tiles.

There are map size mods of course, but even they have upper limits.
Also due to increased resource requirements in Civ6:Gathering Storm map size mods are no longer stable and a lot of games break when flooding starts

>>2322940
Yeah, it's hella ugly. Anyone who has a car knows that outside of cities, the countryside is mostly empty. But in Civ 6, your empire is just one big sprawling city. It actually makes your empire look smaller in scale.

File: 20260117101848_1.jpg (635 KB, 1680x1050)

635 KB JPG

Ingerland has been deathwarring Assyria all game so I'm going to try to pick them off, they've been denounced by everyone so hopefully this won't kill my diplo.

File: 20260117103510_1.jpg (568 KB, 1680x1050)

568 KB JPG

Lost a bunch of units but it was worth it

>>2218452
Didn't road have a maintenance cost and no tile bonus in V? I only played it once, and nearly got broke because I was building everywhere like in the older ones.

File: 20260117112634_1.jpg (294 KB, 1680x1050)

294 KB JPG

>>2323027
It has a scaling cost, usually lategame money is no object so the logistical benefits outweigh the gpt

File: 20260117113320_1.jpg (519 KB, 1680x1050)

519 KB JPG

big brain time, i was going to settle anothe city for the spices/truffles but instead once I get my settler back im going to settle a canal west of the horses, opening up access to assyria's capital

File: 20260117113327_1.jpg (564 KB, 1680x1050)

564 KB JPG

>>2323049
they have notre dame and a couple other wonders so as long as I can hold off the initial assault the assur should pay for itself

>>2218452
consumable workers was some of the dumbest shit they had in 6

File: 20260117130740_1.jpg (609 KB, 1680x1050)

609 KB JPG

the special military operation is complete

>>2323056
It grew on me.

>>2323050
How do you like this map setting?

>>2322734
Jesus what map settings did you run?

>>2322755
Explain?