What are the /his/ approved civs until we get Incas?

>>3251179
Rome.

>free monuments
A building you want to build ASAP, but can't fit into your order. A building that lets you get early governments much faster, and this their production bonuses.
>free roads
Quick movement between cities, extra gold early on from domestic trade routes.
>unique swordsman
A core military unit you would be building anyways, except even better. Also has capability to build its own shit, so you don't need to take a worker on campaigns.
Build early encampments, get 1-2 great generals (they stack) and your unique swordsmen will have enough combat strength to one-shot spearmen and archers.
>unique aqueduct district
Housing translates to science and production, growing your cities is very strong, and Rome grows their cities very quickly thanks to this thing. Also allows them to plant productive cities in places where other civilizations couldn't, as they would get housing locked.

Overall a very good, fun, and fair civ. Not as good as the broken Scythians and Summerians, but as far as balanced goes, this is on the top side of balance.

File: ob_a14d5fdacc42de25e28af859d2d96018_uruk.jpg (308KB, 1279x808px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 1279x808px

>>3251192
Why Sumerians are broken? Never played them.

>>3251204
They start the game with the ability to build the War Cart. It is a Heavy Cavalry category unit, and since its from Age 0, it has 0 gold per turn maintenance (unit maintenance is determined by which era a unit is unlocked).
It will be the most powerful unit on the field for a whole age, and will be usable for the next age too.
You can build a bunch (no maintenance lol), fight and win with them to make up for the turns "waster" building soldiers instead of infrastructure, and then upgrade these experienced veteran troops along the Heavy Cavalry tree.

This alone is enough, since it allows Sumeria to take out a couple of nearby city states, or wherever their neighbor expands, or take his capital even. Stealing stuff others built is more efficient than building yourself - if you build for 50 turns you have 50 turns worth of stuff, if you make soldiers and fight, you have 50 turns worth of other people's stuff, and an experienced army next to it.

>>3251218
Now that's overpowered. I like it.

File: 1488003584891.jpg (82KB, 832x584px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 832x584px

>>3251179
>playing VI over V

>>3251231
>playing V over VI
>playing VI over III
>playing new games when old games exist

Yeye, I know. Now fuck off >>>>>>>>>/v/

>>3251235
It's an interesting phenomenon though. Why less intelligent people feel themselves superior by refusing new things?

>>3251253
I didn't refuse anything. I played it, didn't like it, and went back to V. To each their own, no need to get butthurt.

>>3251257
Well, it's not about you then but point still stands. Check /v/ threads to see for yourself. People there claim that the older the better play 20 years old 2D games.

>>3251253
>play game
>invest 1500 hours becoming very good at it
>game 2 comes out
>my old tactics don't work
>i have to change the way i play and learn
>fuck that, just play game some more

/v/ in general hates change.

>>3251253
V felt really gimmicky. Haven't played VI. These games really are evolving too fast for me.

>>3251272
VI is broken as fuck. you can form a massive army 20 turns in by chopping forests and using certain policy cards, and proceed to steamroll.

>Incas

Inb4 Eurangutan poster arrives

>>3251231
>>3251235
>playing civ

Just play Paradox map painting simulators

>>3251179
I just want the fucking Dutch already, it's always one of my favourite civs. You can't just add Phillip II as Spain's leader and then not add the Dutch.
Also they are the only civ in V that could rival the English on sea during renaisance, and stealing an entire civ's navy with sea beggars is fun.

File: 245.jpg (80KB, 1333x900px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1333x900px

>>3251179
>No Ireland under Brian Boru
GET ON IT FIRAXIS

>>3251938
The fat black lady is more empowering tho.

>>3251296
Oh gee I sure do love those exciting battles

File: heh.jpg (16KB, 306x285px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 306x285px

>>3251179
>Civ5
>Civ6

Anything after Civ4 is trash

>>3252006
You could make the argument that the entire series is trash from a /his/ perspective.

>>3252027
From a /his/ perspective id expect nothing but LARPing as a Eastern European Cleric would be somewhat acceptable

>>3252006
All civilization is trash.

The progression is shit tier, and everyone is led by an immortal god emperor figure.

>>3252032
I mean that the Civ series isn't really historical at all. Civ III, for example, had Cleopatra as Egypt's leader and Mao as China's leader.

>i dont like thing

Okay.

>>3252006
I'm just trying it out, I've already played every other Civ to death.

I keep meaning to try VI, but every time I do after like 20 turns I just can't bring myself to do so anymore. Everything feels like a huge slog, and at the same time inconsequential. I really like a lot of the new mechanics they introduced in VI so I'm super mad that it just feels so awful

>>3252049
Well yea, they are just casual fuck around's just to get people to learn history and strategic gaming.

I like Civ4 because of the combat. Yea sure, doomstacks but fuck you that was way more fun and realistic to me.

>>3252083
same. too bad it still needs one or two expansions to become better than v

Celtics in Civ 5 are highly underrated.

Grabbing that practically free early God-King pantheon bonus for +1 of everything gives you such a solid early game foundation. Plus you are usually placed around forest for some easy hammers when necessary. If played right, you can grab a bunch of early wonders.

>>3251218
Keep note, atleast from my experience online, it's only op to immediate neighbors, war carts get shut down hard once ppl get a wall/slinger in city or archer with garrison upgrade (it affects ranged strength too ppl dunno this) /fortifiedwarriors. If you only play single player only though don't worry about much the ai let's you fuck them in the ass and not give the around they're so bad.

>>3252176
>Underrated
No, they're not, they're only good as a religious civ, and the reason they're underrated' is because all of the vics were riginally measured based on a deity game, where religion is almost completely irrelevant.

>>3251272
Same here, V left a bad taste in my mouth so I'm sticking with III and IV.

>>3251231
I played V for 7 years. I'm done, I got my time in, I want to move on to something new.

>>3252176
Underrated is irrelevant because all civs in V bow to Babylonia