Sid Meier's Civilization

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Hartfield-Jackson International Airport should be a wonder.

 

[PandaChai]

Hartfield-Jackson International Airport should be a wonder.

International Airport would probably be a pretty fitting national wonder like the Grand Temple or National Epic

 

[Computer God Autism]

Let's see how Civ VII is doing with its first expansion.

Well maybe negative attention can still be goo-

 

[The Big A]

That's funny, I was talking with my father about Civ the other day. He said, "I don't care about making friends with the computer or doing spy shit. I just want to blow everyone up."

There's a certain respect you have to have for the boomer playstyle.

There is just something special about sacrificing your entire mid game to rush Gunpowder and Military tradition, then drowning the AI and taking their faggy wonders for yourself with your horde of cuirassiers. I like to found a later religion and pretend like the horde is my Crusade/Jihad on all the Hindu/Bhuddist infidels.

You can tell they've gone peak slop by cutting even scenarios from 7. I know they wouldn't have been brave enough to recreate the Scramble for Africa scenario again (the best one, I yearn to be a colonial administrator) but the lack of them entirely shows just how committed they were to offering the worst product for the most money.

Scenarios require you to actually understand your own game mechanics well enough. There is a reason Civ 4-6 had a lot of them, because the last good 3 Civs each had very well understood mechanics, so much so to this day you can start arguments about which one is better and nobody will agree.

The funny thing is I bet they tried doing scenarios at first, but quickly gave up when they realised how railroaded the game design is, relegated to collecting score points like a euro boardgame. Seriously, not only are you hard-locked to three ages, you're also hard-locked to doing certain things in a certain way in each of those three ages. How do you even fit a scenario in there?

Forget scenarios, Civ VII was the first game in the franchise to not include an Earth map at launch, because there, unlike literally any other Civ game, a proper earth map doesn't work with the mechanics.

 

[Cnidarian]

Forget scenarios, Civ VII was the first game in the franchise to not include an Earth map at launch, because there, unlike literally any other Civ game, a proper earth map doesn't work with the mechanics.

Go on, I've never heard of such bullshit before.

 

[The Big A]

Go on, I've never heard of such bullshit before.

Think about it, how can you have historical starts when your civ changes around every age?

 

[Kane Lives]

Think about it, how can you have historical starts when your civ changes around every age?

The actual reason is even more retarded.

So, Civ VII is hard locked to three ages, as you all know. Antiquity is straightforward, it's the closest to classic Civ they have. You got a city, you expand from there, and claim land etc. Then you got Age of Exploration. For some niggerlicious reason, they decided that this age revolves around you, the player, and multiple players even, discovering "the New World".

As you can imagine, this constrained whatever map that they generate, to always feature two continents, no matter what, because otherwise their "Age of Exploration" and the euro points you need to collect from that age doesn't work at all.

 

[Cnidarian]

The actual reason is even more retarded.

So, Civ VII is hard locked to three ages, as you all know. Antiquity is straightforward, it's the closest to classic Civ they have. You got a city, you expand from there, and claim land etc. Then you got Age of Exploration. For some niggerlicious reason, they decided that this age revolves around you, the player, and multiple players even, discovering "the New World".

As you can imagine, this constrained whatever map that they generate, to always feature two continents, no matter what, because otherwise their "Age of Exploration" and the euro points you need to collect from that age doesn't work at all.

My pastime as a good Marxist is denying that indigenous people had any future other than being steamrolled by colonialism.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

My pastime as a good Marxist is denying that indigenous people had any future other than being steamrolled by colonialism.

I actually knew an honest to god Marxist Antifa bodybuilder in college, and he was a smug cunt but we had a mutual respect because we both recognized each other as thinking for ourselves. Class was to do with Indian history. And I remember him talking about appreciating that one can recognize the good in Indian tribes, the successes they had, how cool scalping the men and raping the women is, but these dudes were doomed to be ground down by the forces of the Almighty State with the closest thing to winners being the ones that realized the game they were playing and trying to pull a Meiji.


I hate how Nu-Civ thinks Australia, Denmark and Kongo are civilizations. C I V I L I Z A T I O N S are more than just cultures and states. There’s a vastness implied. Egypt is a civilization. Lydia isn’t. Britain with a quarter of the world is a civilization. The Belgians are not.

 

[The Big A]

The actual reason is even more retarded.

So, Civ VII is hard locked to three ages, as you all know. Antiquity is straightforward, it's the closest to classic Civ they have. You got a city, you expand from there, and claim land etc. Then you got Age of Exploration. For some niggerlicious reason, they decided that this age revolves around you, the player, and multiple players even, discovering "the New World".

As you can imagine, this constrained whatever map that they generate, to always feature two continents, no matter what, because otherwise their "Age of Exploration" and the euro points you need to collect from that age doesn't work at all.

I totally forgot that the game's timeline is unfinished. There was/is supposed to be a 4th age, as the Modern Age ends around 1960 tech-wise with either the Atom Bomb or sending a man into orbit (how red do you have to be to consider Girgarin's flight to be the end goal of the Space Race?).

The current theory is that the 4th age is supposed to be offered as DLC.

 

[LowlyPheasent]

I totally forgot that the game's timeline is unfinished. There was/is supposed to be a 4th age, as the Modern Age ends around 1960 tech-wise with either the Atom Bomb or sending a man into orbit (how red do you have to be to consider Girgarin's flight to be the end goal of the Space Race?).

The current theory is that the 4th age is supposed to be offered as DLC.

What a dogshit excuse for a game, glad I never bought it. I didn't even realize the game ends there. Every other game lets you go off into "future tech" as tacked on as it is in the end as something you really aren't going to usually get to at least it's there. How can you fuck up the core concept of a game this bad and cut content and ask for it as a dlc and expect it to go well?

I'd ask if the devs are retarded, but clearly they are.

 

[Shining Wit]

I hate how Nu-Civ thinks Australia, Denmark and Kongo are civilizations. C I V I L I Z A T I O N S are more than just cultures and states. There’s a vastness implied. Egypt is a civilization. Lydia isn’t. Britain with a quarter of the world is a civilization. The Belgians are not.

I get your point but I feel civ has been about building the empire beyond what it was, like making Assyrians the dominant force in the 20th century. Some non-dominant state being given the chance to possibly become a great empire is exactly the scope of Civ

That and if we only had the historically great empires, it drastically narrows the pool of playable civs

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

That's funny, I was talking with my father about Civ the other day. He said, "I don't care about making friends with the computer or doing spy shit. I just want to blow everyone up."

There's a certain respect you have to have for the boomer playstyle.

And that man’s name?
Mohatma Gandhi.

 

[Polyboros2]

What a dogshit excuse for a game, glad I never bought it. I didn't even realize the game ends there. Every other game lets you go off into "future tech" as tacked on as it is in the end as something you really aren't going to usually get to at least it's there. How can you fuck up the core concept of a game this bad and cut content and ask for it as a dlc and expect it to go well?

I'd ask if the devs are retarded, but clearly they are.

Resident Civ 7 defender.

The Devs are good, I blame 2k, the publisher, for this. The game isn't designed bad, it was released early. At least a year, but I'd say more like 18 months. There is a 4th Age, it's never been released, but elements in the game let us know it was planned for (buildings in the 3rd Age note that their effects persist into the next age, even though there isn't one). The game has improved a lot in the last year, there are some aspects of it that are the best in the franchise, but it's mostly been cleaning up the mess they released, and not finishing the game they started

If you're a long term fan of the game that can appreciate how the game evolves, it's worth a buy on sale. It's still the best historical 4x on the market that isn't there last 4 Civs, which are finished and polished.

Will Civ 7 ever be fully complete? I dunno, they are down pretty bad and 2k lost a lot of money on Borderlands in the last couple years.

As much as I hate to say it, best hope might be they sell the studio to Tencent. Civ 6 is huge in China, they completely have taken over the modding scene. They really need a year of real dev time, not tweaks and dlc they've been getting.

 

[Klaatu]

Many memories playing this on the 360

 

[LowlyPheasent]

The Devs are good, I blame 2k, the publisher, for this. The game isn't designed bad, it was released early. At least a year, but I'd say more like 18 months. There is a 4th Age, it's never been released, but elements in the game let us know it was planned for (buildings in the 3rd Age note that their effects persist into the next age, even though there isn't one). The game has improved a lot in the last year, there are some aspects of it that are the best in the franchise, but it's mostly been cleaning up the mess they released, and not finishing the game they started

Maybe it could be but it's not. The mechanical changes aren't what I want in any capacity and not what I think of when I think of a civ game. If I wanted those mechanics I'd play humankind, but I don't because I don't like those mechanics.

Even if we ignore the unfinished state my opinion of it can be summarized as:

>Go to lemonade stand
>Ask for lemonade
>It's not actually lemonade it's orange juice
>I don't buy the "lemonade" because it's not what I expected or wanted

If you like it though, hey at least you do but it's not for me.

As much as I hate to say it, best hope might be they sell the studio to Tencent. Civ 6 is huge in China, they completely have taken over the modding scene.

Yeah, they really have. They honestly do a very good job, I'm very fond of JRE's expansions.

 

[Polyboros2]

Maybe it could be but it's not. The mechanical changes aren't what I want in any capacity and not what I think of when I think of a civ game. If I wanted those mechanics I'd play humankind, but I don't because I don't like those mechanics.

Even if we ignore the unfinished state my opinion of it can be summarized as:

>Go to lemonade stand
>Ask for lemonade
>It's not actually lemonade it's orange juice
>I don't buy the "lemonade" because it's not what I expected or wanted

If you like it though, hey at least you do but it's not for me.

Yeah, they really have. They honestly do a very good job, I'm very fond of JRE's expansions.

Except there are some really great ideas for the franchise.

Domination is the best it has ever been in history of the game. Units have been somewhat simplified, but the logistics and the focus on commanders is a good change, and they finally got away from the focus on capitals. In previous Civs, Domination victory was usually a slog. Especially with Civs like 5 that punish building wide, having to conquer though a country and then hold the Capital sucks. It's like playing a different game. 6 improved war by making cities harder to take, and pillaging so profitable. 7 makes it about taking cities with a theme. First just being a conquer is how you win, than dominating the new world, then beating opposing ideologies. Each stage is any city that meets the criteria, capitals don't matter.

The Ages are a great idea. The game has a huge issue with the first 2/5th of the game usually being the deciding factor, and different Civs peaking at different times led to a lot of them having issues, especially the sweatier you played. I agree, Civ swapping wasn't the way to go, but I understand why they made the choice. They wanted Civs to have the big game impacting abilities, and that meant they had to be the ones to change. Leaders have smaller abilities, so they are less impactful over the ages. I see their thought process here, your Civ in civilization shouldn't be the minor influence on how you play the game. They are working on a system to maintain Civs between ages, but I think the solution should of been to have Civs and Governments. The Civs have a leader tied to it and probably have a stronger ability, and Governments determined the play style in the age. They already kinda have it with exploration age Pirate Republic. If they changed every civ to an obviously themed after their style of rule, and gave civ titles back to their leaders, I think 60% of the complaints of the game get thrown out. It's entirely a flavor fix, even with no mechanical changes, it would help a lot. You would play as a French God-King or City State Republic, and in the next age switch to French Pirate Republic or Theorcratic Empire, to French Parliamentary Monarch or Democratic Republic.

City and Town splits are great. I always loved the mechanic from 3 or 4 where you could make a minor settlement to grab a resource with out having to commit to a city. The game is pretty generous with them over the ages, and the Age transition capital change is nice for having several mega cities, with out you capital falling behind after filling up on earlier wonders.

Each age having it's own set of victory conditions really helps with keeping the game flowing. Some of them are under cooked, Exploration religious culture victory down right sucks, but you can ignore it. The game still usually drags near the end of an age, but that's mostly because the crisis mechanic is one of the most undercooked mechanics in the game, short only of the UI that was straight up not even finished at launch. It is the mechanic I am most interested in seeing them finish, right up there with the 4th Modern age, as I think of they get it good, the game will be the most engaging a Civ game had ever been through its entire run. Maybe not the best, but the most I spend focusing on the game and working towards goals for the entire experience.

There are several other minor ones I won't go into as much detail, Barbarians are so much better rolled into City States, but City States lost a little in that. I'm happy with Navagable rivers, FINALLY. Map Gen is really good now, and you can have pangea maps with the Distant Lands mechanic, but I think the game works better with a "New World".

Civ games are never straight sequels. They are always evolutions. People that got their autism comfortable with the previous one, often times reject the way the new one plays. Most Civ 5 people refused 6, where as I think it's the best the game has ever been. 7 had a terrible launch that will forever haunt it, but it's not the meritless advancement it's made out to be. Maybe it never recovers, but I've enjoyed my time with it, I wish my play group could get games going more often. Hopefully, whatever is going on at either the developer or the publisher(and I really, really think the issues are with the Publisher), and I will be on board with what they do with 8, wether that's sooner or later.

 

[LowlyPheasent]

Question to CivV heads, was playing games with friends and they wanted to run Lekmod but we kept having issues with being able to join the lobbies in spite of correctly installing it. Anyone else have issues with it and any idea on how to get it running for multiplayer?

Edit: fixed the user connecting error with the installer instead of copy pasting files

 

[We've all been there]

Except there are some really great ideas for the franchise.

It's fine if you think so, but obviously lots of people disagree. I tried Humankind and hated it, hence I did not try the walking corpse imitating it.

The Ages are a great idea. The game has a huge issue with the first 2/5th of the game usually being the deciding factor, and different Civs peaking at different times led to a lot of them having issues, especially the sweatier you played.

To be fair I only played 600 hours of Civ 6 but I never saw this as an issue. I've played 4,800 hours of 5 and almost of third of that now has been using a mod that leans even further, to an almost ridiculous degree, into the differences between civs (Superpower). America really isn't great until the industrial era, but it kicks ass after that, while Rome kicks ass from the beginning but can lose steam steam around the Renaissance if you don't lay a good foundation. And I have never had more fun.

So you can call all these great ideas, but I and many others simply disagree.

 

[Polyboros2]

It's fine if you think so, but obviously lots of people disagree. I tried Humankind and hated it, hence I did not try the walking corpse imitating it.


To be fair I only played 600 hours of Civ 6 but I never saw this as an issue. I've played 4,800 hours of 5 and almost of third of that now has been using a mod that leans even further, to an almost ridiculous degree, into the differences between civs (Superpower). America really isn't great until the industrial era, but it kicks ass after that, while Rome kicks ass from the beginning but can lose steam steam around the Renaissance if you don't lay a good foundation. And I have never had more fun.

So you can call all these great ideas, but I and many others simply disagree.

Except I've actually played 7, and Humankind. 7 is way better than Humankind, mainly because Humankind has a really boring poorly thought out empire development system and it's culture swapping idea doesn't have anything engaging to build off of.

Also I dealt the same thing from 5 to 6, where people looked at it, didn't like what was different, and refused to move on. 7 definitely is a harder sell since they released it in essentially Early Access state, but I've sunk a lot of hours into it and definitely think it has merits. Districts and the Disasters, the Art style, Builder charges. A lot of Civ 5 fans just saw those features and said they made the game unplayable, when they were solid improvements to the game. Going back to 6 after playing 7, even though it is a much better game over all, there are things I find lacking in 6 because they work really well in 7.