>we want the clash of clans audience
really though, they did this change to be easier to see when they do the console ports
im still mad about the hexes
>>341853252
Hexes are outright superior to square grid on multiple counts.
>>341853530
>want to go straight north
>have to make the road in an S shape
>>341852637
Yeah, I want my grimdark, realistiv Civ back!
>>341853628
>square tiles
>want to go straight south east
>have to go z shaped
I can make up petty arguments too
>>341853628
>want to go northeast
>have to make L shaped roads
Well at least the game won't hang for 45 seconds between each turn anymore.
>>341852637
looks fine desu senpai. Has the settler feeling and with 0 other games like that on the horizon and seeing how terrible Stellaris is, I am going to get it.
>>341853628
Movement through hexes has 1:1 relation over movement on the map (while diagonal movement on square grid has 1:1.41 relation, or alternatively, the movement is very much restricted with only horizontal and vertical movement available), that's a fact. Far more often than not, hexes provide more natural movement and map visuals.
Not to mention a wealth of other advantages (for example, if you have diagonal movement available and the movement cost of diagonal movement is 1, by zig-zagging you can cover much more ground, useful in exploration for example, while with hex grid you actually have to make a choice between faster movement from point A to B or covering more ground).
>>341852637
Try posting on the steam forums, there's some swedefag with a 9 year old steam account and like 4 games with a combined playtime of 40 hours who defends this game and attacks any criticism 24/7
>>341854423
>Swedes are obnoxious
Color me impressed.
>>341854552
But it's this one fag in particular who shills and defends this game, he will reply without fail to nearly every negative post in the steam forums
>>341852841
>console
It'll be mobiles and you know it.
>>341854747
yeah just like xcom 2 was never gonna go to console
>>341853628
not to mention take longer to do so
at least with 8 way squares you can maneuver around things
>>341853628
just like how actual roads are built, yes
>>341855216
That's a disadvantage because you can just move around enemies or other obstacles with no penalty.
>>341855385
in enemy territory you can only move one spot
not only that blocking can be achieved by having a defending unit (preferably a stack) on top of the tile being defended (like a city or resource)
there are certain units with exceptions but generally being able to end the turn on a defensive tile is better than being out in the open while in enemy territory since it's just asking to get ripped apart by artillery and subsequent stack attacks
>>341855385
oh yea and generally it's a bad idea to let enemies roam around unabated unless youre trying to hide a worker or something
>>341852637
It looks good and the gameplay changes sound good too. Tired of all these faggots who got into the series with 5.
>>341853780
>want to go straight south east
>have to go z shaped
>>341855654
>in enemy territory you can only move one spot
Yeah, square grid movement system kinda falls apart even if you could move two squares. Civ doesn't do this but hex-based systems can remain balanced with far larger amount of movement points.
>>341852637
i hope this means that cities don't just become a cluster fuck of wonders and buildings. it was mildly annoying seeing my city spill off into the water
>>341856242
I like your image
I think it looks good everything easier to see and it's pleasing to the eye, and if that new style brings in the "clash audience" then so be it
I'll only be playing with friends anyway, just like nearly every other civ 5 owner
what are the odds the changes were for a future console port?
>>341857343
72.47%
>>341852637
Dumbing it down even more for the dumb retarded Civ 5 morons...
Pathetic.
>>341852637
I hope Clash of Clans developer sues them for this. Graphics are literally same.
>>341855216
> 8 way squares
Cute.
>>341857771
How is it dumbed down? They literally got everything that's in Civ 5 + the expansions, except for the 18 Civs (like the base Civ5).
Only thing that is remotely "dumbed down" are the discoveries for faster science.
I know this is a bait thread, but they claim that they made the graphics more clear because there are much more different buildings on the map. This is a direct consequence of cities having improvements and wonders spread on multiple tiles. You can see that it is pretty cluttered in the later parts of the promo videos.
But noo, muh dumbing down and facebook.
>>341856868
Don't you dare save it. I'm warning you
>>341856358
how so? how does it fall apart?
up until you get horse archers every unit (except workers, settlers and scouts) move 1 unit over open ground, +1 with roads
the only units that can move more than 2-3 moves are sea units and late game units (like tanks and gunships)
>>341858261
that aminay any good to watch?
>>341854960
Idk if xcom 2 on consoles is out, but the xcom enemy within get dumbed down for consoles and mobile? Serious question, if it didn't then I can see civ 6 being the 4x tablet game I've been looking for. Freeciv couldn't do it for me.
>>341858261
That is no justification for the graphics looking like shit.
You can have clear graphics that look good. This is clear graphics, but it doesnt look good.
>>341858984
This. Fact is the new graphics look like rubbish and for a AAA developer there is no excuse. If they wanted clear graphics that looked good they should have spent more time on it, they obviously cheaped out.
>>341858615
Because you can avoid obstacles at will with no penalty if you have more than 1 movement point available (as diagonal movement is twice as valuable as horizontal and vertical movement), and the fact that vertical movement is 1.41 units on the map becomes really pronounced and makes movement patterns feel weird to say the least.
Consider you want to get from point A to point B but there's a strong enemy presence in the way. Not a problem, because you can just avoid it with absolutely no penalty, spending just as many movement points as it would take to move through it.
Hex is superior, pic related.
>>341859597
you can hardly avoid an enemy in the game unless they are in your own territory and with the help of (rail)roads
there's only one unit in (4) that can move that many tiles and it's a sea unit and as i mentioned earlier is generally a bad idea to let enemies just move past you because they will mess up improvements and subsequently put your workers at risk
pic related comfiest shit ever, what the fuck happened with modern games?
Why can't they get that historic and serious feeling again?
Why is every shit bright, coloured and like plastic made for dumb kids?
>>341853252
>>341853530
>>341853628
Why not 8 sides?
>N, NE, E, SE, S, SW, W, NW
>>341860067
You cannot make a grid entirely out of octagons.
>>341860067
because of >>341859597 and other reasons
generally i disagree with hexes because it limits movement options, which is important when moving through enemy territory, which creates a +1 movement cost for your units
>>341859947
The only people with problems with cartoony designs are the children themselves who need to look 'mature' in their tastes
When you grow up you don't even give a fuck anymore.
>>341859932
You can move around obstacles with no penalty even at small scales and if you only, have 1 movement points available. Having high number of movement points simply makes it more pronounced and the game virtually unplayable (while with hexes it works fine and is balanced, many hex and counter wargames for example have a lot of movement points available for units). With limited number of movement points like Civ 4 it "works" because this kind of issue doesn't get totally outrageous, but it doesn't mean hexes weren't better.
And anyhow, more natural movement and visuals should be reason enough to prefer hexes.
>>341852637
>firaxis still believes their audience are tweens and not fat arm-chair generals
baka desu senpai
>>341860371
Said nobody ever. I don't want to pay 60$ for this mobile game looking horseshit and if you were spending your own money on it, instead of mommy's good boy points, you'd know that. Fucking faggot. What a stupid thing to say, "hurrrr only grimdark kiddies care about arts style durrr I'm a huge faggot please rape my face."
Yea I'm mad that people so disconnected from reality like you aren't thrown from the cliffs as babes. Go lay in the street and count mufflers.
I fucking hope they fixed the god awful mod managament.
>Want to disable/enable a mod or just restard a map
>have to exit to the menu with a long loading screen
>then back to the modded game menu with an even longer loading screen
>>341856868
>>341858586
End your lives.
>>341860608
for most of the game (4) your units can only ever move 1 tile so saying you can move around obstacles easily is false
the more time you spend in enemy territory the more likely it will become that your stack will be destroyed
you gotta deliver that stack of like 10 swords men and 4 catapults before your enemy get's catapult tech or before they can churn one out
the moment they get one they can gimp your stack pretty hard so having any obstacles in early game especially is very bad
moving through them is an option but you risk losing a valuable unit or sometimes even 2 in order to get past it
early game the only unit that can move 2 moves is the horse archer
Squares make for a much more appealing map.
You can't argue against this.
>>341861024
I think it looks better than 5 desu. Putting that much detail into a strategy game was never a good idea. I like how easily you can tell where the horses are in the OP image.
>>341861495
90 degree angles look way more unnatural than 60 degree angles which can be smoothed out..
>They're STILL doubling down on the fake ass graphics complaint
wew
>>341861613
Now this is just bullshit.
If i had the image t i would post it. Just compare Civ4 world map with squares with same map with hexes.
![compare_city4[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/XVkupuO.jpg "compare_city4[1].jpg")
>>341861613
look at >>341859947 and then look at pic related then answer again
>>341860067
Octagons don't tile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_tilings_by_convex_regular_polygons).
And square grid has critical problems if you allow diagonal movement (since it's twice as valuable in terms of movement points, and the distance moved on map is 1.41 times higher than that of vertical and horizontal movement), while 4-directional movement is very much restrictive.
>people are still complaining about the graphics which look totally fine
do you people have autism
>>341860608
Not if zone of control is implemented (or opportunity fire at units that move in ZOC or increased movement cost for move in ZOC).
>>341861727
>>341861735
Civ5 maps look better
>>341858695
It's Cowboy Bebop m8
>>341861881
oh fug howd i not know... which episode?
Can someone tell me exactly what's wrong with civ 5? Never played any of the others
>>341853252
Do you have autism?
Diagonals in grids are always imbalanced and broken.
Grids have 4 options if you don't allow diagonals.
Hexes are better, you have 6 options and they're all balanced.
>>341861853
>5 looks better
Way to miss the point buddy. Same map, one with grid, other with hexes, the grid one will look better to your eyes.
>>341861951
It's the film.
>>341861963
Civ4 is better.
>>341861963
Literally nothing, besides it being released halfway complete. With the gods and kings and brave new world expansions, it is just as good as any other civ game, and most people who argue that 4 is better have not played 5 since the expansions fixed it.
>>341862109
I'm asking why it's considered better
>>341862115
name 5 mobile games that look as good as civ
>>341861963
The multiplayer straight up does not work if you intend to play it in more than one session, or anyone has to leave and come back. Other than that, very little.
>>341862185
Far better mods.
Caveman2Cosmos shits over everything Firaxis has made.
>>341862185
it's convoluted enough to engage you for hours
but here someone else wrote an article about why 5 is bad
http://procrastinationamplification.com/10-bad-things-about-civilization-v/
>>341853252
>>341853530
>>341862031
>use hexagonal grid
>put rectangular street grid over it
It just hurts to look at this picture. Does anyone have hope for this game?
>>341862185
http://www.megabearsfan.net/post/2015/06/04/Civ-V-retrospective-top-10-bad-ideas.aspx
here's another one if you feel like reading more long winded articles
here's probably the biggest reason why civ 4 is betterhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiHDmyhE1A
>>341862241
multiplayer works for me and another 3 friends
>>341862402
do you have autism?
>>341861805
Oh right, yeah I get it
>>341860194
>>341861805
And that's why you have squares with diagonal movement.
Hexfags BTFO.
![carpetofdoom[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Uj88TRQ.jpg "carpetofdoom[1].jpg")
>>341862185
did this ever happen to anyone playing 5?
at least in 4 this mess could be condensed into a stack of doomthat could be artyd to shit and give your enemy shit tons of expor mutiple stacks of doom to create an advancing wall (though i never did this)
>>341862302
>Sep 2010
>Gods and Kings released in 2012, BNW in 2013
>plus patches.
Mate.
>>341861963
Nothing. Both do some thing right and some thing wrong. Both let you play for hours
1. Game Playability: civ 5 is better because it is easier for new players to learn. When I first played civ 4, I lost to barbarians because I had no idea what the best approach was. However, perhaps civ 4 might win out once you get the handle of it. Much temperance and patience required to reach that level though (see combat as to why that is).
2. AI's capability to defeat a human player given similar game rules: The AI definitely is hard in civ 4, even on easier difficulties. For me, if I found a neighbouring civ, I had about 30-50 turns to prepare or die trying to defend. In civ 5, it is easier but gets harder in the form of AI bonuses over difficulty. Since I don't know what it's like playing hard difficulty on civ 4, perhaps you might find civ 4 more challenging once you get the hang of it.
3. Terrain NA, imo.
4. Resources civ 5 has more strategic resources. Civ 4 has more resources in general and the ordinary resources can be used for trade to improve health and such.
>>341862853
5. Uniqueness (units, buildings, abilities) civ 4 has narrower unit and building diversity than civ 5, which makes game look like rock-paper-scissors, especially when you see the combat system (see combat). However, civ 4 has greater use of ability combinations with multiple leaders for some civs. The leader characteristics can give you a choice as to what you want to prioritize early with your civ, whereas with civ 5 it is not as clear-cut.
6. Graphics - of course, winner is civ 5, but shouldn't be the basis for favouring civ 5 over civ 4.
7. Combat Here, the questions of comparing combat are these: Do you like luck (% chance of winning a complete kill fight) or skill (combat strength based and incomplete)? Less detail/basic or more detail/elaborate combat rules, bonuses and penalties? Convenient unit management (which makes AI coding easier and therefore they can be more competent, but MP could be fraught with early stacks of doom zergs) or unit formation (which confuses AI and they sometimes make silly mistakes, but MP makes things interesting)? Purely melee combat (with ranged only applying to bombarding cities) or balance of range and melee combat? If you prefer mostly the former, civ 4 is better. If latter, civ 5.
8. Terrain Improvements - pretty similar, however civ 4 has better gold-generating improvements which scale over time so long as they're used. Civ 5 has more diverse tile improvement with UIs and such.
9. Technologies- their number and intelligent setup (prerequisites and benefits they give) pretty similar, although I may have forgotten layout mostly for civ 4.
>>341862953
>>341861963
10 Generic Units - including req. tech, benefits pretty similar although if I recall with civ 4, you just need at least 1 source of iron to keep making swordsmen and such. Civ 4 also has a good rock-paper scissors mechanism where axemen beat non-cavalry, swordsmen are good against cities, spearmen beat cavalry and cavalry beat non-spearmen. However, those unit benefits become narrower over the eras. Civ 5 has a more clear-cut approach to units and their upgrades.
11. Generic Buildings pretty similar early on with granaries and libraries and such.
12 Unique Units- Civ 5
13. Unique Buildings - Civ 5
14 Unique Abilities - Civ 5, although civ 4 character abilities are nice for combinations.
15 Speech - Does this mean the interactive diplomacy menu with the way characters act and speak? The starting speech and end speech? The tech speechs and wonder speeches? Civ 4 makes diplomacy look rather undiplomatic but funny, with Catherine (or was it Izzy?) slapping you or Sumerian Gilgamesh picking you up or pulling you right up to his face when they refuse your offers or when Alexander gets into a fit of rage when he denounces you or something. In civ 5, the character actions aren't as dramatic.
As for the other questions, it's very similar and they both have nice quotes.
16 Graphics - you mentioned that twice, Daft.
17 Sound Effects - NA. Whenever I say NA I just think there isn't anything significant to compare.
18 Naval Transport: civ 4 has the inflexible but perhaps more realistic "land unit-to-transport unit" system. Civ 5 has the flexible "every land unit, even a helicopter has a boat" system.
>>341862185
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JonShafer/20130218/186843/Revisiting_the_Design_of_Civ_5.php
Even Civ5's original designer disowned his decision to do 1 unit per tile and global happiness. 1UPT was injected largely because he's a Panzer General fanboy (which is a tactics game, not a strategy game) and global happiness was a well-meaning but awful solution to something called ICS (infinite city sprawl) which was a problem in early Civs but it was fixed in 4.
Pic related is the game he's working now after leaving Firaxis. It's basically Civ3/4 with Romans and barbarians.
>>341862734
i havent played civ 5 but what did G&K do that changed the gameplay significantly?
>>341862853
>>341861963
19. Naval Supremacy civ 4 again has the rock-paper-scissor mechanism but the privateer concept is much cooler than civ 5, because they're literally privateers and you can't tell who they belong to but anyone can attack them. In civ 5, the privateer is just a melee unit than can capture over ships. As for navies in general, I'd prefer civ 5 given the ranged combat system and such.
20 Expansion-Settling - civ 4: each new city costs gpt and in turn it eats into your science that way. Happiness is local/specific. I might be wrong but I think this system favours wide expansion with great emphasis on city specialization.
civ 5: Happiness is global/general but each new city costs happiness, culture and, as of BNW, science. Tall approach, as of BNW, is preferable and city specialization isn't that great.
21. Exploration I've forgotten all the goodie hut benefits in civ 4, but I know some contained pop bonuses, gold, map and tech bonuses, just like civ 5. Exploration is more dangerous in civ 4 because barbs are wild animals (not a metaphor, they ARE wild animals) until 1500BC. In civ 5, barbs generally hang close to their camp and between the camp and other players and CS'.
22 Multiplayer Capability don't know about civ 4, but in civ 5 it is great. Not sure whether the loading issue still persists though in civ 5. Try and see if you can do a quick game in one sitting in civ 5.
23 Air Combat I know in civ 4, you can bombard cities to reduce their defence bonus, attacking units functioned like melee (please correct me there if I'm wrong) and you can pillage improvements with planes, unlike in civ 5. There is interception in both systems but my mind is hazy on how it works in civ 4. In civ 5, it is pretty straight-forward because planes are ranged units.
24 Nuclear War's importance - SP Gandhi is a curse in both civs in this area, apparently. Both civs emphasize its importance. Both have cool nuke visual effects.
>>341862437
Focus on a "strategy board game" rather than empire management sim
As I've mentioned earlier in this post, the shift towards hexes and 1-upt resulted in a simplification of a lot of other game elements. A lot of the "simulation" aspects of the game were removed or abstracted significantly. This included the game's economy, government management, the tech tree, religion, and so on. Many of these areas were re-expanded by expansions and DLC, and the current game is much more complex and robust.
But the end result is that Civ V feels much less like an empire management game, and more like a computerized board game. A lot of the feeling of being a world leader in charge of a civilization full of people was lost, and the ability to role play was diminished. With the scaling issues, simplifications of management mechanics, and emphasis on combat, cities stopped feeling like cities, and started feeling like watchtowers or barracks. It all combines to make the game feel more like a war game (akin to a complicated version of Risk or Axis & Allies) rather than a game of "civilization".
>>341863060
Literally added religion entirely.
>>341863375
heh that was in vanilla 4 and it was important for the whole game especially early game since
>muh religion
basically defined the civ you could NEVER be friends with
>>341863548
Religion in 4 was pretty shallow to be honest.
>>341863548
Yea, I concede that civ 5 vanilla is shit, with the expansions I prefer it. Religions are huge in 5 too, because they give good gold, happiness and culture and can be used to generate great people, as well as increase diplomacy with world religion.
>>341854960
xcom eu was already on consoles, the game doesn't require a cursor to navigate menus and switch through units like civ does
unless the UI is massively dumbed down Civ 6 won't be coming to consoles. at best you'll get something akin to Civ revolution
>>341860669
You're wrong. I'm a fat arm-chair general. Like, massively obese and disgusting neckbeard obsessed with military stuff.
I've been playing civilizations since civ2 test of time, then civ3, then civ4. I loved these games so much. Then came civ 5 which ruined the series totally and made it unplayable for me. On the other hand, it was the one that sold the most. This clearly shows that the series isn't made for people like me anymore. It's made for casual tweens.
>>341863720
in what way?
it influenced a lot of things like happiness and gold
i read up on religion in 5 and it seems interesting though (i've never played G&K)
>>341863263
>A lot of the "simulation" aspects of the game were removed or abstracted significantly. This included the game's economy, government management, the tech tree, religion, and so on. Many of these areas were re-expanded by expansions and DLC, and the current game is much more complex and robust.
I'm a dyed in the wool Civ5 criticI'll never forgive Firaxis for what they did to modders like mebut I'm willing to give benefit of doubt on this particular issue.
Civilization as a series has trended toward simplification long before Civ5. Corruption was a major statistic for cities in Civ3, but that was removed from the series after it. I'd argue that corruption is a major simulation aspect... I mean, just look at Venezuela or Afghanistan for extreme all-across-the-board cases. Or USA's political fundraising system and Germany's auto manufacturers.
I'd argue that it's more of a Firaxis problem of removing things across the entire series, rather than Civ5's design choices in particular.
>>341864789
it seems that way, about the simplification
even watching the video apparently workers arent in the game anymore and tiles can be improved automatically.. i think
i've played alpha centauri and in comparison to 4 it's a bit more convoluted and combat has more factors involved like if your unit move and then tries to attack itll be at a disadvantage
>>341862678
Unstacked allows for a much more tactical combat system fit for a strategy game, clearly superior to having all units stacked and having the winner decided by the bigger army alone.
>>341863720
The follower bonuses in 5 are neat, but even the economic branches of the religious trees can't compare to building a holy city in 4 and pumping out missionaries. The amount of gold you get from that is a whole alternative form of economy compared to slaves or cottages.
Religion also hooked into diplomacy far more in 4, which made it deeper. By adopting state religions, coalitions between you and the AI (or AI-AI) formed very early, long before technology like Defense Pacts were discovered. And even then, world wars in the mid to late game could spark along religious lines resulting in carnage on the scale of the Thirty Years War.
I'm struggling to think of any time I fought a major religious war in Civ5, even with G&K and BNW. It's just not a factor, even if my forests give me +1 faith or whatever.
With the wide scope in mind IMO 4 has a deeper religion mechanic.
Who is best civ and why?
Why won't they have Hitler as the German leader? They had Mao, Montezuma or Hannibal so clearly large scale cruelty not a problem.
>>341853252
Fucking this.
>>341853530
list them fag
>>341865903
Better movement mostly.
>>341865643
>>341865643
and stalin in 4
I've honestly grown to like it desu senpai
>>341865903
Diagonals are broken because they're just better unless you restrict movement somehow, hexes allow for way more interesting tactical combat
There's problems with civ 5 but hexes were not one of them
>>341865552
Any faction that gives science boost of some sort
Its the single most broken part of all Civ games
I actually liked the stacks, it was less bullshit and more fun, NO ONE wants to move 5 billion units constantly, or move fucking archers and trebs/artillery and position them all the fucking time to take a city.
Here's the E3 demo in case people haven't seen it. Honestly, I was really iffy on the graphics at first, but after watching some gameplay it doesn't seem THAT bad. I also really like the gameplay changes they're making, so if the game turns out to be good enough in that aspect, then I'll probably end up still getting it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDcUj8PrMh8&feature=youtu.be
>hexagon
>not a decagon
Shit game
Seriously though. Tile systems are shit. Should use a non tile system.
>>341866819
Good thing Civ 6 isn't doing that any more then
>>341866886
It's a fucking boardgame, what do you want?
>>341865643
Because then the game couldn't be sold in Germany, which is a large market.
Russia is not a large market, so including Stalin isn't an issue. Same for China and Mao, and also chinks pirate like motherfuckers. Monty and Hannibal are too far back in their country's histories to even matter, same with Genghis Khan.
http://tinybuild.com/punch-club-has-been-pirated-over-1-million-times
>>341853780
Are you fucking retarded? The reason why people preferred squares is because they let you move in 8 directions, the four sides and four corners.
>>341865643
Because he was a shit leader
Seriously, why does every fucking Civ thread need Hitlerfags in it? It's getting tiresome
>>341866993
>board game = grid system
Nigga what.
You dont need a grid system in Civ. HoMM3 would be identical and that uses movement.
>>341867095
To be fair he is the single most important German leader of all time. He completely changed world history.
Still no reason to have him though, Germanbros wouldnt get the game then.
>>341867021
>We can definitely say localization into French and German paid off.
Do they seriously think localization is a big factor in legitimate sales?
>>341866591
>I've honestly grown to like it desu senpai
me too. I was butthurt about it because the angle the marketing department showed it at (for the reveal announcement) looked like a shit garbage mobile game, but ever since they've released E3 videos and further actual-gameplay angles, I've been warming up to it.
The fog of war is really comfy. The animation might be a little bit too distracting though when it recedes, but I'd need to play it myself to see if that really matters
>>341867114
>HoMM
>not tile-based
nigga what
just because it masks it more doesn't mean it doesn't work tile-based
>>341867217
Localization costs money. Why wouldn't you account for potential revenue when it's an added expense?
>>341862241
that is a blatant lie
Is it normal to basically skip the first 10 or so turns to get a worker or 2, move them and research a few things or am I missing something?
>>341867327
The overworld isnt tile based at all. Its the similar to TW in that you can move freely based on movement range.
.
>ITT the shitty hexes vs squares arguments again
Hexes are just generally superior for tactical movement. It means you can actually block units, it means all movement is equal, rather than diagonals being superior, it means there's no unequal movement. This is why most square-based games just have vertical and horizontal movement, no diagonal.
>>341862084
You mean the OVA.
>>341867327
It kinda does. HoMM3 sort of uses tiles, but thats because of tech limitations. In terms of movement though its far less restrictive because you can actually move about more.
>>341867429
which gaem?
because one thing you can do in 4 is get a worker out and chop down trees to generate productions points that you can use to either make an early wonder or another settler or other things
>>341867538
What we really should be arguing about is why they havnt implemented TW combat yet
>re-implements stacks, pleasing stackfags
>leaves in tactical gameplay and not just doomstacking because tactics are now involved in actual battles
>Leading your legions of roman troops against t51 tanks
Would be glorious
>>341867458
>>341867592
It still works by tiles, you're moving over a tile-based map that calculates the distance you travel based on the tiles you cross.
Not that it really matters, taking out the tiles would remove one of the core things of the Civilization series.
>>341867538
> units can move 6 spots in enemy territory
read the thread mate
being in enemy territory creates a +1 movement cost effectively making it one move per turn, which is dangerous if your enemy has artillery units
>>341867736
>taking out the tiles would remove one of the core things of the Civilization series.
How outdated the series is? I agree.
>>341867726
Civilization isn't about separate fights, everything is supposed to happen on the world map. They're already allowing stacking in Civ 6, but in a more limited way to tactically combine units, which sounds good.
>>341867856
how limited?
>>341867856b-but roman troops vs tanks
The artstyle literally looks like a HD remaster of IV instead of going for the pseudo satellite photo aesthetic of V.
Really, only the early game stuff looks like it's Clash of Clans
>>341867795
So what? Diagonals are still by definition superior movement in anything except where you expect immediate hostiles.
>>341867934
Looks awful desu
>>341867391
Because the reason those three countries listed in the single digit % have such piracy has nothing to do with localization, but with their shit economies and import policies.
>>341867912
Civilization VI still uses a "1 Unit Per Tile" system, but adds a combined arms system in which a normal military unit can link with and stack together with a support unit, such as a builder, settler, field medic, battering ram, siege tower, anti-tank or anti-aircraft unit.
Starting in the Renaissance era two of the same unit can be combined into a Corps, which is less powerful than two individual units, but more survivable and takes up less space on the map (to reduce overcrowding). Later in the modern era, three units can combine to form an Army. The ability to form Corps and Armies are unlocked in the Civics tree rather than the technology tree.
>>341867912
I think it's like 2-4 of the same unit can be grouped into a "corps" which has a bunch of bonuses, plus you have a separate class of support units which I think don't move on their own but are attached to your other units. For example, AA guns aren't a separate unit but are meant to be attached to ground units and provide those ground units with defense against air attacks. same with arty, attach it to other units.
>ITT people pretend there have been any Civ games that look better than 6
>>341867943
it means that saying hexes are more tactical is false
more moves means more tactics
>tfw looking forward to Marbozir playing this game
>>341868147
>all X is shit therefore they should never make X better
Defeatist.
>>341868241
but that's wrong
squares are bad because diagonal movement on a grid allows you to bypass tiles WITHOUT losing movement speed which in turn drastically limits the tactical options on either side
in pic related the square based grid as show allows you to bypass the red square without any movement penalties as the green and the black line both take two movements to reach the endpoint
however in a hex based grid bypassing the red grid requires 3 movement as opposed to the two movement and thus carries an inherent penalty
I hope you do understand that in any tactical game giving a player the option to bypass something at no penalty is a BAD THING
>>341868021
No fucking shit retard. The link is for companies who are deciding to do localization. If that investment doesn't move copies, there's very little point to localize language at all.
Russians are poor. Russians have developed a culture of piracy to get around that fact. Translating to Russian is pointless because it delivers very little payoff compared to the investment. And to return it to the original point, pissing off Russians who are butthurt over Stalin will not lose Firaxis much money at all. Or, if for whatever reason Russia bans all positive depictions of Stalin in media (like Germany does for Hitler), Firaxis won't lose anything.
How does this not make sense?
it looks fucking great, i'm hype
>>341868147
maybe civ3 with the watercolour tiles mod.
>Both Civ and Dawn of War look like mobile/moba shit.
P...PC Master Race....
>>341868246
No, they should make the game fucking playable. Civ 5 processes so much shit that it already chugs to a halt in late game, and districts is going to make that even worse. Every Civ has looked better than the last one, but this shit is never going to look like Crysis because 1) they need to convey information very quickly and 2) they don't want to kill people's CPUs.
>>341868556
Fuck off back to /a/ you cunt
>>341868564
>point out how stupid you sound
>immediately jump to "WELL IT CANT HAVE [Insert extreme option here]"
How to spot an idiot: the post
Civ 6 looks like shit. They wanted a readable map, that didnt require them to make a totally over-saturated playdo style game and performance wise there was no reason for the game to look this shit either.
Go be a retard somewhere else, shoo.
>>341868564
>Civ 5 processes so much shit that it already chugs to a halt in late game,
No it doesnt. Stop playing the game on a toaster on max settings.
>>341868564
It's a completely new engine.
If it's still slow during the late game even with that they're shit devs.
I honestly don't get the hate. The artstyle looks nice to me and it certainly looks more detailed than Clash of Titans. Is every fucking cell-shaded artstyle gonna be mobile game shit for you people? Does Rayman: Origins also get the same treatment in your mind?
>>341868873
It's called an exaggeration, are you in pre-school? You're doing the same thing.
The artstyle looks fine, especially considering it's made for actual gameplay, not all the way zoomed in - what you'll be seeing is >>341866591, where it's completely clear what every tile is.
>>341866591
Grid of hexes is shit as it limits the number of civs and the size of the map.
Hex tiles are to big for units and to small for cities.
>>341869269
What? Why would it limit anything?
Also units and cities have always taken up the same amount of space.
>>341869258
Its called losing the argument and attempting to save face
And no, im not, im pointing out literally what the game is right now because unlike you I know what im talking about.
But feel free to keep pretending the game looks amazing when every single civ 6 thread, every single youtube video, every single forum has people pointing out the graphical style is rubbish.
>>341869258
>gets called out for over exaggerating in his shitty attempt to pretend hes right
>OMG WHAT ARE YOU 12
Grow up, seriously. Just because you point out what lame attempt at saving face you used doesnt justify you using it.
>>341868960
Yes, it does if you play on a larger map. Doesn't matter how gud your computer is. Graphics settings aren't the problem; it's the AI turns.
>>341869394
Where did I argue the game looks amazing? It's functional. It's not beautiful, but it's fine - I've kinda grown to like it after the initial dislike because it seems to work well in-game.
>>341869494
You don't need to post the same post twice, bucko.
>>341869394
smart, nihilistic, and a wicked sense of humor! this is why you're a winner anon.
>>341869374
I imagined Civ 5 or Civ 6 would be with like 100 or 200 civs on a very big map when I played Civ 2 as a teen.
Games against 10 or 5 civs on small maps are just plain shit.
One unit is too small to occupy one tile as big a a city. City the size of one tile is to small.
Map should have like a million tiles.
>>341867021
I might be a sleep deprived retard here, but how the fuck do you put data like that on a pie chart. Let's say that 100% of the german players buy the game, or let's say some non-listed country bought a lot of copies compared to the listed ones. How would these data points be represented on the chart?
Also might be just me or is the title worded like shit?
>>341869868
That's kind of impossible with the current processing power if you want to have a semblance of strategy involved still. It would be cool and all, but we won't be seeing that for some time still.
I still don't understand why squares or hexes matters for that, though..
>>341870061
Squares form a matrix with easy to address tiles in columns and rows.
>>341870218
So? Hexes aren't any harder. Plus, considering you want a huge world, hexes can actually create a globe.
The gameplay changes sound fucking fantastic, but the fucking art direction.
Fucking why?
>>341852637
Have you watched the interview with the Civ guy on IGN on why they picked this style? It's not because they want the mobile audience.
Listen to it.
>>341858919
Xcom had missions cut from it on mobile due to file size restrictions.
>>341870378
In the image you posted British island is made up out less than ten tiles.
In the map I want to play civ on it would be made out of at least one thousand tiles.
These kind of resolutions are impossible with hexes.
>>341870538
>it's the autistic squarefag ruins a civ thred for the 14th time episode
Fucking kill yourself already. There are myriad of things you can shit on Civ 5 for single handedly ruining the series for any forseeable future but hexes aren't one of them. Fucking die you cocksucker DIE!!!!
>>341871180
wtf
literally the first civ thread I've been in in ages and the hell did I say about hexes or squares?
I hope there is a way to select units and move them together.
Moving units though the sea one by one is annoying.
>>341858919
Not on consoles.Even Vita has the whole experience; excluding mods.
>>341861963
>no based John Adams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHyb45r-sKk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLevr7I5PSg
>>341869885
>Also might be just me or is the title worded like shit?
Nah, I'm not sure what the chart is supposed to tell me either.
>>341869885
I can't figure it out, either. Also, the last two sentences hardly make sense:
>wow, localization paid off
>but it didn't really matter
Whoever made that chart was retarded.
>>341871596
>When you enter the industrial era and Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade starts playing
Between the soundtrack and Leonard Nimoy narrating everything no Civ will have the sound design of IV
>>341867021
whoever made this is an idiot. A pie chart is supposed to be used when each of these percentages are parts of a whole. However, they are all disjoint pieces of data.
Clearly made by an idiot who thinks anything dealing with percentages automatically means pie chart
Should have used a bar chart.
>>341865287
Well I think the best system is endless legend for this.
>>341871180
civ 5 is the best civ in the franchise. I know it's the newest title so contrarian will hate it but its true.
i know its cool to suck civ 4's cock. Probably half the people who do this have played less than 100hours on it
Also : civ 2 was better than the 4.
>>341871278
thats why not having IDs in a thread is stupid. ive no idea why they dont implement ID on all 4chan except maybe b
>>341871596
>talking shit about V's music
There's some legit problems V's got, but its music is by no means one of them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfpLk5AJ1ME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTIGVyjkpg0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XlVyXA8zNo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQEZBxaawxM
>>341872735
I know; the wave of new music that hits on each advance to a new age is really dramatic, and indeed one of the greatest sound design decisions in all of video games.
The modern age music has always been my favorite, but of course, Beethoven hits me hard in the industrial age. I don't care if it's an incredibly popular piece; it just feels so good to hear and fits so well.
Even if the game ends up bad, which i don't think it will, the trailer is fucking good.
>>341869868
>I imagined Civ 5 or Civ 6 would be with like 100 or 200 civs on a very big map when I played Civ 2 as a teen.
I know that feel. When I was a kid or teen playing strategy games, I used to think
>wow, videogames are so fun, I can't wait to see how amazing they will be 10-20 years from now!
It turned out that the strategy genre, and videogames in general, became pretty shitty instead and barely progressed beyond graphics and user-friendliness. How depressing.
Hopefully Civ6 makes navies worth a shit.
>>341861963
Nothing, not anymore. I agree it was ehhh at launch but with BNW and gods & kings it's very solid indeed.
>>341874441
>>341869868
>I imagined Civ 5 or Civ 6 would be with like 100 or 200 civs on a very big map when I played Civ 2 as a teen.
I know this feel, too. Playing games like Civ 3, I knew that the AI cheated even at medium difficulties, and its flaws were still apparent (e.g. couldn't into naval warfare for shit - a problem that STILL plagues the series).
I just thought that in 15 years, we would gone further in video game AI, yet we have completely stagnated. It's not like AI itself has stagnated; processing power and new methods (e.g. neural networks) have really taken off. It's just that devs don't want to innovate and apply these things to strategy games, despite the genre being most in need of this technology.
Fuck, it's like my number one wish for video games in general - because finding good multiplayer games is so dependent on a fickle community, it would be nice if that experience could be nearly emulated against bots across all genres.
>>341875371
i don't feel like AI has any good chance of getting better in 4x games, especially when their development progress so fast and is DLC-based.
Civ has many different systems that interact with each other and also demand high customization in AI due to its role in diplomacy(honestly i feel like devs try more to make AI good a roleplaying rather than winning) therefore developing an AI for it it's hard.
but the continuous changes of gameplay during development leave little time and money to develop, train and test a truly advanced AI that would also need to be updated with all the DLCs and balance changes.
>>341861024
> playing strategy games for the shitty graphics
The art style doesn't even look bad, and it's an objectively superior choice for the gameplay.
>>341874770
>implying naval combat won't be shit and just slapped into the game because it needs to be there just like most 4x games.
I like the artstyle, /v/ will literally hate everything that is new. I never liked the way Civ V looked, especially jungle and forest tiles.
Workers being consumables I think is a good idea. The main things I want to see improved are
>AI behavior
>Map generation
>World scaling (no civs spread out miles away)
>AI that recognizes when they are getting their shit kicked in in a war and won't make outrageous demands when you're turns away from wiping them out
>Squarefags vs Hexagonfags
>Nobody uses the superior triangles
>>341876189
I think they're trying to fix it. They've added cliffs so you can't disembark on every tile for example.
>>341876203
i agree about the workers.
in Civ5 each building gives you a fixed amount of resource/turn, but a builder gives you an increasing amount ( for example +1 food each time it builds a farm till the end of the game).
by making its math work similar to other buildings you limit the power of snowballing.
>>341854747
And I'd play the shit out of it
I just want the game to have a lot more random elements so you can't just settle on a single strategy at the start of the game and pursue it.
>>341876203
>AI behavior
In terms of complexity it'll be about the same, the only changes being to new mechanics like the barbarian camps for example. I wouldn't look forward to anything drastic, most changes displayed have been stylistic in nature.
>Map generation
Cliffs and tile improvements seems pretty interesting, and it's confirmed that TSL are going to be a much bigger focus this time around, so expect better map generation sure, also canal cities being hinted at being improved / reintroduced
>World scaling
Civ 5 never really had that problem, unless you chose TSL and removed a bunch of civs
>AI war demands
I never really had those problems, in fact, I would kill a scout in my border and 10 turns later the civ on emperor difficulty would offer me GPT and horses. Was actually offered a city once for peace after killing a few units off of my borders.
>>341870969
>These kind of resolutions are impossible with hexes.
It's not impossible, nor is it difficult to code.
The limits of the world sizes are a developer choice which takes current technology into account.
You're just being autistic.
>>341852637
>I want (You) that bad
>(You)
>(You)
>>341853530
Look, hexes are much better for units, much worse for cities the way that Civ has historically done them. Hexes (and global happiness*) are the reason why Civ V has such a strange, uninteresting economy in comparison to previous games in the franchise.
It's actually why I'm most excited about VI - it seems like they're trying to shake up how cities work in order to mitigate the problems that hexes introduced. If they can get it right, I'm all on-board for hexes.
>>341876972
>Hexes caused unhappiness
False equivalency, how did you expect to get away with that what the fuck?
>>341876972
>much worse for cities the way that Civ has historically done them
In what way?
>>341877082
>reading comprehension
Nowhere did I state that hexes caused unhappiness.
>>341876972
>much worse for cities the way that Civ has historically done them.
what did he mean by this?
>>341876972
>hexes are much better for units, much worse for cities
>Hexes are much worse for cities
Explain.
>>341865287
>hurr melees go front
>durr missiles stay back
Woah...... truly, this is the epitome of strategy
>>341876542
Adding depth would be a nice touch, one of the better parts about Endless Legends.
>>341876189
Well one of the biggest issues is that the ocean is so big, so navy combat is just shit. They suck at assisting you take cities, and the mechanic where they raid trade routes destroying the boat is frustrating and not fun.
Instead of destroying trade routes, they should just pillage it instead, taking money from it. Throw in a zone of control, if your ships haven't patroled an area in awhile your borders over the sea no longer extend there. Allow distant resources at sea to be manipulated somehow?
>>341862638
>squares with diagonal movement
>always optimal to move on the diagonal
>you end up being punished with wasted turns if you move on the faces
>SO MUCH BETTER THAN HEXES
>>341877489
As opposed to what variant of civilization game that did it better? That's what I thought.
>>341876868
>Civ 5 never really had that problem, unless you chose TSL and removed a bunch of civs
Really? I have major problems in all my Civ V games to the point where I'm convinced my game is glitched. Literally every game I play sets every civ away from each other by tons of tiles to the point where war is literally impossible since by the time you could move an army into range of another city all units would be obsolete.
I actually have to set my game to "small" size, then add a fuck load more AI just to make sure everyone is relatively close so I can meet everyone and wars can actually happen between us. Either I am extremely unlucky with map generation, or my game is just broken. This happens literally every game, I can only fix it by adding in tons of AI.
>>341877506
>A mechanic that hinders you is not fun
Shit, really? It's almost like it's intentional to create a challenge.
>>341877763
Civ 5's system liked to pair civs to each other. So you would spawn, and have another civ to compete with within 15 hexes of your capital. If you take them out early, you would have a bountiful amount of land to expand past four cities.
>>341877857
There is no counterplay to the system. Anywhere along the trade route your ship could get pillaged. You can't make it so that your ships escort it, since they cant enter enemy waters.
>>341877763
Do you own all the expansions? I play with them all installed so it may be a problem they retconned with expansions, kind of a dick move if they left it out of the vanilla game.
I guess other factors might be if the version is pirated, what map size you play on, what speed, or if you remove civs from the match.
>>341876940
Please let's not (You) become a thing, it's the most ridiculous thing, please don't get into it even ironically it's retarded.
Has Firaxis said anything about the size of the map?
The maps on V are a little bit too tiny
>>341877653
Evey other civs prior to 5 did it better. Only shitters who couldn't grasp the game mechanics shit on stacks. Thing about stacks is it's about war of production. You had to out produce enemy to win decisively. If you suck at empire building you should get shit on much larger and competent empires. Thing which pretty much never happens in Civ 5. No all you have to do is just sit on hills with whatever ranged units and just shit on braindead ai as they keep sending carpet after carpet of units that all get picked off one by one in hundreds to one kd tatio. Enjoy going around conquering he world with the same 6 units you built in classical age.
>>341878078
>Civ 5's system liked to pair civs to each other.
Now that you mention it, I do usually end up relatively close to at least one civ. Every other civ is miles away though, even on Pangaea they will all wind up clustered together far away from me.
In videos I watch no one else seems to have the same fucked up generation I do. Like I said, the only alternative I have found is setting the world size to small then adding 4 or 5 more civs.
>>341878171
I have all the DLC, I bought it way back when BNW first came out. I used to not fuck with the secondary settings at all, I'd just set it to 10 civs (I think that is large?) and usually would play on the continents map. But ever since I came back to Civ I've noticed the world gen just hates me and constantly spreads everyone way too far apart.
I've found a somewhat effective alternative by setting the world size to small (which is like 6 civs) then adding an extra 4 and upping the city states as well. It isn't fool proof because even then sometimes is happens, but it usually does fix it.
I'm convinced now that it might just be the fucked up coding because now that I'm thinking about it, I've noticed that whenever I pick more war-focused civs it tends to spread everyone far away from me, but when I pick a cultural civ then fucking with the settings by adding AI on a small world will usually put everyone relatively close.
>>341878814
>10 civs
>complains that they're too far apart
What the fuck? Play with 20+ like a normal person.
>>341878078
>No counterplay
>What is building a navy
>What is protecting your borders
You can set ships to alert down important trade routes, an enemy ship that gets close will alert you to it and you can counter it. A ships AI will focus an enemy over plundering a trade route easily so it's not like you need a big navy. But honestly if you're not even aware of this mechanic it doesn't sound like you're at all versed in the game mechanics civ offers, so you honestly shouldn't even speak out about it.
Also, cargo ships cost 100 hammers and is learnt during the ancient era, but being such an early tech you most likely wont even have close sea neighbors to trade with. You'll most likely be using caravans to help your other cities grow rather than be interested in the money a ship gives you.
You won't even need money until currency, all of your production should be going towards growing your cities to snowball your production and science later down the line. 100 hammers is fucking nothing by the time you need cargo ships to support your buildings and armies.
In short, there is counterplay, you just don't understand the game.
>>341878243
>You had to city manage the game to make more units so the person with more units won
>As opposed to how the units were used tactically
I hope you're trolling me here buddy, jesus.
>>341878934
>20 civs
That seems like way too much. Doesn't it get hard to keep track of everything? I have a hard enough time keeping track of like 10 or 12.
>>341877374
>>341877452
>>341877219
Sorry for the delay - the short gist of it is that moving to hexes and the difference in how many workable tiles there are within city radii pushes players to not specialize cities. The 'best' choice more often than not are nearest-neighbor generalized cities, which removes some of the pressure on economic planning that was in previous games. There was a really good article about it that summed up some of these thoughts, lemme find it ...
>>341878934
>Play with 20+ like a normal person
Distant Worlds thread is that way, anon. This is Civ thread
>Get to play as the assertive yet aggressive manly president teddy roosevelt
My favorite president desu
>>341879262
Nigger you're complaining that civs spawn too far away from you when you play on big maps with almost no civs in them.
And if you're worried about fucked world generation then get a map script from the workshop.
>>341862678
No. I've played nearly 300 hours of civ and I've never had or seen a military reach such a ridiculous size. Unless Greece moved literally every single unit he had into this condensed space, he should be having ridiculous economic issues, because the cost of unit maintenance goes up exponentially.
>>341879603
What difficulty do you usually play on?
>>341876108
I think what needs to be done is design the game with AI in mind from the very beginning, rather than adding features and hoping the AI will be able to handle them.
Sure, it wouldn't work with DLC/expansion (which, I know, has been with the series for awhile), but is this truly necessary?
I know what I'm asking for is somewhat unconventional, and it may raise eyebrows from fans of the series, but hear me out. Really, it's a question of "depth vs. breadth." I would rather have a game with fewer mechanics and lots of strategic depth (that the AI can into as well) than a game with lots of varying simulation aspects that the AI might not be able to handle (and the player would have to micromanage anyway). I would even defend hexes and 1 unit per tile as a design decision in the vein of this philosophy, so long as the AI could actually handle it (which it can't in Civ V).
>>341879770
5 for funsies/comfy civ simulator.
7 when I want a hard time.
I've beaten 8, but at that point the games just turn into, "How can I turtle harder while simultaneously abusing the AI" The Game.
>>341853780
Are you FUCKING retarded?
>Shaka invades like 3 city states, only manages to capture one
>Denounces me for no reason
>Hates me for no reason
>Every other turn he is popping up insulting me
>Just invade him and be done with it
>I'm the bad guy and literally every civ denounces me for exterminating a war mongering shitskin
Top quality AI
>>341880075
Civ 5 is shit. What a surprise.
>>341880075
You're doing it wrong, make a friendship with at least 2 other civs, I use info addict for this but you can check to see if there is tension between your friendly civs and the civ you want to invade. If there is tension see if they are willing to go to war with them with you. Even if they aren't willing, so long as they have denounced them you have the go ahead to invade them, just don't take their capitol and don't break your word (saying your approaching army is not here to invade when it really is)
Other civs not in your friend group will not be as likely to denounce you as they would have friendship ties with other civs in your friend group.
It's not always guaranteed but I've found it works quite well most of the time.
>>341865106
>workers arent in the game anymore and tiles can be improved automatically.. i think
Workers are still in the game as a buildable unit. The difference is that they process 'charges' that can be consumed to create tile improvements around a city. Once the charges are used up, the worker is consumed.
I guess it's basically like the government of a city devoting time to construction efforts.
>>341862853
>>341862953
>>341863024
>>341863128
I appreciate the time you put into this m8
>>341861963
it's alright, but AoW3 and Endless Legend are better, but they're more analogous to HoMM
>>341877506
>Well one of the biggest issues is that the ocean is so big, so navy combat is just shit.
I hope cliffs will help in that regard. Having a limited number of points to make a naval assault will allow navies to be more focused. Add some terrain to coasts that need to be considered.
