The sad state of civ4 play outside of these forums

[Fish Man]

Civ IV player explains why they hate you:

+5 Our mutual military struggle brings our peoples closer
-2 We are disappointed you have fallen under the sway of a heathen religion
-1 You refused to accept our State Religion!
-37 You have spread misinformation about our faith!
-12 You refused to try out Civ IV because it was an old game
-4 You declared war on our friend!
-1 You made an Arrogant Demand!
-2 You voted against us!
-5 This War Spoils Our Relationship


Civ 5 player explains why they hate you:
You have both denounced the same foe

They covet games you own!
They believe you are a warmongering menace to the world!
You have a different ideology
You caused their resolution for a third Civ V expansion to fail

Civ 6 player explains why they hate you
+3 Unknown Reason
-3 Unknown Reason
-3 Unknown Reason
-3 Unknown Reason
-3 Unknown Reason
-6 Different Governments
-8 You refused to make a promise
-6 Moved troops too close
-6 You use too many question marks
-6 You use too little question marks
-18 Your Warmongering

, this is .

One question, though - what's the mutual military conflict and/or denunciation?

Also, not enough contradictions for the civ 6 player. You should also add:
+6 You spread your religion to us
-6 You spam too many missionaries
+6 You have a small army, you weakling
-6 Your army is too big
+6 You helped us in a joint war
-6 You didn't keep the peace on your continent
Total: -9000 because why not? Who needs diplomacy that makes sense?

 

[Archon_Wing]

One question, though - what's the mutual military conflict and/or denunciation?

I noticed that most vocal critics (hence denouncers) of Civ 6 are Civ 5 players. (Not all, just the most vocal in case I get denounced too.)

+6 You have a small army, you weakling
-6 Your army is too big

This actually exists. >.> Search for Paranoid Cleopatra.

 

[Fish Man]

I noticed that most vocal critics (hence denouncers) of Civ 6 are Civ 5 players. (Not all, just the most vocal in case I get denounced too.)

This actually exists. >.> Search for Paranoid Cleopatra.

I know. That's why I put it there.

Also, V players think we support their crusade against VI and VI players think we support their tirade against V, but the truth of the matter is, we bribed V into a war with VI and we've been supplying both sides of the conflict. Most of them are just too caught up in their flame war to realize it.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I completely understand people playing the game for reasons other than winning or tryharding deity; I myself derp around on settler quite a bit, in both IV and V.

On that subject... I found this.. Wtf?

 

[Fish Man]

On that subject... I found this.. Wtf?

That is just...wow. Speedrunning for least turn number is one thing, but least real world time? That requires a new set of skills, and takes the metagame to a whole new level. Nice find, BTW!

 

[Ex Tenebris Lux]

I joined in 2008 and this is my fourth post.

How cool is that?

 

[noto2]

I just posted a little rant on the Civ6 forum and it exploded with views and replies. I don't know why I did it, I'm just so disappointed with Civ 6. So very disappointed.

I really wish someone else would make a Civ 4 (2) so I could play that. First of all, I don't want 1 UPT. Why, because I'm a pleb scrub who can't into tactical combat? Bruh, I play Dota. I also played WC3 and I was goddamn good at it. You wanna fight me in a tactical game? I'll mop the floor with you in Warcraft or Dota. But when I play Civ, I don't want to be able to beat an AI army of 25 swordsmen with my 2 swordsmen and 2 composite bows. If I can do that, it means I'm invincible, which means my victory is inevitable. Then why play? Civ 4's stack combat was rather lame sometimes, but infinitely better than 1 UPT in Civ 5 or 6.

City states were a great idea, too bad the AI always conquers them and doesn't know how to use them. Sadly, I don't want to go back to Civ 4. I spent thousands of hours on it and I just don't want to go there again. Maybe this is a good thing. Maybe I'll stop gaming so much and spend more time doing other things. Maybe I should thank Firaxis for making Civ 6 a terrible game.

 

[ztrapon]

I really wish someone else would make a Civ 4 (2) so I could play that. .

I've said it before - Civilization is an entirely different franchise now. It baffles me, Firaxis could've milked the concept for all it's worth, by releasing a hypothetical Civ 5 (a refined Civ 4), and another game called Sid Meier's Society - using the new system - and have both, instead of hijacking an established concept and arrogantly just shove it down the bin. I've played Civ 4 for the most part, but also 5 (and 6) a lot. So if Firaxis would refine what separates the two, I'd most likely purchase both. Usually money talks, in this case I have no idea what's talking. The only thing I can think of is the same phenomenon that occured in WOW: new developer teams each time around, each with completely different views on what makes the game great, and each wanting to put their personal mark on it (some guy was dead set on hexagon tiles, one guy dead set on districts, and so on). It annoys me a little, Firaxis is cock blocking the entire Civ 4 fanbase.

 

[Fish Man]

I noticed that most vocal critics (hence denouncers) of Civ 6 are Civ 5 players. (Not all, just the most vocal in case I get denounced too.)

This actually exists. >.> Search for Paranoid Cleopatra.

Update: Firaxis managed to make the AI even worse after the patch, if you can believe it. You know they've hit a new low when even /r/civ is railing against it...

 

[Archon_Wing]

Update: Firaxis managed to make the AI even worse after the patch, if you can believe it. You know they've hit a new low when even /r/civ is railing against it...

I'm very well aware.

Was just depressing. Especially since the game is unplayable without CQUI.

 

[Nukuler]

Not just Civ IV.

A lot of people never really learn the games they play and end up struggling on the lowest difficulties. I guess play for fun and you don't have to be any good. So they can just stick to chieftain or something.

This is why you see those nonsensical criticisms of Civ IV on reddit, because they really don't know what they're talking about.

But is it fair to throw rocks from a glass house? One of the "walkthrough" videos I made for folks in my sig six years ago has me expanding into the jungle early game, which is pretty bad really. It also goes on late game to struggle to stop the more advanced Sitting Bull on Noble difficulty (how does that even happen?) but you know, I just leave it as a reminder that everyone has to start somewhere. And also you don't have to be good at all to win.

I love this game, but I hate micromanagement. Which is why I usually stick to the lower difficulties myself. But in exchange I finish games in an hour or two and get to experience a variety of games.

See: Elder Scrolls III - Morrowind

 

[Nukuler]

I just posted a little rant on the Civ6 forum and it exploded with views and replies. I don't know why I did it, I'm just so disappointed with Civ 6. So very disappointed.

I really wish someone else would make a Civ 4 (2) so I could play that. First of all, I don't want 1 UPT. Why, because I'm a pleb scrub who can't into tactical combat? Bruh, I play Dota. I also played WC3 and I was goddamn good at it. You wanna fight me in a tactical game? I'll mop the floor with you in Warcraft or Dota. But when I play Civ, I don't want to be able to beat an AI army of 25 swordsmen with my 2 swordsmen and 2 composite bows. If I can do that, it means I'm invincible, which means my victory is inevitable. Then why play? Civ 4's stack combat was rather lame sometimes, but infinitely better than 1 UPT in Civ 5 or 6.

City states were a great idea, too bad the AI always conquers them and doesn't know how to use them. Sadly, I don't want to go back to Civ 4. I spent thousands of hours on it and I just don't want to go there again. Maybe this is a good thing. Maybe I'll stop gaming so much and spend more time doing other things. Maybe I should thank Firaxis for making Civ 6 a terrible game.

I've been playing Civ 4 for years, tried Civ 5 for one, just went back to Civ 4. I only just starting winning on Prince ( no challegne really: Darius, Standard Continents, Marathan speed, conquered my whole continent with Immortals and built Great Wall by 1500 BC, unintentional Domination victory in 1880's, was shooting for Space victory). So I'll keep moving up the difficulty and see how I do. Also trying out Final Frontier for the first time. Figure I've got some years left.

 

[Hamilton321]

My brother plays civ on chieftain difficulty, automates his workers, and only ever fights with his unique unit. Seriously, he's been playing for four years and he has barely improved at all.

 

[Hamilton321]

The saddest thing about the trend is that games like civ IV had a very broad appeal and that is dying with modern games. I actually don't play games made during the 2010s they are overpriced, simple games which must not make much money because of their overappeal to these instant gratification desiring millenials. The only games I regularly play are Civilization IV, SimCity IV, Tradewinds I and III and EU Rome. All of these games have depth, complexity, a broad appeal, fun and can be played over and over without ever getting old. Looking at what's coming out now all I can think is disappointing. Even Kalypso's quality has gone down, their games were always repetitive but I had fun with some of them for a little while. But have you seen what they are making now. Good ideas but very poorly applied describe all of them, Rise of Venice, Grand Ages: Medieval and especially Urban Empire are excellent examples of this.

 

[Archon_Wing]

My brother plays civ on chieftain difficulty, automates his workers, and only ever fights with his unique unit. Seriously, he's been playing for four years and he has barely improved at all.

Virtually everyone I've tried to co-op with demands that I turn off barbs and the AI is somehow cheating at chieftain/warlord difficulty even though I told 'em it was a bad idea to refuse demands early game with no army. Plus the long arguments that go nowhere about slavery being bad because it allegedly "puts them behind". And note this is generally easier than an actual vs AI game since we are indirectly working together and forming a PA at the end. I do have myself set at noble so I have something to do. The newer ones probably are more accessible but they don't have PA, just teams, and that's sort of whatever.

But honestly, stuff like that has existed in my 20+ years of gaming, so... I don't really see a new trend tbh. Most games are and have always been crap. But generally those get forgotten about really fast.

Now if you want something to make me feel uneasy, it's generally what they are doing with Final Fantasy. It makes my head hurt.

Oh yea, i also got yelled at for using Steam achievements to deduce only 1/3 of people have won a game at chieftain for 5 or 6. Naturally there's a lot of people that bought the game that didn't play it, used mods, or just don't finish, but I really don't think it's farfetched to believe a lot of people really can't and explains why games can keep selling without any AI (improvement)

 

[noto2]

I hear what you're saying (or read what you're writing), but I have spent a lot of time over the last two years playing Xcom and Xcom 2, games that are known for being incredibly difficult and loved for that very fact. The Xcom series is a massive financial success for 2K, probably even bigger than Civ, and Xcom is just stupifyingly difficult and inaccessible to beginners. So hardcore gamers do exist and they do spend money. I wish Civ catered to that crowd more.

 

[Hamilton321]

Just one question; what does everyone think about the Europa Universalis series? I bought EU Rome a month ago and think it is fun so far and a worthwhile 9.99 to spend. I was wondering if the other games in the series are fun.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I'm obsessed with Europa Universalis 4. Really I had to force myself to take a break from it LOL. It is so in-depth and offer such a variety of play. It offers a basically completely open sandbox Grand strategy for the entire planet ranging from 1444 to 1821. With a mod you can extend the time line to be from 1ce to 9999ce. I just finished a long run as Austria where I formed the Holy Roman Empire as a state and then reformed the Roman Empire's borders. In a previous run I started off as Castille, formed Spain and became the world's Premier Colonial superpower. You can even start off as an African nation or Native American tribe or one Province minor for extra difficulty. There is a bit of a learning curve since the game is so extensive but once you've got it down it is Bar None the most addictive game I've ever played. And I'm a huge Civ 4 fan. In fact when I force myself to take a break from eu4 I came back to Civ 4 haha.

I'm not a huge fan of the latest patch so I rolled it back. But if you're into historical simulator type Grand strategy games and like the idea of a complete open Sandbox game then Europa Universalis is definitely for you.

 

[noto2]

Sandbox? So there isn't an emphasis on winning the game?

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

They use achievements and missions to give short and long term goals which vary greatly in difficulty. Achievements range from something as small as forming the nation of Japan thru reforming the Roman Empire as Byzantium or even full world conquest. It's not all conquest though. Some achievements involve colonizing goals or dominating trade.

The achievements also change based on the start date scenarios. For example, in 1776, you can fight to form USA by breaking away from Great Britain. These are just examples, there are tons of varied achievements.

Missions are short term goals that are given throughout the game. They have a very wide variety of goals. You don't have to take them and if you don't like the selections you can cycle them out.

As for a final "win condition" which ends the game, no it's more an open sandbox. But you can lose by being conquered or integrated if you fall into a personal union under another nation.