How is everyone enjoying the new civilization expac? Did your favorite civ make it in?

How is everyone enjoying the new civilization expac? Did your favorite civ make it in?

Korea is my favorite, so I'm fucking stoked.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=IOT9T15mkX0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

you aren't fooling me twice firaxis

>Cant even discover Writing without game crashing
Maybe because i am playing with Zulus?

Loading into a game now. Starting off with based golfman, Robert the Bruce.

still waiting till the complete edition comes out
untill then I'll just enjoy Civ 5

Garbage expansion. I don't know why people buy this shit at full price.

>full price
>easy to grab on GMG for 20 bucks
what

can't decide who to play as first

scotland?
cree?
mapuche?
chandragupta?

Scotland

>playing feminist games
youtube.com/watch?v=IOT9T15mkX0
Stick to Civ4 and Civ5 like everyone else, soyboys.

>developer has pink hair
>waaaah feminism
Nothing wrong in that trailer, either. Shouldn't you go back to your safespace faggot?

>too poor to get it

FUUUUUUUCK

Generally it's a terrible sign of potential "diversification" or other bullshit which is just outright unneeded. Plus on average, such developers tend to be shittier and there is a correlation with them being an sjw, and making unfinished/terrible/(((diversity))) games.

waiting codex release in 2 days

you're not missing much. Stick to civ 5 complete edition even if that has it's own flaws that suck ass. It's still better than... well this.

>this game is bad because someone dyed their hair

You need help.

Thats fascinating user. Could you share with me your multiple scientific studies on the matter?

What is massively better about civ 5 than...well this?

Still no one compares to Alexander raping everyone before the 20th century arrives

WHY AREN'T THE PHOENICIANS IN ANY CIV GAMES? THEY PUT IN FUCKING MAPUCHE BUT THEY DON'T PUT IN A CIV THAT ACTUALLY DID SHIT? I AM SUPER MAD

>standard map, 7 civs 10 city states (like to get a little extra room to grow)
>by turn 20 have met 3 other civs
>2 of htem have capitals within 12 tiles of mine

FUCK OFF

This is your brain on Sup Forums
Open a window and get some air

>implying wu zetian doesn't have every right to be there

has this shit been causing your game to crash, i tried to play a game today with my friend and it crashed and desynced a ton

It's an indicator that the dev is a closet/outright SJW that would give two shits about the games inherent problems or makes terrible decisions, but would gladly push for the "diversification" of a game.
Case in point that sound designer of Subnautica being fired. Why? I have no clue other than caving to that "vocal minority"
Oh and Jeff Kaplan and Overwatch. Kaplan is too busy cracking down on "toxicity" (no not the actual "toxicity" the "I spam voicelines" kind") and making the game a hugbox, while trying to make the game uber-casual, and not fixing the massive balance issues with the damn game.

Have they fixed the AI yet?

At least
>Wu Zetian
>Catherine the Great
>Theodora
>Cleopatra
>Queen Victoria
Were worthy and capable leaders. There is no excuse for having Catherine De Medici though.

Vanilla Civ 5 is garbage, Complete edition Civ 5 is a massive overhaul. It's still a far more complete, and fun game than Civ 6 even with the terrible A.I and the harder difficulties just being bonuses for the A.I.

Thats nice user, but still waiting on those studies.

And what the fuck does this have to do with Civilization?

You must have missed the "what" part of the question. I know reading 10 words in succession can be hard, but its okay, I'll give you another try.

Learn to comprehend, faggot. Civ 5 is the good women, Civ 6 are the uglies. Jesus Christ, cuck.

Oh it's just in general with devs. Besides I was more getting at the fact that the dev cares more about being "progressive" than fixing a broken ass game, with alot of inherent issues.

Apparently the expac isn't on Mac? The reviews are bombing it. Kind of funny.

>they are bad because they are ugly
Are you 12?

>Want to get into games like Civ and Stellaris because I like reading greentext stories about the conquest and grand battles
>Too brainlet at these type of games and always focus too much on some details while neglecting others and end up not having fun or enjoying

Feels bad man.

Victory types in BNW are actually reasonable (for the most part), A.I isn't retardedly mega aggressive towards you. (Unless playing on Immortal/Diety)
Civs are reasonably balanced for the most part, naval civs aren't massively useless in civ 5, Unlike in civ 6.

until they add armenia as a civ I'll just stick to civ v

>telling people to stick to Civ V while pulling the feminism card
Wew lad

>turn 6
>find scythian capital literally 8 tiles from mine

I THOUGHT THEY FIXED THIS SHIT, GIVE ME SOME FUCKING SPACE DAMNIT

>naval civs aren't massively useless in civ 5, Unlike in civ 6.
naval domination is one of the easiest ways to win in civ 6

>Im a guy btw xD

In civ 6 coastal cities are even worse, and you can build harbors without being next to the coast since they count as a district, it invalidates naval melee units.

I always go inland empire on my runs, harbors being up 3 tiles away take away from the city center , it's way better to settle next to a river or a lake than on the coast, only reason to build a harbor for me is the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus

100% production to naval units card and venetian aresenal means you get 4 ships for the price of one, just shell the fuck out of everything with your ranged naval ships and use a few land units to capture the city

harbours are secretly the best district in the game, its easy to get a high adjacency bonus for them and they provide gold AND production once you get the shipyard or whatever it is, so it's like commerical and industrial rolled into one

>pink hair means youre a sjw
>as an example heres two white males with natural coloured hair
rlly maeks u think

major drawback is that for harbors to have that kind of adjacency bonus is being next to the city center, you need a city center to be next to a river/or lake AND next to the coast because you're going to be set back a lot by housing if you settle near the coast, not to mention that your city will be easy to capture like that.
Also unless you're playing with an archipelago map, you're not going to do much with a navy, maybe capture 3-5 cities throughout the game even with some land support but after that it's not really worth it

Is it even worth to play comfy archipelago maps? It seems the district gameplay disencourage it

look at this man and laugh

...

you say that like river coast settles are hard to find
but yeah, there's no point building a navy if there's no cities to seige from the coast

yes, especially as england or indonesia

in my opinion no, the tech tree in VI doesn't really encourage you to do embarking and disembarking as easily in V, shipbuilding is too high cost in research and with the early game decisions when trying to expand doesn't really encourage you to get that tech until mid medieval era.

What went so fucking wrong with this game? It's awful. It's a complete chore to play with these stupid criteria you have to fulfill for good diplomacy, amenities are a completely arbitrary number that fluctuates based on the dumbest shit, and none of the DLC is good at all. I can't even play the fucking thing without it crashing my whole PC anymore.

bad game designer and a dev team who doesn't give a shit and just comes into work to clock their hours

If you're too brainlet for fucking Civ you should just go for the full lobotomy

Civ has been boring since it moved away from empire building to a glorified board game.

Buttmad Prottie detected

The one thing I don't like about VI is ganging up against one opponent, like in V where after a lot of leaders denounced a civ, you could rally them all up against said civ, but only joint wars or "emergencies" can do that, it's not really fun getting so much diplomatic penalties with civs that would have also gone fight alongside me

Yeah but why does a whole class of units need to be totally invalidated? Infact why is the Sea Dog which would be a decent UU invalidated by this one thing? Because it's a melee naval uu, meaning that it's a waste of space for the civ.

Is this the final expansion? I was really disappointed in civ6, the only thing i liked where the gov cards and eureka. Everything else was lackluster

No, it'll probably get one more expansion, like every other mainline civ game.

I guess you can use it if the enemy has a coastal city but the game has much bigger flaws than naval melee units not being that useful
the AI won't even build a navy to challenge you, for one

Thanks, I'll wait until then

What tech allows me to cut down jungle for mad progress on wonders

Bronze working

That's probably a good choice. Civ V with vox populis is still way better with all the work that's been done on the AI.

It's just one flaw of the fact that why the hell would you ever settle next to the coast in this game? In civ 5 BNW there were absolutely valid reasons for wanting to be on the coast.

harbour adjacencies mainly
get a nice triangle with a commerical center/harbor/city center

Yeah, they need to make it so that you can get an additional trade route, and/or more profitable trade routes, by settling on the coast, or make ocean tiles become more productive from the mid-game.

I kinda skipped through can you tell me what the problem was?

Was gonna try Korea but thought that seemed too easy, so I'll see how good Georgia is for my first game.

What's the verdict? Need to know if I should bother reinstalling

What's the best/worst wonder in the game? For me it's the Big Ben and Ruhr Valley tied for first and the Hermitage for worst.

magnus is the mvp governor

big ben is the best if used properly
hanging gardens might be the worst because who needs food with aggressive population caps

Give me the tl;dr, is this the Brave New World to make Civ6 playable or will everyone keep playing 5?

It's the G&K.

It's the Gods and Kings of Civ 6

>is this the Brave New World to make Civ6 playable
nope

15% growth is great, get the pantheon too and your people are essentially fucking like bunnies

Playing through as Scotland right now. Haven't met an AI Civ yet and I'm about halfway through the Classical Era. Barbarians feel a lot more balanced and it feels like the game is less skewed towards constantly playing wide.

So not worth it? Maybe they'll release the BNW next year.

>15% growth is great
not when your cities are population capped more often than not

yeah but what's the purpose since you're going to be stuck at 9-10 until the rennaissance/industrial era?

Unless you already like the base content a fair bit, I wouldn't recommend buying the new expac on release date. Just wait for a sale after the 2nd expansion comes out if price is an issue and you have other games to play.

this game isn't going to get better. Civ 5 was barebones at release and the expansions added systems and content. Civ 6 released with all the systems in 5, it's bad because the core game design is bad and the expansion packs aren't going to address that.

I wait until complete editions of civ games. They never feel worth it to me until then

Build improvements and an aqueduct ya mong

Worth $30? Probably not. I'm a sucker for 4x so I'll get my money's worth in the end, but it's not a steal by any means. By the end of this year it'll probably be half price and there's yet another expansion and possibly more DLC to go. Pirate it if you're on the edge, $30 really isn't a price worth hedging it on.

Civ 6 is finally starting to feel like it's own game now. It's actually fun, surprisingly.

Sucks because I wanted to try 6 again because I haven't played it since launch but 5 just feels better in every way. I think I'm going to just finally learn another strategy game like EUIV or HoI. Can any of you tell me why people like EUIV more than CK2?

the only way you can get a significant increase is by spamming farms, and your flat land is better spent having districts on it

Just use CreamAPI. All the DLC is already in the game's files.

>Can any of you tell me why people like EUIV more than CK2?

Because EUIV scratches the colonialism/renaissance itch? It's not a vastly superior game to EUI3, it's just the more recent one. CK2 is even more simplistic in mechanics, but people like it because the dynasty and espionage shenanigans. Play enough Paradox and you'll eventually end up savvy to them. In the end they fall into the same pitfall as Civ where most strategy is abusing the mechanics and exploiting bad AI. Not that there isn't fun to be had, but they're not the mastermind simulators they're made out to be.

Civ Beyond Earth was such a shit show, that is turned me off to Civ 6. Civ 5 with mods is fine, and I can play it for another year or so. Longer if the modding community sticks to the game.

>it's bad because the core game design is bad and the expansion packs aren't going to address that.
people said this about civ 5, too.
you shouldn't discount the fact that civ 5's expansions added a lot of subtle polish to the base game's systems.

I can't see them ripping out the eureka system or the district system forcing the games to be more about fiddly micromanagment than strategy, and I'm not seeing any evidence of subtle polish either

I just downloaded the expansion and i am playing it on my steam account, so far not a whole lot of new stuff since i am still in turn 35