My first civ game was Civ 6. I liked it so I bought Civ 5 but it's nothing like what I thought it would be. It's a lot more I want to say easier but slower also. Civ 6 in comparison heavily incentivizes plowing through the AI as early as possible.Then I played Civ 1 and Civ 2 and was even more confused not just because the boomer tier controls and UI but the lack of transparency to what the fuck is happening. Not a huge fan of these two.Then I found out there are like 20 spinoffs and they all have slightly different mechanics. A lot of the franchise is just difficult to enjoy.Why is this franchise all over the place? Am I just a zoomer pleb that can't into strategy gaymes or what?
>>2422795>Am I just a zoomer pleb that can't into strategy gaymes or what?You forgot attentionwhore
I don't know, it's always been like that. Civ 1 and 2 are the only civ games that are like each other, and they are actually the worst, the most simple. all the other civ games are good strategy games but they are all different from each other. They are similar enough to be a coherent series. it's not like one of them is a rts and the other one is a grand strategy game. it's all variations of the "4X gameplay" that they invented basically>a lot of the franchise is just difficult to enjoyIts hard to get into some of these games but it's worth it. they are so addicting. I recommend you try civ 4 now. That was my first entry in the series. It might be the easiest one to pick up. Another good one is Alpha Centauri. Much more of a learning curve, but it's one of the best strategy games ever.
>>2422795Civ 1-4 were more similar to each other. Civ 5 forced you to play tall. Civ 6 forced you to play wide. And the civ switching in Civ 7 they stole from Humankind just didn't work so they have to revert it after just one year.
>>2422795>My first civ game was Civ 6fuck, and I already felt old when people started saying they grew up playing Civ V>Why is this franchise all over the place?each game (until civ 7 which was the same guy as civ 6) has a different lead designer, who is encouraged to change up the formula and innovate. Civ 1 was literally Sid Meier and I'm surprised you even tried to play it, it's too ancient even for me as a boomer millennial. Civ 2 was Brian Reynolds, who would then go on to make Alpha Centauri which basically improves on the Civ 2 design and adds a great sci fi story that unfolds as you play. It's one of the few strategy games of that era that has aged like wine.Civ 3 has the most sovl artistically with the isometric art and age changing leader portraits, but kind of ugly duckling gameplay. While Civ 4 is the opposite, pretty fugly early 3D graphics but very tightly tuned gameplay and the most competent AI of all the games (even more so if you use a AI mod like advciv or k-mod).You already basically hit the nail on the head with Civ V, global happiness makes everything arbitrarily slower. Moreover, it introduced one unit per tile system, which the AI is absolutely terribad at doing combat in. The lead designer of Civ 4 Soren Johnson eventually made Old World, which is the first and only civ style 4X to actually solve the issue and have decent combat AI in a one unit per tile game.
>>2422795I know this is probably hard to imagine if you grew up on games of the last decade, but games used to try to push the envelope and reinvent themselves in their sequels to take advantage of new ideas, technology, etc., instead of pushing out marketing suit-lead shlock that just rehashes shit endlessly for easy $$.
>>2423476>While Civ 4 is the opposite, pretty fugly early 3D graphicsIsn't it around the time of PS2? Although I agreed it looks like shit.>Moreover, it introduced one unit per tile system, which the AI is absolutely terribad at doing combat inOne unit per tile isn't the problem, they purposely dumbed down the AI (indirect units couldn't move and attack at the same turn)
OP here. I had to make this shit thread to kill a spam thread from February that wasnt being removed. Sorry for the inconvenience.I do like most civ games despite what I said.
>>2422795No point in making the same game again.
>>2422795If they weren't so different, what would be the point in buying the next one? I know you grew up in the age of endless remakes and remasters that almost never improve anything meaningful except maybe add some pretty new graphics, but things didn't used to be this way. Developers used to actually make their games better with each installment, instead of just making them more marketable.Even though recent Civ games haven't been great, I'd still take their attempts to try something new over just releasing the same game every year with a few minor updates.
>>2423523>One unit per tile isn't the problem, they purposely dumbed down the AI (indirect units couldn't move and attack at the same turn)That, plus the map size and layout typically didn't account for having a swarm of units trying to get to the same place instead of having them all in one neat stack. 1UPT could've worked if they had thought it through all the way, but its implementation was just ass.
>>2422937I don't understand how they could look at Humankind and make something worse
I wanna make my own civ3 mod based off c3x districts
