So now that Civ is officially dead with the reveal of CIV 6, is it worth getting the final game in the series?
>>337798395
pirate it.
>>337798395
5 with Gods & Kings and the Brave New World expansions is objectively better than 4 + expansions
>>337798395
6 is not gonna do shit to 5
>>337798717
What?
I never said that 6 would change anything in 5
It's just that 6 is going to be a terrible game, so 5 is objectively the final game in the franchise
>>337798612
Explain.
Too many instances of the word "objectively" in this thread.
>>337799218
My thoughts; I see them mirrored in you.
>>337799218
Objectively applies here though.
Who's going to want to play CIV: Phone edition?
>>337798395
Civ 5 is really good, and even if it was just "okay", at the current price it would still be a fucking steal.
>>337799358
I agree. Civ 6 looks too cartoony. Not a mention about bigger maps or more civs :( I am disappoint...
>>337798891
By your logic 4 is the final game since 5 is so terrible.
>>337799620
>5 is so terrible
5 is fucking brilliant. Brave New World + Community Balance Patch = sex
>>337799683
a gigantic overhaul mod in an attempt to salvage something worth playing = brilliant game?
>>337799804
Even without CBP it's brilliant. But with it, it transcends brilliance and becomes sexual.
>>337799605
The thing i was looking forward to the most with CIV 6 (before it was actually revealed) was updated graphics. I'm not a graphics whore but CIV 5 is basically "perfect" and better graphic fidelity was something to look forward to
Then they revealed it and they completely changed art direction to some garbage that PERSONALLY i don't want to look at
>>337798395
What's wrong with Civ 6? I used to play Civ 2 when I was a kid.
How did the series go?
>>337800005
Look at screenshots of it.
>>337798395
No. Better get pic related.
purchased it for this sale and its also my first civ. holly shit its addictive.
>>337799920
Yup. I agree with you. THE most important thing I was hoping for was bigger maps and more civs though. The 22 player limit in 5 felt too small. I want double the map size and at least double the number of civs I can play against.
>>337800005
nothing, but idiots are crying about it looking too cartoony
(even though it's more readable and clear as to what's going on)
>>337799919
it's trash
>>337799920
But the graphics we've seen from Civ VI are an objective improvement over Civ V.
>>337800005
Civ V ruined the series. VI is probably going to play similarly to it
>>337798395
civ 6 will be good. you fags overreact as always.
>>337800263
>it's trash
You're trash.
>the graphics we've seen from Civ VI are an objective improvement over Civ V
Get the fuck out. And stop using "objectively". For fucks sake.
>>337798395
It's going to sell like hotcakes and you know it. It's far from dead.
>>337800263
>Civ V ruined the series
no, it brought it back to live
>>337800401
Yup. Fuck that guy. V was great.
>>337799804
I'll concede the vanilla game was barebones, but after two expansion packs it's fucking awesome. Sending my artists to influence other factions culturally is funny.
![512px-Necrophagequest5[1].png_version=e79250e6643f0ff0c7ae512c4cc4fead.png](https://i.imgur.com/S5jxIf7.png "512px-Necrophagequest5[1].png_version=e79250e6643f0ff0c7ae512c4cc4fead.png")
>>337800098
+1.
Endless Legend is a worthy successor to Civ.
>>337800148
Have you ever finished a fucking game? Do you have any idea how long a turn takes with 22 players?
>>337798395
Civ 5 is shit. It's the only one I've played so if it really is the best in the series, civ is a really shitty series.
>>337799920
>but CIV 5 is basically "perfect"
it's really not. the combat sucks, cities are too hard to take, diplomacy is too basic, espionage is too basic, cultural victory is too difficult, playing tall is objectively superior to wide
I love Civ5 but it's nowhere near perfect
>>337800357
>Get the fuck out. And stop using "objectively". For fucks sake.
2 + 2 = 4 objectively, correct? What's wrong with using words where they're appropriate?
In Civ V you click on big symbols on top of the units instead of the units themselves, which was necessitated due to objectively bad graphics design. In VI they appear to have corrected this mistake by returning to larger, more distinct and colorful unit graphics. I wouldn't have to explain this to you if you were smart enough to know Civ V is shit.
>>337800610
>combat sucks
combat is fun and have never been better
>>337800467
>Have you ever finished a fucking game?
With 2390 hours played: Yes, more than I can count.
>Do you have any idea how long a turn takes with 22 players?
If you mean processing the other players, yes - it takes a little too long - but not a game breaker at all. I usually play while watching some movie or tv series on my second monitor anyways.
>>337800401
From what state? IV was both successful and great.
>>337798612
>>337798921
Can't be explained, he is wrong, civ 4 is the best civ ever created
>>337800698
well it may be better than the old civs, but Civ6 sounds like an improvment with small stacks instead of one single unit per tile getting your seige engines sniped, having no fucking room to manuever unless their city is on an open plain
>>337800692
>2 + 2 = 4 objectively, correct? What's wrong with using words where they're appropriate?
Try using mathematics to prove that the graphics are an improvement. Retarded dimwit.
>due to objectively bad graphics design
There you go again. You're embarrassing yourself.
>if you were smart enough to know Civ V is shit
Yup, get out.
>>337800610
>combat sucks
To be honest, what do you expect with combat? It's a turn based strategy game, and you basically click on a unit to attack a square, or an hexagon in this case. It's not like an FPS or RPG in which you need more control and free flow movement. It's literally a point and click game 90% of the time.
>>337800610
You need the Community Balance Patch.
>>337800692
>objectively bad graphics design.
>>337800983
tried it it sucks ass
>>337798395
w-well yes it couldn't be worse than Civ 5 r-right guys ?
>>337800958
ok it doesn't SUCK, it just has flaws and can be improved upon
>>337800908
Reduced functionality = objectively bad design. Civ V is the only civ game where they resorted to displaying symbols over the units, because they couldn't rely on the graphical design of the units to do their job, i.e., the graphics are inferior to every other civ game.
See, if your IQ wasn't so low I wouldn't have to explain this as if I'm talking to a 5 year old. This is what happens to a game series when the video game market is flooded with low IQ casual normies. A new, retarded iteration of the series brings in an entirely new playerbase of people who've never even played a game from the series before, and due to sales every sequel afterwards is destroyed.
most of you fucks don't even play multiplayer and when you do,
you're the first person to go full warmonger early in order to take some one out but you lose and disconnect because you don't know how to manage your armies worth shit.
>>337801050
how so
>>337800885
>but Civ6 sounds like an improvment with small stacks instead of one single unit per tile
cool, but i hope that there will be enough reasons to keep your units unstacked and strategically placed, (like flanking bonus), and we won't just go back to moving stacks of doom
Are there actual problems with Cub 6 yet aside from the fact it's going to be base game with no content? Or is it just the graphics? Which yeah are shit, same goes for DoW3. And every other high profile release. Now we can render it, detail has gone out of the window this gen.
Also how was the last one, After Earth or whatever.
>Civ IV babbies claiming their first civ game is the best
>It's a better game because of user created mods!
>>337801273
Stacking and strategic placement are not mutually exclusive. Also positioning units for flanking bonuses isn't strategic, it's tactical.
>>337801224
t b h i could write an essay about it, but to be short it makes changes that may make the game more "balanced" but make the game worse in other ways for example, gold can't buy things instantly, horrible change, it's barely any different to production. and all the pantheon changes. before you had good pantheons and shit pantheons. But nearly all of the shit ones had some niche use. It adds variety into the game. In the patch all the panteons give great bonuses. And the huge ass changes to the polices and happiness system which are pretty obtuse, seems like you can spam cities forever aswell
>>337801187
>Civ V is the only civ game where they resorted to displaying symbols over the units
Bullshit. V has icons above units just like IV had banners. You need something more than the unit model to differentiate between factions (color codes etc.). You're a complete moron and should be put down.
>>337801273
There are stack limits. You can only stack a few of the same unit types along with supporting units on top of each other, so it sounds like the best of both worlds
>>337801447
All Civ games are good. Some are better than others. But if you pretend that Civ 2 isn't the best then you're just a liar and your pants are a raging fucking inferno.
>>337801601
>equating faction banners to unit type bubbles
Now you're not even being stupid. You're just being dishonest.
>>337801725
Filename related.
>>337798395
>civ ever dying
You're a moron.
>>337798395
>So now that Civ is officially dead
[Citation Needed]
>>337801447
Pretty sure Civ V is the only civ game with a widely recommended mod just to fix the core mechanics. Civ IV mods are just add ons or different games entirely. The most popular Civ IV mod by far is BUG mod, which stands for Beyond the Sword Unaltered Gameplay.
Unaltered gameplay, because it doesn't need to be altered.
![elegend_review_combat_large[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/A4FXEUP.jpg "elegend_review_combat_large[1].jpg")
>>337800698
>>337800958
Civ5 combat:
>Better defense on rough terrain
>UU's are mostly just stronger then normal units
>That's it
Endless Legend combat:
>Empire specific buffs depending on terrain
>Every empire gets 3 UU's
>Heros
>UU's have radically different attacks/bonuses (raze zombies on kill, AoE attacks, healing, buffs, exc)
>Items and skills for heros/units
I want this in Civ6.
>>337801798
>>equating faction banners to unit type bubbles
Now you're not even being stupid. You're just being dishonest.
>>337798612
>>337798921
>>337800817
CIV IV is the best CIV when it comes to gameplay (better balanced towards different playstyles). CIV V has the problem that infinite city spam is almost always the best option. Warfare is also an clusterfuck, especially for the AI since it can't deal with the 1 unit per tile rule. CIV V does had the advantage that it's much more aesthetically pleasing. With expansions it also feels very complete.
>>337801863
endless legend is fun, but i love the historical aspect of building humanity from the ground in civilization. makes me care way more then some generic fantasy bullshit.
>>337801935
It's an added benefit. The Civ V iconography is great. If you're arguing that it's easier to spot different units in IV than V you're delusional. Have fun reading the stack list. Dipshit.
I have been playing pc games since Sid Meier's Colonization for DOS and I think Civ IV Beyond the Sword is the best Civilization game.
I also dont care that much about the cell phone graphics, but wont get the game until I read many opinions on Civfanatics about whether it is good or not.
While the graphics do look disappointing in 6, as a longtime civ fan (since the first installment) i feel like people always shat on the new ones as they came out, particularly with 4 + 5. People forget how terrible both of those were at release. But in the end lots of people (including me) end up spending tons of hours in them because they still have that addicting civ formula. I'll admit 5 was overall a real step backward though, things like the global happiness mechanics and 1UPT really felt like unnecessary/restricting bottlenecks.
I'm looking forward to the way they are handling cities in civ6, sounds interesting.
>>337802061
I wish endless legend was generic fantasy shit, then I might understand what the fuck was going on
I gave up on that shit when literally nothing i saw in the game seemed to have any grounding in reality, it was worse than BE with it's Firaxite
>>337802054
>CIV V has the problem that infinite city spam is almost always the best option
If you haven't played Civ5 since the original release I dont think you're qualified to make a statement on it
>>337802054
>CIV V has the problem that infinite city spam is almost always the best option
Did we play the same game? The game greatly discourages you from expanding beyond 4-5 cities.
>>337800610
>playing tall is objectively superior to wide
Wut?
It's basically impossible to make a true tall game. The victory that was most Tall (culture) now requires you to have space to hold all your art things.
>>337802054
>infinite city spam
THat was only in vanilla. That particular issue is fixed. Still pretty funny that Civ V ever managed to fuck that up when it has so many shitty artificial obstacles in front of expansion.
>>337802148
The iconography is completely unnecessary if the graphics are actually designed well though, as you can see in any civ game that isn't V, including VI. How many times do i have to explain it
>>337802208
>I gave up on that shit when literally nothing i saw in the game seemed to have any grounding in reality, it was worse than BE with it's Firaxite
That's because it's Sci-fi.
It's in the same universe as Endless Space. And Endless Space is fantasy sci-fi.
>>337802348
>The iconography is completely unnecessary if the graphics are actually designed well
There's this thing called stacking, you might have heard about it. It means some unit models are completely hidden behind others. This was an even bigger problem in IV. So guess what? Fuck off.
>as you can see in any civ game that isn't V, including VI
No. Wrong.
>How many times do i have to explain it
Until you realize you're a retardface and kill yourself.
>>337802347
you are heavily punished for not picking tradition and building beyond 4 cities.
Culture victory is based around getting all the themeing wonders in your captial along with the percentage tourism modifiers for max tourism. Spamming cities with generic culture buildings grants shitall tourism.
Tall is not only superior it's pretty much the only choice unless you're going full domination
>>337802347
happiness is a bottleneck in civ5 that makes it a massive pain in the ass to have more than say 6 cities or so.
6 or even 8 cities != wide.
i am guessing you probably never played older civ games. it was pretty common to have dozens of cities. especially in civ2, you usually could (and should) spam cities every 3-4 tiles or so. not saying they should go back to this per se since it was also quite repetitive but it felt like you were actually managing an empire instead of playing a glorified boardgame.
>>337802061
>but i love the historical aspect of building humanity from the ground in civilization.
Yep. That's pretty much why I play civ as well.
>>337802535
>There's this thing called stacking, you might have heard about it. It means some unit models are completely hidden behind others. This was an even bigger problem in IV. So guess what? Fuck off.
??
If the graphics are designed well you know what unit is on top of the stack though. Civ V doesn't even have stacking and VI has extremely limited stacking, so good graphics will help even more in VI than they did in previous games and they would have helped V even more if it had this superior design.
>No. Wrong.
Yes, right. V is the only game which resorts to unit icon bubbles. You can see in any game that isn't V that they aren't necessary if the graphics are designed well. I basically had to reiterate that 2+2=4 for you. wtf is your deal, you strange child
Watch out, the actual best Civ game is coming through.
>>337800098
Game is only good for multiplayer. The ai is legit retarded, playing on endless is only slightly challenging to novice players because it fucking cheats yet the actual decision making doesn't improve at all.
Most of the time the public games are dead so unless you have friends to play with you're shit out of luck.
>>337803043
Excellent game.
But it has ICS, so IV is better.
>>337802951
>If the graphics are designed well you know what unit is on top of the stack though.
Yes, and the others?
>Civ V doesn't even have stacking
Yes, it does actually.
>so good graphics will help even more in VI than they did in previous games and they would have helped V even more if it had this superior design
No.
>V is the only game which resorts to unit icon bubbles
To fix the stacking issue in IV.
>You can see in any game that isn't V that they aren't necessary
No. Wrong. Stacks in IV are shit.
>I basically had to reiterate that 2+2=4 for you
OK.
>wtf is your deal, you strange child
Your stupendous level of retardation.
>people defending IV with its broken spysystem
yeah okay and I eat shit from my asses as well
literally retarded
>>337801085
Civ 5 wasn't that bad once you got all the expansions
>>337801034
>when zoomed out at normal play, left looks like a bunch of indistinct muddy logs
>right reads clearly as noble four legged turds galloping and whinnying gallantly
>>337803189
>Yes, and the others?
You can't see the others
>Yes, it does actually.
nice one
>No.
Yes, because then you would be able to just look at the units and there'd be no need for the bubbles.
>To fix the stacking issue in IV.
How did you make a connection between readable unit graphics and stacking? Icon bubbles actually have nothing to do with stacking. If IV had V's graphics, you would have needed the bubbles there as well because the unit graphics are so poorly legible.
>No. Wrong. Stacks in IV are shit.
What does that statement have to do with the superfluousness of bubbles in Civ games with good graphics?
First you couldn't complete a syllogism, and now you're making non-sequitur responses. you ok?
50 LESS TECHNOLOGIES THAN CIV 5
MOBILE GRAPHICS
Why are you excited for Civ 6 again /v/?
>>337802571
> heavily punished
Tradition is too slow even for Tall. Which difficulty you have been playing?
>>337802054
If you're not mentioning online play, small civs are very capable of being hilariously broken, even when, and sometimes ESPECIALLY when you're single city. All it takes is a decent spawn, like a coastal river on-hill tile with deserts and marble.
That's literally all you need for every single wonder in the game, and if you rush the Great Library, you can easily get them too. Civs that benefit heavily from single city challenges and come out smelling like a rose would be Venice, Korea, Egypt, Siam, Greece, Byzantium, and Germany.
>>337802794
> happiness is a bottleneck in civ5 that makes it a massive pain in the ass to have more than say 6 cities or so.
Have you thought about building cities in good places and razing poor cities?
I never get happiness problem, even on the harsher difficulties.
>>337803803
>Tradition is too slow even for Tall
not sure what you mean by this
tradition is the objectively superior opening tree 90% of the time
I only play on deity
>>337803679
>You can't see the others
Indeed. What a great fucking advantage. You shitfaced shit.
>Yes, because then you would be able to just look at the units and there'd be no need for the bubbles.
Look above and see for yourself how you're able to splendidly contradict yourself. Retardface.
>How did you make a connection between readable unit graphics and stacking?
See my point above.
>Icon bubbles actually have nothing to do with stacking.
I repeat: you really are retarded.
>What does that statement have to do with the superfluousness of bubbles in Civ games with good graphics?
Yup. Total retard.
>>337798395
I'm looking forward to 6, personally.
>>337800817
Civ IV has the stack of doom, though. It limits the experience in my opinion.
>>337803891
Yeah he's full of shit. Managing unhappiness is incredibly easy unless you're on Deity or something, where most strats involve cheesing the AI anyway.
The general rule is to get city connections as fast as possible, and get a religion based on happiness, especially buildings like Pagodas, but if you're beaten to that punch then even Asceticism for the 1 happiness from shrines can be decent, along with the 2 happiness from temples.
Being big is all about playing to your strengths. Big nations do tech a BIT worse, culture a LOT worse, but faith a SHIT TON better. You need a religion, and you need it BIG. If you go tithe with Pagodas + Mosques, you're pretty fucking set regardless of pantheon, but even then things like Sacred Waters will also help offset the shit with a guarenteed 1 local happiness.
>>337803682
>50 LESS TECHNOLOGIES THAN CIV 5
I haven't kept up with Civ 6 news. Where did they say that?
>>337803682
We're more anxious than excited, I'd say. Some even outright furious.
>>337804131
the furthest religon can go to helping you win the game is letting you buy a few great people and seeing the faith cost grows exponentially having huge faith growth is kinda pointless
and if you're buying a pagoda and a mosque in every city you'll never have time for make the faith back anyway
>>337803946
>Indeed. What a great fucking advantage. You shitfaced shit.
I thought you liked Civ V? You acknowledge by implication that legible unit graphics would be even better in Civ V due to lack of stacking, but still refuse to acknowledge that Civ VI's unit grahpics are an improvement? Do you actually want the game to be worse than it could be?
>Look above and see for yourself how you're able to splendidly contradict yourself. Retardface.
I didn't contradict myself.
>See my point above.
There is none. Can you explain the connection? You seem to have forgotten this step
>I repeat: you really are retarded.
They actually don't have anything to do with stacking..
>Yup. Total retard.
You didn't say anything in this entire post.
I'm just amazed.
>>337804324
Except Mosques pay themselves back on normal speed in a single city in 100 turns. You have to get them fast, once they're built, you usually have like a good 400 turns left in the game. Pagodas pay themselves off in 150 turns, but give more happiness.
They will both pay themselves off in 150 turns, during that time you will have a civwide 3 happiness, 4 culture per city, and once they pay themselves off, 5 faith per city as well.
If you get the reformation tenant for Sacred Sites and like, 10 cities with the 20 buildings, that's 40 tourism right there too. Even if you're not going for a culture game, that Tourism will 100% ensure your ideology is supreme, and your trade routes give you more tech from civs, even ones shittier than you.
The faith cost of the Mosque and Pagoda even combined is not that much, and the Great Prophet's faith cost only goes up the more it's earned, so it's very static, and it's possible that once your civ is done building mosques and pagodas, you wouldn't have earned even a single shitty unneeded prophet, and by the industrial era you can purchase like 4 Scientists or 3 of each Aesthetic person for culture.
Along with having massive happiness and cultural borders and size, you don't have to choose between going tall or going wide, heavy religion has you doing both at the same time usually.
Only downside is you cant purchase those buildings in puppets.
>>337804090
>Big nations do tech a BIT worse, culture a LOT worse, but faith a SHIT TON better.
in other words, big nations are worse
lol
god civ v sucks
I don't get why people are fighting between IV and V, they are both oustanding games. But, both only with addons.
>>337804697
Keep in mind the faith paybacks are based on the renaissance era where on normal the buildings cost 300. In the Classical or Medieval Era, they cost 200 or some shit, which ends up paying itself off even faster. The point is to get all your buildings up and going about 100 turns before the industrial era, where they pay themselves off while providing boosts to happiness and culture, which usually equals tech.
>>337799804
Wait, are you one of those sorry kids that never figured out how to mod IV...?
I'm feeling sorry for you, because IV had some very important mods, like BUG.
>>337798395
No, because that was already the depressing dirge to this funeral you speak of.
>>337804697
that's assuming you can buy all the faith buildings at their base cost in every city as soon as they're available which is kind of hard seeing they cost faith in the first place
huge faith growth just never pays off, it's like the difference between faith buying 2 great scientists or 4 great scientists
I mean I guess it's viable if you get some ridiculous spain start with a +20 faith natural wonder
>>337802794
>he doesnt know about going wide strategies.
Do you even play on the highest difficulty?
You sound like a noob.
>>337804628
>I thought you liked Civ V?
I do. A lot.
>You acknowledge by implication that legible unit graphics would be even better in Civ V due to lack of stacking
Again: There is stacking in Civ V. And Civ V's unit graphics are great. I'm trying to make you realize (even though it's completely futile) that your pissy pants about unit icons is completely misplaced because the icons are an obvious fix to the stacking issues with IV (you know, the fact that you can't tell which units are in the fucking stack).
>but still refuse to acknowledge that Civ VI's unit grahpics are an improvement?
Yes, because I think Civ V's graphics are way better. Higher resolution. Great animations. Realistic style. And so on... You're the fucking retard who tried to claim some objective truth to your preference. So please inflict self murder already.
>Do you actually want the game to be worse than it could be?
No?
>Can you explain the connection?
I have. Several times already. But it's clearly being wasted.
>They actually don't have anything to do with stacking
Still retarded.
>You didn't say anything in this entire post
OK.
>I'm just amazed
Simple minds, and all that.
>>337802794
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=495429
>>337805012
I found it to be quite viable on Earth-Map Carthage, where I pantheoned for Messengers of god for 2 faith per city connection, which for Carthage is usually completely free, then beelined for Exploration just far enough in for the 1 happiness from Harbors and 3 production from coastal cities, then dumped the rest into faith production spam for the rest of the game.
By the time the industrial Era hit I had like 600 per turn. I felt like I could have done better by going Pilgrimage instead of Tithe, but it worked out in the end. Spawned in the middle east and expanded mostly west into an uncontested africa, because most civs spawn in the south or Mali for some reason, which makes coast spamming incredibly easy.
In these cases, getting massive happiness isn't that hard as Carthage at least, all you need is Exploration for the 1 happiness from harbors and liberty for the 1 happiness from city connections and each city you found starts with a base -1 unhappiness instead of -5. It's broken as shit even WITHOUT religion.
>>337805381
>2 Faith
I meant 2 TECH per city connection. But you probably knew that already.
>New Multiplayer Mode: One City Per Player
>Here at Firaxis we're not immune to the changing landscape of multiplayer gaming since the launch of Civilization V. In our new multiplayer mode, One City Per Player (OCPP), two teams of five square off on a special OCPP map. Each player selects from one of over 50 historic cities and, along with their team, tries to breach the enemy team's wall to destroy their vulnerable city-state ally. Special allied fortresses defend the land between the two player protected city-states and will periodically spawn Barbarian units to attack the opposing team. Destroying these units or the fortresses spawning them will secure rewards the player can use to upgrade their own city. Though we're still in the early stages with OCPP, we're excited to show more over the coming months leading up to release.
>>337805295
>Again: There is stacking in Civ V. And Civ V's unit graphics are great. I'm trying to make you realize (even though it's completely futile) that your pissy pants about unit icons is completely misplaced because the icons are an obvious fix to the stacking issues with IV (you know, the fact that you can't tell which units are in the fucking stack).
LOL. You're really trying to justify icons with THAT. The stacking in Civ V is so minimal, that's compeltely pointless. Even in Civ IV with its full stacking, great generals appear graphically in the same tile as a unit its attached to. You could easily do that in V, since only one civilian/great person unit can be on a tile at a time.
>Yes, because I think Civ V's graphics are way better. Higher resolution. Great animations. Realistic style. And so on... You're the fucking retard who tried to claim some objective truth to your preference. So please inflict self murder already.
The resolution is nice, although Civ IV goes up 1080p at least (i don't have any 2560 or 4k monitors so idk if it goes any higher). Realistic style interferes with the readability of the game. What's the point of having a realistic style if you're going to make such a harsh, jarring juxtaposition with the icon bubbles?
>I have. Several times already. But it's clearly being wasted.
No you haven't lmao. You haven't explained at all why there's an advantage to having bubbles when units are stackable.
dummy
This is the common census at Civfanatics. Fucking most people are actually FOR a tablet version.
>>337806284
>1 person = most people
that's actually....pretty epic, anon, wow :)
>>337806120
>LOL
Thanks for continuing to prove my point about you being retarded.
>You're really trying to justify icons with THAT
Finally you fucking get it.
>The stacking in Civ V is so minimal, that's compeltely pointless
No.
>Even in Civ IV with its full stacking, great generals appear graphically in the same tile as a unit its attached to.
Same with Civ V. Both Generals' and Admirals' unit model is displayed along with the military unit. V's advantage is that you can instanly select any unit in the stack, thanks to those lovely icons.
>Realistic style interferes with the readability of the game
No.
>What's the point of having a realistic style if you're going to make such a harsh, jarring juxtaposition with the icon bubbles?
Some people are able to differentiate between icons/hud and world. Sorry to see you're not.
>No you haven't lmao. You haven't explained at all why there's an advantage to having bubbles when units are stackable.
I have. Repeatedly. You only got the fucking point a few minutes ago.
>dummy
I'm devastated.
The new artstyle looks pretty neat and the idea of expanding cities aswell as combined units is really. I wouldnt be too excited though. Civ V was fucking shit on release and only really became any good with the last expansion and that was a looooooong time since release.
Beyond earth looked like shit from the getgo and looks like its still not worth a damn.
I look forward to a new civ, but realistically it'll be playable year or two after its release.
>>337806770
>Finally you fucking get it.
Holy shit, your IQ and self awareness is this low.
I lost patience with your inability to understand that readable graphics are superior to the icons both in stacking and 1upt, and that therefore there is no fucking connection to stacking and the decision to include bubbles, so I decided to be really nice to you and skip that problem for you since you couldn't figure it out, and this is the thanks I get...
>No.
It would be pointless if the graphics in V were legible
>Same with Civ V. Both Generals' and Admirals' unit model is displayed along with the military unit. V's advantage is that you can instanly select any unit in the stack, thanks to those lovely icons.
For the second time you're agreeing with me and supporting my arguments. The mechanics are already there in place, all they'd have to do is make the graphics more readable, and you'd just see the unit with the GG, no bubbles required. btw double clicking accomplishes the same thing
>No
Yes. Look at Civ V. Then look at any other civ game. I'm not saying you couldn't improve upon V's readability while maintaining a realistic style, but you'd have to lose some of it. You need more colorful and proportionally unrealistic character grahpics to achieve this goal.
>Some people are able to differentiate between icons/hud and world. Sorry to see you're not.
HUD is entirely integral to the game's aesthetic. Probably one of the most important parts of it actually.
>I have. Repeatedly. You only got the fucking point a few minutes ago.
again witht hat shit
The new civ LOOKS LIKE FUCKING SHIT, LITERALLY LIKE A FUCKING FREEMIUM MOBILE GAME.
I bet you will have the option to pay 3$ to speed up production.
>>337807962
>Civ 6 font
Really?
