/civ4xg/ - Civilization, Stellaris, Endless and 4X Games General

Right. I am still trying to get a hang out Civ 6. I just started playing it. Seems like production and districts are really good this time. Is going wide the best method?

yes always

Does /civ4xg/ like Civ VI now?

Always to which?

your only question?

>You can make a pasture for horses
>But you still can't ride them even though you've domesticated them

Nani the masaka?

Not really.

Horseback riding I presume doesn't include bareback riding.

Pasture is for horse meat.

>eating horses
What the fuck.

What if Civ had victories where nobody loses?

Sounds gay

>le justifiable genocide meme

Is Civ 6 worth buying?
Can you patch the game if you pirate it?

How does one pirate DLC for Stellaris? I'm not paying those ludicrous prices.

>he's not a shamanistic steppe nomad living only on salty horse meat and raiding greenlanders

>research wheels
>make war chariots without horses

Sounds very American.
>Is Civ 6 worth buying?
Only if in discount. I would wait for some DLC's and buy a complete pack on discount if you can be patient.
You make niggers pull the carts.

Where can I find the DLC for CK2 while you are at it.

I want to know too
Should I just torrent this shit?

Which ethos is best ethos /civ4xg/ ?

Whichever one you like/gives you the coolest toys.

I think you should ask at /gsg/ for that dlc. But ever since the steamgroup idiots got the archive removed I don't know for certain they will have it.

Is Ascendancy good as far as space strategy games go?

>it's an American episode

>victory
>where nobody loses
u wot m8

Not him but that's technically already the case. A space victory doesn't entail 'losing' on the part of anyone else.
The same way there can be losers without winners, there exist winners without losers.
I'm not sure, though, what exactly he means. If it was one of those 'race to space' games then it'd probably work out fine if the guy who 'won' the space victory just disappears or something since they're off to Barnard's Star or some shit, but I can't really think of any other way. Diplomatic Victory I guess doesn't have any real losers either. In theory. It's what Firaxis would think, at least.

The other civs still lose if you get space victory you fucking retard by the mere fact someone has achieved a victory

Does this mean I have the DLC enabled?

No, you have to re-buy them again, to support the starving swedes.

That's untrue though, and I'm not him.
I have no fucking idea what he's talking about or what he's suggesting, but 'winning without creating losers' is basically the entire idea of all the victory types besides Conquest and maybe Religious as theoretically nobody is worse off and people may actually be better off for it happening. Losers without winners is the entire concept of MAD, despite the idea that hey maybe you're not TOTALLY destroyed.
Furthermore I just fucking suggested if he meant something like a race for second place however retarded that may sound, because personally it is kind of bumfuck stupid sounding that you somehow 'lose' to a rocket setting up on Alpha Centauri, even if you proceed to dominate the entire globe within a few months of the rocket lauch.

Yeah, the UI is pretty unclear about it

If someone wins the game the rest are by fucking default, losers

>I refuse to read the post
>I refuse to see that the first poster was obviously asking for some changes in the mechanics and how victory is calculated
>I'm going to be asspained instead of understanding that I'm not actually on his side and simply saying that in reality, the conditions of the space victory isn't creating losers because nobody is actually getting hurt
It's the logic behind Kumagawa being the eternal loser, because it's not about whether or not he technically won the competition but that literally everyone ends up worse for it, himself included. Same shit with a 'victory without losers'.
I'm talking about the terminology and essentially arguing semantics. Stop being a kneejerking imbecile.

In the game there can be only one winner making your whole argument pointless

Is there a crack for the patch for Civ 6?

>in the game
First of all, there are plenty of games without winners, even in Strategy. For one, all of the Paradox games except the Hearts of Iron series completely lack winners, even in World Conquest.
Second of all, I'm not actually talking about the game, if you haven't fucking realized, but noting that there actually isn't a 'loser' in Space Victory, just people who failed to explicitly win. This, as opposed to Religion or Domination victories, where if you lose, you actually fucking lost.

>isn't a 'loser' in Space Victory, just people who failed to explicitly win.
>in a game where there can be only one winner
>not winning doesn't automatically mean you're a loser
Sounds like you're a cuck, go get your participation medal

Let's make this clear - in strategy, a 'loser' generally denotes someone, who, you know, actually fucking lost something. A winner is someone who actually fucking won something. People who are neither are bystanders.
Get out of your gayman mentality, I'm literally not talking about the game right now.
If the United States of America launched a rocket tomorrow to Mars, does that mean everyone else lost? They probably lost the space race, sure, but not necessarily anything else, and almost certainly didn't lose anything they actually had instead of just 'future potential'. Compare that to the idea of the US going haywire and somehow conquering everyone on the globe, where, while the US also definitely won (unless they fall apart trying to administer it), everyone else actually lost everything.

>cuck
>using cuck unironically

In the settings and confines of a VIDEO game where 'winning' means being first to one of a set of objectives, and not being first means you agreed to lose then yes. If all nations of the world met at the UN tomorrow and said "Guys the first person to settle Mars wins best country award" and they all agree to it then YES objectively that means that everyone but the first did not win thus they lose.

Simply copying the DLC from a torrent into Stellaris/dlc/ seems to have done the job.

The definition of loser is not 'he who did not win', you idiot, and I already fucking told you I am not talking about the game. Can you not read?

I want swede cuckolds to leave. You have to tend rapefugees anyway, why the fuck are you slacking?

That's correct, it's one of the only redeeming qualities of Paradox's business model.
While DLC spamming is retarded and CK2 isn't worth 250 dollars or whatever the fuck it is now, it certainly is worth the base price of around 40 and you get years of support, free patches and content packs, the ability to enable and disable those content packs and change your game version to previous ones if you dislike the new changes, and even a relatively in-depth modding solution for the low low price of the release tag.

>waaah I can't fucking read and was exposed as a retard so I'm going to call people cuckolds in the hope that they'll cry and stop bullying me ;_;

Calm down faggots.

Anyone where who has tried Dawn of Andromeda?

Just noticed the game on Steam today.

Seems to be some kind of Stellaris, SoaSE, MOO mix of game.

store.steampowered.com/app/427570/

You're literally just arguing semantics because you refuse to acknowledge someone who didn't win as someone who lost. Imagine how silly you would look out in the real world having this discussion.

>imagine how silly
I wouldn't look silly at all, because there is an actual distinction made between 'not winning' and 'losing' in the real world and there always has been. Losing means you've actually, you know, lost something. Winning means you actually, you know, won something.
Someone who didn't win in something like sports loses, because generally, the definition of losing there is actually 'to not win'. In strategy and NOT JUST GAMES, which is what I'm talking about, losing is completely a seperate entity from winning at all. You can win without causing anyone to lose, and you can lose without causing anyone to win.

Yes, if Babylonian astronauts depart to Alpha Centauri moments before Gandhi kills every non-Indian on Earth, the Babylonians win. This is because they have become an interstellar civilization whereas the losers are still fucking around on their home planet like they have been for the last 6000 years.

Of course the science victory doesn't make sense anymore, because all you're doing now is sending Matt Damon to Mars so that he can do 'science' (after being at the very end of the tech tree anyway) and then come back to whatever is left of Earth. But as Sid Meier envisioned it the science victory was legitimate.

I think they guy is trying to imply that just because a civilization reaches space exploration and habitation first doesn't mean they lost, because they can still go on while on Earth to win other victory methods and be remembered for it. In your scenario he is implying that Babylon and India won.

Yes, they can be remembered as quaint natives who got 2nd place, in the same way that the people in my slums in Stellaris are remembered for how much it costs for my spacefaring civilization to get rid of them.

>Yes, if Babylonian astronauts depart to Alpha Centauri moments before Gandhi kills every non-Indian on Earth, the Babylonians win. This is because they have become an interstellar civilization whereas the losers are still fucking around on their home planet like they have been for the last 6000 years.
That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Do you understand what losing actually means? I never denied that the Babylonians in that case would 'win'. I deny that the Indians have lost, since it's actually reasonable enough that the Indians, with their non-destroyed infrastructure, could create a far greater interstellar empire than the 1 pop city on Alpha Centauri without any home support.

Not yet. It's on my backlog, after Polaris Sector. Looks fine to be honest.

Stop hopping between real world and game definitions of terms to suit your argument. By the terms of a competitive game if you don't win then you lose when another person (the winner) reaches a required objective. This whole argument came from a guy asking about a victory condition in game where nobody lost, so stop bringing in real world scenarios. No, it is silly to have a victory condition in a competitive genre where everyone wins.

One of the Steam curators mention that its the same development team behind Dawn of Andromeda as Lords of the Black Sun which was a very lackluster game with no updates.

I hope they've learned their lesson and do this one right.

>No, it is silly to have a victory condition in a competitive genre where everyone wins
Bbbut muh rewards for participation!

All interest lost.

>Stop hopping between real world and game definitions of terms to suit your argument
>hopping
My very first fucking post made it entirely clear what was meant and I explicitly clarified multiple times later on that I've never been talking about the game and I'm not even the original poster and think his idea was stupid.

>competitive genre
>4x
>competitive
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA YEAH DAT FILTHYROBOT COMPETITIVENESS RITE EVERYTHING BE BANNED YO
Yeah, the original guy is a retard, but you're like the person who says Super Smash Bros is competitive, when it's actually only 'competitive' on Final Destination No Items or some shit. Civilization is not competitive.

Once again: I've never been talking about the game.
Once again: I'm not the original suggester.
Once again: The idea is retarded.
Once again: Stop pretending to be someone else and fuck off. You were retarded and forgot how to read, if you stop responding I'll have no way of identifying you again since your post style is pretty generic.

...

That UI is pure puke, what the fuck is going on down there?
>le heavy metal meme

Please stop talking about non-video game discussion then before we have to take action.

>I simply can't admit I was a retard so I'm going to try banning off-topic but tangentially relevant discussion
>on a dead Veeky Forums general
>stop talking about strategy and the actual definitions of victory and loss in a war on one of the strategy generals, long basically just Veeky Forums before Veeky Forums even existed
???

>Watching Filthy playing Egypt
>Gets tons of the best wonders with China right next to him which gets none
>Hes boxed in on all sides and has the lowest military and tech
>Everyone scared to attack him and get banned from the group

Really makes you think

China not getting wonders in any game is a sign to me that something is wonky, since on even Epic speed they can literally buy a wonder in 4 turns time for a worker.

>Everyone scared to attack him and get banned from the group
That has to be the most pathetic thing i've heard so far, who even is this faggot

That has to be the worst thing I've heard today, who is this faggot?

Filthy Robot is a 'competitive' Civilization player
I feel like this thread used to like him until people from this thread started playing with him and getting horror stories of getting kicked and blacklisted for attacking him or trying to win.

Am I the only one who considers all Youtubers to be massive faggots by default?

How does this general feel about reboot of Master of Orion?

Because dlc with three "new" races is out.

Not all YOUTUBERS are massive faggots, but streamers almost always are. I mean, let's be real - most people who are worth shit at the game and actually care about the game would rather, you know, fucking play the goddamn game then watch an incompetent sperg about it online and stop to thank for donations.
Fuck's sake my fucking dad or sister are better 'streamers' since they managed to hold my attention when I was watching them play AoE as a kid.
I never stopped laughing myself silly at the ILoveTheMonkeyHead cheat

>Not all YOUTUBERS are massive faggots
I dunno. For me, every Youtuber that starts his video with "HEEELLLLOO" is a faggot, and 100% of the time, I'm proven right as he always talk more of himself than the game.

Youtubers and streamers are completely seperate entities. To me a youtuber is merely someone who uploads shit onto youtube. There are people who upload videos of bug lifecycles and shit or make AMVs, those are Youtubers too as far as I care.

His videos are informative but they're skewed because he bases his civ, civics, and wonder rankings on competitive play aka Fox only, final destination only, no items. Plus since hes kind of the face of the group he plays with everyone goes easy on him in matches because if they dare attack him early on then he will call them out as irrelevant and just trying to troll, even when they have a good chance of winning. His last match ended like this.

>3 relevant people left
>Filthy got 'bored' so he said they should call a three way draw
>One guy playing Germany was only a few turns away from space victory and declined
>Filthy and Japan start pming each other to cooperate and simultaneously nuke him and let Japan have the cities so they can two way draw

Obviously theres no 'rules' against cooperating against someone about to win, but its supposed to imply that both surviving players still intend to face off.

This general hasn't talked about him much.
His tier list in civ5 has been linked a bunch.

ecelebs haven't really been talked of much in this general historically.
Probably marbozir the most, then quill a bit.

his tier lists are the only okay thing about him, thats pretty much all that gets posted in here, but even then, most know he's a shitter who only plays in his own special snowflake games.

>His videos are informative but they're skewed because he bases his civ, civics, and wonder rankings on competitive play
Except they're not even that informative unless you play like he does. Even that guy for the AoE2 civilization rankings does far better, at least he actually takes different settings and gamemodes into account.
I mean no shit Viking civs are dogshit if you're on Pangea, but Harald is actually a nightmare on island maps and in CiV, Bluetooth was pretty good on island maps too because of his free disembark.

>Plus since hes kind of the face of the group he plays with everyone goes easy on him in matches because if they dare attack him early on then he will call them out as irrelevant and just trying to troll, even when they have a good chance of winning. His last match ended like this.
Exactly. He's a huge faggot who can't come to terms with the fact that people don't exist for his amusement and it isn't an honor to play with his sorry ass any more than it's an honor to play chess with the governor of NYC or some shit.

Quill is a huge fucking faggot.

This is fucking disgusting.

Anybody here that played Warlords Battlecry 3?

Yeah.

Well, mostly Warlords Battlecry 2.

Yes a lot, go to /v/ though since it's not a 4x.

No, he's welcome to stay here.

Any difference between the 2?
I wanted to 3 a whirl since there is a stand-alone mod for it

You can stay here.

No he's not.
Your personal feelings don't trump board rules.

3 has a few more things. Other than that, nothing changed as far as I know.

>board rules
>board
>rules
You have literally no idea what you're talking about, by your bullshit everyone besides 4xg needs to fuck off to /v/.
4xg is not exclusively for 4x games. It's mainly for 4x games, but people who wish to talk about shit like Cossacks and Seven Kingdoms and Banished and whatnot are welcome to do so. Seeing as just that happened last thread with people actually talking about it and nobody saying 'fuck off', you are not permitted to dictate what is and is not allowed in this thread. Please lurk more.

It's just a newfag trying to make new rules.
Everyone agreed that civ4x is for strategy in general, back then when we dying. There are many newfags that only came recently and are trying to make rules.

I know, but I'd rather explain it to him lest he gets /gsg/'s steamgruppe to raid us. With one person. Probably him.

I bet he's the willy spammer that ruined the strategy general.

Anything I should look out for?
How strong are the undead?