And you can have it all

...

My empire of dust

MY EMPIRE OF DIRT

(((civ iv)))

Isn't Civ 4 the best civ?

Either III or IV. IV's big problem is the stacks, and mods can fix that real quick.

Yes but there is unavoidable climate change late game which is extremely annoying.

Is 6 still shit?

>there will never be another Civ game quite like IV again

I've played ton of Civ 4 and never seen it. The games always end before year 2000.

>nukes do fucking nothing in CIV IV, CIV V, or HOI IV
How are they in CIV VI? Can they actually fuck up the planet beyond hope?

>2208
>portugal still uses airplanes

No, it's strong second. Civ V with all expansions is best. Civ IVfags are just delusional. It's absolutely great but CIVV is better.

The rate increases the more you use nukes.

>one unit per tile
LOL

you should play alpha centauri if you want strong nukes

i think vi nukes have less impact than in v if i rememver correct

>Can they actually fuck up the planet beyond hope?
I hope not. They can't in real life.

Nuclear winter is a meme. The eruption of Krakatoa threw more ash into the stratosphere than 10,000 nukes would, and did not cause a drastic drop in world temperatures.

That gives it strategy. You should find a better point.

>The Hive is now a 2-tile-radius crater
>the environment is fucked
>mind worms are going crazy

It's handled really badly to what it could have been. It's basically get to modern era+ and tiles start turning in to desert. There's no global cliamte change at any other point like cooling or heating. It isn't expanded upon as is e.g. as diplomatic tensions over not reducing hammer output, it's just there.

They should only let you have one unit on the map. That makes you strategize more after all.

>has to shitpost
That was fast.

Your logic is retarded, so I took it to its logical conclusion. Artificially limiting the player in an unrealistic way is just fine in your book because it "gives it strategy".

The player should be able to do literally everything at any point. Just nuke all the civs in 4000 BC before they settle. Otherwise he is artificially limited.

>in an unrealistic way
It's okay user, I already knew you were retarded because you were defending Civ V. It's unrealistic that only one small group of people can inhabit an area the size of a city.

Are you fucking an idiot? Stacking units on one tile and attacking a city doesn't take as much strategy as placing certain units at certain tiles so they can do damage. You HAVE to surround targets and move units in the right order to get them into position. Melees upfront, ranged, behind. Simple strategy but not possible in Civ IV.

user, stacks were hated. They weren't taken out to limit users, but because it was a bad mechanic.

There's this hot new game called "Pong"! It would totally suit your playing style.

The climate change only happens when nukes get used. Unlike Civ II where it started happening randomly once you had industrialised.

>melees upfront, ranged, behind
Woah... you're right...

>Fuck, this mechanic is getting a lot of hate because people can just stack units infinitely
>I know, let's remove it entirely instead of just adding a logistics limit like all of these mods do!

Only thing I miss from IV is the zoomed out planet earth view.

>stacks were hated
No, they weren't. I hated the 1-unit-per-tile limit of Civ5. It made the logistics of bringing units to the front a chore. The road that was the shortest path to the front would get clogged to shit and it would be a big pain to actually move. Fuck Civ5.

Civ3 and 4 could have tiles being changed due global warming before nuclear strikes.
In Civ2 you could actually stop it since solar plants could lower the temperature somehow.

Most strategy games have one unit per tile thing.
You guys don't actually play video games really. It's just nostalgia for Civ IV I take it?

>Most strategy games
Don't give a shit about 'most strategy games', why does every single video game need to play the same way? In what dimension is "you can only have this many units in a stack before they face heavy penalties" worse than "you can't stack any units, have fun moving your armies now"?

>"y-you don't play video games!"
Yeah, you've lost the argument. Fuck off.

>Most strategy games have one unit per tile thing.
Name 3.

>Most strategy games have one unit per tile thing.

Is this the worst post ever?

How many (non-Civ) tile-based strategy games allow multiple units per tile?

is the caveman to cosmos mod any good?

I like its scope, but I could never get it running. I usually just stick with Realism Invictus.

>lord-castellan
>victoria

>lord
>victoria
Why is everything such low-effort garbage nowadays?

get a load of this faggot

Like, 99% of them?

its kind of fun but fuck the game slows down with all those goddamn animals everywhere

You wanna know how I know you're a casual?

For example?

Every game by Paradox.

>local happiness
>only strategy on higher ai and humans is 3-5 sparse cities which look nothing like a country let alone a civilisation
Nah.

Civ needs a 1-army-per-tile system. Each army is comprised of the units you actually build, and these units fight each other directly when armies clash, but you don't control the units themselves except in assigning them their roles in the army.

For example, swordsmen are a shock unit, archers are a fire unit, and catapults are a support unit. When two armies clash you go into a "battle" screen where each player sets the targets for his units (in broad strokes - all fire concentrate enemy shock, or all fire concentrate enemy fire, all support concentrate enemy fire, all support fire half at enemy fire and half at enemy support) and then the battle unfolds automatically over a couple of turns with options to retreat or change battle strategy every turn. Attacks are made and received simultaneously.

The size of armies is capped by technology, so as the game goes on armies get bigger and bigger and more expensive, but they don't become more cumbersome to manage because they still only take up one tile.

Find a flaw.

they told me this formation was perfect, but i knew i could improve it but at least 100%. now i just train the soldiers to stack even higher and the formation will be a tower of impenetrable roman glory!

This is fine, but it's not what CIv5 or 6 do.

It's too bloated. Realism is better

>Find a flaw
There isn't one, that's the natural way the stack system should evolve and that's how some Civ IV mods do it.

REVEL IN MY GLORY

Wait, but what if we made one GIANT shielded tower out of wood and gave it wheels.... and then put our shielded legions INSIDE them?

AHAHAHAHAH

forgot pic

herp

All Fire Emblem games. All tactics games

Fire Emblem is a tactics game, not a strategy game.

...

>tactical rpgs are in the same genre as turn-based strategy games

>all tactics games
None grand strategy. Please tell me you're baiting, I wouldn't even be mad

So basically Realism Invictus? 1UPT will always be worse because it's so restrictive on what you can do with it, while you can always put limits on free amounts of unit per tile to reel in doomstacks. 1UPT is a blunt as hell solution that I think is just laziness on Firaxis's part. Everyone always argues like it's impossible to have any compromise between unlimited units on a tile or just one, it's nice to see some people in this thread actually understand you can do more than that.

SRPGs are a whole different animal compared to 4x.

Its certainly better than 5 and 6

ROME DEMANDS VICTORY FROM HER GENERALS

...