Civilization

Can you give any reasons why civ 1 is objectively better?

Not a bad joke but the game is very poorly designed and there's no getting around the 1UPT thing, even with the ability to stack units eventually.

I really want a civ game where you can romance the AI controlled civ leaders

Christ, that should be a bannable offense.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

3 will always be my favorite because I grew up with it. I still think it did diplomacy better than any game after it, and having a whole bunch of ways to win without warmongering unlike its predecessors was really fun to play around with. I don't know if it's objectively the best, but it's certainly the one that appeals to me the most.

The majority of this website has shit and casual tastes.

im more surprised anyone actually voted for beyond earth.

Its strawpoll, its automatically shit and any one faggot can easily vote multiple times.

It really is a shame.

I would use something else but I cant remember the polling website that hotwheels used to use.

What awesome tits you have, you greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreat grandmother my dear.

Byzantine, Duh

poal.me

poal.me

III because it had the best art direction and music

Thank you very much. New and improved poll right here.
poal.me/17f0jj

Master of Magic

Civ 2 was the best one though I heard 4 might be I didn't play that one.

Actually Freeciv default ruleset is very improved version of Civ 2, with city borders, workers, rebalance to get rid of smallpox and so on.

...

Endless Legend

3-way tie between III, IV, and Alpha Centauri.

Only good thing about the game are Tin's music and bringing back concept of national parks. Everything else is bad, with historical inconsistencies to leaders being especially bad and easy to fix. For example, Jadwiga should be a teeanger or a loli instead of a woman over 30. At least it's not as bad as France or making Cleopatra look ugly and nothing like a Greek.

...

And yet I love that. I even played Civ4 with 3UPT when the mod allowed for it.

And Call to Power or Colonization don't even deserve a honorary mention? Faggot.

...

Crap, I keep forgetting that it was a standalone game. I tend to lump it with Civ IV.

I didn't like it as much as iii, iv, AC, and colonization.

for a Spaniard, she's got some really pink nipples.

Why would you mix a game that released in 1994 with CiV4? I will bully you if you're talking about Civilization IV: Colonization

...

What game is that on your image?

Katawa shoujo

...

Bad ratz

I believed it at first, but then I saw it was just a meme. This is like the third link or something.
knowyourmeme.com/memes/bad-rats

Its Boku no Pico

Epic memes. The name of this song is darude sandstorm, am I right?

Keep that shit out

Because original Colonization wasn't a part of civ franchise from what I remember, and I never could get into pre-Alpha Centauri civ games.
Pls no

i didnt know i needed this in my life, but now i want more of it

I tried that shit once and I had pirates with muskets attacking me in 1st century and the AI had fucking engineers sometime between the 3rd-5th century.

I don't remember that happening in my games, did I miss some diplomatic option

this is new to me, but I like it

as for the question, CIV best ever,
and modded, no questions asked

Even goddamn wikipedia got that one right. Let that sink in. And where do you get off shitting on even VI when you apparently never played the golden age of Civs?B-But muh 4! Yeah, fuck off. A man's not a man unless he killed at least a year's worth of time on Civ2 custom scenarios

Sage

Cook the rice, pay the price. Fuck off, faggot.

I will once I understand what the joke is. I just dont fucking get it.

Colonization is better than all the mainline games, Alpha Centauri is close but it's far too up its own ass.

ill cook your rice faggot lmao.

Embrace meme diversity

I can't tell if the goyim know or not

Civilization VI also suffers from enforced diversity and making the games bare bones and releasing the rest of the content as DLC.

4 is the last real Civ game anyway.

Although I do get a laugh out of how bad 6 is. Even the devs seem embarrassed.

Toppest of Keks
There's something about Civ VI that just doesn't make me want to play it. I don't know if it's the presentation, the UI or the fact that it's even more streamlined than other Civ games.

Goiym know, but they don't care. They think that whatever Jews are doing, politicians and journalists do as well, so the threat to them is nullified.

The price of having a healthy marriage with a nice wife anywhere but the USA due to its corrupting nature and estrogen in the water turning men into cucks and women into frigid bitches?
Or jealous white ""women"" knowing they can't compete?

Call to power had the best nuke system (SMAC had the second best because of the terrain deformation and general destructiveness. I'd love to see a game combine them).

Sure is summer.

5 is best though fuck off normolfaggot

More than 6 games and they still refuse to hire anyone who knows how to or to learn how to make decent AI. Their head developer gave a bunch of "It's haaaaaard" excuses too. He came to my uni once to give a speech and be a general prick. There was a related Bad AI thread but I dunno if it's been pruned yet. I personally like 5 because you can't stack units but if not for the abysmal AI and it's cheating I would say 3. It's been proven that in 3 if you don't use gimmicks or play on easymode you can't win because it cheats so much. Maybe if you play a 1v1 duel you could but with 4-6 opponents all cheating like madmen it isn't going to happen. Never played any other than 3 and 5 (with all DLC.)
My main determinant for these types of games is AI quality so IMO from what I know they're all shit.

The music is always one of the best features of a Civilization game, I'm glad atleast they haven't skimped on it.

that can't be a real post

degenerates the lot of you

I only ever played Civ 5.

I also fell for the Beyond Earth meme and hate myself for it

On half/v/ we played a lot of IV in the months until V released, we even had a modpack with custom civilizations. Then V released and everyone got pissed off.

Civ 4 with Fall From Heaven

4 modded is better, its probably the best in the entire franchise due to their opening of the SDK, basically made it possible to improve on the very core gameplay elements

newmenium faggots

Cant handle the trurth hothead

what is this

that was actually a free camera mode included in the game, only needing a ini setting switch,
pretty cool but unplayable that way, still result of good game development

that was a mod, included with BtS mind you, that sort of turns to shame any recent speess 4x game

Yeah, because having two Greek civs with zero differences and fucking Australia instead of Abbos makes such an appealing game. Please excuse me while I go play Endless Legends.

The best Civilization game is IV (especially with Rhyes and Fall).
The best "Civilization" game is Alpha Centauri.

This isn't really debatable.

I preferred civ 3 tbh

Retards everywhere

this is going to be another one of those "my taste is better, your taste is shit" threads ain't it?

...

...

There are poeple who are voted V instead of IV… I just can't even anymore…

they are newmeniums, people who start playing gaems after 2000s
fucking disgusting what they are, turning 18 now
we shall reap their females

I think I liked pretty much every game on that list. For various reasons.
I mean, 5 was not really a "good civ game" but it had it's moments and the aesthetics were midly pleasant for instance.
I think the only I didn't like was Beyond Earth. More of the same, aestethically speaking, but covered in horrid, horrid gameplay. Also had the single worst 4x AI I've ever seen.
Now repeat this 7 times until he was down to his capital. Noone of the other 6 players were declaring war or DOING ANYTHING so I just razed the city hoping to provoke them with the "WARMONGER" penalty.
Sure enough, 2 guys declare war at the same time
Repeat a dozen times again for each of their cities. It was fucking pathetic.

How is this a discussion? If anyone has doubts, fire up Alpha Centauri again. It still holds up and better than modern Civ.
Hard pick between it and Civ 4, but the way The Planet works is a mechanic you just don't have in Civ 4 and it adds a TON of charm and possibilities to the game.

Have you tried playing on something other than prince? I'm not saying he gets smarter but he sure as hell sends more than 3-4 units at you.

You do realise that a lot of people didn't play on PC when they were younger, yes?
The fuck is a newmenium even? I understand new, but menium? What

It's like you tried to fuse the words "millenial" and "nu-male" and it just doesn't work. Millenial would've worked just fine.

In any case, Alpha Centauri is the best. CIV comes a close second.

It's like menium but new. :^) Since when do consolefags count as people?

Are you making this up to bait me?

IV is the best but III had some novel features I wish they woulda kept.

III also had the best soundtrack.

How about you stop projecting and educate yourself?

God this brings back memories.I need to reinstall Civ III.

Alright user you got me good, you win this one

you just proved to be a bunch of young entitled faggots
here is lengthy explanation why:

original civ released 1990, till 2000s civ 2 and 3 and AC came along, thus, only really old faggots lived to enjoy it at the time,
to give a perspective, this was windows 95 and 98…. XP was a luxury
I played then, but was a bit too young to appreciate and understand (even when english wasn't my primary language),
but still I played the heck out of 3 and AC on its time

fast forward 4 years later came Civ4, it was a fucking wonder being 3d and all, computers were having more than 64 Mbits of memory and were doing wonders,

4 reigned strong as the supreme 4x game for a heck of a long time, with expansion and all, they released the SDK and the community went wild with mods, that was the golden age of Civ, soon after came 5 with all that modern graphics, hex grid, 1upt revolution

needless to say it was a big shock in the community, Civ5 only grew more popular drawing new blood to the franchise in following years
so even thought there is only a 5 year gap between games and expansions (consulting wiki now), there is a generational gap between 4 and 5,
4 being close to the 2000s old fags millennials, while 5 closer to the young fags who started playing gaems from 2010 and never played another civ before

I'll admit I got baited into buying civ5 after it got all in bundle discount, and even then I regret it,
tried to like the game, but it falls really short in comparison with 4, and what I've said before, the modding is what makes 4 special, so you can have awesome stuff like Revolutions and Planet Fall (AC clone)

and just to close it up, since 80s to 2000s fags are called millennials for some reason, I thought I call newmeniums then ones after 2000s, in honor of Newman,
and the fact that you all lost that reference proves how new you are

just to give a reference, I was around 16 with Civ3, I've recently found the original manual of the game brought at the time
even though I pirated fuckin everything else

fuck yeah, 3 was awesome, loved that shit, good recall on the music
and since you brought it up, let me ramp up the nostalgia

what

What's the best Civilization mod and why is it Fall From Heaven 2?

was by far the most polished, expansion alike of the horde, it included all the great stuff, like revolution, bug, better AI, legends

but there was a fuckton of good stuff, I remember Rise and Fall, Community Civ V, and recently found about Realism Invictus, and that was pretty comfy too

Alpha Centauri is objectively the best civ game. It's not even a question.

bump for young faggots!
anybody, thoughts on GalCiv? big sale on steam

bump

Look I liked IV, but I can play V on Linux without a lot of trouble, so I appreciate that.

What I really want is Civ Rev 2 with mods someday.

These gifs are fucking shitty.

I just couldn't get as much into IV. I couldn't stand how the AI could refuse to let you ask for certain things, but you couldn't do the same to them. I also never had all the expansions, so that probably didn't help. I liked how with the governments in III you had to compromise, take the bad with the good. You couldn't just choose to have the economic bonus and low corruption of Democracy low corruption for democracy lmao but also get the unit support from fascism.

Don't get me wrong, IV is a great game, but it's just not quite as fun as III was in my opinion.

At least one person knows.

Not sure why FFH2 was so great but I spent thousands of hours on it in my youth.

Would Master of Magic also count?

I remember reading some huge blogpost on Holla Forums about how Civ III and IV fixed a lot of problems from former iterations and V just shat all over them to be "unique". Are those features among the removed ones?

Understand, V is a huge departure from what IV aimed to be, from a fundamental design perspective.

The most obvious was how they approached expansion. In IV, you were constrained by a soft cap, based on maintenance, which increases exponentially the more cities you have. It forces you to make choices and when and where to expand, in the early-mid phase of the game, because uncontrolled expansion will dramatically cut down your research. However, ultimately, you're still encouraged to expand because a larger empire means more hammers/coins/beakers. Classic 4X stuff.

In V however, they went with the aim of making "tall" empires viable. To do that, they basically punished the player for expanding. Scaling science costs (IV also had this, but it was pretty small, and easily outweighed by your superior city output), global happiness, "warmonger penalties" and shit like making buildings all cost gold to maintain. It is not uncommon to end the game with just six cities, because that's the "optimal" amount. This was a radical depature from the previous philosophy of encouraging players to eXpand. The very concept of tall vs wide is a concept I absolutely detest in this game.

The second was the boardgame approach they took to V. In IV, the game focused on the macro scale of things like logistics, industrial production and strategic decisions, and combat was mostly abstracted away, as with the previous games. V however, got this bright idea that combat has to be "tactical", and that it should play out like in a boardgame. The end result was a horrific mishmash of a tactical wargame layer, on top of a strategic layer (and combined with the retarded decision for 1upt), which the AI couldn't even cope and would often spaz out. Logistics and production became less important, maneuvering your units around became a thing you have to do. The end result was a shallow tactical battle system, and a shallow strategic system.

Oh and look, I guess I wrote a wall anyway. There's a lot more wrong with V, but I guess I covered the two fundamental problems I had with it.