G@mer Chud wants more killing, less thinking.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

Lmao at "Reddit celebrity"

I still have no clue what he thinks he means by "faustian".

This dude really thinks Risk is the height of game design

Also, no Civ: Alpha Centauri or Beyond Earth, what is this slander

he's complaining about optional game modes like "not killing everyone" lol.

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?

If you want to be a despicable imperialist just get any paradox game and play it that way.

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.

So this guy gets routinely dogwalked by people who play diplomatically is what I take away from that.

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.

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)

with the exception of Civilization VI, which I refuse to dignify with any of my further attention

Therefore, here's my essay fundamentally about Civilization VI?????