Thread 2218452

I know I'm late, but I finally tried Civ VI with all its DLCs, holy moly the downgrade.
Civ V(anilla) still invictus.
Not only it's more tedious, but 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) and the artstyle is kinda shit.

At some moment it becomes good, fun or I need overhaul mods?
Is Civ VII worth it?

PD: when the gameplay (specially the combat) is going to be like in the cinematic trailers (massive cities, massive armies, massive world to 4X'd)?

>>2218452 (OP)
>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 (OP)
>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 (OP)
Luv me BNW.
Luv me Ottos.

>>2218452 (OP)
>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.

>>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 (OP)
>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.

>>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.

>>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 (OP)
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.

>>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

>>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.

>>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 (OP)
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.

>>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.

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

>>2223475
Anon, if you are a Theist and like religious mechanics, good for you.

For me it's just unnecessary stuff in an already good 4X game. And as I already said in >>2218523
>I never found a game that allows you to create your perfect ultra-epic FUCK YEAH religion
And CiV is not different to that, despite the "custom faith".

>>2224080
Why is it so good?
What are the differences btw picrel and Civ 3? Civ 4? CiV?

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

>>2223466
>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.
OP here, I agree, the worst part is the city-states don't evolve to be something difference and the diplomacy is very childish, and I say this as a "CiV supremacist" (because nostalgia).

Honestly, Civ could be so create if it was an actual autistic simulator in terms of diplomacy, cultural / tech development, economics, warfare (CoH / Total War-like combat, not just 2 big figures "fighting" while statistics and probabilities are calculated by AI).
But Firaxis will still put just more decorative mechanics (visual noise that just cause burnout from retarded micromanagement and boredom because you're wasting time instead of having fun time) than actual ones.

>>2224481
Excuse my ignorance, I never played Civ 2. Why is it so good, better than its sequels?

>>2223528
>don't listen to women.
THIS.

>>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 (OP)
Civ 2 Gold is still the best edition