Sid Meier's Civilization

[Sargon's wife's son]

Why does Poland get a civilization all of these irrelevant backwaters but Ukraine doesn't how even Finland would be a fun civilization.
How even Albania would be a fun civilization or you could have Skanderbeg
it feels like civilization just ignores the Balkans.
Like seriously I'm tired of all these mesoamerican ethnic groups but we can never get more historically relevant countries from Europe Serbia Yugoslavia Austria the Teutonic Knights .
Leaders John Haas
leader of the chickens
Skanderbeg
leader of Albania

Bohdan Khmelnytsky​

leader of Ukraine.​

Stefan Dušan
did the greatest king of Serbia yes at one point Serbia had an empire there's mainly other drunken Baltic sub humans.

von Ungern-Sternberg
it would just be a fun character put in as leader of Mongolia.

Know what we want is 60 different Native American tribes that were irrelevant

 

[The Pierrot]

Know what we want is 60 different Native American tribes that were irrelevant

On a related note, I find the Serpent Mound probably one of, if not the dumbest-looking "Wonder" I've seen in Civ.



Just the idea of this thing taking several turns (possibly decades) to be created in a game and put in the same category as the Seven Wonders of the World when the thing looks more like a unique improvement drives me up the wall.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

Just the idea of this thing taking several turns (possibly decades) to be created in a game and put in the same category as the Seven Wonders of the World when the thing looks more like a unique improvement drives me up the wall.

There was actually a Native American eagle that was carved into a mountain sadly due to natural processes it collapsed much cooler monument

 

[Absolutego]

Mongols

With some of the utterly irrelevant leaders they've picked for the sake of having another woman on the roster, I'm genuinely surprised they didn't pick Töregene, the regent for 5 years after Ogedei Khan died and nobody could agree Guyuk was the obvious successor.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

On a related note, I find the Serpent Mound probably one of, if not the dumbest-looking "Wonder" I've seen in Civ.

View attachment 6553323

Just the idea of this thing taking several turns (possibly decades) to be created in a game and put in the same category as the Seven Wonders of the World when the thing looks more like a unique improvement drives me up the wall.

I don't see any problem with it as a very ancient monument. Is it small and simple (just heaping dirt and requiring the ability to rotate cows in your head)? Yes. Is it interesting in and of itself? Yes. It has a layout that's synced up with all kinds of astronomical objects, it's not Stonehenge-level shit but it's not just a snake.

I think for it to make sense it'd have to belong to a Neolithic Age. Like, Ancient broken up into Neolithic and Bronze.

Edit: It does feel like something that could be a Mississippian (that culture wasn't Mississippian, but who gives a shit) improvement as a catchall for different mounds like that.

Why does Poland get a civilization all of these irrelevant backwaters but Ukraine doesn't how even Finland would be a fun civilization.
How even Albania would be a fun civilization or you could have Skanderbeg
it feels like civilization just ignores the Balkans.
Like seriously I'm tired of all these mesoamerican ethnic groups but we can never get more historically relevant countries from Europe Serbia Yugoslavia Austria the Teutonic Knights .
Leaders John Haas
leader of the chickens
Skanderbeg
leader of Albania

Bohdan Khmelnytsky​

leader of Ukraine.​

Stefan Dušan
did the greatest king of Serbia yes at one point Serbia had an empire there's mainly other drunken Baltic sub humans.

von Ungern-Sternberg
it would just be a fun character put in as leader of Mongolia.

Know what we want is 60 d
ifferent Native American tribes that were irrelevant

What, are you some filthy hohol? Poland had an actual huge empire that was a top-tier European great power.

 

[Computer God Autism]

What, are you some filthy hohol?

There's speculation in other boards on his nationality, most common being either Indian or some stripe of Slav. He maintains he's not an ESL and just had an upbringing that precluded normal education.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

There's speculation in other boards on his nationality, most common being either Indian or some stripe of Slav. He maintains he's not an ESL and just had an upbringing that precluded normal education.

I'll throw @Sargon's wife's son a bone, Cossacks are a based and underused civ to include.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

What, are you some filthy hohol? Poland had an actual huge empire that was a top-tier European great power.

Poland had an empire that's funny you're a funny man the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth even at its height was about the size of two large American states.

There's speculation in other boards on his nationality, most common being either Indian or some stripe of Slav. He maintains he's not an ESL and just had an upbringing that precluded normal education.

I'm like 98% slavic but my family left the snow monkey region of Europe back in the middle of the 1800s and came to America

I've travelled a bit outside the US but I've never had any desire to go back anywhere near any of my family who still lives in Eastern Europe'cause they probably asked me to get them US citizenship and this country doesn't need any more slavic drunken idiots driving terribly on the roads.

I'll throw @Sargon's wife's son a bone, Cossacks are a based and underused civ to include.

Thank you when I was doing family research for a high school project I found an old picture of one of my great grand uncles with his ridiculous haircut.

 

[Computer God Autism]

Poland had an empire that's funny you're a funny man the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth even at its height was about the size of two large American states.

But Albania is the one more deserving of selection?

 

[Catboy Ranch]

But Albania is the one more deserving of selection?

We need Fantasy Serbia that combines the Yugoslav wars with the Turkroaches in the south trying to invade.

With a hard mode of Romanians coming in trying to steal everyone's gold.

Would be the most accurate sim ever

 

[The Pierrot]

It does feel like something that could be a Mississippian (that culture wasn't Mississippian, but who gives a shit) improvement as a catchall for different mounds like that.

Yeah I'll agree with this. I just feel it's more an improvement than a Wonder since that's more consistent with stuff from Civ 6 for example with the Nazca Lines and Cahokia Mounds.

Wiki even marks it as associated with the Shawnee Civ instead of the Mississippian Civ, for the record.

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

Wiki even marks it as associated with the Shawnee Civ instead of the Mississippian Civ, for the record.

Is the participation trophy of the Native Americans

But Albania is the one more deserving of selection?

They've actually had interesting kings throughout their history I'm just saying I'd rather have them and Balkan nations be represented than the 900 different wagon burners who've contributed basically nothing to the overall history of the world most Balkan countries at one point were culturally or economically relevant.
Big chief drunkies only accomplishment is being a racial caricature to be made fun of in US sports stadiums

 

[PandaChai]

looks more like a unique improvement

The variety of civ and city-state unique improvements was probably my favourite thing about VI, though they needed tighter placement restrictions, it was still fun to fill out the outer reaches of the empire with an eclectic jumble of two (or even three) different giant stone heads, monasteries, random domes and squiggles. Heck, Cahokia Mounds was already a unique tile improv, so snaking mounds around isn't even that big a leap.

 

[Foxxo]

This is definitely a thought tilting towards the hard-coded player-character limitations of earlier games, but are there any nations or peoples you think work better as Barbarians/City-States/"Minor Civs?" IE nations or peoples that are absolutely worth a mention in the sweeping panorama of history Civilization tries to represent, but really don't have enough "meat" to justify being a mainstay or even occasional playable civ be it in a small amount of cities, influence in regional or global history, etc.?

Zimbabwe in the Exploration Age.

Give it Gold as a strategic resource.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

but are there any nations or peoples you think work better as Barbarians/City-States/"Minor Civs?" IE nations or peoples that are absolutely worth a mention in the sweeping panorama of history Civilization tries to represent, but really don't have enough "meat" to justify being a mainstay or even occasional playable civ be it in a small amount of cities, influence in regional or global history, etc.?

I’ll think up some.

As you said, most North American Indians.

Venetians (not as part of a broader Italian civ, and that’s what “Venetians” should be anyways).

Probably interesting countries in general that never colonized or built large land empires (like Sweden, Sikhs and Argentina)

Singapore


You actually basically brought up all of what I’d say.

I think they should consider taking a page out of EU5’s book and playing with what a civ can be. Mongols and Turks can be a civ that has NO cities except what they conquer (but does have other ways of extracting resources, like their army has its own “buildings” in it). Jews would make a fascinating civ in a more based world willing to portray them as one, I like to imagine them with a one city limit, only their starting capital, but can survive without it by living inside of, symbiotically or parasitically, other civs.

A Civ game could have a Paleolithic and Neolithic Age where you don’t really have cities as such. It could have pastoralism and horse nomadism be a branch that starts weak (but is very survivable as long as open land exists to flee to), gets god tier strong in mid game and then falls off a cliff. A successful nomad campaign is Turkey and Arabia (conquer a strong world class empire and then become it). An unsuccessful one is Mongols (overextend but then fail to hold on to any of it, your culture dies) and Manchu. Sioux and Comanche and Mapuche never even got to that point.

 

[Mooger Meng]

Only Civ games I've played are the Playstation version of II and V after getting it as a pre-order bonus for the XCom remake. I sort of like the idea of them, but holy shit I'm garbage at actually playing the damn things.
Would any of the Civ V spergs here have some good advice for a retard who can't make it past turn 100 or so without restarting because it always feels like I'm playing the game wrong? I know that's probably too open-ended of a question, but I always end up in some kind of situation where I feel like I've made some colossal fuckup while trying to do what the civ is good at.

 

[Computer God Autism]

Only Civ games I've played are the Playstation version of II and V after getting it as a pre-order bonus for the XCom remake. I sort of like the idea of them, but holy shit I'm garbage at actually playing the damn things.
Would any of the Civ V spergs here have some good advice for a retard who can't make it past turn 100 or so without restarting because it always feels like I'm playing the game wrong? I know that's probably too open-ended of a question, but I always end up in some kind of situation where I feel like I've made some colossal fuckup while trying to do what the civ is good at.

Synergize and prioritize the strengths of the civs you play as. For example, if you're playing a cultural or science civ, don't build more than four or so cities early game and pick tradition instead of liberty or honor. Prioritize long-term growth and bonuses over short term rewards. For example, if you get a great person (excepting a great prophet and you lack a religion) consider building its improvement instead of getting its immediate bonus, or if you unlock a new policy slot but the next policy tree that synergizes is locked to the next age, consider holding onto it until the new age rolls around instead of just unlocking a new tree immediately.

Otherwise I can't really give much advice without knowing what you're doing in particular.

 

[Mooger Meng]

Synergize and prioritize the strengths of the civs you play as. For example, if you're playing a cultural or science civ, don't build more than four or so cities early game and pick tradition instead of liberty or honor. Prioritize long-term growth and bonuses over short term rewards. For example, if you get a great person (excepting a great prophet and you lack a religion) consider building its improvement instead of getting its immediate bonus, or if you unlock a new policy slot but the next policy tree that synergizes is locked to the next age, consider holding onto it until the new age rolls around instead of just unlocking a new tree immediately.

Otherwise I can't really give much advice without knowing what you're doing in particular.

Yeah, I figured I was being overly vague.
I haven't touched the game in quite some time, so I don't have any specific examples, but aside from a single culture win with France on something like Difficulty 1 or 2, the amount of info the game has just throws me into a mental spiral of "Oh god, I screwed some nebulous thing up thirty turns ago and now everything's ruined forever augh". I might have to reinstall just to try and nail it down a bit further (or, god forbid, actually finish a game).
Most of what you've mentioned is the general thrust I tended to follow. Pick a civ for a certain win condition, try to follow that condition through, grab long-term bonuses as early as possible to give them as much time to generate their resource, and so on. Then something comes up, be it new resources or early aggressive neighbors or just personal doubt, and my plans starts to hit problems and I drop into "oh god everything's ruined" mode. I know I'm letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, but I cannot fully wrap my brain around how to adapt my plan on the fly when it feels like absolutely everything you need to do - scouting, building, getting military to fight barbs and/or neighbors, dealing with citystates - must be top priority and done at least ten turns ago.

 

[Computer God Autism]

I know I'm letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, but I cannot fully wrap my brain around how to adapt my plan on the fly when it feels like absolutely everything you need to do - scouting, building, getting military to fight barbs and/or neighbors, dealing with citystates - must be top priority and done at least ten turns ago.

Yeah, this sounds like the biggest problem. My advice would be to not push yourself as hard, weird as it sounds. Civ is a long-haul game; not only is there plenty of time, but there are mechanics (soft or hard) to discourage beelining and rushing, especially if you're not experienced. Don't worry so much about winning from turn 1 until you've got a few games under your belt; don't be afraid to take a detour into things that don't directly benefit your decided VC either (e.g. building some military units when going for culture) since agency always outweighs an opportunity cost. If you suffer some setbacks, don't let that be the end of it either; Civ V is a lot more forgiving than earlier iterations (e.g. in 4 a common mistake that can still get vets is losing your capital early on to barbarians because you don't have enough troops garrisoning it to stand against the horde that just showed up), so if you don't get that wonder you wanted or find out that you placed your city one tile away from getting a newly discovered resource, it can be annoying but there'll be ways to recover.

Don't automate in the early game either. You can do with one scout/warrior better usually than what the AI can do with three by virtue of being to intuit the map and knowing how to get the most out of extra sight from hills or defensiveness from chokepoints.

 

[Snekposter]

the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth even at its height was about the size of two large American states

You're a moron considering that the modern state of Germany (138,058 square miles) is about half the size of Texas (268,596 square miles). "Two large American states" gets you the entire goddamn HRE and then some.

What's your bottom on "large American state"? Because if you combine four and five on that list you wind up with a landmass beyond that of even France, largely considered to be the juggernaut of Medieval Europe due to its size and population.