salty mud
Deity
How deep do you think Civ VI is? How does it compare to its predecessors?
Civ 6 depth
- Thread starter salty mud
- Start date
There are lots of systems but I don't feel it's particularly deep in that sense. I guess broad would be my way to describe it.
Which can be fun, and definitely part of the reason why I come back to the game. But I do wish that there were less systems, and more ability to "dive deeper" into others.
Which can be fun, and definitely part of the reason why I come back to the game. But I do wish that there were less systems, and more ability to "dive deeper" into others.
Bibor
Doomsday Machine
Civ6 struck a good balance (with Gathering storm) of depth and width.
I'd say depth is best felt in warfare, for example you need tech, culture, production and gold, with the 'how much of each' depending on your unit comp and timings.
In other matters, depths is available, but is a time sink - you really need to take your turns slow if you want to get it.
But, it's doable and the game allows for it.
If you want, you can calculate:
- the loss by running a settler policy card (instead of running other cards)
- production needed for the settler
- number of turns the settler needs to reach its destination
- time and production to get a harbor lighthouse up
- to build an additional trade route...
... just to get the inspiration for Medieval Faires...
to get 100% theatre district adjacency 5 turns faster, if that's what you needed in the first place.
I'd say depth is best felt in warfare, for example you need tech, culture, production and gold, with the 'how much of each' depending on your unit comp and timings.
In other matters, depths is available, but is a time sink - you really need to take your turns slow if you want to get it.
But, it's doable and the game allows for it.
If you want, you can calculate:
- the loss by running a settler policy card (instead of running other cards)
- production needed for the settler
- number of turns the settler needs to reach its destination
- time and production to get a harbor lighthouse up
- to build an additional trade route...
... just to get the inspiration for Medieval Faires...
to get 100% theatre district adjacency 5 turns faster, if that's what you needed in the first place.
Having spent many, many years with the series, I feel Civ6 has now surpassed Civ4 as the best game.
I wouldn't necessarily call it very deep though. There aren't really any individual systems that are that deep. They're approachable and understandable for the most part, with mostly linear progression. Where Civ6 excels in my mind is that each system individually is fun, and they work very well together to make a very fun game. Districts are conceptually simple, so are terrain improvements and governors, but they add up to a fun economic system with diverse ways to build your cities. City states are another simple concept - you mostly generate envoys passively and assign them to city-states for a varying scaling bonuses. But the diverse unique suzerain bonuses make the system fun, in conjuncton with social policies, trade and other CS-affecing parts of the game.
In my mind this is really what the Civ series has been about, particularly the main line of games. The systems are fairly simple, but when the game succeeds at tying them together, it's something great in the end. It's the games outside the main Civ 1-6 series that have had some of the more individually complex mechanics. CtP had a more complex combat system, SMAC had the unit workshop and a terrain system much more complex than anything in the main games.
I wouldn't necessarily call it very deep though. There aren't really any individual systems that are that deep. They're approachable and understandable for the most part, with mostly linear progression. Where Civ6 excels in my mind is that each system individually is fun, and they work very well together to make a very fun game. Districts are conceptually simple, so are terrain improvements and governors, but they add up to a fun economic system with diverse ways to build your cities. City states are another simple concept - you mostly generate envoys passively and assign them to city-states for a varying scaling bonuses. But the diverse unique suzerain bonuses make the system fun, in conjuncton with social policies, trade and other CS-affecing parts of the game.
In my mind this is really what the Civ series has been about, particularly the main line of games. The systems are fairly simple, but when the game succeeds at tying them together, it's something great in the end. It's the games outside the main Civ 1-6 series that have had some of the more individually complex mechanics. CtP had a more complex combat system, SMAC had the unit workshop and a terrain system much more complex than anything in the main games.
Bibor
Doomsday Machine
To expand on this: Civilization 6 when it shipped was terrible. With Gathering storm - I agree it's the best in the series.
I found Civ6 on release to already be better than Civ5. Civ6 has a solid core design. It had its problems on release of course and was improved dramatically with the expansions, but the solid core design meant Civ6 was very fun on day one. Civ5, on the other hand, was a disaster on release, and the patches and expansions had to - slowly - work around the problems of Civ5's core design.
Bibor
Doomsday Machine
I have most hours in Civ5 and I liked it the least. Perhaps I wanted to like it... desperately
Well like many I suspect, I had my doubts for quite a while. In fact I only recently returned to playing it after a gap of 18 months or so. But now? Now I wouldn't play any earlier Civ as I just couldn't go back. Playing as Trajan has spoilt me and I am really looking forward to playing as other leaders!
Casworon
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2014
- Messages
- 548
I agree i enjoy the mechanics more in Civ VI. Planning out your districts and tile improvements is just flat out fun.
The problem is i never feel threatened really. Whenever the AI invades me i can quickly gather up a defense force and even during military emergencies where multiple AI's declare war and invade, as long as i have some walls and ranged unit's i never lose cities.
This could also be said to be a problem with Civ V before mods. But without the DLL i don't think we are going to be getting any DLL level AI mods for Civ VI. As much as i love Civ VI mechanically is it ever going to be as fun and engaging if i don't feel threatened?
The AI has been getting better and I hope at the end of the Frontier Pass it will be in a better place.
The problem is i never feel threatened really. Whenever the AI invades me i can quickly gather up a defense force and even during military emergencies where multiple AI's declare war and invade, as long as i have some walls and ranged unit's i never lose cities.
This could also be said to be a problem with Civ V before mods. But without the DLL i don't think we are going to be getting any DLL level AI mods for Civ VI. As much as i love Civ VI mechanically is it ever going to be as fun and engaging if i don't feel threatened?
The AI has been getting better and I hope at the end of the Frontier Pass it will be in a better place.
Last edited:
Yeah, the AI's military competence is one of the major issues with the game. Civ5 was also worse in this regard - on release, I'd comfortably conquer several neighbors just by building 3 or 4 units - but the Civ6 AI also commits major military blunders. I find that playing on Epic speed really helps to feel more threatened (it's not the main reason why I play Epic but sure helps). On Epic, if an AI army suddenly shows up on my border, there just isn't the time to build walls and an extra ranged unit, you have to fight with what you have and what you can afford to purchase with gold/faith.
It's still too easy to defend if you have a couple of ranged units, and the AI rarely brings anything that can take walls down. But playing on Epic, I've definitely lost wars when I didn't have enough forces at hand.
It's still too easy to defend if you have a couple of ranged units, and the AI rarely brings anything that can take walls down. But playing on Epic, I've definitely lost wars when I didn't have enough forces at hand.
Lily_Lancer
Deity
An interesting game which is a Civ-5-style-Civ-4 game. The only thing I dislike is that AIs are given too little bonus. They shall bring back the Civ-4-level bonus.
Archon_Wing
Vote for me or die
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 5,257
It is very good for some reason despite its oddities and nonsense. Many people cannot even agree on the opening, much less on later options. However, because of lackluster AI, many of the skills are not needed, and you can just ride the AI incompetence for the win.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,902
There are layers. For example Amenities, diplomacy and war weariness you can pretty much ignore but has loyalty on to which then has grievances on top. Like they have tried to resolve issues with new ideas.
They all interplay to some degree but can be ignored. Does that mean there is no depth or too much?
If you play with diplomacy using visibility it’s not complex but it does take learning. Like always included optional rules.... is that crap or cool? Just depends on viewpoint I guess, personally I like it and in one way it is a shame it is not more important but in another it would just annoy people.
compare a civ V city to a civVI city, he’ll I used to just bang buildings in them in the right order... these was not that much too it. Now there is districts and the huge area that now encompasses.
So depth to me? Sure it has some, not all mechanics are on the same level if that is what depth means.
Depth can be unfathomable, and certainly some mechanics seem to be without an awful lot of time and dedication.
but you can play the game and ‘win’ with very little knowledge so does that make it shallow? Not to me... in the word @acluewithout used, it makes it accessible.
They all interplay to some degree but can be ignored. Does that mean there is no depth or too much?
If you play with diplomacy using visibility it’s not complex but it does take learning. Like always included optional rules.... is that crap or cool? Just depends on viewpoint I guess, personally I like it and in one way it is a shame it is not more important but in another it would just annoy people.
compare a civ V city to a civVI city, he’ll I used to just bang buildings in them in the right order... these was not that much too it. Now there is districts and the huge area that now encompasses.
So depth to me? Sure it has some, not all mechanics are on the same level if that is what depth means.
Depth can be unfathomable, and certainly some mechanics seem to be without an awful lot of time and dedication.
but you can play the game and ‘win’ with very little knowledge so does that make it shallow? Not to me... in the word @acluewithout used, it makes it accessible.
Lord Lakely
Idea Fountain
the AI's bad programming is probably the glaring weakpoint but that's largely due to the mechanics such as 1UPT and whatever that convoluted contraption they've been calling a "World Congress". But otherwise, this is definitely the best game from a player enjoyment perspective. There are ways to Firaxis to improve on the formula, but post GC Civ 6 has been a more than solid game.
yung.carl.jung
Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious
Civ 6 has plenty of depth and districts alone are enough to elevate it above 5 in my opinion.
That's a very interesting take and I tend to agree, especially when it comes to religion, WC and culture (victory).
That's a very interesting take and I tend to agree, especially when it comes to religion, WC and culture (victory).
Last edited:
Johann khan
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2019
- Messages
- 34
I grew up with Civ 4 onward and have around 5000 hours on the three combined. A few weeks ago I asked myself the exact same thing and went back to civ 4 and 5 after getting bored of 6. I proposed myself to try play a match on terra maps/emperor difficulty normal speed and no tech trading in civ 4. My preliminary thoughts are:
Civ 4:
1.The AI is is more competent in Civ 4 due to the overall easiness of the game as less mechanics than 6 but more than 5 but decisions are less meaningful.
2. Rushing in Civ 4 was by far the hardest. (tech spread; the over importance of overarching strategies with stone, marble and so on for a long term viable strategy vis exposing your economy for immediate city gain).
3. The science and gold equation, plus the fact that there are no purely scientific traits in game made science advantage attainable if your economy was extremely successful or had a wide established empire. Therefore turtling was not a real thing.
4. The unit value is ridiculous, letting you spam huge armies that die quick, specially arty.
5.Combat system expects definitive outcome on every encounter, which incentives having armies in cities or attacking cities, so the principles of chess (controlling the board/map) doesn't apply.
6.The OST is a perfect collection of pieces, albeit too much Bach for me and not enough Dvorak <3.
7. Graphics are ugly realistic design with terrible color palates: Menus and advisors were is by far the best one in the series offering lots of information for you to device strategy.
8. Diplomacy further incentives the player to war as you cannot play neutral when to opposing factions harass you to attack or to cut relations with either.
9. The concept of health from strategic resources made them more relevant to the game.
10. It is more oriented towards expansion and conquer, as even the great nation of Inca can struggle with a silly Japan who conquers everything and could have twice as many cities.
11. Culture victory could be the hardest one followed by diplomatic as diplomacy is terrible and culture output directly affects science which in turns makes you very vulnerable.
12.Out of the three games I find this one the hardest on higher levels, as defending is penalized with the arty system.
13. Leader/country selection and trait system offers more gameplay potential given the fact that it is based on warfare, expansion, production and to a lesser extent culture. Note that the principle of picking science to win games as a strat doesn't work here. That's what makes civ 4 a different experience, you have to expand, and conquer to become relevant, you cannot isolate your way out of success nor turtle. On the opposite, lots of cities, lots of gold and production and then work science.
14. Gold is the meta of the game.
15. Map design is good for expansion, its all open and accessible and coastal cities are great.
16. 99.9% should ALWAYS WIN smh.
17. City border logic on conquest is detrimental to game play, which forces the player to wipe out countries.
18. Unit promotion was too redundant.
19. Sorry Leonard Nemoy, some of your lines sound as if they were given by Shattner himself.
Civ 5:
1. The AI goes wonder rushing and all conquering BUT it matters more now because;
2. Wonders are meaningful, GP as well considering the themes mechanic and how science and gold are scaled
3. It emphasizes city growing and map controlling with an over reliance on monopolies over resources for trading. Civ 4 resource trading is needed exclusively on harder levels.
4. Techs and social policies tend to offer more individually than 4 making the selection process a long term plan over the immediate in civ 4.
5. It doesn't fixate on the cooperation with the AI that civ 4 did. Civ 4 gives you more reasons to interact with the AI on which gold is not the principle thing. Therefore AI can be ignored.
6. Combat is simplified but not easier as enemies are more prone to pillage, invade with fleets and can now destroy trade routs whereas in civ 4 not.
7.The ost is better than 4 if you value the amount of songs composed for this game, sadly the music is played far less in games than in 4 or 6 which is constantly played.
8. The game is focused on less cities, and attacking and defending are equally viable strategies.
9. Leaders and traits are the worst of the three, some civs are useless no matter the strat considered (not mentioning Venice).
10. Food is the meta of the game.
11. Map design is far worse and starts are far less consistent than civ 4.
12. Coastal cities are situational.
13. The game offers an art deco UI theme.
14. Religion is mandatory game breaker to have an edge up to the higher levels.
15. Diplo victory requires planning whereas in 4 not really.
16. Science victory is shorter
17. Unit promotions were designed by the devil himself, landschneckt Hussar combo was broken, as well as the cho ko nu into gattling.
18. It relies on great people more than the other two.
Civ 6:
My most controversial game out of the three.
1. The meta is the simplest one out of the three; the more cities the better, PERIOD. No eco nor happiness limitation. In deity you suffer less form these limitations that you will do in 4 or 5.
2. Which is paradoxical, because it offers more but its less meaningful. Religion for instance, in 4 having it automatically gives you the chance for exp, more prod and science ALWAYS. It is imperative for you to have that plus 1 happiness and 10% science or bend over to Shaka. in Civ 5 Religion fixes the disadvantage between peaceful and aggro game plays, keeping the hordes competitive. In civ 6 it doesn't really matter as the investment for religion is not worth it for its returns except if you are a religious or going for cult vic. Global warming is not a threat and not really game changing at all, more like a nuisance. Dark ages are as good as normal ages, therefore the age outcome its not detrimental to your game, unless you misplaced a city or conquer like its civ 5.
3. The amenity system shoots itself on the foot and what really does is make your life miserable on Deity. As almost every city has its own amenity and the risk of civil unrest is lower in this game than in 5. In 4 happiness is having double speed with copper.
4. Out of the three Civ 6 is by far THE EASIEST GAME of the three when facing the AI. It took me years in 5 my whole childhood for 4 and less than 200 hours in 6. Even after patches and never using glitches nor exploits.
5. The worst unit promotions in game, it doesnt transform the units that much making combat less exciting and more monotonous. Less units hurt even more, as they become more important to tech change than to actually use the unit on itself.
6. The game tries to achieve different simultaneous goals; having less units pushes to beelining but the promotions and the gameplay doesn't change at all until the arrival of balloons and range 3 units which is more valued now. Units are too expensive as well, forcing the meta to build your armies early game.
7. The districts are a farse, having lumbermills on hills are far better than industrial districts on itself. So the experience of city building doesn't beat the old metas of having armies good tiles and warring for lebensraum for science or to dominate.
8. Great people offer way less than 5, which offer bonuses while being created plus the effect whereas here you need buildings; the district just to have the point for you to get those GP which are not that great and this whole mechanic doesn't cost anything but time whereas in 5 they cost food AND A LOT.
9. Production is not scaled at all on 6. You produce more science building settlers than spending the amount of production on a campus.
10. Even though theming is harder, rock bands are more fun, but the images used are cheap.
11. The artistic style is based out of fisher price toys for a game for adults.
12. Movement mechanic makes the game slower.
13. City planning is fun! closing in into districts, rivers and wonders is beautiful, if it didn't look like a game for kids.... civ 5 mod will fix it.
14. Music is perfect, Cree; Ottomans; Nubia, Hymn to Nykal (Phoenicia) and Epitaph of Seikilos!!! (Greece)
15. Industrialization fixes this game as it makes everything cheap and makes you feel terrible for killing the planet and it doesn't drown your enemies, so lose lose situation here.
16. Wonders are beautiful but meaningless albeit not by much.
17. The holistic approach to a nation building, governing domestically and foreign is well felt in the game but its most of those are just add ons. This is conflicting to me, as unlike the other civs, this one makes me appreciate other aspects aside from accomplishing a cornerstone of my strat.
18. Sorry Sean Bean, your voice doesn't beat the old wise man from civ 5.
19. Culture tech three was a great improvement; same goes with map design and core game principles albeit less desirable if you are used to old games.
Civ 4 is for warring and expanding, and also teaches you about combining short term flexible strategies (Asoka, Mansa, Monty and Ramses)
Civ 5 feels like the one who teaches you the importance of citizen positions and long term planning (looking at you tradition and liberty) Diplomatic games are more fun
Civ 6 wants to give you more than cities and enemies, it prides itself in compartmentalizing actions as well as consequences, meaning that is harder to screw a game by making a bad decision. Lastly the game is far too advanced for the AI to fully maximize its potential.
I challenge myself with 4, enjoy 5 the most and recognize 6 is better.
Civ 4:
1.The AI is is more competent in Civ 4 due to the overall easiness of the game as less mechanics than 6 but more than 5 but decisions are less meaningful.
2. Rushing in Civ 4 was by far the hardest. (tech spread; the over importance of overarching strategies with stone, marble and so on for a long term viable strategy vis exposing your economy for immediate city gain).
3. The science and gold equation, plus the fact that there are no purely scientific traits in game made science advantage attainable if your economy was extremely successful or had a wide established empire. Therefore turtling was not a real thing.
4. The unit value is ridiculous, letting you spam huge armies that die quick, specially arty.
5.Combat system expects definitive outcome on every encounter, which incentives having armies in cities or attacking cities, so the principles of chess (controlling the board/map) doesn't apply.
6.The OST is a perfect collection of pieces, albeit too much Bach for me and not enough Dvorak <3.
7. Graphics are ugly realistic design with terrible color palates: Menus and advisors were is by far the best one in the series offering lots of information for you to device strategy.
8. Diplomacy further incentives the player to war as you cannot play neutral when to opposing factions harass you to attack or to cut relations with either.
9. The concept of health from strategic resources made them more relevant to the game.
10. It is more oriented towards expansion and conquer, as even the great nation of Inca can struggle with a silly Japan who conquers everything and could have twice as many cities.
11. Culture victory could be the hardest one followed by diplomatic as diplomacy is terrible and culture output directly affects science which in turns makes you very vulnerable.
12.Out of the three games I find this one the hardest on higher levels, as defending is penalized with the arty system.
13. Leader/country selection and trait system offers more gameplay potential given the fact that it is based on warfare, expansion, production and to a lesser extent culture. Note that the principle of picking science to win games as a strat doesn't work here. That's what makes civ 4 a different experience, you have to expand, and conquer to become relevant, you cannot isolate your way out of success nor turtle. On the opposite, lots of cities, lots of gold and production and then work science.
14. Gold is the meta of the game.
15. Map design is good for expansion, its all open and accessible and coastal cities are great.
16. 99.9% should ALWAYS WIN smh.
17. City border logic on conquest is detrimental to game play, which forces the player to wipe out countries.
18. Unit promotion was too redundant.
19. Sorry Leonard Nemoy, some of your lines sound as if they were given by Shattner himself.
Civ 5:
1. The AI goes wonder rushing and all conquering BUT it matters more now because;
2. Wonders are meaningful, GP as well considering the themes mechanic and how science and gold are scaled
3. It emphasizes city growing and map controlling with an over reliance on monopolies over resources for trading. Civ 4 resource trading is needed exclusively on harder levels.
4. Techs and social policies tend to offer more individually than 4 making the selection process a long term plan over the immediate in civ 4.
5. It doesn't fixate on the cooperation with the AI that civ 4 did. Civ 4 gives you more reasons to interact with the AI on which gold is not the principle thing. Therefore AI can be ignored.
6. Combat is simplified but not easier as enemies are more prone to pillage, invade with fleets and can now destroy trade routs whereas in civ 4 not.
7.The ost is better than 4 if you value the amount of songs composed for this game, sadly the music is played far less in games than in 4 or 6 which is constantly played.
8. The game is focused on less cities, and attacking and defending are equally viable strategies.
9. Leaders and traits are the worst of the three, some civs are useless no matter the strat considered (not mentioning Venice).
10. Food is the meta of the game.
11. Map design is far worse and starts are far less consistent than civ 4.
12. Coastal cities are situational.
13. The game offers an art deco UI theme.
14. Religion is mandatory game breaker to have an edge up to the higher levels.
15. Diplo victory requires planning whereas in 4 not really.
16. Science victory is shorter
17. Unit promotions were designed by the devil himself, landschneckt Hussar combo was broken, as well as the cho ko nu into gattling.
18. It relies on great people more than the other two.
Civ 6:
My most controversial game out of the three.
1. The meta is the simplest one out of the three; the more cities the better, PERIOD. No eco nor happiness limitation. In deity you suffer less form these limitations that you will do in 4 or 5.
2. Which is paradoxical, because it offers more but its less meaningful. Religion for instance, in 4 having it automatically gives you the chance for exp, more prod and science ALWAYS. It is imperative for you to have that plus 1 happiness and 10% science or bend over to Shaka. in Civ 5 Religion fixes the disadvantage between peaceful and aggro game plays, keeping the hordes competitive. In civ 6 it doesn't really matter as the investment for religion is not worth it for its returns except if you are a religious or going for cult vic. Global warming is not a threat and not really game changing at all, more like a nuisance. Dark ages are as good as normal ages, therefore the age outcome its not detrimental to your game, unless you misplaced a city or conquer like its civ 5.
3. The amenity system shoots itself on the foot and what really does is make your life miserable on Deity. As almost every city has its own amenity and the risk of civil unrest is lower in this game than in 5. In 4 happiness is having double speed with copper.
4. Out of the three Civ 6 is by far THE EASIEST GAME of the three when facing the AI. It took me years in 5 my whole childhood for 4 and less than 200 hours in 6. Even after patches and never using glitches nor exploits.
5. The worst unit promotions in game, it doesnt transform the units that much making combat less exciting and more monotonous. Less units hurt even more, as they become more important to tech change than to actually use the unit on itself.
6. The game tries to achieve different simultaneous goals; having less units pushes to beelining but the promotions and the gameplay doesn't change at all until the arrival of balloons and range 3 units which is more valued now. Units are too expensive as well, forcing the meta to build your armies early game.
7. The districts are a farse, having lumbermills on hills are far better than industrial districts on itself. So the experience of city building doesn't beat the old metas of having armies good tiles and warring for lebensraum for science or to dominate.
8. Great people offer way less than 5, which offer bonuses while being created plus the effect whereas here you need buildings; the district just to have the point for you to get those GP which are not that great and this whole mechanic doesn't cost anything but time whereas in 5 they cost food AND A LOT.
9. Production is not scaled at all on 6. You produce more science building settlers than spending the amount of production on a campus.
10. Even though theming is harder, rock bands are more fun, but the images used are cheap.
11. The artistic style is based out of fisher price toys for a game for adults.
12. Movement mechanic makes the game slower.
13. City planning is fun! closing in into districts, rivers and wonders is beautiful, if it didn't look like a game for kids.... civ 5 mod will fix it.
14. Music is perfect, Cree; Ottomans; Nubia, Hymn to Nykal (Phoenicia) and Epitaph of Seikilos!!! (Greece)
15. Industrialization fixes this game as it makes everything cheap and makes you feel terrible for killing the planet and it doesn't drown your enemies, so lose lose situation here.
16. Wonders are beautiful but meaningless albeit not by much.
17. The holistic approach to a nation building, governing domestically and foreign is well felt in the game but its most of those are just add ons. This is conflicting to me, as unlike the other civs, this one makes me appreciate other aspects aside from accomplishing a cornerstone of my strat.
18. Sorry Sean Bean, your voice doesn't beat the old wise man from civ 5.
19. Culture tech three was a great improvement; same goes with map design and core game principles albeit less desirable if you are used to old games.
Civ 4 is for warring and expanding, and also teaches you about combining short term flexible strategies (Asoka, Mansa, Monty and Ramses)
Civ 5 feels like the one who teaches you the importance of citizen positions and long term planning (looking at you tradition and liberty) Diplomatic games are more fun
Civ 6 wants to give you more than cities and enemies, it prides itself in compartmentalizing actions as well as consequences, meaning that is harder to screw a game by making a bad decision. Lastly the game is far too advanced for the AI to fully maximize its potential.
I challenge myself with 4, enjoy 5 the most and recognize 6 is better.
It's not as mind-blowing as Civ4 was, after Civ4 got all of its expansions. Miss Civ4
I've no idea why slavery is not represented in Civ6. Would be great to sacrifice pop for production. Corporations and railroad were far better represented in Civ4 too. 
Morningcalm
Keeper of Records
Civ IV has by far the best diplomacy system of the three, and more challenging AI to boot. It also made wars and expansion expensive and risky but with great rewards possible.
Civ VI war tends not the be as devastating—there are no leveled up cottages you may lose in a war for example; everything can be repaired back to the way it was within a few turns. It has depth insofar as it has city planning elements the others didn’t have (district placement, adjacency bonuses, planning in advance for specific spots to place specific wonders). But I don’t especially enjoy that element, though I recognize others may well enjoy it a lot.
I liked Civ V for its grandeur and aesthetics, even if gameplay wise it was the easiest to master of the three.
Civ VI war tends not the be as devastating—there are no leveled up cottages you may lose in a war for example; everything can be repaired back to the way it was within a few turns. It has depth insofar as it has city planning elements the others didn’t have (district placement, adjacency bonuses, planning in advance for specific spots to place specific wonders). But I don’t especially enjoy that element, though I recognize others may well enjoy it a lot.
I liked Civ V for its grandeur and aesthetics, even if gameplay wise it was the easiest to master of the three.
Similar threads
