Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

203

(post is archived)

[–] • 3 pts (edited )

Full send...

Edit

Why do I have a sneaky suspicion that this will be WOKE CIVILIZATION? You know... It's time for this geopolitical franchise to go woke.

[–] • 1 pt

Remember colonization? And the controversy over NOT including slavery?

[–] • 0 pt

Hmmm. Vaguely. But yeah that definitely should be a thing. I should be able to enslave citizens In the barbaric past ... Or glorious future lol

[–] • 0 pt

Its a little harder to woke this game. All they can do is Buff historically irrelevant civilizations and nerf great ones. Which doesnt really matter that much. I never really gave much thought to the way the leaders look anyway. Kupe (Maroi) and Bolivar (Bolivia) were my favorites.

[–] • 0 pt

I always liked the boats. I would play as the British on island archipelago maps. I liked the speed I could move forces.

[–] • 0 pt

The last one went woke with the global warming expansion. I'm sure this one will be worse.

[–] • 3 pts

Babylon has discovered WOKE

Victory condition: achieve peaceful multicultural society

[–] • 2 pts

I stopped playing these awhile ago when they went from an easily modded 4X game full of interesting strategy, to a shallow historical simulation more focused on graphics than strategy. Then they really lost me when they changed the battle calculations to be based on "feels" rather than predictable equations.

[–] • 1 pt

Whats the difference from say civilization 4 to current civ? I feel like these games are similar to the sports games, a minor tweak here, some new gimmick there, same ole game. Pre-order for some shitty cosmetic style bonus. 20 year old game makes another $70 per copy.

History typically doesn't change. New noteworthy advancements are't common or abundant within a twenty year period, and anything that is added is end game content that you either won't reach or won't get much time to experience if you are playing the game seriously.

[–] • 1 pt

4 is the peak. 5 and 6 are fundamentally flawed by their unit/movement system. Since you can only have one unit per tile, armies take up a lot of space and can't really move around well. To ameliorate that problem, they reduce how many units and cities you can have, to the point where it doesn't feel like you have a whole civilization under your control, just a traffic jam.

Civ 4's designer made Old World. I would check that out.

[–] • 0 pt

I started playing 2 like 25 years ago. 3 was obviously a huge upgrade, I liked 4 better but it was really similar to 3 but a little more in depth and shinier. 5 was quite a bit different, they went to a new map grid style, and changed up a lot of stuff I cant remember it all because its been so long and I havnt played 4 or 5 in forever. I didnt enjoy 5 as much, it felt like you had to play tall, and spam wonders no matter what.

6 has been my favorite out of all them. They added districts which you have to build that are effected by terrain and improvements, they also unlock certain wonders. It made positioning them critical and long term planning is way more important that any other of the titles. The complexity of it really made it so you had to play the game to each map. You cant just go in with a build order in mind and expect to do well like you could in 5.

That being said I dont see how they are going to improve on it very much. 6 seems about as good as it could get. If they make it more complex you started edging in to EU4 territory which the complexity of it can be a drag to fun for a lot of people.

[–] • 0 pt

Exactly. They are all the same game.