Who do you play and what do you do differently?

I have spent many hours in this game, I rather play with modded civs now; I usually go for a militaristic victory, since it´s the most entertaining

I always Jew my way too victory

I didn´t know war profiteering was possible in Civ V.

>tfw payed 120 australian dollars
>can't even refund it

It's possible, but trade routes make enough money to stack the (((World Congress)))

Haven't played civ 6 yet. Fill me in on why its shit (apparently)

It's not finished completely just like civ 5 at launch. It's the general hype hate

The people who don't like it blame the AI, which has changed quite a bit. Leaders have specific agendas and if you ignore those and play it like Civ 5 they'll all end up hating you.

I play both, enjoy both.

>nuke city
>it recovers after one move

fuck this game

t. Johan

>not IV

muh nigga
Only one I have. I'll try the others, some time.

>play a paradox game instead.

civ 5 with expansions is a more polished game. Civ 6 is getting better with the updates. civ 6 have a lot to offer as a base game. Hopefully they launch a map editor.

Fucking missionaries everywhere

Balance is fucked and one unit per tile is catastrophic for a civ game. Balance will be fixed in updates and dlc's, but one unit per tile looks like it's going to make every civ game from now on unplayable.

religious victory sucks shit but i found it fun.

>Balance is fucked and one unit per tile is catastrophic for a civ game
Was in the previous installment and the corps system was introduced

Corps existed in civ 4, and yes one unit per tile ruined civ 5 just as certainly as it will 6.

>The people who don't like it blame the AI, which has changed quite a bit.

Yeah no the AI is vastly improved. The AI in civ 5 played like a human, it WOULD betray you at the first opportunity and generally acted like a giant asshole all the time. In civ 6, they've gone back to the idea of the AI behaving like an actual ruler, so it can form lasting alliances and will actually reward you if you help it out.

The thing that breaks civ 6 is the 1UPT mechanism, which makes negative sense in a game on this scale and which cripples the ability of the AI to wage war. Civ 5 essentially had no single player option because of how the AI acted, civ 6 has no single player because of how incompetent the 1UPT system makes it.

I've only played 2,3,4 and SMAC. I'm a total builder, I love out teching people and then wiping out their armies with a third of the unit count.

Multiple units per tile was and is shit, reducing "war" to nothing more than who can doom stack harder.

>what is collateral damage

Not enough to change just how shit tile stacks were.

That's a shame. I was really looking forward to it because I've played Civ 4 to death, and Civ 5 is also quite boring.

Firstly, no it didn't, because your doomstack could only be in one place at a time, secondly, plenty of units dealt collateral damage that would hurt the whole stack, and lastly that's historically accurate, 9 times out of ten the bigger army wins.

But you're right, a system where one single unit of archers can hold off wave after wave of ai units is much more "fun".

I have no interest in even trying civ 6 due to the cartoon graphics but civ 5 is GOAT and I always play with spain hoping to get those big natural wonders early on.

>not playing viday games cause graphics
i prefer civ 5 over civ 6 but come on man

It's not just the aesthetics of it. I've tried beyond earth and I just don't like the 3D tilted view, the 2d top down in Civ 5 is more playable IMO.

Anyone wanna play Civ4 with me?
Just got this game for the first time, still a newfag, not the best, but would like to practice with you fags.

Civ 6 has a topdown view option, a much better one than 5 had in fact.

>one unit per tile is catastrophic for a civ game.

it isnt. Stacks of doom were much more catastrophic than this.

Besides its 2 units per tile

1upt is utter garbage and the ai can't handle it. Doomstacks were historically accurate and not over-powered, there was even an in-game mechanism (catapults) to neutralise them.

>Stacks of doom were much more catastrophic than this.

In what way? It worked just fine for the three enduring classics of the series and its offshoots (Civ 2, Civ 4, and Alpha Centauri).

>Doomstacks were historically accurate
You've got to be fucking kidding me.

In his defense, something like the Battle of Kirsk makes more sense as a doomstack match.

That said, more attention to the logistics of doomstacking would have been nice. For that matter more attention to logistics in general would have been nice.

Yeah, historically armies would space themselves out one unit per thousand square miles, then advance in single file towards the defenders, who would likewise have spaced themselves out, one unit per thousand square miles. Certainly, they didn't gather together into some kind of "army" and seek to do battle that way!

Uncreativeguy's game, password is "history."

Doomstacks are not representative of an army and you know it.

>and now 70% of our 100,000 man expeditionary force will take shelter on the sole hill on this plain
>we will, of course, all fit.

What do you think an army is?

> sole hill

A tile in civ represents hundreds of miles, those hillS are plural, not a single hill.

You're both retarded. They're both just gameplay abstractions. A single "unit" is not just a single dude, it's anything from one dude to a full blown army, and a single tile is not just a single hill, it can contain a metropolis the size of New York City.

That said, Civ IV doomstacks were pretty bad at times, since they made the primary tactic to win just having a bigger stack of units (though to be fair, having more units is definitely an edge in V, but good tactics can help) and Civ V's "maintaining an armed forces requires covering the entire continent in units, making any large mobilization an exercise in pointless busywork" was also pretty bad.

Personally I think some sort of mechanic to discourage the use of doomstacks would have been a better approach, say an increasing drain on logistics based on the number of units in a tile, or Alpha Centauri's "every unit deals collateral damage."

There was a mod that added attrition to stacks, to simulate the attrition large armies faced historically. It fixed pretty much every complaint people had with doomstacks, but the monkey they hired to make civ 5 decided to throw the babby out with the bathwater and made an unplayable shitshow of 1upt instead.

What mod?

Good thing Civ 4 has mods that allow you to set a cap on stacks to any number of units you want. Ignoring that, collateral damage was implemented for this exact reason. If you try doomstacking against a competent player in IV you'll get your shit kicked in within a matter of turns by artillery and later on bombers. Granted, the AI isn't so proficient at warfare, but V's AI isn't the pinnacle of intelligence either. I don't know why people whine so much about stacks in IV. If you want a real doomstack drag, complain about III. There was literally no way to counter stacks in that game and it always ended up in a boring slugfest.
I don't know what mod he's talking about, but Realism Invictus adds a heavy penalty to stacks over 15 units. I think the BUG mod also lets you put any cap you want on stacks.

it was useable in civ 3 and civ 4 and since it was introduced I hated it.

In civ 2 all units died if they stood on 1 tile unless they were defending city or fortress.

I like playing the Ottomans and spamming Janissaries. I don't know if they patched it, but they kept the bonuses once upgraded.
I'm also a Serb.
Post theme
youtube.com/watch?v=E1EFe1vSb3s

Anyone?
I guess I'll just quit.

who here has played the steampunk version of civ 5? I found it to be meh

>steampunk
Faggotry incarnate.

Experimented with a few different nations and settled with Egypt, used their monument building bonus to focus on constructing massive industry, by the end of my last game I could have taken on the rest of the world militarily and won.

>civ v
Go play a real historical game such as Victoria II

netherlands because i get to keep happiness from my traded luxuries

>liquor simulator
>historical
kek

Still more historical than civ

you can just not spam liquor factories

>you can just lose the game

other factories are still profitable though. often times liquor factories aren't even my most profitable ones.

Eh. Steampunk can be fine as long as it doesn't devolve into cogfloppery.

Over the course of the game nothing comes close to liquor. If you're the first to build a machine parts factory you'll have a window of super profits from it, but liquor produces steady high income from beginning to end.

i can only get my rocks off by playing mod nations, the regular ones don't do it for me.

What I do differently is being utterly incapable. I don't think I'd be able to come close to winning on anything over Prince difficulty. I play on Settler when I just want to power trip and dominate all the faggot AI civs.

That or I just read the Civilopedia.

You tried starting a game when euros are at work and Americans are sleeping, why do you think nobody joined?

It's more that Civ 4 is basically a dead game at this point, unfortunately.

I've never seen an ai controlled civ get raped by barbs desu.

sure but it's wrong to say you need liquor to win the game. AI doesn't even spam liquor.

They won't get totally fucked, but they usually lose a substantial number of workers and settlers.

Meanwhile, I rushed atlatls and cleared out every camp near me. A lot of the times I even get free workers from the barb encampments.

True, it's too easy to be allied with all of the city states, it's like the ai isn't even trying.

...

All unique units keep the bonuses once upgraded.

>A lot of the times I even get free workers from the barb encampments
You can easily steal the workers directly if you don't mind a little warmongering.

That would interfere with my great library rushing and science whoring.

And have you noticed how poor the AI nations are compared to humans?

>plaiyng board games

right so you don't need to spam liquor to compete with them. you don't have to meta-game to win.

If you like to play marathon/huge games 1 unit per tile is a disaster

I play as Brother Lal

>Extra talent plus the Human Genome Project means that my drone problems are basically non-existent and my cities routinely pop golden ages, which boosts their economy and research. Snagging the Virtual World makes this problem even less pronounced as my research buildings now double as entertainment centers and almost all of my cities are in a continuous golden age.

>Build bases as close to each other as possible, tons of small bases are better than a few big ones. Win the land-grab by keeping a cluster of bases whose sole purpose throughout the game is to continuously churn out colony pods. Growth is king. Every base builds a former. If I start the game near the Monsoon Jungle that's middle ground I'm prepared to bitterly fight for.

>Green Democracy with Research values. Democracy because no police state (and I desperately need the efficiency being a bloated sjw-run bureaucracy) Green because of the efficiency boost and because it allows me to capture mind worms, which are essentially free military units which are much better explorers than scouts. Research because that means dibs on secret projects, though though switching values can be of situational use (wealth when I need the money or industrial boost, power before I get the Cyborg Factory).

>If I start close to my enemies, I prioritize research to get impact rovers. If I can put off war (even if it means paying them off and/or parting with a few techs) I'll put off on researching military techs in favor of techs that yield economic projects like the Planetary Energy Grid and Planetary Transit System (both hugely important for my 'tons of small bases' strategy) and won't start building military units until I have synthetic fossil fuel and doctrine:air power. Then I switch from a build strategy to a conquer strategy, and the yellow sky darkens with missile needle-jets as my multitude of bases churn them out by the dozen.

pic related, it's me smashing on transcend difficulty

>Reached modern age in Marathon domination game
>I'm behind technilogically
>Siam is friends with everyone

Im spooked

I just got 2. I've played 3, 4, and 5, but this one seems kind of different. Does the civ you pick matter at all?

gibe good download link

I play Frederick the Great and am very loyal to NPCs

This 10x
The 1 unit per tile thing killed civ 5 for me because thats all i play

>AI is vastly improved.
>1920
>they still have warriors and archers
>on emperor

>sinking triremes with submarines
>mfw

Patrician tastes in game my friend. Though I found Yang works better for the ridiculous number of bases thing because he's immune to inefficiency.

>play as Zulus
>build most of the wonders
>become scientifically advanced
WE
WUZ

>WE
>WUZ
CIVULIZED ?

>Who do you play?

Rome

>What do you do differently?

Never fall

>he doesn't play with the Extended Eras mod