'>>1711562
Leonard Nimoy's voice.';

'>>1711562
It was mostly at the right moment with the right difficulty. It released at the same time youtube started, so until civilization 5 came it had near total dominance of vst genre over the millennial web. For majority 30-year old probably this is their starting point, and hence why they have rose colored glasses over its memories.

Also Civ 5 wasn't bad as a series, but base game was just mediocre until gods and kings came out. Hence why a lot people waited off or never got it and just played Civ 4 (with a lot of mods).';

'>>1711562
First off, One-Unit-Per-Tile (1UPT) is an abomination, so it's perfectly natural that the last game without it would be seen as the last hurrah for the series.
Mainly though, Civ4 almost by accident got a lot of things right. The city maintenance system meant that you wanted your empire to be large, but not too large, at least until you entered the steamroller phase (after which all difficulty evaporates anyway).
The cottage economy vs. specialist economy distinction, while arguably a false dilemma, at least gave the strong IMPRESSION that there were at least two ways to play the game, rather than one always-optimal style.
There were the right number of viable social engineering choices to provide player agency without overwhelming the player - essentially you have "war" (police state - vassalage - theocracy) and "peace" (hereditary/representation - slavery/caste-system - bureaucracy - organised religion/pacifism). in economic techs free market, mercantilism and even state property are viable in different situations.
finally the micromanagement around things like timing of forest chops, managing trades (especially tech trades) and the overflow from whipping, while they can be annoying, at least give the player the further feeling of making important strategic choices.
Yes, it has a doomstack problem, but collateral damage made it much less than it could have been.';

'>>1711562
Non gimmicky gameplay from the previous 3 Civs is perfected in 4. Fast, balanced, fun, simple to learn and with enough depth for autists to sink their grubby little hands into numbers and spreadsheets. Last good Civ AI that can get a hold of the mechanics and actually provide you a challenge.
It's also the Skyrim of strategy in terms of mods, so many great mods that other hames simply can't compete - Rhyes and Fall, Fall from Heaven, Pie's Ancient Europe, Civ 4 it's the unquestionable GOAT in terms of mods and I doubt things like the historical civ spawn in R&F will ever be done again.
Why yes, I've been playing Civ 4 for 15 years and I've no intention of stopping';

'>>1711562
Veterans of the series really hate 1UPT because the AI is really dumb with it and they don't have friends to play multiplayer games with';

'>>1711562
>>1711599
>>1711600
>>1711616
Okay but really, why is Civ V so fucking good and still has an active modding and multiplayer community while Civ IV is completely dead?';

'>>1711619
I'm beginning to get the feeling that you aren't engaging with this discussion in good faith';

'>>1711562
It was a huge jump from what came before it. The overall quality was very high: The music was excellent, the UI was clear and "happy", the design of the icons for units buildings and all were cool, the game mechanics worked well, the difficulty was ok (for people who didnt yet have 1000h in it)...
Who would have thought that if you make a game that does well what it is supposed to do and dont spend time of crap and forced innovation it turns out to be fun?';

'>>1711623
You can go on the Civ 5 steam workshop and find 20 new mods ever week. Custom civs, new features, tons of shit.

Civ 4 mods are broken, not updated and half of them don't even work anymore. Civ 4 has only one playable mod and that's History Rewritten and it hasn't been updated since 2021. The game is dead.

All of Civ 5s faults have been modded out. The game is perfect.';

'>>1711626
>All of Civ 5s faults have been modded out
That's because you don't see the vast majority of its faults as faults in the first place';

'>>1711628
Well going off this thread, there's a whole page of mods to fix 1UPT and balance it. Civ 5 is objectively better than 4, and has far more complexity';

'>>1711628
>game is new therefore bad
sorry, I'm just not autistic.';

'>>1711562
1) Peak of the design going since the original Civ
2) MONUMENTAL modding capacity
3) Expanding and polishing ideas from Civ 3
4) Probably the best counter-balance for expansion in form of maintenance
When it came out, it was somewhat contested, since it has its issues and problems, but then came the shitfest in form of 5, and thus whatever problems people had with 4 instantly disappeared in comparison by just how brain-dead 5 is and how bad the release state was on top of that. And since 6 continued the trends started with 5, it's hardly a wonder people cut-off at 4';

'>>1711631
Here, grab some (You)s';

'>Civ5 schizo made yet another false flag civ4 thread to jack off his garbage game';

'Hey guys can I have a quick recount on the points here? I'd like to know who is winning this argument on the internet.';

'it's shit';

'>>1711633
I endorse all of this, especially point 4. All releases from 1 to 3 tried to make corruption work to counter the obvious advantages of ICS. It never worked. Civ 4's system made ICS a genuinely bad strategy, without going too far in the opposite direction (like the 4-city tradition meta).
I'd also add that it fixed basically all the problems of doom stacks. Every unit has a counter and poorly constructed stacks are vulnerable to collateral damage. The people who still, in anno Domini MMXXIV, keep bitching about doom stacks in 4 are just unfathomably retarded.
>>1711567
>For majority 30-year old probably this is their starting point, and hence why they have rose colored glasses over its memories.
For context I'm early 40s and started with Civ 1 which I played at a friend's house because my family didn't have a computer till the late 90s. The SNES release of civ 1 was a very happy day for me.
Not saying this guy is necessarily wrong, but nostalgia does not really factor in for me.';

'>>1711562
I'm a zoomer that mostly played Civ5 but Civ4 is just a way more memorable game. Leonard Nimoy delivering bible quotes while classical music plays is a level of classy that none of the other games approach. I guess they used up all the good quotes by 5 because man I don't remember a single one in 6 that wasn't laughably bad';

'Civ 4 is the best Civ game in the series.

Civ 5 is the best game in the Civ series.';

'>>1711629
>there's a whole page of mods to fix 1UPT and balance it.
Give me some examples. Not for the sake of argument, but for the sake of me actually wanting to play a version of V that doesn't have
>carpets of death
>slow marches across continents or oceans where units can get stuck on each other
>AI that throws numeric superiority making dumb decisions
>units that are untouchable to the AI like camels';

'>>1711676
Vanilla Civ 4 looked and sounded great. Was also highly polished (except the Qin-Kublai portrait mixup), but the new content from the expansion packs clearly clashes with the original stuff visually and sonically (e.g., different artist for the unit portraits, different narrator in BTS -- I know it's Sid).';

'>>1711676
The best/worst part about Civ 6's quotes is Sean Bean giving them a gravitas they don't deserve. My favourite is "It was luxuries like air-conditioning that led to the Fall of the Roman Empire. Their windows were shut - they couldn't hear the barbarians coming."
Of course a fan favourite is Churchill's "I am fond of pigs."';

'>>1711680
It's amazing how terrible Civ 6's presentation actually is.
>cartoony units, LE PUPPERINO pandering, shitty tech quotes that might as well be scraped from reddit, sean bean's voice every few turns, slapping noises';

'>>1711626
>Civ 4 mods are broken, not updated and half of them don't even work anymore. Civ 4 has only one playable mod and that's History Rewritten and it hasn't been updated since 2021. The game is dead.
Okay, now you are straight up bullshiting
>PAE, my favourite
Last update October 2022 (v. 6), very polished and few to none crashes/bugs, in-depth systems civV can only dream of
>Rise of Mankind, successor to Rhyes and Fall
Still supported by dev team, many different iterations and submods
>Fall from Heaven
Deep gameplay in a fantasy setting, extremely high quality and polish, many submods (Fall Further, Master of Mana, Orbis, etc)
Those are just the three main ones imo
Fivebabies can't just compete with the sheer quality of the CivIV modding scene, but I'm sure spamming 20 useless extra civ mods a week really revolutionises gameplay
My main gripes with CivV:
>Bullshit global happiness
It's my nation winning a war and taking territory? Agh, that makes me so mad, I'm gonna revoolt, oh God I'm revooolting
t. CivV citizens
>1upt, obviously
Makes war a chore, makes the world feel tiny in comparison to IV, AI can't handle it
>No civics, culture trees
I like culture trees, but they should be traditions that define your nation and you still should had civics that you change accordingly to your needs. That way you might have two seafarer nations, one is a large monarchy and the other a small merchant republic
>Shit diplomacy
Borderline useless in V and I want to judo throw whoever came up with denouncements into a wood chipper
>No wonder construction videos
And therefore, no SOVL
>Finally, the most egregious of all
They made my country, Portugal, led by a shit Queen who did very little good for the nation was nicknamed "The Crazy", instead of the absolute Chad João II, the Perfect Prince
The only part I like better about V it's the Religion and Ideology Systems
Tourism it's ok but I rarely bother with it';

'the funniest thing is civ 6 is an improvement over civ 5 in every aspect. Theres no reason to play boring four city garbage but they love their over simplified slop for retards.';

'>>1711680
>“I love watching my mom argue with the GPS on the way home.”';

'>>1711562
civ 3 is better :^)';

'>>1711562
Being made when said people were at the prime age for nostalgia.';

'>>1711700
Rent free';

'>>1711677
Based post';

'>>1711684
>that might as well be scraped from reddit
in many cases they literally were. the rest were from travel guides.';

'>>1711718
Worst combat in the whole series.';

'>>1711731
>mass replies in civ4 thread and posts his worthless opinion about babies first civ
>rent free
why wont you faggot stick to your containment thread presume made by the same retard.';

'They hated jesus because he spoke the truth';

'>>1711567
But I'm 30 and my first was civ 2, and I've never heard different from others my age';

'caveman2cosmos is genuinely such a garbage piece of shit I am consistently baffled by the ignorant yeasternyuros retards that flock to it and try to bully the devs into "fix damm ai!!"';

'>>1711680
I am fond of a coal miners wife';

'Why is Alexander wearing the civic crown?';

'>>1711562
More atmospheric. Everything from the sounds to the graphics keeps the immersion level high. Everything after became too board gamey from the aesthetics to mechanics. Civ 6 does such a shit job of making you feel like you're passing through time as everything looks the fucking same. Also, Civ IV setting the good standard for mods and them dropping the ball for achievement fags is sad as fuck.';

'Civ4 sucked until Beyond the Sword';

'>>1713018
His portrait was probably meant for a Roman leader in Civ, but they just gave it to Alexander.';

'>>1713784
>in Civ

I mean in vanilla Civ 4.';

'>>1711562
this screenshot makes me want to play civ4, nothing from civ5 or 6 gives me that feeling';

'>>1713707
The only part of BtS I liked were the random events. I hate all of the balance changes';

'>>1713124
>Everything after became too board gamey from the aesthetics to mechanics
Interestingly there was a board game craze in the 2010's, so this probably is the source of the aesthetic shift.';

'>>1713124
>Everything after became too board gamey from the aesthetics to mechanics.
Weird.
As a long-time Civ IV player who has many immortal wins under his belt, I think of Civ IV as a board game.

I guess what is a board game for you and what isn't depends on how clearly you can predict a game's flow of events.';

'>>1711562
You transition into relevant music as you pan across parts of the map that are under your control, other nations, or different types of uninhabited lands/ocean. They got rid of that in V and VI. V might honestly be a stronger contender for the best in series, had they kept that.';

'>>1711562
Civ VI's art style, whatever you call that tranny slop, is the corporate memphis art style of games,';

'>>1712667
>me and my two autistic friends all started with civ2
ok bro';

'Is Pangaea Noble considered the most balanced map/difficulty in Civ 4?';

'>>1717768
Pangea is a great way to learn, but I'd personally play on Prince if you're relatively unskilled, since the AI isn't smart enough to keep up with the player without an advantage.';

'>>1717800
oops sorry, I meant Prince (as in difficulty 5), not Noble. I heard about how "Pangaea 5" is kinda a standard in Civ 4.';

'>>1711562
it had Baba Yetu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e0Qelqp-Cc';

'>>1717401
Actually it's a shift in Firaxis design philosophies. I suspect the way Firaxis designs their games is they make a board game prototype first (not with pieces, probably just shit on paper) to plan things out and see how everything should work without actually committing huge amounts of resources.

Nu-XCOM is an example of this. Ultimately, it's a vidya board game. Not bad, but still a board game. There is little in the way of actual simulation like the original XCOM had, both in the combat map (where fucking trees could get in your way, no cover vs half cover abstraction) or in the global view (which was more a tycoon game). This isn't 'bad', as the original XCOM still exists and thus we have two cakes, but realizing that nu-XCOM and Civ6 are just virtual board games has painted a very different picture of modern Firaxis for me. Everything is very simple and game-y, there are no fun attempts at immersion or depth. Reducing governments to cards you swap around whenever kills all sense of history and story that a game like SMAC or Civ4 would possess.';

'>>1711562
OooooouuuUuuuuu UOoooouuuu
Baba yetu, yetu uliye
Mbinguni yetu, yetu, amina
Baba yetu, yetu, uliye
M jina lako e litukuzwe';

'>>1718763
> I suspect the way Firaxis designs their games is they make a board game prototype first.
Interesting theory. It does kind of explain why mechanics became simplified and streamlined, aside from the general "trying to bring more casuals into the genre." The analogue test would limit more complex simulations without a computer, so it would make sense (as well as you can license the prototype as an actual boradgame, lol).';

'>>1711562
There’s a ton of reasons, one I always bring up is that Civ 4 remains the only Civ that solves the expansion curve. Every other game in the series save 5 gets broken to shit by hardcore REXing and 5 goes in the complete opposite direction by rewarding tall play so much that it doesn’t make sense to do anything else.';

'>>1718841
I don't think the prototype is intended to be resold as a board game, usually the board game versions are pretty different from the actual game itself, I just think when you start having governments with literal "cards" or districts that may as well be your cities blobbing out across a Catan style board, the only conclusion you can make is that this is just how Firaxis thinks about their game design now. It's not wrong, it's just not what some Civ fans want. That niche is instead increasingly filled by grand strategy.';

'I don't realy undestand the "boardgame" complaint as a derogatory term. Civ has always been a computer-assisted board game.';

'>>1719350
For me it's less derogatory and more overall aesthetic. Civ has always been very board gamey, but 3 and 4 always felt more immersive because the theming done on top of that board game was top notch. 6 feels like a board game and more importantly looks like a board game with how static and unchanging everything is. People don't just want the table top experience, they want flourish.';

'>>1719389
Yeah 6 and its choice of aesthetics just rubs me the wrong way. It's not even the caricature leaders (after all 4 has them too) but the general look of the terrain just puts me off.';

'the problem with 6 is that they design systems in isolation or at best paired with a civ - this civ has that gimmick and that civ has this gimmick';

'>>1719350
It's not derogatory. You want an excellent example of a virtual boardgame, try Egypt Old Kingdom. It wears its board game inspiration on its sleeve, and it's a really good game. Another is the generically titled Terraformers. Have 60 hours in that so far.

But when I play Civilization, I don't want a franchise that increasingly feels like it should be played with beer and pretzels. I want to feel like I'm playing through history. Maybe not entirely realistic, but the modern Civ games like 5 and 6 have serious presentation problems that have alienated older fans. Maybe become more accessible for newer ones, but a lot of soul has been lost.';

'>>1719804
Agreed. Board Game in itself isn't derogatory, it just they do it to a point that it totally kills the original immersion in some genres. Obviously there's a threshold that's like relative to everyone's taste, but I think the far extreme of "too board gamey" is like Humankind (especially compared to Endless Legends, and their other stuff). It had balance problems too, but it just didn't feel like you were building anything but just gathering points.';

'If the AI ever used boats, Inland sea would be a fun map to play on.';

'strategy newfag here, i want to get into civ and anno.
which game do i pick for each series?';

'>>1720165
>Civ
The games diverge in gameplay between Civ 4 and Civ 5.
Civ 4 is more similiar to Civ 2 & 3, while Civ 5 is more similiar to Civ 6 than to Civ 4.

Start with Civ 4. If you like it, try the older games.
If you don't like it, try Civ 5.

>Anno
Anno 1404 is very easy to learn and also quite comfy.
It's not very complex, though.';

'>>1718879
>niche is instead increasingly filled by grand strategy
EU started as a boardgame.';

'>>1720679
What's your point?
The fact is Civilization now caters to casuals, and grand strategy caters to simulationists.';

'see also the decline from Railroad Tycoon 3 to Sid Meier's Railroads! as another example of the casualisation/board game trend';

'>>1720702
Paracucks are also now catering to casuals, other than Johan with eu5';

'>>1711562
civ 5 was better sorry boomers';

'>>1711616
why don't they just play vox populi? completely solves ai';

'did this man just solve Caveman2Cosmos?';

'>>1722671
no, because caveman2cosmos is a fundamentally shitty mod';

'>>1711562
For me it was the automation.

>City's can build themselves
>Workers can do worker things themselves

Civ V removed citys building themselves.
Civ VI also removed workers doing worker things themselves.

This forces me to be an autistic fuckstick like the rest of the civ community and micro every goddamn thing I don't give a shit about. Instead of my previous way of playing which was using civ as a glorified map painter and diplomacy sim, aka having fucking fun.

Plus a lot of other points people have made already 1UPT being fucking shit for example.

Also Alpha Centauri was peak not Civ IV.';

'>>1720702
>grand strategy caters to simulationists
Hasn't been the case since HoI2.';

'>>1722685
I agree with you. It's weird how modern strategy devs seem to think that more clicks and more busywork means more gameplay. Vic3 had the same problem.';

'>>1711562
i remember my father playing this';

'>>1722685
>>1722945
Funny that you say that, I actually loved the micro-managing in Civ IV, which is much more intensive than you think, if you factor in stuff like
>whipping
>switching to a commerce tile on a dime to research something faster or to amass wealth to compensate for unit maintenance
>swapping a food-rich tile between two cities to mitigate whip anger
>checking the AI for a tech trade every few turns
>checking the AI to see if they're plotting every few turns
>managing citizens in a specialist economy
>pre-chopping forests while waiting for mathematics or a better unit
>binary research
>failgolding the same wonder in several cities
The only time I automate my workers is when I know I'm going to win, anyway.
The only time I automate my cities is in the final few turns.';

'>>1722685
Optional micromanaging really was the key to my enjoyment of 4. As you said, 5 wasn't too bad, but fuck 6 forcing me to babysit my workers.';

'>>1722945
Yeah, even weirder with the current atmosphere of AI and automation everywhere. Give me my Alpha Centauri style city governor back -_-

>>1722967
>I actually loved the micro managing
Yeah you're the majority of the player base it seems. Gratz.

>>1723006
Yah I could tolerate 5 but fuck 6 indeed. There's no reason they had to dick us over when the automated stuff was as you say, optional. Micro fiends could do their thing and so can us lazy map painters.';

'>>1711562
Nostalgia.';

'>>1722685
>Civ V removed citys building themselves.
you could still queue buildings, at least. in civ6 they fucked that up too.';

'>>1711562
Civ 5 felt like the board game rather than a strategy game. Same thing with the XCOM games, they don't feel like video games.';

'>>1718763
>>1719891
>a shift in Firaxis design philosophies
>Bland Board Gamey
A bit connected to this. There was a lecture/workshop at GDC2008 where Soren Johnson talked about the difference of a "good/challenging" AI vs "fun AI." Basically a good AI will try to match a human player's skill doing all the shit players will do, while a fun AI cannot ever match the player but will have a memorable personality. Civ4 Montezuma is a fun AI in a sense, because his AI roleplays a role of loveable psychopath.

I wonder if Firaxis shifted their design to be more human (due to various reasons like hardware advancements) and in that kinda made it more bland post-2010.

>Lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7AWHT7j3V4';

'>>1722685
As still a noob for IV are you then supposed to just blitz through turns? Cause it feels like so many rounds are just me spamming the next button while workers are automating, the deathstacks are building up, etc.';

'>>1723797
>Queue buildings
>AI do it all for you

Not even remotely the same anon.

>>1723975
Yeah. Until a war inevitably starts.';

'https://nitter.poast.org/TheBlackHorse65/status/1777720922184843426#m';

'>>1725571
https://nitter.poast.org/TheGameChief/status/1777789826596741506';

'>>1725585
I like how it devolved to nothing after the first post from 1 angry dev.';

'>>1717490
Is that the only knock against it?';

'>>1711562
i reinstalled it today after almost a decade since i played it and by god, i really don't miss stack era. I used to love and miss it in civ 5 but nothing is more boring and painful than sit through 20 attacks at one turn, also ai will try to sneak cities in all possible spaces with complete disregard about if that space is a good place to have a city. STILL really good game, a classic but 3 was better';

'>>1725620
>but nothing is more boring and painful than sit through 20 attacks at one turn
One thing that's cool about civ4 is that it lets you customize things. You don't actually need to sit through 20 attacks. You can just turn on "stack attack" and everything is instantaneous. You can also turn on quick combat if you still want to micromanage the battles unit by unit, but skipping the combat animations.

By contrast, in civ5, by design, you are forced to manually make every single unit in your army move, one by one, every turn. There's few units, sure, but the amount of clicks and waiting is still going to be longer than a properly-configured civ4.';

'>>1722685
>Also Alpha Centauri was peak not Civ IV.
As someone playing through SMAC again right now, you could not be more right. The amount of little features is fucking amazing. I just had to deal with invading a small archipelago using nothing but customized amphibious units. A very minor customization as far as SMAC goes, but it'd be impossible in Civ here in 2024.';

'Any fun mapscripts to try out outside the usual fractal/pangaea/continents?';

'>>1725588
To be fair, Brian Reynolds is basically second only to Sid Meier himself.';

'>>1725620
turn on quick combat my guy';

'>>1725624
I like Totestra. It produces the most realistic maps I've ever seen in a game.';

'>>1725627
>start game as Egypt
>spawn in tundra
>next to Aztecs
why would you even need realistic maps in a board game';

'>>1723973
Thanks for the link to that lecture Anon, interesting stuff.';

'>>1725620
why are you still playing with full combat animations ON after early game?';

'>>1725627
Would adding this mapscript to a mod be as simple as dropping it in a specific folder? I want to try this with C2C since I play with Perfectworld2 maps in the mod solely.';

'Civ 6 is the best by far and it's not even close
Muh one unit per tile is basically the only thing it does poorly, but districts improve the game so much that it's not even funny. Districts make non-war engaging.';

'>>1725884
>Districts make non-war engaging.
That's because tiles don't feel so unique, anymore.
In Civ 4, at higher levels you'd be contemplating citizen placement and switching up tile improvements during peace time.
If you're running slavery, you want to micro back and forth between production and food tiles to satisfy your lowered happiness cap.
There are also specialists, so sometimes you don't work any tiles and just micro citizens into specialists for great people generation.
Not to mention that tiles with resources on them are so much better. Irrigated corn farm gives 6 food per turn, while a regular farm on grasslands gives only 3.';

'>>1725884
i honeslty prefer the way millennia did it. You build the improvement and "districts" by yourself.';

'>>1725571
>>1725585
>old man finds out the hard way that he is no longer the target audience and corporations didn't even hesistate to drop him';

'>>1725884
vi districts suck because they force you to have planned out the entire game by turn 50';

'everything after you placed down the markers is just busywork';

'>>1726075
>>1726076
>New resources spawn
>Wonder you wanted to buy gets built
Whoops, there go you plans
Not to mention that it's not 100% solvable. There is often a choice between keeping a high yield tile or getting really nice district adjacency 100 turns from now. Lots of short term vs long term reward.

>busywork
City management is always just "busywork" if you're being reductive about it. Once you learn the mechanic it always becomes solvable. That's how it is in every Civ game. The difference is that districts have a way higher planning requirement and rewards thinking in advance much more than city management in the other civ games.';

'Put over 300 hours into civ 4 and beyond the sword and I'm just now playing colonization for the first time. Pretty comfy.';

'>>1726238
my tip for you is to abandon all your coastal cities and build a fortress city in-land. Can't be specific because last time i played it was 2017 KEK';

'>>1726105
>New resources spawn
Having strategic/luxury resources block off district placement is so dumb. There should be an option to harvest them, keeping them as a resource off the map. Or just let players build over it and get the bonus like with a regular fucking city center (like in EL?). There's better ways to have randomness than this annoying asterisk of a rule';

'>>1711562
The thing I loved about Civ4 was that you had several strategic level choices you could make about your overall strategy used to win the game. The economic system allowed you to choose your strategy based on your situation. This offered a lot of replay value.

In one game, you might find yourself with lots of green land around you and employ a rapid expansion strategy, spamming cottages everywhere. You fall behind in tech in the early game as your maintenance costs are high, and you need to whip up armies to defend yourself. The early game is a struggle but when you make it to the late game and switch to a free speech/universal suffrage economy, you gain economic dominance and can win a space victory or military victory because you're ahead in tech.

In another game, you might play a philosophical leader with a good capital starting position but not enough room for a large empire. You could settle specialists and build wonders and gain a mid game tech lead. From there, you could push for a cultural victory. Or, depending on the circumstances, you could take that mid game tech lead and turn it into a military edge and try to conquer the world with an advanced army.

In yet another game, you might be playing a military leader and start in shitty land. Your only hope of winning is to take the better land by force - so you go on a rampage in the early game and conquer a huge empire. Doing this, however, puts you behind in tech and your economy is in rough shape. You decide to catch up in tech via espionage and focus on that - stealing technology to gain tech parity with your rivals and using communism, state property, to boost your industrial production and then build a vast military to conquer the rest of the world.


Civ 4 got so many things right. The expansion cost mechanic is still the best of any 4x game ever made. It's so simple and yet it works so well and makes so much intuitive sense.';

'>>1711619
civ 4 predates Steam so if you're judging it by whatever it's doing on Steam, you're retarded.';

'>>1718763

I see your point, but Xcom Ew/EU and Xcom 2 are really good games. They're different from the original but they're very good in their own way. I played Civ 2-4 for over a thousand hours each game and put several hundred into civ 5, which was alright. For the life of me, I can't get into civ 6, at all.';

'>>1727044
It's not a matter of good or bad, it's a matter of "do you want to play a board game or a tycoon game, y/n?"
So if you're coming into nu-Com thinking you're getting a tycoon game, or coming into Civ 6 from SMAC, III, or IV, then you WILL have an extremely bad time.';

'>>1711599
meanwhile I just played by autistically keeping all my forests so I could build lumbermills and national parks and admire my pretty cities in the late game.';

'>>1712672
c2c was made by a literal, clinically diagnosed autist.

He defended his design choices by saying that if you could find a building in a city - be it a McDonalds or a bodega or a tranny strip club - it should also be included in the game. So 90% of the gameplay loop consists of scrolling through literally hundreds of PDX style 5% boost buildings for every city every turn.

Bloat the mod.';

'>>1727041
all of that sounds fine and dandy if you're a noble/monarch player
immortal and deity will beeline you into very specific routes where there's little room for maneuver
on deity, science and culture difficulties are a wet dream, if we're talking random/fractal gens
your most optimal and usually the only route towards victory is tech trading wisely and opting for one of the rushes that are available to you, elephants, horse archers, cuirrasiers, knights/trebs..';

'>>1727267
victories, not difficulties*';

'>>1711565
I miss him, some times I play without BtS just so I can only hear him.';

'>>1727083
>c2c was made by a literal, clinically diagnosed autist.
really need a university education to figure out that one';

'>>1727267
I agree and that's why I don't play 4x games on the highest difficulty. They're not fun anymore because 90% of the game's content is no longer relevant. That's why I liked XCOM so much, because you're fighting an asymetrical war anyway, so giving the AI bonuses didn't make the game unfun. In a 4x game, everyone is supposed to be playing the same game so when the AI gets absurd bonuses in one area and not another, it just means you only have one or two strategies that work against it.

I did beat immortal a couple of times but I had to play in specific ways and there was no strategic flexibility. Also, playing on high difficulty feels like what I do doesn't matter. I could have the most land and pop and spam research labs everywhere but still won't get a tech lead. Some people like it, I don't. To me, the game stops being fun past emperor. Fortunately there are enough games out there that I can just play something else once I get that good.';

'>>1725571
Cool schizo thread';

'>>1725571
>>1725585
kek';

'Sufficiently advanced trolling.';

'>>1727559
you missed the best part';

'>>1726075
If you don't plan out your empire by turn 25 are you really playing Civ?';

'So what do the posters in this thread mean when they are complaining about being boardgamey? You've always been able to play the entire game in your head if you felt like it. Scrolling through this thread it just looks they mean aesthetics. Is this just a indirect way of complaining about hexes? I don't get it. Why not complain about the gameplay instead, there's plenty of problems there.';

'>>1727653
yes, one of the good ones. most civs have loads of contingent choices to the degree where you fill out the details of a general plan as you go. unlike 6, where you start with the details and fill in the general plan over time. completely ass-backwards.';

'>>1727654
It's 'boardgame-y' in that it replaces stuff like social engineering with literal cards for government policies. The fact that they're called 'cards' is what's boardgame-y about it. This isn't a bad thing on its face, in fact the general idea of swapping policies to match your present needs is fine, the issue is that it takes you out of it. You're not playing a game about charting the history of a civilization, you're playing a board game that's history-themed.

Compare SMAC, which was the opposite in its presentation, going so far as to have short interludes that describe some significant event related to the game's plot. If you didn't care about the story of your empire vs the awakening planetary god, this interlude could be considered 'too wordswordswords', which isn't a bad thing on its face either but it isn't what you might want in a game.';

'>>1727508
There's still room to go for off-meta strategies like full religous on immortal, and even to dick around a bit, provided that you play it smartly. Which is fine in my mind. Obviously on the second to hardest to difficulty you shouldn't be able to do just about anything stupid and win.
But yeah deity is another beast.';

'>>1727671
It's not about "just doing anything", it's about how high difficulty skews the game and imbalances it.

Let's look at an example:

In Civ 4, you could expand wide in the early game and focus on cottages, get more land and pop and eventually have a huge economic lead in the late game, provided you could survive the early game. You could use your specialists for academies and some golden ages, etc. This would be a strategy to dominate the late game.

Or, another thing you could do is keep your empire small, focus on specialists, get more science in the early game, and then start bulbing your GP to gain an immediate tech lead. This tech lead would not last. You would need to push your advantage in the moment. You could extent it for a while by trading techs but eventually that would no longer work. You could take advantage of a short term tech lead by reaching a key military tech, like unlocking cuirassiers, and then going on a rampage. Hopefully you could conquer so much land that you would then be competitive for the late game.

Either strategy should work, the game clearly allows you to do either one. They both have pros and cons. If you were playing multiplayer, you could go either way, though what you'd probably do is a mixture of both. The problem is that when playing against AI with handicaps, there is no point in going for strategy one. Strategy two is the only option here. You absolutely cannot have a better economy than the AI over time on high difficulty.';

'>>1727671
>>1727764

cont.

Another example of imbalance is that the AI gets all these cheat/handicap bonuses on higher difficulty but it doesn't actually get any better at fighting and its units aren't any stronger than yours. This is why when you play on high difficulty you usually need to be waging a lot of war to win. This is simply because the AI gets somewhat of an advantage to war but gets a relatively bigger advantage to peace. It skews the balance and it forces you into a specific way of playing.

It's not just Civ 4, you see this in all games. In Warcraft 3, for example, the AI sucked at fighting but you could give it cheat bonuses to its resources. This made playing against the high level AI boring because, again, it skewed the game. Rushing was always the best strategy because you could never get more resources than the AI. If you decided to rush it, then the AI on hard was just as easy to kill as the AI on easy. On the other hand, if you opted to creep and expand you would face a crazy huge army if you were playing against hard AI. (this is what I did because it was fun, but the optimal strategy was always to rush).

You see the same thing in Age of Wonders 3. When you play on a medium difficulty level, you have different options as to what you want to do. You can go for a rogue rush strategy, where you spam scoundrels and rush your opponent in the early game. It can work. Or, you can play as a dreadnought and have a slow early game but become powerful in the late game and dominate that way. On high difficulty, you have no choice. The rogue rush strategy works because you don't give the AI time for its cheat bonuses to kick in. Rogue rushing the highest level AI is exactly the same as rogue rushing the lowest AI, because the actual tactical ability of the AI doesn't change. On the other hand, trying to turtle up as a dreadnought against the highest AI doesn't work well.';

'>>1727671
>>1727764
>>1727769

cont 2.

Even with double the land and much better developed cities, the AI will still outproduce you. You can still win as a turtling dreadnought against emperor AI's, but it will be an extreme challenge and you will probably lose. Compare it to the rogue rush strategy and it's like night and day. Rogue rushing is so easy even against emperor AI's.

This is boring. Rogue rushing is not a superior strategy to dreadnought turtling. Both can work. The problem is that when you give the AI bonuses you only give it bonuses in some areas, not others. The AI's economic output is like tripled on emperor. The starting army? The same. The AI's ability to fight? The same. Thus a rush is no different on easy vs hard because the economic bonus doesn't matter much at that point in the game. But going into the late game vs an AI with a 3x economic cheat is a very bad strategy.

Unfortunately, the skewing of the game just makes it less fun for me because it removes options. Let's look at another example - in Civ 5, you could play as Korea and get bonus science, or you could play as Assyria and get science for killing cities. Both options should be viable and they both are when you just compare them. In a multiplayer game, a person playing Korea would have just as much chance of winning as a person playing Assyria. If I'm Korea and I have the exact same number of cities and pop as you, I should have a tech lead. I can use that to have better units and better defense. The person playing Assyria can also win but it's not like Assyria is better than Korea, it's just different. They need to fight and win wars and get tech that way.

However, when you play against an AI that double food, production, and beaker output, then the Korean bonus doesn't matter. You can play as Korea and have more cities and pop than your opponent and they will always be ahead of you in science. No matter what you do, you will always be behind in science.';

'>>1727671
>>1727764
>>1727769
>>1727773

cont 3.

The Assyrian bonus, however, works well on the highest difficulty level because the AI can't fight for shit, so you can still fight and win wars and you'll get your tech that way. It's not that Assyria is a better civ, it's not. It's just that both civs are fine but on the highest difficulty level, the Korean bonus becomes irrelevant.

You see the same sort of thing happening in Civ 4. You can't just build a stronger economy and be a balance of power player. Of all the strategies in the game, 90% of them become irrelevant when you up the difficulty level.

I suppose you could say the imbalance exists on lower difficulties as well since the AI isn't as good at fighting and therefore winning via conquest is easier than winning via another method. But at least the feels feels more rich when you're playing on a medium-high difficulty as it feels like there are so many options and different things to do. On the highest difficulty you have only a few options. And it's not because those options are inherently better, they aren't. It's not like they're the best in multiplayer. When you're playing against an opponent who just gets double of everything you get, it breaks the game.

It's the common problem of all 4x games and it's why I think I'm getting bored of them. The only way to solve it is with better AI. I think the 4x genre is getting really stale these days. Why do we need to play the same game as the AI? I think the 4x genre needs a shakeup. I loved playing Xcom EU/EW and Xcom 2 on the highest difficulty because it was fun. It didn't feel like it broke the game at all. All strategies were still viable. The computer, my opponent, wasn't playing the same game as I, so it didn't matter if it got bonuses.';

'>>1727671
>>1727764
>>1727769
>>1727777

cont 4

The problem with 4x AI and giving it cheat bonuses when it's supposed to be playing the same game as you is that it breaks the game and it forces you to do things that you wouldn't be doing against an actually good opponent.

Look at chess. Playing chess vs the computer is fun because the computer can just kick your ass and doesn't need to cheat to win. Now, imagine chess AI was like 4x game AI and just sucked ass. Imagine playing chess vs the computer on hard difficulty just meant allowing the computer to cheat. Imagine you had to start with fewer pawns, or the computer got extra pawns, or its rooks moved like queens, or something stupid like that. Would that be fun? The problem with that is that you would no longer be playing chess. All the strategies and interesting openings and stuff that you could think of would not apply to that game because it wouldn't be chess. Playing against a computer that got extra pieces wouldn't necessarily help you get better at actually playing chess. The experience wouldn't transfer very well to playing against human opponents because you would not be playing chess, you'd be playing some weird asymmetrical version of chess. It's not the same game. Like imagine playing vs the computer on hard just meant you had no knights. Is that fun? I'd argue that's not fun. What if you love the knight and it's your favourite chess piece? Now you can't work on any knight strategies.

To me, that's what playing against the cheating computer in a symmetrical game feels like. Giving the computer moderate cheat bonuses is fine because it still feels like the same game, but once the bonuses go off the charts it just becomes absurd and unfun. At least to me. I'd rather learn a new game.

/rant';

'>>1727627
>Everyone that plays it is a man
>Talking about a series with one of the most even gender splits in gaming.';

'>>1727764
>>1727769
>>1727773
>>1727777
>>1727779
tl;dr lol

Pretty good exposition Anon, keep up the good work.';

'>>1727508
you're absolutely right. What I hate the most about immortal and deity in specific, is the fact that they aren't necessarily hard in terms of straining your judgment, knowledge of the game and the ability to calculate properly, but rather, it becomes a tedium of tracking a small myriad of tiny variables just so you can clutch out that small bit of advantage - minor things like delaying your research for the first 5 turns tech discounts, heavily microing your tiles just so you can scratch off one turn from a pivotal tech you need, making sure a particular tile is fogbusted properly etc etc
I view it as a tedium, because it leans more on the side of busywork rather than straining the depths of your strategic ability';

'>>1727764
>>1727769
>>1727773
>>1727777
>>1727779
very insightful posts. I've been ruminating on the same topic for quite a while lately, because I've been trying to get better at both immortal and deity games. Alas, I don't see a solution to this conundrum other than the radical advancements in the way the AI plays and how advanced it is, because simply handing out ridiculous bonuses to even out the playing field is both lazy, stale and most of all - an artificial challenge that results in you playing a different game alltogether, on a more meta level, while the AI is still bogged down with limitations in terms of in-game logic, like how some leaders for example, can't plot while pleased and such, not realizing the greater picture of "game theory".
Maybe one of the solutions here is to "nerf" the player instead in this regard - make him consider the game in terms the AI would by providing proper ingame incentives
As in, spreading your religion is a good example of this - you get a prophet building that benefits from it so you are incentivized to do it in gameplay terms, but simultaneously, the AI also does it because their leaders are coded to do it from the personality factor basis';

'Insightful my ass, it's just an autist sperging out over the simple fact that higher difficulty levels require better play - that you can't make bad decisions and still win.

Which is the fucking point.';

'>>1727993
>higher difficulty levels require better play
Shit take.
As an example, why does the game have wonders at all, if you're not supposed to build them? On Deity, you just don't get to build wonders, especially ancient/classical ones. If you try, you'll waste crucial turns when you could have built infrastructure or military, since you will always get beaten by the AI.
If "good play" is ignoring entire systems in the game, then the game is badly designed.';

'>>1727993
retard
they do not require better play
they require THE ONLY PLAY because due to inherent flaws in the game's balance, some shit will work and some won't
It drastically cuts down your strategical variety on game to game basis and pigeonholes you into a small number of strategies that can work, which leads to repetition and dullness
Like, I know founding a religion is absolutely useless if not detrimental on deity (since you have to burn production to spread it instead of letting the AI do it and then capping holy cities for benefit) and is a needless hassle in most of immortal games, which reduces the amount of playstyles I have available to win the game';

'>>1728005
this is also true and shows how limited your playstyle becomes
in ancient/classical, wonders become a betting game and your odds vary from game to game depending on a shitload of factors
Great Library might be the only one that is semi-guaranteed due to the AI's reluctance to go Aesthetics in favor of Alphabet/Math/Iron (which also makes it a monopoly tech to trade early game, something you can rarely go without on deity games).. but Pyramids, Great Lighthouse, Colossus? It's a gamble that'll cost you the game if it fails, more often than not
And forget that Oracle even fucking exists, even IF you have a perfect spot and leader to rush it. It'll come at such a high expense that your production and expansion won't catch up to the AI';

'>>1728005
>As an example, why does the game have wonders at all, if you're not supposed to build them?
Which difficulty? You'll obviously almost never build a wonder on Deity, but certainly on Immortal.
But even if you can't build wonders, you can put hammers into them for failgold, which allows you to turn 1 hammer into 1-2.5 commerce, depending on if you have the strategic resource for it and whether you're industrious.
And even then, if the AI builds a wonder that you'd like first, you can try to conquer their city.

All that being said, the game is not meant to be exclusively played on Deity difficulty, nor are ALL the wonders unavailable on Deity, so I don't see the point of your complaint when you can just pick a lower difficulty.
It's also the case that most other games played on their highest level will only have a handful of viable tactics left.';

'>>1728022
>they require THE ONLY PLAY because due to inherent flaws in the game's balance, some shit will work and some won't
if all options are equally good there is no meaningful choice. as difficulty increases each sitation will approach having exactly one correct solution.

again you brain-damaged idiot, that is the point of higher difficulty in a turn based game.';

'>>1728043
>as difficulty increases each sitation will approach having exactly one correct solution.
no shit retard
the point of discussion is that it's inherently unfun and tedious
the difficulty should gradually scale with the AI's ability to play the game, not from receiving gibbs and handouts like nigger on foodstamps in downtown Chicago
also, you braindead faggot, there's a big difference between playing optimally with a meaningful choice and playing optimally with a minimal choice - deity on civ 4 is the latter
And when the game, as demonstrated, cuts out a vast portion of its content due to it not being optimal and viable (like lol, who has ever used fucking serfdom policy above Noble), then it's a matter of lousy design';

'just install the better AI mod and play lower difficulty where it cheats less but still is "smart"';

'>>1727654
There are two different types of justifications for a game mechanic. There are "simulationist" justifications, where the mechanic attempts to directly represent something that exists in reality; and then there are more "boardgamey" justifications, which vaguely wave at reality if they bother at all, and the important thing is that it provides interesting choices that deepen the decision-making of the game. It's basically the difference between American-style board games and Euros.

Civ has always straddled the line between the two (if you want a deeper simulation of history, you'd play a grand strategy game instead), but most of the new mechanics in Civ 6 lean further in the boardgamey direction. The city district system is interesting and makes for interesting choices, but there's nothing "real" about it. You're never going to find "this city abuts a conveniently-shaped mountain range, and that's why it became the premier center for scientific discovery" in a history book. It barely even makes sense (telescope observatories? hermits meditating?). The upside is that the gameplay is interesting. The downside is that it hurts the impression that you are guiding an actual "history could have happened this way" civilisation, and at some point you see through the illusion and realise that you're just moving numbers between different resource piles.';

'>>1728048
Thinker AI of SMAC do makes the game much harder, if I'm not paying attention I'll get my ass kicked fairly. But it exposes that the civ 2 model of ICS is fucking shit. Everyone spams city by 4x4 grid and then every war will be a grind. Including Morgan who logically by game design should do that but by lore shouldn't.';

'>>1728046
>the point of discussion is that it's inherently unfun and tedious
You haven't demonstrated how it's "inherently" unfun and tedious, though?
>the difficulty should gradually scale with the AI's ability to play the game
The developers of this game literally went on a GDC talk to explain why they specifically avoided this.
They wanted AIs that the player can manipulate to his will and create actual personalities, while still presenting a challenge.
Whereas you want everyone to become a generic chess opponent who plays to win.
Think of Civ 4 opponents less like other players and more like NPCs.
>there's a big difference between playing optimally with a meaningful choice and playing optimally with a minimal choice - deity on civ 4 is the latter
Deity absolutely has "meaningful" choices. Just go watch any Lain video where he gets extremely unlucky, gets cornered by 2 AIs, is extremely behind in tech, yet still manages to squeeze out a victory by adapting to the situation.
>cuts out a vast portion of its content due to it not being optimal and viable
Then you go on to name the one only civic that is undebatedly bad. How fucking dishonest.
And no, serfdom DOES have a niche use, for spiritual leaders, e.g. temporarily transitioning into a different economy like workshop spamming a bunch of newly conquered city that have fuck all for cottages.';

'>>1728166
Oh, not to mention, serfdom is especially useful for spamming railroads after the tech is unlocked, since you want that extra hammer and extra movementspeed ASAP.';

'>>1728166
>Excuse me sir why is the AI in your game so terrible at playing?
>uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh we did that on purpose because it's more fun
yeah';

'>>1728207
This but unironically.';

'What's your favorite civilization to play as? It has been a long time since I played civilization 4 and truth be told I have never played on higher difficulties, but I always liked Portuguese the most. Especial on archipelago maps since you get a leg-up in colonization thanks to carrack. Joao II also had a fine traits if I say so.';

'>>1728215
The point that 4X AIs are terrible that have to be buttressed by absurd bonuses to be difficult is one that applies to all sorts of strategy games, but Civ 4 is kind of a bad example because the Deity AI isn’t absurdly difficult because of those bonuses, it’s all a result of the tech trading system throwing the pacing of tech progress out of whack.

I maintain that every game of Civ 4 should be played with tech trading off, as that strictly improves the experience with no downsides.';

'>>1728281
Shit I was replying to >>1728046 my bad';

'>>1728281
tech trading makes the game easier, not harder';

'>>1728322
Nah, at the beginning it’s the same but tech trading is what allows the AI to absolutely blitz through the Classical and Medieval techs with zero effort and ensures that nearly every AI opponent is equally overpowered instead of just the select few that benefitted from a good start. In any case, tech trading is the reason Deity play is so inflexible because your only option to do anything is to exploit the AI for favorable trades, and most of the efficacy of the exchanges is almost entirely out of your hands. If your trading partners hate you cause of peace weights or because you denied a request or even if one of the AIs decides now is the day to rush Aesthetics then you’re just kinda shit out of luck because if you don’t trade with the AI, they’ll trade with each other just as well.

No tech trading may make the game “harder” in the sense that you have no crutch mechanic to catch up to runaway AIs, but it also means less successful AIs can’t really catch up either, which potentially gives you a lot more room to breath and to exploit them in other ways. And even runaway AIs can’t win the game nearly as quickly with tech trading off so you have more time to get the snowball rolling and pursue alternative late game win conditions.

Of course sometimes the runaway AI is the one next to you and they have no qualms sending a doomstack to just kill you, but that’s the punches you have to roll with when playing on the literal highest difficulty.';

'>>1727779
>>1727777
>>1727773
>>1727769
>>1727764';

'>>1728215
Aztec. Whipping and Jaguars. Time to put every neighbor on edge';

'>>1725590
And it seems slower. And more restrictive compared to Civ IV.';

'>>1728281
Tech trading is super gay because when one AI researches a tech suddenly everybody has it. Except you.';

'>>1728166
>You haven't demonstrated how it's "inherently" unfun and tedious, though?
It's been explained above and mostly refers to the busywork of micromanaging city screen yields
You'd know how tedious deity can get if you actually played on that level and didn't resort to watching your betters do it, but that's ok
>The developers of this game literally went on a GDC talk to explain why they specifically avoided this.
I don't care. You can have your cake and eat it too in this scenario - as in, you can have an AI gradually increasing in its competence while retaining unique inclinations and focuses towards achieving its victory
Civ 4 AI determining its victory condition is notoriously bad and focuses on flavor and score only most of the time - this is again, a well known fact if you're a proficient civ 4 player
>Deity absolutely has "meaningful" choices.
I guess it would seem that way to a novice. Most deity victories are domination/conquest for a reason - because ultimately, you are railroaded towards war as the primary means of winning the game
>And no, serfdom DOES have a niche use, for spiritual leaders
Chieftain player detected. You're literally better off running literally anything else, even for upkeep purposes, than using serfdom lmao
and serfdom is just an example to show an intrinsic imbalance of choices - slavery too is an example, of how it's an inevitable and optimal choice for every game - regardless of civ, map or difficulty. To whip well equals doing well in civ 4
it's not rare for game not to even reach emancipation stage or for you to have a combo of civs/wonders/religion to utilize caste system';

'>>1728281
>because the Deity AI isn’t absurdly difficult because of those bonuses
wrong
they get absurd discounts on everything and the free starting techs allow them to snowball with early expansion
AI's can easily shit out 6 cities before they even have alphabet, while you're barely on your third
tech trading just helps them later on';

'>>1725590
AI is so retarded I managed to cripple one (on Deity on my first run no less), by parking a warrior outside of its city and regularly killing settlers.';

'>>1728472
>It's been explained above and mostly refers to the busywork of micromanaging city screen yields
Citizen micro-management is literally the best part of Civ 4 and what prevents you from snoozing off during peace times.
It's what seperates a good player from a casual player.
>Civ 4 AI determining its victory condition is notoriously bad and focuses on flavor and score only most of the time
That's... literally what I said. The AI plays to roleplay, not to win.
Again, you should be treating the AI like an NPC that you can manipulate, not an elite-level AoE 2 AI on the highest difficulty.
Having Mansa Musa as your neighbor will demand a different playstyle than having Hannibal as your neighbor.
These scenarios create variety and their unwillingness to win creates an entirely new experience.
>Most deity victories are domination/conquest for a reason - because ultimately, you are railroaded towards war as the primary means of winning the game
Yes, but everything around the war, like preparation, trade, settling a new city, deciding to build new improvements, diplomacy, all these things present meaningful choices.
Also, a good number of deity wins are also diplomatic victories. Again, watch Lain videos to find out.
>You're literally better off running literally anything else, even for upkeep purposes, than using serfdom
Nope, a spiritual leader switching to serfdom is very situational, but it is viable and has been done on archived deity games on CivFanatic, before.
>slavery too is an example, of how it's an inevitable and optimal choice for every game - regardless of civ, map or difficulty.
Slavery is very powerful, but slavery in itself adds a whole another dimension of strategy to the game, so I find it acceptable.
Food tiles would be pretty useless without slavery.
You usually temporarily switch to caste system to get great people out for beelines, or to work workshops after chemistry & state property.';

'>>1728281
Oh yeah I turned off tech trading a long time ago and never looked back. I also played with Kmod where you would get a small amount of tech cost reduction when you had trade routes with civs that had tedhs you did not. It made things a little more interesting.';

'>>1728372
So I'm guessing you rush iron working and spam Jaguars? Jaguar always seemed to me like a weird uu since it has lower strength that the unit it replaces. Of course it's 5 hammers cheaper, you don't have to relay on iron spawn which is nice and it get a free woodman promotion, but it's still a downgrade in term of offensive.';

'>>1728648
Yeah Jaguars are probably pretty underpowered but its a funny little thing to do.';

'>>1728474
Let me put it this way, tech trading off games are harder to win because you don’t have a bullshit catchup mechanic to abuse the AI with. At the same time, there are many more viable strategies and avenues to victory because you aren’t pigeonholed into abusing said bullshit mechanic to win.
YMMV as to what you prefer but I obviously find the latter to make for far more interesting games.';

'>>1728648
I think jags are fine units in and of themselves. Their main drawback is requiring iron working, which is not the cheapest tech in the early game. Since they require IW, you're not likely to get them before your target has strategics hooked up. For choking purposes I'd rather have an impi or even a holkan. Dog soldiers work, too.

Still, I've had some fun doing jag rushes. Only on emperor and below, though. I'd never try it on immortal.';

'>>1728926
Without tech trading I feel like diplomacy is a bit lacking in options (although I tend to play with no vassals as I don't really like that mechanic.)';

'is colonizing early in terra maps worth it
t. poortugal';

'>>1728992
Colonizing before astronomy trade routes is not woth it. Whick makes the portuguese unique unit not only useless but detrimental.';

'>>1723973
I think they actyally tried something along withe a thought of "a fun AI" with the AI incentives but it ended up being doubly retarded with with ragnar dissing your landlocked civ for not having a navy. And even if you had a navy it would be very counter-intuitive for a navally oriented civ to like someone with a navy. Naturally they would like landlocked nations as they would present no competition.';

'>>1729029
Colonizing the new world as Portugal pre astronomy is pretty much the only time that the colony independence mechanic can have any effect on the game. It's still a roleplaying thing to do but remember you can trade with your colony while using mercantilism and you can tell them what to research and then tech trade with them.';

'>>1729295
Oh yeah I kinda forgot tall about he whole releasing of colonies mechanic and holy shit do I hate banking and mercantilism.';

'>>1711562
It's the last one that had some semblance of simulationism that would appeal to certain people. Civ V/VI design choices are too gamey for that sort of playerbase to stick with and so they completely abandoned Civ. Similar to how historyfags abandoned TW.';

'>>1728043
Huh? All options should have circumstances in which they are good or best otherwise why include them in the game?';

'>>1728568
>Citizen micro-management is literally the best part of Civ 4 and what prevents you from snoozing off during peace times.
No lol, not when you have 7+ cities and you constantly need to squeeze as much as possible out of them. It's repetitive and tedious
What separates a good player from a casual player is meta knowledge of the game - especially how and when to tech trade. Every retard can do "OH I CAN HASTEN UP MONARCHY BY ONE TURN IF I SQUEEZE OUT 9 MORE COMMERCE BY MICROING"
You conflate tedium and strategy.
>That's... literally what I said. The AI plays to roleplay, not to win.
Yes? My point is that you can have the AI RP and be better at the game simultaneously. The way Civ 4 AI is set up is, they're just punching bags or bullies because they're coded to be such, not because they perceive a winning condition.
>Yes, but everything around the war, like preparation, trade, settling a new city, deciding to build new improvements, diplomacy, all these things present meaningful choices.
That's like saying using civics presents a meaningful choice - it's a fundamental part of the game. The problem with the game is that you can safely disregard too many choices and tactics in favor of blatantly more optimal combinations.
>Nope, a spiritual leader switching to serfdom is very situational
Yeah, for memes maybe. If your aim is to get the infrastructure up for say - a blitz attack, you're AGAIN better off just doing slavery and whipping out extra units instead. You'll be hard pressed to find serfdom be useful even in 1 out of a 100 games and that's bad game design
>Slavery is very powerful, but slavery in itself adds a whole another dimension of strategy to the game, so I find it acceptable.
I wish there were more alternatives, because something being a no-brainer pick forms a meta and there being meta takes away from the strategic aspect of it all';

'>>1727042
Nobody plays their physical copies anymore lol - they got scratched, lost, etc. Even the few physical disks I still own that still work I have simply rebought the game on Steam/GOG.';

'>>1733075
I still use my physical copy of Civ4 complete edition';

'>>1733093
also unlike civ5/6 it has Complete Edition released on GOG you can buy for pennies';

'>>1731119
you're conflating [option A is correct in situation X, option B is correct in situation Y] with [in situation X option A is optimal]';

'Fall from Heaven II and dozens of other mods. i wouldn't touch this game with its kiddy models otherwise. unmodded it is forgettable goyslop.
Every civ after 4 was unmoddable and thus goyslop for subhumans. Civ 3 was the last good vanilla civ.';

'>>1727042
>civ 4 predates Steam
you fucking piece of shit zoomer.

>>1733075
this has to be a troll post.';

'>>1733014
>You conflate tedium and strategy.
I didn't say it was strategic, I said that optimizing your cities keeps you busy when you'd otherwise keep pressing end turn.
It doesn't become very tedious, either, unless if you're already winning.
>My point is that you can have the AI RP and be better at the game simultaneously.
No. The reason many people like Civ 4 is that the AI /doesn't/ play to win. This makes every leader's personality more profound. "Playing better" is anti-thetical to that.
But at this point we're not talking about objective game quality.
You just prefer an opponent who tries to win, and I prefer the NPC-like approach that Civ 4 chose.
>The problem with the game is that you can safely disregard too many choices and tactics in favor of blatantly more optimal combinations.
It's a relatively minor problem because the choices the games does give you still provide you with a challenge, unlike future Civs.
>Yeah, for memes maybe.
nope
>and there being meta takes away from the strategic aspect of it all
Yet Civ 4 is left with enough strategic depth to majorly challenge even the best Civ 4 players on deity.';

'>>1733345
>I said that optimizing your cities keeps you busy when you'd otherwise keep pressing end turn.
Hey, if constantly swapping out tiles is your idea of fun, go at it. I'd prefer that the player wastes his turn thinking the greater strategy behind it, rather than tedious micro optimization deity is notorious for
>No. The reason many people like Civ 4 is that the AI /doesn't/ play to win.
No, they like it because there are still many aspects to the way AI plays and it can indeed still challenge the very best in the world, on its higher difficulties. You present a false dilemma - again, the AI can have biases and leanings with an understanding of winning conditions. Slapping ridiculous bonuses on a largely RP AI is a lazy band-aid, not a design choice
If it truly was a design choice, they wouldn't code AI to march and attack you half across the globe because you failed an opinion dice roll. It's ridiculous
>It's a relatively minor problem because the choices the games does give you still provide you with a challenge
It depends on how you look at it. I'd prefer an AI who is able of calculating the weak spots in my empire and striking with precision and out of opportunity, not brute forcing its way with 10 gorillion troops printed out via 10 gorillion artificial bonuses that I have but a handful of choices to counter with
>nope
I mean, we've already established you can only watch and not play. Truly, only a chieftain player would claim that serfdom is of any use whatsoever, beyond that 1 absurdly specific scenario that happens in roughly 1 out of 100 games
>Yet Civ 4 is left with enough strategic depth to majorly challenge even the best Civ 4 players on deity.
Not really, no. I again refer to my argument that most victories end up being conquest or domination which pidgeonholes you into choosing between a few viable rushes depending on your position and circumstances.
It could be so much more, but some things simply aren't viable on deity';

'>>1733107
No, you're the one who can't follow a conversation. The entire complaint was that only a few options are viable no matter what the circumstances when you play on deity.';

'>>1733338
Are you retarded? It does predate steam so using steam metrics like the use of mods on steam is not a good measurement of the modding community. Dial down your autism.';

'Does anyone play with random events left on? How do you deal with slave revolts?';

'>>1734353
Kill the pop. It's pretty simple.';

'>>1711562
Civ4 was decent but Civ3 was where the series really hit its stride. Stone Age spear chuckers shredding my tanks while I'm smashing the keyboard. Good times.';

'I love, love, love the look and sound of Civ 4. It's maximum comfy. The zoomed out globe view, the zoomed in music, the units yawning, etc. Stuff like that just oozes charm.

But I'm finding the gameplay rather tedious. You're constantly accumulating units. You never stop accumulating units and occasionally whipping them out with slavery. It feels like I'm running a factory.

Still, the game is so damn comfy. I want to get good at it.';

'My biggest problem with Civ 4 is the low movement. 1 movement for most melee, 2 for most horse units.';

'>>1735189
You make it sound like organizing armies in Civ4 is somehow Vicky2 tier but at least on land you can just mass move everyone easily. What I hate the most is the combat being so ridiculously driven by RNG. Two death stacks meeting pretty much have a single RNG roll standing between a stalemate or one side crippling the other. Civ5 making it so that combat wasn't always to the death was definitely a better way to do things';

'>>1711562
Best design, atmosphere, music, and gameplay.';

'>>1735455
The RNG is fine for doom stack situations since you get more rolls. You can make an estimate of what portion of your army will survive if you commit to an attack, you just can't guarantee which unit exactly will live and die. The system only sucks in early game situations where, given enough games, you'll sometimes lose one-on-one against a stray barbarian and lose a city at 5% odds.

>Civ5 making it so that combat wasn't always to the death was definitely a better way to do things
Keeping units alive through micro feels nice but it's part of the reason the AI is so easy in that game, it can't micro. Civ 4 forces you to take calculated risks and make sacrifices which often stings but I kind of like it more.';

'>>1736399
>You can make an estimate of what portion of your army will survive if you commit to an attack
Me to half my stack that's nothing but Swordsmen with City Raider';

'So what are the best mods that aren't total conversions?';

'>>1734166
>It does predate steam
Steam released two years before Civ 4, you could have done a simple internet search before making this embarrassing projection-filled post';

'>>1736650
K-mod probably';

'>>1738163
pretty sure advanced civ is newer version of kmod and maintained even to this day
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/advanced-civ.614217/
anyway he should check modpacks and various mods on this site';

'>>1738127

and was civ 4 available on steam when it came out? No? That's right, it wasn't. Was anyone even using steam before Dota 2? No? That's right, no one had even heard of it.';

'>>1738166
does advanced civ have the Kmod balance changes, though? I actually liked the small balance changes, like lumbermills coming earlier. I also liked the global warming system because it made happiness important in the late game. Without global warming, happiness becomes trivial in the late game.';

'>>1741204
i think it has a lot of them but changes/adds to/removes some of them. it's got an autistic 600 page long manual that explains every change and specifically pages 13-15 describes any changes to kmod balance changes';

'>>1711562
>Civilization III
>What made Civ 3 so special that people designate it as the cut-off point from when the series started declining?
FTFY';

'>>1718841
This board game was actually really good. Better than the sequel game that came out imo. Although the sequel had an interesting game mechanic I've never seen in a board game and strictly-speaking looked much better';

'>>1727844
Anon, I have this awesome bridge to sell you, great deal, I have many buyers you're missing out';

'>>1711562
6 is better';

'>>1741270
>produce highest attack unit or settlers and found cities 2 squares diagonally apart: the game
The only reason for prefering III over IV is being an ironic hipster who hasn't really played either or literal, severe autism with particular love for repetetive tasks and III just happened to be the first one you tried and hyperfixated on.';