Civ 6 vs. Civ 5 in regards to future 7

[Naokaukodem]

Civilization 6 was a bit boring. I thought civilization 5 was better because civilization 4 was interesting. However, after time passed by it got kind of boring. In civilization 4, that wasn't the case. Baba Yetu was such a great song, and the introduction was good. The expansion was even better, bringing back a lot of good civilizations. Civilization 5 however was good too. I used to be on it all the time and I even got to dominate civilization 5 on the Immortal level and got to beat it on Deity once. Civilization 6 however got kind of boring. I just wasn't into it anymore given the circumstances that happened in my life. I was too busy trying to focus now so much that I didn't have time to play civilization anymore... Civilization 6 had its expansions, the TLCs and all these leaders that I haven't even used. What's the point of having a long list of leaders if you aren't even going to use them?
There's this passage in the song that's in a foreign language, Italian where it says 'Riempendo l'universo' but in the English translation it is saying 'Filling the universe', I had to look up the lyrics because it sounds like its saying 'mi perverso universo' in Spanish which means 'my perverted universe'. I'm probably letting go of Sid Meier's... Why get civilization 7 if I don't even have the time to play it anymore? I sucked anyways, I did get nuked online once, I can't even pass emperor and then taking the turns got so boring in prince because its so peaceful... I could just watch twitch and see if its good when it finally comes out.
What I do like however, is the multiplayer play... You can play up to 10 players on this thing which is awesome. I used to do that on civilization 4. I didn't really do that in civilization 5 and instead focused on going single player and dominating better. I understood civ 5 better than civ 4 and civ 6 so much that I used to dominate online as well. I used to attack and get players to quit so bad that no one wanted to play with me anymore. Now that I'm on civilization 6 there's up to 10 players, again like civ 4, where eventually a few quit and the game keeps going for a while. I mean it's fun, but it just takes about 2-3 hours of gameplay. I simply don't have time for that. I have to go and unfortunately, I also leave the game early. Not only that I'm not that good, I also get dominated and attacked early and I'm not prepared so I quit.
These are just a few thoughts of mine that come to my head about civilization 5 and 6. I don't really act upon them though.

I feel pretty much the same than you, except that I have a loooooot of time. Probably too much to feel challenged and get this challenge done. I suck too at Civ6, beat Deity only once (or twice... or so). But I sucked at Civ5 too, beat Deity only once. I sucked at Civ4 too, never even tried Deity IIRC. But in Civ4 (and Civ3) I had a whole lot of fun with multiplayer. The tight turn timer made it crazy to move all my war chariots and conquering all my neighbours. (at once !) Man, this is so good memories. Civ3 multi was good too. (minus the ICS) Those multi were so good that i bought Civ5 for the multiplayer (because Steam only), and was massively disappointed. That's why I didn't buy the expansions nor Civ6. (got it for free in EGS anyway) I didn't realize it previously, but it appears that my main engagement in the series is the multiplayer ! I guess it's a relic of Civ2 being too easy in single player. (not to mention that multiplayer was THE Graal at the beginning of the millenia, for me at least. But Physics made exploits in most games unfair and annoying (Duke Nukem), so I only sticked to Civ)

 

[Ekmek]

Air power was never right, 4 had it where they hopped all over the place that made them better but that system would make sense with city-states. Why civ6 had silos but not city-state airbases still blows my mind

On city-states I think they should be more interesting. They should be powder kegs that start crises like Massina kicking off the Punic War or like today where the great powers have to deal with small powers and all their issues
would like city-states have more personality like rich states, radical states, unstable ones, and the like

Agree world congress is tacked on and annoying, especially without a screen showing all the alliances and relations


Trade routes can be fun but you never get the global trade feel. Like you get oil you pretty much don't want to trade it to anyone but clearly that's a global resource so having it should give some benefits but you should also want to sell it to get real rich

 

[miaasma]

i will say, while the AI in civ 5 was far from perfect, AI in 6 definitely feels like a step down. comparing equivalent difficulties (say, emperor) the AI in 5 feels like it can legitimately take over the game if you don't keep it in check. in 6, it feels like you can kind of just do whatever and as long as you vaguely keep a victory condition in mind, you don't need to worry too much about an AI spiraling out of control. city spamming alexander or hiawatha or wonder spam teching siam in civ 5 feel like legitimate threats even below deity, whereas in civ 6 the AI will do inane, goal-free things like declare war super early in the game with no chance of success whatsoever, or offer a deal only to immediately reject it when you make it even better for them. little things like this make 6 feel less polished than 5

on the other hand, unmodded civ 5's emphasis on tall play gets old EXTREMELY quickly, and i far prefer 6's breadth of options for how to set your empire up. districts are fun, i like city states having bonuses specific to each individual one (rather than each belonging to a category), and i do like the loyalty system keeping absurd city placement in check. i'd say 5 is my favourite civ game, but 6 does some things right

 

[Askia Muhammad]

Personally I can't really subscribe to the notion that civ 5 was better than 6. I liked civ 5, and some features were better (World Congress, ideology, ai aggressiveness, art style), but civ 6 is just superior and has much higher replay value imo. Played some civ 5 some months ago and tried experimenting with different playstyles other than 4 city tall tradition, and it's so not worth it in most cases. Cities are also way less interesting without districts, and its generally very noticeable how civ 6 improved a lot of the gameplay.

Overall, I’m in total agreement with you. I wish they would have released the DLL. We could have had a proper AI done by modders like Vox.

 

[Glassmage]

Civ6 will always be trash compared to civ5 because no DLL release = no modding on the level like that of Civ5 Vox Populi

 

[burticus]

Civ V + Vox FTW. I turn off espionage, I hate it. I just wish the end game and big war management wasn't so tedious. Late game wars when you have 100+ units just takes forever.

 

[Connor_CivFan]

Imho, comparing an unmodded version of a game with a game you have modded to fit exactly what you desire is completely unhelpful to any discussion because you are going to like the game that you have fine tuned to your expectations more than the one you didn't.

 

[burticus]

I tried to force myself to play 6 today as it's been a long time and I have all the expansions now..... and it still just turns me off. I hate the look and feel, I don't like the limited use builders... just everything is "wrong" to me. Back to Vox for now, I just dislike the endgame. BTW I have watched some videos and read articles about 7 and I'm not getting good vibes so far. But I'll give it a year+ to get patched up and re-evaluate.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I tried to force myself to play 6 today as it's been a long time and I have all the expansions now..... and it still just turns me off. I hate the look and feel, I don't like the limited use builders... just everything is "wrong" to me. Back to Vox for now, I just dislike the endgame. BTW I have watched some videos and read articles about 7 and I'm not getting good vibes so far. But I'll give it a year+ to get patched up and re-evaluate.

I got the early access to Civ7. I'm having a good time.

It is a different game. Civ6 moved away from Civ5 in many important ways; one of those is the usefulness of founding and conquering lots of cities. I haven't played Civ5 + Vox, though from what I've read, Vox addresses many fundamental aspects of Civ5. The victory conditions changed in Civ6, along with the combat promotions and diplomacy. I understand if Civ6 feels wrong.

Civ7 is a different game, again. While I see lots of room for improvement, e.g., more variety to the maps, I also see so many new aspects to explore. Each age has distinct mechanics that make its play different from the previous age. Expansion is encouraged, but not unlimited expansion like Civ3 or nearly unlimited in Civ4 or Civ6. The player is not shackled to a Tradition or Liberty decision made on turn 20 for the whole game. Legacy points -- contributions to a victory -- are accumulated over time, not compressed into the final 20 turns.

I'm still learning Civ7. You may like the art style of Civ7 more than Civ6, as it reminds me more of Civ5 (BNW). You may find that the age transitions feel wrong to you, or the choice of leaders and civ progressions feel wrong to you. But view it as a different game, without so many comparisons to the past.

 

[pietro1990]

civ 5 its by far a better game!
where do i even start?

Civ 6 districts are pretty annoying it causes you to built a library not in 10 turns but 20 turns or even 30 turns basic infanstructure becomes more expansive because you have to built the district first. Thats something i like in civ 7 the district is built automatically if you place the building . This could have worked at civ 6. But hey it wans't a dealbreaker for me. Don't get me started on the district scaling. Lets settle a new city a harbor cost 100 turns say what?

The fact that more cities is allways better and there is no mechanic for expansion is annoying to me. just spam cities the more the better!

But with all those complains I liked the new mechanic what i didn't like was the "warmonger penalty for declaring war" They whent back to the mistakes they made in civ 5. Yes in vanilla civ 5 you could get a warmonger penalty just for declaring war they changed it so you only get penalties for taking cities. Here you need specific reasons to declare war other wise you get grievances this cause the AI bassicly not declare war in this game I played hunderd of hours and have rarely been declared war on.The Ai just sits there playing sim city in wich they aren't so good at because they don't know how districts work and can't built it like the human plaer.

Still i liked the game and its new mechanics and how my empire growth was shown at the map with all the districts.
But then came the horrible expansions!!

I liked civ 6 before the expansions. But the loyalty system was a big NO NO. Instead of fixing the settling behavior of the Ai they forced a stupid mechanic wich causes you're cities to lose loyalty if they are to close to enemy cities with higher population and might flip to the other civ . so forward settling is a no no. This is great but it causes issue's with war's you bassicly are forced to take most of the Ai cities because if you don't the higher cities with big population will cause you're conquered city to fall. They also don't give you enough policies or other mechanic's to stop this issue. It would be fine if there where multiple policies that fixed this issue but there aren't.

Oh and the national disastors in civ 6 are just annoying. You say what a blizzard just destroyed all my improvement? DESTROYED yes not damaged but they REMOVED IT. And its just so random. At least i can dissable it.

But boy the most annoying part of civ 6 is the diplomacy because the AI WILL RARELY DECLARE WAR ON YOU. It doens't matter if the AI Denounces you they will never plan a sneak atack like they did in civ 5 they will never be a threat of taking cities. In civ 5 i've seen civ's conquer eachother in civ 6 it happens RARELY Most games is just sim city.

At least i felt like my actions had consequences in civ 5 and becoming a raging warmonger caused the Ai to denounce me and even embargo me sometimes. Or if i refused a civ demand not to settle near them they denounced me and becomes agressive. In civ 6 i couldn't care less if AI denounced me what are they going to do declare war on me?


I still enjoy civ 6 but it could be so much better in my opinion

 

[Thormodr]

Civ VI is still much better than 5. I have been playing Civ VI a fair bit lately and it's fun after all these years, with or without mods.

I tried 5 after picking up the DLC/expansions I didn't have cheaply with the Vox Populi mod last week and it is still as terrible as it was in 2010 or 2011, the last time I played it. A sterile game with no soul. I am genuinely baffled how anyone could enjoy it.

I then tried Civ IV again and loved it. Even Civ IV Colonization was great. Civ IV is still the King after all these years.

7, at the very least, has dethroned 5. Dethroned as the worst of the lot. At least 5 got the basic formula right.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

7, at the very least, has dethroned 5. Dethroned as the worst of the lot. At least 5 got the basic formula right.

Apparently the steam player counts also support this, civ 7 is now played less than both civ 6 and civ 5, which I can't interpret as something else than a tremendous failure.
I'm personally very glad that I didn't buy civ 7 yet, as the release seems even worse than what I already feared it would be.
Firaxis seems to have tried to reinvent the wheel a bit too much here, where we've now ended up with a square wheel.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Apparently the steam player counts also support this, civ 7 is now played less than both civ 6 and civ 5, which I can't interpret as something else than a tremendous failure.
I'm personally very glad that I didn't buy civ 7 yet, as the release seems even worse than what I already feared it would be.
Firaxis seems to have tried to reinvent the wheel a bit too much here, where we've now ended up with a square wheel.

But what surprizes me is about the way they re-invent the wheel.

If I would have thought about modernizing the Civ concept, I would have tried to make the map more organic, to make the game more open with more possibilities at a wider scale. Firaxis took the exact opposite direction in making the game more constrained in time (with strong eras directives) and in space (with a more cluttered map). And all this with the general idea that making the game played in faster sequences would make it more interesting.

I'm not saying I'm necessarily right, only that making the game evolving in that direction feels counter-intuitive to me.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

But what surprizes me is about the way they re-invent the wheel.

If I would have thought about modernizing the Civ concept, I would have tried to make the map more organic, to make the game more open with more possibilities at a wider scale. Firaxis took the exact opposite direction in making the game more constrained in time (with strong eras directives) and in space (with a more cluttered map). And all this with the general idea that making the game played in faster sequences would make it more interesting.

I'm not saying I'm necessarily right, only that making the game evolving in that direction feels counter-intuitive to me.

Absolutely, I don't understand the rationale behind dividing the game up like that either.
It could have been fine if you got to choose a different civilization that was a natural continuation (Roman Empire -> Byzantium OR Italian city states), and if the game was open from the start (none of this "unlocking the map").
I also severely dislike the vitory progress system, which seems like an artificial copy of MMO style quests ("collect 20x of this, then 50x of that"), while also feeling arbitrary and unintuitive.

The UI stuff should be fixable eventually, but the core design seems set, and that's the part that I really dislike.
Currently my plan is to hold out until the first expansion, to see if they're redesigning these core issues of the game.
It's a shame though, since I actually like their new take on unstacking cities, and in my opinion it's even a step up from civ 6 (which already did well in this regard).
But when the age and victory condition system is this bad, I have some serious doubt about it getting overhauled at all.
Maybe they can overhaul the victory system (like they changed culture victory in civ 5 in the far superior tourism system of BNW), but that unfortunately still leaves the age system in its current state.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

Apparently the steam player counts also support this, civ 7 is now played less than both civ 6 and civ 5, which I can't interpret as something else than a tremendous failure.
I'm personally very glad that I didn't buy civ 7 yet, as the release seems even worse than what I already feared it would be.
Firaxis seems to have tried to reinvent the wheel a bit too much here, where we've now ended up with a square wheel.

Totally agree. They seem to have deviated strongly from the traditional keep 1/3rd, refine 1/3rd, new 1/3rd formula.

If it was still behind Civ 6 only I wouldn’t be too worried but it’s behind Civ 5 too which really marks it as an abysmal failure

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

Totally agree. They seem to have deviated strongly from the traditional keep 1/3rd, refine 1/3rd, new 1/3rd formula.

If it was still behind Civ 6 only I wouldn’t be too worried but it’s behind Civ 5 too which really marks it as an abysmal failure

Yeah the problem they have at hand is quite obvious. The new patches they plan on releasing deal only with minor fixes (UI, bugs), as even those obviously take time to fix according to their official patch timeline.

I fear (though that's by no means certain) that they perhaps did permanent damage to the franchise here with too many radical changes that are obviously disliked by the players now.
With the obvious amount of extra time that they spend fixing things now post launch, this might also means that any expansions might get delayed as they shuffle around developers, or that said expansions don't even fix the game design issues (as firaxis seemed to be blindsided completely here on the amount of negative response).

It really sucks though because I would really like to stop playing civ 6 now, but I don't see anything worthy in civ 7 atm or in the foreseeable future.

And yeah, regarding Meier's "rule of thirds", that's fine and all when it comes to game mechanics, as civ 6 redesigned a lot of mechanics from civ 5.
The problem here is that these things (locking down the game in eras and closing off the map especially) are no longer game mechanics, they are changing the game itself.

 

[Jimdigriz]

I've never held off buying a Civ game like I have with Civ 7. And from what I've read so far, I have no great desire to change that any time soon. I know Civ games always take a year or so to settle down but it seems that 7 needs gutting already?!

 

[vorlon_mi]

My view: Civ7 is a break frm past games in ways that are similar to how Civ5 was a break from Civ4. A big mechanic changed -- squares/hexes, stacks to 1UPT -- and many previous players didn't like it. Here, a big mechanic changed -- soft eras / distinct ages, single civ / single leader -- and many previous players don't like it. Some, like me, embraced the idea that Civ7 is a new game and are appreciating the innovations.

Full disclosure: Civ7 is the first Civ game I bought at launch. All of the others I have played, from Civ2 through Civ6 and BERT, I bought on sale, a year or more after launch, often with expansions at the same time. This is my first time experiencing the growing pains, the balance patches, the clunkiness and the learning curve. Are there rough edges? Absolutely. Are they gamebreaking? Not for me.

I don't blame anyone who waits. After all, that's what I did since 2002. I applaud anyone who wants to dive in and swim in the cold, early waters.

 

[user746383]

I’ve bought all the games at launch, civ7 was the first one I personally regretted not waiting for a sale in a couple years. I don’t find anything on the near term roadmap that will change much, so have my hopes for the first expansion or maybe two.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

My view: Civ7 is a break frm past games in ways that are similar to how Civ5 was a break from Civ4. A big mechanic changed -- squares/hexes, stacks to 1UPT -- and many previous players didn't like it. Here, a big mechanic changed -- soft eras / distinct ages, single civ / single leader -- and many previous players don't like it. Some, like me, embraced the idea that Civ7 is a new game and are appreciating the innovations.

Full disclosure: Civ7 is the first Civ game I bought at launch. All of the others I have played, from Civ2 through Civ6 and BERT, I bought on sale, a year or more after launch, often with expansions at the same time. This is my first time experiencing the growing pains, the balance patches, the clunkiness and the learning curve. Are there rough edges? Absolutely. Are they gamebreaking? Not for me.

I don't blame anyone who waits. After all, that's what I did since 2002. I applaud anyone who wants to dive in and swim in the cold, early waters.

I don’t think 1UPT is comparable to Civ swapping and having your units deleted every ~100 turns because the game says so

1UPT is a refinement of existing mechanics.

Comparable would be if they decided to get rid of units entirely and the winner of a war is decided by who has a higher production score over the course of a war