In the list of bad design changes:
Nations consider whether they can win before declaring war.
Most old-school purists would say that Civ IV was the best one, so he even fails at being a g*mer.
They made Civ IV too political for him
Requires: Fascism
I don't even mess with 4x's like That and Civ IV just became my favorite in the genre for that alone
They made it look like shit on purpose
I mean Leonard Nimoy as the narrator, hello?!
Civ4 is 
is so many ways, it's only flaw is that Civ5/Civ6 has better unit tactics, but almost everything else about Civ4 was 10/10.
Also Hexagons but otherwise yeah. I love how your borders grow and grow and grow and grow and you can take over other cities that way
Civ 6 has better combat as you said, it also has better city management, tile management and city-building with districts that can really customize cities and areas based on their geography. It also has the best mod support and UI by far at this point. I also prefer the city state system, religions, and having a civic tree alongside the science tree.
It's really cool in the expansions how you can build canals, dams, tunnels, etc. If you use modded map packs you can get large maps with rivers that are 1-tile wide and navigable by ships, which is a lot of fun when combined with the above features. Trade routes get multipliers if they go through canals in your territory, and all these districts give adjacency to industrial and commercial zones. There's also alternate playstyles where you go more into preservation, tourism, culture, appeal and faith with the nature preserves and holy sites and unimproved forests. You also get diplomatic benefits for not polluting, it can slow down or prevent global warming and you can get a "good ending" for the world where it doesn't turn into a radiated deathworld (A peaceful cultural, diplomatic or religious victory in a world without crazy disasters and war) - though to do this with the base AI is difficult because they are programmed to bee-line for industry and science so I use a mod that changes AI behavior based on their civ.
Civ 6 is also too easy, the AI isn't good enough at late game aggression and district management. So ironically, the things that are better about Civ 6 for a human are things that AI have a hard time with. So you have to mod in Deity ++ and some other mods if you really want a challenge.
I also would like a marxist or historian to go in and make a mod to correct some of the Liberal ideology underpinning certain mechanics and civics/governments. It would also have to add revolutions, slavery, genocide, etc. if you are going to include fascism. It makes no sense to make a sanitized PG version of history as a game (wonder what my units are doing while "pillaging" to get full health and 180 gold) and then also include Fascism as a government choice, but it's just +X to combat strength and +Y% to unit production benefits and no drawbacks. At least Paradox games have penalties and show the gruesome outcome of these policies (mass murder, genocide, forced migration, slavery, etc). You either gotta go full historical reality or full G rating Disney mode, otherwise you implicitly are whitewashing fascism and capitalism. I hate that they always call capitalism "democracy" in these games! It's a Bourgeois dictatorship, the Communist government is more democratic! However, in reality your government is autocracy with you as god-king and is the whole game long since there's no mechanic that interrupts your complete control and micro-management of your empire.
Like does this make any goddamn sense? Capitalism is a dead-end civic with no relation to anything else. The 3 governments after that are Communism, Fascism and "Democracy". So this "Democracy" thing isn't capitalism, fascism or communism?
In reality there's no such government as a "democracy" in such plain terms. Liberal bourgeois dictatorships allow a veneer of democracy during boon times and go into fascist defense mode during crisis times, it's the two postures of the same government. So really there's 2 late-game government types (Prole Dictatorship & Bourgeois Dictatorship) each with their own war posture and peace posture. Capitalism is not a separate optional thing, it's the economic system that creates these two government types because it creates these two opposing classes. You should discover Capitalism, undergo rapid changes in your empire, start to lose control if you cling to feudal systems. Then once you are sufficiently developed and hit a cyclical crisis, you make a decision one way or the other to adopt a revolution or crush it and become one of the two governments. Then your war weariness and threat levels determine your posture (how much war policy cards you have, etc). If you crush the revolution you will have certain benefits and certain downsides, but if you have to go into war mode it should be clear your society becomes fascist and imperialist and you have penalties from that like population loss, diplomatic penalties, etc.
Do you like unciv?
as someone who has put over 1000 hours into every single civ game (not combined, each), Civ VI is actually the best. I know, hot take.
"the game no longer reflects an 18th century view of world conquest". Why should it? Running a war empire is costly, sacrifices production for military over infrastructure, and usually results in unhappiness for the empire. The whole point of the game is that world powers change and adapt to "stand the test of time". Changing game mechanics beyond "conquer" is exactly the same thing. That's why there are multiple win conditions. This dullard barely had an argument to begin with, and it's a bad one.
Carl von Clausewitz: War is a continuation of policy by other means.
G*mer: Sounds like woke nonsense to me.
Bro be mad that there’s too much civilization in Civ. He’s also full of shit; Civ had the “first to Alpha Centari” win condition since the beginning, it was never military conquest or bust. Hell, the way I played Civ II back in the day was to build up massive wealth stores, keep bribing opposing civilizations’ cities to rebel, then once they were down to only a city or two I’d switch to communism and then invade them and win.
Civilization has always been more of a board game with a historical skin than some kind of simulation. Making small civs viable wasn't done for any ideological purpose than creating more gameplay variety, same with the addition of more ways to win and the removal of doom stacks.
Lmao at "Reddit celebrity"
I fucking love Jesus, almost as much as I love war, murder and conquest
spoiler
Checks out completely 
"Third Horsemen"
lol does he mean like wil wheaton and val kilmer or is this account i've never heard of supposed to be like the time in nineteen ninety-eight when the undertaker threw mankind off hell in a cell and he plummeted 16 feet into the annoucer's table?
Oh shit, is he the 3am chili guy!?
I still have no clue what he thinks he means by "faustian".
It basically means westerners have a supposed innate drive to conquer, innovate, create, blah blah even if it has no end goal or if people get hurt along the way. And that's supposed to be beautifully tragic to fascists because their entire ideology is incoherent. It's been a fascist term for a long time but I think only recently it's been picked up by internet fascist dorks with marble bust profile pics.
internet fascist dorks with marble bust profile pics.
Hahahaha, I’ve noticed that, too. Usually it is a pretty big warning sign if an account’s profile picture is a classical statue of some bloke (and it is always a bloke, never a woman like Venus de Milo or L’Été sans bras).
ETA: A literal Crusader is a big warning sign, too. Example:
Same! What do they think they're saying?
This dude really thinks Risk is the height of game design
Also, no Civ: Alpha Centauri or Beyond Earth, what is this slander
Teeeeeeeeechnically Alpha Centauri is not a "Civilization" game, it is a Firaxis/Sid Meier's
That being said, he did miss Civilization II: Test of Time (I feel like I'm the only person who remembers it) which also had an Alpha Centauri campaign as well as a Midgard/fantasy campaign.
Civ II: Test of Time was the shit! I remember playing all kinds of user-created maps that would completely change the gameplay. Describing Civ II as a "reskin" of Civ I is possibly the most ridiculous part of this tbh, it was a drastic improvement. I guess if you just played it once and stuck to the default game it might not seem as different, but like you could go to a sky kingdom or an underwater world or play on a map based off Final Fantasy 6 or have a space game or any number of other possibilities.
Remember Civilization: Call to Power, the one Sid Meier had nothing to do with?
he's complaining about optional game modes like "not killing everyone" lol.
Me sharting that the woke game Age of Empires 1 has a nonviolent wonder victory unlike the Faustian game Warcraft 2
For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare.
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
4
5
5 6 7 8
8
8
5 6 8
what the fuck OP
Imagine people in the 21st century not stll having an 18th century view of politics? 
truely the west has fallen.
And what the fuck is the "Faustian Western Tradition?" Some new meaningless fash buzz phrase? The fascist who wrote that piece calling midwesterns hobbits for lacking "a sense of imperial destiny" called Floridians "Faustian idividualists" or something. Did someone mention Faust in a Marvel movie or something?
100+ year old term actually. It's a term created by fascist dipshit Oswald Spengler in his book Decline of the West. He outlined there are nine cultures, one of which is Western or 'Faustian'. Spengler proposed that western white people have an insatiable urge to discover, create, and explore regardless of other concerns. Hence like Faust, who made a pact with the devil in the pursuit of knowledge. Also the Nazis loved this book.
Also Spengler believed that western countries should stop building so many factories because eventually non-white people would also figure out how to build factories and then weaponize their economies against the west.
lol
Thanks, i hate it lol.
Fascist are strange. At least i get what they think they're saying now
Also Spengler believed that western countries should stop building so many factories because eventually non-white people would also figure out how to build factories and then weaponize their economies against the west.
If you want to be a despicable imperialist just get any paradox game and play it that way.
So this guy gets routinely dogwalked by people who play diplomatically is what I take away from that.
I mean you could always just turn off every win condition except for domination? You can play exactly how you want and with mods that extends even further, I play as the Reapers from Mass Effect, which is a completely broken civ meant to be a challenge for players but I like using them to destroy the imperialist countries with some good old Dragonian Communism.
I actually thought Civ 6 was too combat focused. I prefer managing tables and resources.
Retrvn to Civ 1, where democracy has no corruption and a spearman can destroy a battleship if the dice roll is lucky.
i think one spear in the wrong place could probably totally fuck up a battleship for good
yeah, like directly into the captain's skull
Idk, that'd have to be inside the engines or something and even then ship engine cylinders could probably turn any hydrocarbon into power. Diesel, bunker fuel, spears, medium sized animals, etc
One spear dude constantly weaving around bullets and things to merc everyone individually on the ship. Super lucky.
Lmao I remember reading this thread and not realising until the civ 6 thing (I thought the civ 5 thing was just A Bad Take) that the poster saw all the changes towards diplomacy as being bad. The description of Civ I sounds damning to me, but the poster thinks it makes it sound great lol
I remember talking to a proto-chud about 40k roleplaying (we were playing Rogue Trader (the Dark Heresy one, not OG 40k) at the time), and he was very invested in extremely thick clear lines between the Imperium and the rest of the 40k. The society from top to bottom must be puritanical. I was "apolitical" at the time and I pointed out that in the context of roleplaying it's vastly more interesting if there's constant fraternisation on the borders, corruption in the society (even if you accept that, say, the Tau are bad, but just from a human interaction standpoint), and not every military officer is a frothing at the mouth zealot.
Looking back, he wanted 40k to be a model society (as it were) and was also very invested in the "humanity fuck yeah" thing that feels like a fascist dog whistle in sci-fi circles.
(side note 1, he also decided at some point while GMing that regular Imperial citizens shouldn't even know about the Inquisition. I pointed out that this would make it impossible to use their authority. He changed it for the planet his story was on. TBF that did make our acolyte job harder. In hindsight, he could have meant that like... Noble houses and the Imperial Navy and general higher eschelons of society do know about the Inquisition, but like a factory worker on a hive world doesn't necessarily. That would actually be pretty interesting and make the Inquisition a more illuminati-esque faction in Dark Heresy)
(side note 2, he was always personally invested in being a person with special secret knowledge that not many other people knew, and attempted to accrue social clout this way. This applies both to science knowledge but also to holocaust denial later on)
Tabletop, DnD, board games, and minecraft. Also Animal Crossing.
3rd International Volunteer Brigade (Hexbear gaming discord)
Rules