It's $30

It's $30.

Worth it?

No.
Maybe, after 3 expansions.
Probably never.

I saw reviews have it over 9.0 (critical)

User reviews seem to be the exact opposite.

What's the truth?

The truth is that they doubled down on the shit that made Civ 5 bad while taking a shit on the parts that Civ 5 and Civ 4 did right.
With a big tumbler pondering shit cherry on top of the whole mess.

If you're a big civhead its worth it. But then if you were a big civhead you'd already have it. So you had better wait until the goty edition in 2020 or whenever.

>The AI is worse than V if that's possible.
>The leader choices are dubious at best.
>The art style is terrible, cartoony, and plastic.
>Sean bean completely wasted on wack ass tech and wonder quotes.
>No World Congress
>Religions dumbed down

The only good was that it added government types and social policy cards.

>No World Congress
thank fucking god

Never played a civ game. Is the "V - Complete" worth it for 18 bucks?

Definitely. It's the definitive civ experience.

Man, late game that's all I looked forward to in V.

4 is still better

>wack ass tech and wonder quotes.
When I saw just a few of these I was instantly turned off the entire game. Monty Python? A Paulo Coelho quote when you research writing? Just shoot me in the face already.
Some clown without reverence for the theme of world-domination was too heavily involved in this game. Must of been a diversity hire or a woman.

Better than Civ V was at launch. But not as good as Civ V is with all its expansions. I would buy Civ V complete and play that until Civ VI gets an expansion.

No, the AI is the worst of any civ game I've played. If you're looking to get into 4x games try civ V

It's a game about civilizations, you need one if you want any sort of insurance against warmonger civs by embargoing them

>I saw reviews have it over 9.0 (critical)
>Game journos

Civ V complete, Civ IV (and it's mods) and AC are still better experiences than Civ VI is currently. Wait until they shit out some expansions or someone starts working on a Vox Populi equivalent.

one unit per tile ruined civ

>Think smiley faces in the upper-right mean that the civs genuinely like me
>NOPE LOL they declare surprise wars and fuck me over

The truth is that you should never listen to reviews. They cater to brand names, companies and fan expectations. Or money. The last thing they ever do is actually play and judge a game.

>if you want any sort of insurance against warmonger civs
Already exists, they're called nukes

It's not like Civ 5 though where the second you make a nuke everyone pisses their pants and sucks your dick

what's this supposed to get across?

it's alright, but civ 5 with all expansions is 10x better

the district concept is kind of cool but the art style ruins it

This, desu. Yeah, it feels more tactical and strategic to have 1UPT, but the AI is simply too retarded to engage war with that limitation. As a result, while it looks cool for you to work around with, the AI sucks in anything combat-related in V and VI. I was expecting this to get remedied in VI, but I think it stayed the same.

If you can't beat a Civ AI in tactical warfare you are objectively a brainlet.

I could never get into Civ properly because it always seemed like rival nations were way too technologically advanced relative to the passage of time. Like you're researching metallurgy or whatever, and they're already attacking with bombers and fighter jets. But maybe I'm a brainlet scrub who can't into research trees.

you probably aren't producing enough wealth

The AI sucks in any 4x/strategy game. All death stacks do is make the game about the person with more units always wins. One unit per tile isn't perfect, but it allows for some strategy. It just turns out that it breaks the game in another way, as you can use 2 archers to take out 20 warriors.

Civ VI is kind of trying to find a middle ground by letting you stack certain units together. But it needs refining (like everything else in Civ VI needs fixing). But no matter how well they balance it, the AI will always be stupid.

In the beginning, the AI gets a bonus to tech and a few other things (depending on Difficulty). You can catch up by getting a Scientist early and creating a research lab, but generally you should meet them around the Renaissance and completely eclipse them by the modern age.

How is that related to anything posted?

>The AI sucks in any 4x/strategy game. All death stacks do is make the game about the person with more units always wins.
If you had played multiplayer - or Civ3/4 on any high difficulty level - you'd know that's not true.

The former because human on human battles in 4 are really exciting (and it's a fucking crime that Firaxis utterly neglected MP in releases of 5 and 6) and forming blobby stacks of doom isn't a great idea when they're likely to be slow and picked off by siege.

The latter because the AI produces so much shit on Emperor+ that you are unlikely to win by just roflstomping.

How I win most of my Emperor+ games in Civ4 is by getting a crucial tech ahead of the opposition and timing my domestic side very very carefully so that I can go into some mass slavery/draft program to get a fuckton of units out of the gate as early as possible and bank on my tech advantage.

Sheerly outproducing the AI in Civ4 isn't that easy unless you already have way more cities than they do.

And yeah, Civ4 was dumb, but the way 1UPT makes AI work in Civ5 and 6 is abysmal. I still find a challenge in Civ4 on Emperor+ and never played Deity; in Civ5/6, I played my second game ever on Immortal and cruised by without problems and without using cheese, random civilization and all.

>All death stacks do is make the game about the person with more units always wins
>the person with the better army wins the battle
whoa what a flawed system

There should be some degree of "the commander who leads his armies better will win" mixed in there somewhere.

And also let me just stress how much of a shame it is that 5 and 6 have non-existent multiplayer support.

The 1UPT system, with all its faults, would have been tailor-made for human vs human battles because humans can actually utilise the fucking 1UPT instead of turning it into a clogged up highway that the AI gets completely lost in.

But Firaxis never bothered to even supplement a proper Pitboss mode for either of their newest titles when 4 had all of that and more.

I really don't get why.

research is tied to gold

It's a lot better than it was at release. The AI isn't nearly as spastic as it was before and unstacking cities was a great idea. It might look like mobile game-tier shit in screenshots, but ingame it's gorgeous. Will age a lot better than V in every way.

Troop experience, army builds, and terrain advantages already do that

Wait, what? I'm pretty sure research is tied to research beakers and that's it.

Its always $30
EVERY
FUCKING
SALE
As soon as it drops below that and people buy it you bet they'll fucking release countless dlc packs

Agreed. In Civ 4, you at least had to gain the better army. In 5 and 6, you win. No matter what. Even if you're not trying. Because that's how much the AI sucks at wartime.

Probably. I always try to have dedicated cities to gold/culture/science, but probably spread myself too thin. Also doesn't help that I prefer to explore and build up my cities, but rival nations are eager to fight every three fucking turns.

You can always spot brainlet retards because they advocate doomstacks. Nothing made the game less fun than assaulting fucking Doomstacks. It made domination victories a slog, so everyone just rushed science every fucking game.

There is:
>
The problem with Civ is that it's not meant to be a wargame, it's a 4X game that includes all sorts of macro- and micro-management bits.
Minimalistic combat was never an issue in Civilization; the fact that you could just collect units into stacks and march on the enemy was just another step on the way when you had to
>get the right tech
>get the right infrastructure
>make some tough choices along the way
>make some deals with the AI to speed up your research while avoiding giving them the best stuff
>appease the warmongers so that you don't get destroyed by Montezuma's 68 Axemen that he's been whipping since Turn -1; Tenochtitlan is literally size 0, but he keeps fucking pressing on
>put the units in the right places so that you can hit the AI hard before they reinforce
>pay attention to the demographics to make sure that you're not declaring war on someone with a massive shift in power rating
>if they have a fuckton more units than you or they have some tech edge, you have to account for that
>make sure you have roads to supplement your forces
>make sure that your economy can withstand the amount of new cities that you'll add to your empire
>make sure your citizens don't want to murder you for all the unhappiness the war will put them through

Only 4X game I can think of where you get to have some micromanagement during combat is classic Master of Orion, because during combat you went into a Heroes of Might & Magic-esque combat screen. But MoO was much more simple on the macro side, and you mostly governed your production by changing around sliders and you had way fewer units (but you could design them yourself).

Maybe he's thinking happiness.

A lot better than V, but it still needs an expansion instead of DLC civs
Has the GOAT music too

I looked and I guess gold only matters for science in 4

I was clearly talking about human vs AI combat. I specifically said that in my post. You can't shift the focus to "well its good if you play real people!" Because you can say Civ V and VI also improve against live people who don't fall for easy tricks like the AI does. The AI in Civ IV also falls for tricks. Just different tricks.

>STILL only dropping to $30
I'd maybe pick it up if it dropped lower but I'm still pretty content with V.

>Nothing made the game less fun than assaulting fucking Doomstacks. It made domination victories a slog
>Civ4
>you have a doomstack
>opponent has a doomstack
>sacrifice some siege
>calculate whether you can win or not
>check Stack Attack and turning off combat animations in options
>send your entire army on enemy doomstack
>you win or lose
>the entire situation is over in a few seconds
>you keep spamming units and keep taking cities
>victory likely in the early 1000s
meanwhile space
>make cities and micromanage them endlessly
>get to industrial era
>micromanage your workers so that they put railroads wherever important
>micromanage your production
>micromanage your cities so that they can have research worth a damn
>game gets slower and more sluggish because later-age games have more memory and take longer to proceed to next turn
>get to late era techs
>if you didn't have a good plan before you are now watching as your full Commerce / Research cities are slugging around trying to get the infrastructure necessary to build a spaceship
>or if you did, now you're doing more micromanagement because all your commerce buildings need to be changed to production one by one so that you can speed up spaceship part production
>launch spaceship
>wait like 10 turns for it to arrive
>YOU ARE WINRAR

>culture
>build a fuckton of wonders
>micromanage a ton of artists
>pray you don't get murdered
>watch the culture sliders go up
>YOU ARE WINRAR

The only DLC worth getting is the Aussies. You can shitpost to win.

Ya, which is why the latter half of my post was about why stacks of doom in vs AI combat aren't really that big of a deal because the AI has so much proudction that ytou still have to compensate with a good plan.

I've played only Civ IV the last 10 years

Please give me something else, or some new way to play it

I hate turn based games. That s why i prefer universalis .. altho in general i m not a big fan of strategic games cause the AI is retarded or buffed with cheats

>new way to play it
Beat it on Deity.

Yes.

Only if you're already a big civ fan.

Civ 5 has double the amount of players as Civ 6, and this number is only going to increase. There is a mod that is constantly being developed in Civ 5 for multiplayer usage called 'NQ mod' so people will probably still play that when Civ 6 is long dead. Civ 6 looks like a mobile game compare to Civ 5, also worse leaders in Civ 5 and a bit of SJW with "muh strong womyn".

I can't, I barely ever win on prince

I don't like trading with the other civs

I'm not very good at the game

It's shit. Go back to modded IV or V.

Play Civ V.

>wah the game sucks compared to Civ IV even though I'm comparing Civ IV with expansions and mods to Vanilla Civ V!

If you can't win at Civ, then anything else I suggest to you will be too hard. You won't even be able to beat Endless Legend or Stellaris on easy.