Civilization VI - Now available, so you can sink all your free time into it

[Zboj Lamignat]

A small addendum to that - every possible metric except the number of average players

Ah, yes, a small addendum - it completely crushes Civ5 in every popularity metric other than number of people playing it, where Civ5 makes it look like utter non-entity. Which is absolutely obvious to anyone who has even a basic grasp on the PC gaming market and to claim something opposite would mean making a complete ass of oneself.

which as I've shown earlier doesn't really matter jack shit in terms of how popular something is.

Of course the number of people playing the game mean jack shit for its popularity. I mean, why would it be otherwise. Particularly for a long abandoned game that's pushing well over a decade and still beats all but the single most popular competitor from the undisputed strategy market champions without breaking a single drop of sweat. This is all very clear and obvious, thanks!

Again, absolutely irrelevant.

Of course, it's completely irrelevant. This was already underlined as super obvious, but let me reiterate: the fact that a 6yo game which for the longest time stopped receiving new content and was p. much abandoned is currently being played by over 70k people means it's niche. "As niche as it ever was", in fact, like a wise man itt said. It's also worth repeating that the fact that this number is only beaten when we put Stellaris, EUIV, HoI4, CK3 and Vic3 together (and by a couple of k at that) also means jack poo poo. The fact that we are not factoring that previously mentioned 12yo game with numbers higher than all of these bar HoI4 also means nothing as well. Putting games together as it made a shred of sense only works for comparisons at certain times and is completely irrelevant at others.

Paradox has about 150-200k average players spread out through its modern, ongoing titles. Civ 6 + Civ 5 have about 60-70k.

I have no idea where you are pulling these numbers from, but if we take an average over last 30 days, which gives maximum advantage to paradox and maximum disadvantage to firaxis, then it is roughly 55k for nu firaxis versus 90k for paradox. There are couple of important points to mention here:
1. Both civs are on the incline whereas every paradox title is on the decline.
2. A huge part of paradox numbers is constituted by Vic3 which is on an extremely sharp decline which is unlikely to stop for some time.
3. Civ6's peak over that period is 85k which is way higher than any paradox title and only Vic3 and HoI4 can slightly compare, for obvious reasons. Wait, did peaks matter or not? I already forgot, lel.

Uh, absolutely false. But I suppose they fail to teach basic math wherever you spawned from. Again, Paradox armada both collectively outsold and outperformed in terms of peak player counts, the Civ 5 and Civ 6 duo. You'll likely parrot again how individually it is not so, to which you can refer to my first paragraph above.

You mean that five games have cumulative peaks higher than two games? In an age of digital distribution, constant steep sales and multiple f2p events (the game you cling to the most has literally been f2p for a very long time now)!? Hecking incredible. And yeah, Civ6 wins this silly metric contest easily, but that's another one of those things that are unironically obvious.
And, of course, you have no idea about units sold. Either show hard data or... don't, I guess.

Yeah, the numbers of Hoi4 vs Civ 6 gravitate around 30-40k avg and 50-70k peaks, at the moment. Stellaris, Victoria 3, EU4 have about half of these. What's incomprehensible about that? Check it out if you don't believe me, I can't be arsed to spoonfeed you more screecaps.

Um, Civ6 average is 40k, with only Hoi4 and Vic3 placing above 20 and the rest around the quarter of that. With the caveat that this ain't gonna last for Vic3.

I am not an expert by any means, but we can agree that you're a snide cunt who has at least acknowledged his ignorance in the matter. I don't watch any of that shit, I do happen to know about it though, in the same way I know about a myriad of other things. Your attempt to shame me for acknowledging the social and cultural impact of Paradox games just shows how weak truly your intellectual position is, nothing more or nothing less.

If you feel insecure about being part of the "watching games instead of playing them. also memes" "culture" then you probably should be and maybe realizing it is a step into the right direction. Then again, modern paradox are definitely a special case where the line between "playing" and "watching" is rather blurred.

 

[Seigneur Locklear]

it completely crushes Civ5 in every popularity metric other than number of people playing it

Who cares when the horse pope incest meme machine keeps churning along? CK2 left the same or arguably greater impact on the strategy games than Civ 5. You keep debating yourself in accordance to the conditions you yourself made up. I've never used the standard of "more average players = more popular" ITT, that autism is again - of your own making. I've made it my point times and again that it doesn't really matter how many people play the game in terms of popularity - it's how widespread and impactful its social reach is. You keep insisting to loop me into this discussion of quality of these respective games, but this is not at all the topic. If anything, we both agree that all these nu titles suck ass lol.

the fact that a 6yo game which for the longest time stopped receiving new content and was p. much abandoned is currently being played by over 70k people means it's niche. "As niche as it ever was", in fact, like a wise man itt said

First of all, your crude and petty misinterpretation aside - I clearly said that 4x as a genre is niche. Furthermore, I said it's niche in comparison to FPS, MMO and gacha. For reference, see Counter Strike's 600k average players, since that's the metric you'll probably accept. I know you have little in the way of actual arguments, but try not to flat out lie and misconstrue my words.

is only beaten when we put Stellaris, EUIV, HoI4, CK3 and Vic3 together

Again, I am well aware that you have a terminal case of denial, but try to do some basic math. The current trend for Civ 6 is around 35k. The current trend for HoI4 is 29-30k. That's called comparable. You can add any one of the other Paradox titles and it beats it with ease. The current trend for Civ 5 is 15k. Add in EU4 which is comparably old and has objectively worsened in quality with each DLC for the past couple of years, you again have a clear winner. All this cope about muh abandoned game and muh old game really goes both ways but isn't relevant to the argument of popularity.

I have no idea where you are pulling these numbers from, but if we take an average over last 30 days,

Yeah, it's more like 100k (account the decline of Victoria 3), I approximated it quickly from a glance. That's double the Civ combo. Incline, decline whatever have you isn't really relevant all things considered, when the entire scheme is built to pump life into these games with CPR that is DLC.

Hecking incredible

Yeah, we are again discussing popularity, not the hows and why's of how it came to be. I'll repeat that as many times as it takes. If you want to discuss and compare quality of these games, you can probably find someone else for that kind of dick measuring contest.

And, of course, you have no idea about units sold

I go by the steamspy data, approximations naturally. The sheer bulk of Paradox' titles seems to outsell Civ duo, but if you want to be autistic about it, ask them yourself. Not like it matters, the popularity margin in other departments speaks for itself..

If you feel about insecure

Speaking of insecurity, I wasn't the one to loudly proclaim how cool and detached I am for not knowing e-celebs, meme culture revolving around these games and other stuff. Maybe you should look into the mirror for those issues. I understand you're in the kool boys club here and want to fit in, but I was speaking facts for the sake of truth, no need to be upset over it.

 

[Peachcurl]

Settle this by playing a round of Civ VI?

 

[Infinitron]

 

[Victor1234]

Some up to date stats on comparisons between Civ & Paradox based on steam.

 

[Seigneur Locklear]

Lol @ negro Suleiman by the way.

Spoiler

 

[Gerrard]

SHIEEEEEEEET

 

[Zeriel]

Are they even trying anymore? This shit looks like an intern from 20 years ago put it together.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

did any of the number autists above remembered to mention that CK2 is free to play currently, while CIV 6 is not?

 

[Max Damage]

Every time I wonder why I haven't played this, I immediately remember the artstyle

 

[Zeriel]

Every time I wonder why I haven't played this, I immediately remember the artstyle

Funny thing is that wasn't the worst thing, by far. The AI was so much worse. Dunno how it has changed since then, but on release it made the game unplayable. The artstyle is just the superficial warning that the entire game is a shit sundae. The fact it's been financially successful despite that, and somehow has more players than Civ 5, sure doesn't bode well for the future.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

Every time I wonder why I haven't played this, I immediately remember the artstyle

Funny thing is that wasn't the worst thing, by far. The AI was so much worse. Dunno how it has changed since then, but on release it made the game unplayable. The artstyle is just the superficial warning that the entire game is a shit sundae. The fact it's been financially successful despite that, and somehow has more players than Civ 5, sure doesn't bode well for the future.

In the future, all software will follow the Mobile First principles and you will love it

 

[Max Damage]

I think they've never bothered to adapt the AI for 1UPT, probably never will. Why not at least make armies deploy on a separate battlefield, or do it like Endless Legend? I couldn't stomach CiV for more than a couple plays because moving whole carpet unit by unit is horrendous.

 

[Fedora Master]

All they had to do was to limit the number of units in a doomstack. Allow for bigger doomstacks as technology advances. Pretty much like real life.

 

[Zeriel]

All they had to do was to limit the number of units in a doomstack. Allow for bigger doomstacks as technology advances. Pretty much like real life.

They actually kinda did that with Civ 6. Had later techs that let you combine multiple units into a stack of like 4. Civ 6 had a lot of good design ideas by the lead designer... it just didn't matter because the rest of the team were braindead moron interns. Pretty unique situation, you don't often see a game with some really smart design ideas where the execution is total trash.

 

[Fedora Master]

All they had to do was to limit the number of units in a doomstack. Allow for bigger doomstacks as technology advances. Pretty much like real life.

They actually kinda did that with Civ 6. Had later techs that let you combine multiple units into a stack of like 4. Civ 6 had a lot of good design ideas by the lead designer... it just didn't matter because the rest of the team were braindead moron interns. Pretty unique situation, you don't often see a game with some really smart design ideas where the execution is total trash.

Well, it turns multiple units of the same type into one buffed up one which ultimately just kicks the can down the street. In Civ4 the composition of the stack mattered, too.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

I think they've never bothered to adapt the AI for 1UPT, probably never will. Why not at least make armies deploy on a separate battlefield, or do it like Endless Legend? I couldn't stomach CiV for more than a couple plays because moving whole carpet unit by unit is horrendous.

It's amazing how this isn't constantly hammered in in every discussion about nu-civ and its possible continuation. But even looking at codex threads, ppl apparently love nu-civ combat enough to play and recommend games that are solely dedicated and focused on it.

 

[whydoibother]

I think they've never bothered to adapt the AI for 1UPT, probably never will. Why not at least make armies deploy on a separate battlefield, or do it like Endless Legend? I couldn't stomach CiV for more than a couple plays because moving whole carpet unit by unit is horrendous.

It's amazing how this isn't constantly hammered in in every discussion about nu-civ and its possible continuation. But even looking at codex threads, ppl apparently love nu-civ combat enough to play and recommend games that are solely dedicated and focused on it.

The AI and the netcode have been shit in every Civilization game ever released, which is why they aren't hammered too much when comparing Civ4 to Civ5, for example. Its shit in both, just differently shit.
The AI absolutely wasn't good at stacking units, ordering them, picking a position to fight on or moving its stacks in general. Civilization combat AI is on par with HoMM3 strategic map AI, where you could make it dance just by moving towards them, then away, then towards them, then away, and they'd do the same based on their power comparison to you.

The 1UPT unique hassle is moving big armies, because you can't, like in an RTS, select multiple units and move them at once. There should be a way to lock a few units together, to move together (implemented in Civ6 via layering, where you can click for a military unit to escort a civilian unit, but that's just a very tiny stack).

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

3... 2... 1... The "b-b-but it was also shit in a gaym released 20 years ago" "argument" is here. Close the thread.

 

[whydoibother]

3... 2... 1... The "b-b-but it was also shit in a gaym released 20 years ago" "argument" is here. Close the thread.

When comparing two things, its normal to emphasize the differences. The AI is similarly shit in all games in the series.
You were asking why the AI isn't talked about more during these comparisons, and that's the reason why.

 

[cvv]

3... 2... 1... The "b-b-but it was also shit in a gaym released 20 years ago" "argument" is here. Close the thread.

Thing is there's never been a strategy game praised for fantastic AI. At least I don't recall one.

I've been playing TB strategies since Civ 1 and people have ALWAYS bitched about the AI.

The only possible exception is Warlock, IIRC there were murmurs about the combat AI being surprisingly adept at handling unit combos, terrain advantage, flanking etc. Unfortunately the strategical AI was one of the most retarded ones I've ever seen.

 

[cvv]

As for 1UPT - have there been any TB strategies in the last 10 years with unit stacks?

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

3... 2... 1... The "b-b-but it was also shit in a gaym released 20 years ago" "argument" is here. Close the thread.

Thing is there's never been a strategy game praised for fantastic AI. At least I don't recall one.

I've been playing TB strategies since Civ 1 and people have ALWAYS bitched about the AI.

The only possible exception is Warlock, IIRC there were murmurs about the combat AI being surprisingly adept at handling unit combos, terrain advantage, flanking etc. Unfortunately the strategical AI was one of the most retarded ones I've ever seen.

Which does not make it OK for new games to have bad AI and does not mean that introducing mechanics that AI is completely unable to properly handle isn't bad design. Second part being p much the gist here. Especially when said mechanics aren't gr8 in the first place.

 

[Max Damage]

I never saw nu-CiV pull off invasion competently, artillery is always out of position, and melee units just run into slaughter like blind idiots. You can defend without sweat, especially with instant heal promotion. And it's not like there's in-depth espionage system either anymore, so all you have left is dumbed down wargame.

 

[Elwro]

Imperialism had proper AI, afaik.