Having an "argument" with a "friend." Which one "requires" more skill?

Having an "argument" with a "friend." Which one "requires" more skill?

>sit down and click through the same exact tech trees while playing the worst game of risk because dude rng lol
vs
>a good RTS
hmmm

age of empires 2
civ 5 is piss easy but anyone semi competent stomps me in aoe2 because of so many variable you have to keep track of while fighting the enemy
not that i think turn-based games are bad i just don't think civ 5 is good

Vanilla civ 5 was casualized to shit but with BNW it's pretty good.

i only played with gods and kings
i do enjoy a casual turn-based game like homm3 or might and magic

AoE2

You are comparing an RTS to a turn based game, AoE II is much harder in a mechanical sense, knowledge alone can carry you in civ, but good luck with winning a AoE match if you can't micro/macro.

AoE is like checkers.
>build this
>defend that
Civ is like chess.
>have to think ahead
>multiple layers

It's still not very good even with BNW. The AI sucks ass and can't into fighting. Vox Populi is basically necessary to turn it into an actual game and not just a sandbox for autistic people.

Civ games are literally just casualized grand strat. A genre which has already been massively casualized itself.

Age of Empires easily.

"laser"

Civ 5 is pretty Mongoloid tier. Civ 4 is pretty challenging though if that was the option between the two I'd say Civ 4. Otherwise AoE2

>grand strat. A genre which has already been massively casualized itself
Grand strat is probably one of the only genres immune to casualization, at least in a strong sense. I guess EU4 is soft casualized (MUH MANA) but the average person still can't come close to playing it.

Money be green

How is civ 4 any different from civ 5? al the basic mechanics are the exact same

I've poured hours into Civ V but I'm not convinced it is anything more than a pure luck-based game.

I mean the tech tree looks impressive at first glance, but viable paths through it are actually very few. There is really only one viable resource to invest in (science). And since it's nearly impossible to monitor and calculate your opponent's production and other resources you can't really guarantee successful production of wonders etc.

ai is dumber
HEXES
greater unit limits
stacking
tech tree

The very basic mechanics are the same but there are overlying mechanics that change things dramatically.

Retards don't understand stacks and never have, think they are broken because they never figured out how artillery work. Hexagons are better than squares but 1 unit per tile makes every game a clusterfuck of logistics and not in a super strategic way, mostly in an annoying way especially the longer the game goes, becomes a carpet of death across the globe. Can't fight major wars because all frontlines are tiny.

Cities work differently too, sieging mechanics work totally different, require more compositional strategy which moves more smoothly because you don't have to do a musical chairs game every time you assault.

>hexes being a bad thing

There are also pros and cons with stacks vs 1upt, but hexes are just objectively better then squares.

Probably AoE because you have to think fast AND know the meta to play competitively.

t. a mediocre 1750 AoE 2 player

Both pale in comparison to something ultra-autistic like Dominions 4 though.

As a Civ 4 lover and Civ 5 hater I still agree with this. Hexes might be the literal only thing Civ 5 improves on.