Civilization

this
still play the second one from time to time

Attached: up to date stats.jpg (760x921, 99.27K)

Civ V with BNW.

6 has eclipsed 5 in featureset and has improved on several systems (adding a culture tree, adding global climate, revamping happiness into amenities, built-in ethnic units) and has much better multiplayer netcode + modded multiplayer. Its weaknesses are the lacking lategame, new governor system isn't great, and religion still sucks ass. 5 with all expansions is still fun but it barely functions.

Attached: 2000 BC.png (1889x873, 282.44K)

It's in your pic user

t. shill

6 has such lame leaders. Wimmin and nogs aside it seems like they tried to deemphasize conquerers and warlike leaders.

He's right. Decentralization of the cities is the greatest feature beside hex grid.

Attached: Rz9hYF8.jpg (1920x1080, 715.45K)

>it's now shilling if you point out how the new version of a game is mechanically superior

They wanted to avoid repeat leaders (lol Gandhi) but they're really not stellar at picking them. Catherine de'Medici is only leading France because she's the waifu of one of the lead devs, Seondeok was only picked because she's a woman, Kristina is probably the worst pick and lo and behold caters to SJW tendencies. Most of the others are fine except with how they're portrayed, such as Amanitore being a landwhale now for some reason, CHADragupta being darker-skinned even though he came from a lighter-skinned region of India, and Moctezuma still looking un-historical outright.

Attached: don't try it.jpg (340x340, 29.58K)

Civ 6 with Rising Storm expansion

Vox Populi for gameplay

6 for music

4 because of soundtrack and total conversion mods
5 is decent as well

4
need to play some fall from heaven again soon

Attached: Civilization_Beyond_Earth_cover_art.png (258x387, 107.19K)

Lame leader selection aside, 6 is objectively the best. It’s basically an improved Civ 5 with some new mechanics that add more variety and strategy and it also the best music and graphics

BASED CIV 5 CHADS.

Honestly? None of them. Grand Strategy is just a better genre than 4x. Playing 4x against AI is dead easy until you raise the difficulty to a level where they cheat against you. "Strategy" involves grabbing the best tiles in the first 30 turns of the game. If you don't do this, the next hours are a long slow descent into failure. Playing against human opponents takes forever and the amount of autism some people have for these games makes it so it can never be fun.

Civ3 with Play the World but without Conquests is the best for multiplayer.

Civ4 with all expansions is the best for single player.

The reasons for this is that Civ3 (but not Conquests) has great balance and simple, quick, but surprisingly deep gameplay once you get the hang of it, especially in terms of the necessity of diplomacy and how a game can change over time, but the AI sucks terribly, so it's not suitable for single player.

Civ4, on the other hand, has probably the best AI in the series and also probably the most diversity in playstyles, giving you lots of options and a ton of replayability. Plus is has the best modding scene of any Civ game by about a million miles, which just adds layers to how long it can last you.

6 fucked the diplomacy

SMAC, followed by 4. 3 is easily the worst.

Strategy and variety doesn't matter when the AI is garbage

5 doesn't have good diplo either

play multiplayer, brother

Now that's a game that has a really great thematic soundtrack.

Was it so bad as they say or is it just modded Civ V

Only SMAC have good diplo but that's solely because small leader pool allowed devs to program different personalities and relations to others. Wouldn't work with much bigger pool.

I dunno the game seems pretty tough to me on higher difficulty

I keep trying to like this, because it does some things well. But god DAMN is it just a fucking clusterfuck.

HUMANKIND

Attached: ss_7a1998fad92340a33344ddbc32077fed0cfe1b49.jpg (1920x1080, 1.03M)

AI gets cheats on high difficulty

Post release EL Amplitude lost its soul. Im sorry but it's not fun anymore since they started to make dlcs for EL and later ES2, their games became lifeless husks.

I fucking hated it since the very first Civ game
I don't mind AI beating me because it's smart, but +% of build speed, resources etc just annoys me

The problem isn't the difficulty. It's that the AI isn't really good at playing the game. Their units get hung up on terrain and don't move well, making it trivial to hold chokepoints because the AI can't get artillery or ranged units into position properly. They don't do diplomacy properly, leading to no real alliances and a general stagnation of small, pointless wars between different AIs so that the map really doesn't change much unless a) you do it, or b) an AI eventually snowballs. They can't build their cities properly, meaning that when you capture them you have to deal with their fucked district positioning making them useless and crippled. They build the wrong wonders, and don't use the ones they get well. They don't know what tech to go for when, meaning that while you can't out-tech them in a pure numbers way, you can almost always guarantee you'll have more advanced units than they will. They're also incredibly easy to exploit for trade. They cheat to get gold, so you can foist off useless resources to them for massive sums, letting you buy your way to victory really early.

It's fine if you're just messing around, and you don't know the game any better than the AI does. But once you get even a little systems mastery, playing becomes a simple matter of tricking and exploiting the AI's dumb decisions, and victory becomes trivial and boring.

That’s basically every game bro

I never said 5 had it good, but 6 completely butchered it

its retarded how much cities sprawl in this game

6 made it a more viable tactic for winning and improved it

Not good games. There's plenty of good 4X and RTS games with sufficiently competent AI to provide a challenge. Even newer games. AoE2 DE has great AI, designed well enough that they'll boar lure and run build orders better than most players, without cheating.

Closer to home, the AI in Civ4 isn't great, but it's still more than good enough to provide a legitimate challenge to even pretty good players.

Yeah, plenty of games have shit AI, or at least AI that you can cheese or sideline somehow. But that doesn't mean there aren't good examples out there.

Or better examples, at least.

Certainly the fact that the overall quality of AI in games isn't that high shouldn't stop people from calling out the really terrible examples, and both Civ5 and Civ6 fall into that category.

bros, my favorite is 4. I want to try 5. Is it better with or without expansions? I've heard both from different people.

one look at the encylopedia of 5 alone proves you dead wrong.
that thing is basically useless.

It's fucking trash garbage without expansions. It's somewhat decent with expansions. Most of the reason for that is that without expansions there's so few systems in the game, and so little to do, that you can see it all in a single playthrough.

With expansions at least there's enough content and variety to get you a few hundred hours before you get bored.

civ 5, because it's the only one I've played and civ 6 has too many women

Attached: 1554575847548.png (554x400, 70.81K)

6's diplomacy is anything but tactic
You just get denounced for every minimal shit you do, and the causus beli system is a total disaster

I got the latest one months ago.
I just did most of the tutorial and got overwhelmed. I feel like I dont have a high enough iq to enjoy this game.
is the tutorial supposed to be so unfun?

That’s every Cub game. 6 adds Diplomacy points which you can use for trading resources and favours and adds a whole new dimension to diplomacy that actually makes it useful to you.

It's just badly designed. Admittedly Civ6 has a problem where you can easily fuck yourself for later in the game if you don't know what you're doing early, but that's a problem of design rather than complexity. You don't need a high IQ to play, you just need to know ahead of time where to place cities and districts.

>Cub game

Attached: hmmMM.jpg (640x635, 22.58K)

Welcome to the world of autocorrect buddy

>phoneposter is a civ 6 fag

5 without expansions is outright bland, I don't know how anybody would say it's better. However the BNW expansion did introduce a dumb science penalty for having more cities which is also pretty bad.

Master of Orion 2 or Gal Civs 2

>straw manning retard is a 6 hater

learn what a strawman is

Learn what an argument is

Fucking based

irony

How embarrassing to be you

read this, user.

Attached: 9f0506939af47d79bd76f256ac50c59a.jpg (960x720, 91.24K)

4

Damage control harder. Learn to make better arguments next time shit for brains

I could forgive you being retarded if it wasn't so blatant you were a shill

I'm literally not even the same guy, but ok.

>However the BNW expansion did introduce a dumb science penalty for having more cities which is also pretty bad.
I imagine it was to let tall civs compete in a category other than a faggoty cultural or diplo win

>seething because you have no arguments
Yes yes polfags, time to reply to me because your precious position has been knocked down.

are you false flagging to make civ 6 fags look like retards?

Are you seething and projecting to damage control your shitty arguments again?

Diplomacy points are a gimmick, you could always trade resources and favours. Also:
>adds a whole new dimension to diplomacy

kek

>build units
>denounced
>build wonders
>denounced
>advance in tech
>denounced

It's literally unplayable without mods for diplomacy

Take your meds.