[GS] Civ V v Civ VI: how is this still a thing?

[Ravellion]

Same goes for a large portion of the religious beliefs, like you say, often I find myself in a situation where I look at the list and none of them really seems to offer me anything significant, and I will just default to something like Divine Spark which I feel at least will offer me some reward later in game.

I think religion is so bland in Civ 6, it might as well not be there. You either go for a religious victory or ignore it, as so many of the choices affect nothing but faith generation/apostles/missionaries. Even the housing and amenity boosts are basically useless, because constructing a district is not worth it just to get 2 housing and 1 amenity (and that's the best case scenario). Even diplomatically, Civ 6 religion has little impact, except with 3 specific civs. Even then, they can be soothed through other means.This contrasts really poorly with Civ 5, where religion was a significant influence on gameplay whichever direction you went.

 

[Victoria]

I think religion is so bland in Civ 6

A religious cultural victory (relics) is powerful and fun
Faith is a very flexible monetary system that can seriously change your game.
Faith @ religion helped me significantly grow 10 cities to size 30.
Ever used a Conquistador in a missionary position? Awesome!
Hell I will even get a missionary and use it as a scout because they ignore borders

Yes the religious beliefs in general are not strong but they were were a happiness crutch in V which is gone. Was it so awe inspiring in V really? I felt not. I think pressure is weaker which made me dislike it at first and the AI religious combat in VI is poor but moksha and wonders add flavour and having a religious for a diplomatic victory helps.

I am not a huge fan of RV but bland may be just because you are ignoring aspects or it just may not float your boat.

 

[Jeppetto]

Ever used a Conquistador in a missionary position? Awesome!

We're still talking about the game, right?
/jk

 

[KayAU]

If there is one thing I miss about Civ V, it is Fall From Heaven. Goddamn that was a good mod.

Or was that Civ IV? Been a while so I honestly don't remember.

It was Civ IV, but yeah, it was absolutely fantastic.

 

[DizzKneeLand33]

If there is one thing I miss about Civ V, it is Fall From Heaven. Goddamn that was a good mod.

Or was that Civ IV? Been a while so I honestly don't remember.

Civ IV. That whole mod is incredible, right down to the music.

EDIT: Forgot it's still listed under my name here in the forum.

 

[ThunderLizard2]

Well, I don’t think I know enough about to Civ 2 to really comment on that, although I suspect Civ 2 is maybe the first Civ I played (it was a long time ago).

I do think there’s a missed opportunity here for a Civ 4 Remastered. I actually think Civ 4’s retro graphics are sort of cool. A bit of an update here or there, and it would be still a very fun game and maybe a bit more accessible for modern players.

Agree 100%. Civ IV BTS is a great game but graphics are really dated. Civ V and VI and not really sequels to Civ IV IMHO.

Civ5 is (almost) fully moddable, Civ6 is not, so we still depend on Firaxis for various bugfixing and AI improvement in civ6 while the community has perfected civ5 for years.

But without mods, I'm still on the civ4 v (civ5 & civ6) thing...

Civ V with the Vox Populi is decent but even with mods the 1 UPT makes the AI harmless.

 

[Archon_Wing]

One issue about civ 6 is the ais won't be deceptive and pretend to be your friend. That does make things boring later on.

 

[Zuizgond]

Civ 5 is very boring but Civ 5 with Vox Populi is way more interesting than Civ 6 currently.

Once Civ 6 will finally be moddable, it may have a lot of potential.

 

[Dotsworthy]

One issue about civ 6 is the ais won't be deceptive and pretend to be your friend. That does make things boring later on.

Occasionally a civ will be friendly because you meet their requirements but won't accept friendship, which is normally a clue that they are thinking of an invasion.

I miss a few things from V. I liked that Ideologies could cause major rifts. I liked that civs could get upset because they either coveted land that you owned or felt you were expanding too aggressively. Asking for gifts in hard times & if caught spying occasionally coming to you with their tail between their legs to apologise.

I think a lot of the diplomacy problems in VI are because they barely communicate with the player unless they meet or transgress an agenda. V's leaders were much more vocal which added a bit of flavour.

 

[DizzKneeLand33]

Occasionally a civ will be friendly because you meet their requirements but won't accept friendship, which is normally a clue that they are thinking of an invasion.

The difference is in V they actually hid there negative agenda through pretending to be your friend (when they were actively thinking of backstabbing you). In VI, if they have a smiley face but won't accept friendship it's just because you haven't accrued enough points yet for the "DiplomaticStateTransition" to take place and has nothing to do with trying to fool the human.

 

[Larsen]

I can't put my finger on the exact reason, but there's something about VI that makes me want to exit the game around turn 150 every time. V didn't do that to me. I think VI hits a point around the mid-game where it just feels like everything that's gonna happen has already happened and the rest of the game will just be a samey grind to the end. Maybe it's the fact that you're incentivized to spam expansions until there's no more room on the map, which means all the dice have been rolled by the time the land has been claimed. In V, you'd be perfectly fine with 4-5 cities so there were often big land-grabs and territorial wars even later in the game. In VI, unless you're playing warmonger or have a highly aggressive neighbor, everything's just settled into place by turn 150 and you simply go through the motions for the entire second half of the game.

 

[tiamats4esgares]

I am one of those people who has gone back to Civ V after playing Civ VI, though I also alternate between the two because I like both games. But I like Civ V more. Civ VI is just something different to do now and then. Because, yeah, it IS different.

There are two MAJOR things I like better about V: Victory types are more fun, and there are civs I actually LIKE. My favorite civs in Civ V are Babylon, England, and the Mongols. My favorite civs of Civ VI? They don't exist! There's not a single civ I like more than any other. They are all equally bland and boring. If I HAD to pick ONE, it might be Nubia because they have a lot of generic buffs. But they aren't more fun to play than anything else. (Right now on VI, I'm currently playing as America...which I always thought was probably the single worst civ and I'm not playing it any differently than I would any other).

So let's talk about the Civ V civs I like. The reason I like them is because playing them feels DIFFERENT. I can play DIFFERENT in a fun and meaningful way to get an edge on my opponents.

I like playing Babylon with BNW disabled, playing for the old Cultural victory. I find it fun to play that way. Why Babylon, specifically? Because you can basically get whatever early wonder you want because of your free Great Scientist, and I chose The Oracle generally because it gives you a nice edge in a Culture victory.

The other two I play with BNW enabled. The Mongols, of course, I am playing for Domination. There is just no other civ in V or VI that comes close to being the way the Mongols are in V...and that's a shame. Attacking and running away, 5 move, and being healed like you're sitting in your home city by being next to a Great General.......also with 5 move. Just so fun. On Immortal or easier, I can literally just tech up to Keshiks ASAP, build like 8 of them with a couple Horsemen and a Great General or 2, and then go to each civ, one by one, and take their capital (and then some, if I want). It's so satisfying. And I can finish it before Keshiks become obsolete.

And nothing compares to the way I play with England. Their Ships of the Line are so fun to play as well, and I love the extra spy they get. Makes going for a Diplomacy victory easier by making city states hate my opponents! xD And all from the safety of my islands protected by my Ships of the Line. On my Archipelago map.........another thing VI doesn't have, for whatever reason.

I realize that there's a civ in VI that gets an extra spy and can plant them in city states much the same way (is it Catherine of France?) or that I could play a similar way with Perocles' Greece. But can I do it with uber ships? No. Can I do it on an Island map? No. Why? Who knows...

And don't even get me started on how much VI's Diplomacy sucks compared to V. Come on...

So I'm trying a game with America going for Diplomacy but we'll see how that goes. I have tried Canada, with no luck. America's my 2nd choice.

I hope VI gets a new expansion. I like the game. And I want it to be BETTER. I want to like it more than I like VI.

Here's a list of what I'd like to see in VI that would make me consider saying it's better than V:

-Call the "Culture" victory "Tourism" instead, and add a new Culture victory more similar to vanilla V. However, since the whole Social Policy system is different now (and I like it better, believe it or not, just not the missing victory condition) they could make its victory more similar to the way Science is, in a way.

-Revamp the Diplomacy Victory. Don't know how, just do it. More similar to V?

-ADD MORE LEADERS! Why do most civs only have 1 leader? There's this whole cool concept with multiple leader options, but very few civs get this option? Why?

-I don't understand why some real-world long-lasting civs don't have more modern options. China, Japan, etc. Why are they modeled after ancient China, ancient Japan? Make alternate leaders for modern times.

-Likewise, some civs that are good at more than one thing IRL should have different leaders that reflect that. For example, Pericles and Gorgo was a great idea. Expand on that. Make an American leader that is great with military conquest, while another is great at culture influence. Make an Egyptian leader great at expansion, while another is great at domination.

-Somehow manage to make some of the civs different and fun for me. Not sure what I want, but you see my preferences above.

-For Pete's sake, put in a damn Archipelago map.

That's all I can think of for now, but I'm sure there's much more that could be added to VI to make it a better game. And it wouldn't take much to make it like a solid S tier game. It's definitely A tier as is. Not a bad game; just not as good as V.

 

[xlordsothx]

I played every civ game from 1-4 (including Alpha Centauri), then I skipped 5 because I no longer had a gaming PC. I got a PC for Civ VI and I enjoyed it but I felt there was something missing. I kept hearing about V and I thought about playing but the game seemed dated and I hate playing older games. Then I heard about Vox Populi and I decided to give it a shot... Long story short, I was BLOWN AWAY by the AI in Vox Populi. I am not sure how much of it is vanilla Civ V, but I have to say that the VP AI is absolutely relentless.

My first game, I decided to ignore naval units and just built up my ground game. I had my neighbors in check with lots of land units, but then a civ appeared with lots of naval units and started taking out all of my coastal cities one by one. It was a disaster for me.

The next playthrough I built up an impressive navy + land army and started kicking a**. I decided to invade my weaker neighbor but had to go through a rough patch of mountains to capture their city. It appeared like the neighbor had a very weak army at first and I was able to conquer one city. As I moved on to the next city, the other civ suddenly moved their entire army against me and ambushed me in a valley surrounded by mountains. It was a massacre. I lost like 40% of my army and had to retreat.

The lesson I learned is that in VP you can't ignore any aspect of the game. You have to build up everything: land, naval, religion, city-states, economy, diplomacy, etc. You also have to build tall and make very good decisions on government policies. Civ V is more like an RPG when it comes to government, you essentially "level up" and have to pick your upgrades carefully. I won't say it is better than Civ VI it is just different. In Civ V your decisions seem to be more impactful and irreversible at times. Civ VI allows more flexibility and you can change strategies mid game a lot easier.

That being said, I love all the features in Civ VI like the governors, loyalty and natural disasters. I really like gathering storm and its new civs (love Hungary). I wish we had a vox populi for Civ VI, that would be amazing.

 

[japanesesamurai]

While civ 6 has interesting new mechanics, the end product feels like a messy pile of nonsense, really.
The two major flaws are:
- agenda’s: the create a nonsensical unbelievable zoo.
- fog of war: The AI is as blind as a mole. Like it should be. However, they can’t cope with it. They are unable to scout the area. Thats why you see them sending in a horse or a single catapult all the time without backup. To clear the fow. If my observation is correct: barbarians are able to see through the fow, which makes them much thougher to deal with.

The biggest difference bewteen civ 5 and 6 is the difficulty.
In 6, you can lose on settler and win with a blindfold on deity. It is very poorly balanced. Immortal/deity is either childlike easy or hardcore difficult to the point where it becomes frustrating.
In civ 5 on immortal, I often either won or lost by 1 or couple of turns. Which is very exciting. 200-300 turns of excitement. Until the last end.

In civ 5, without mods, I,ve seen my empire shot into oblivion by nukes, robots, aircrafts and infantry. Several times.
In 6, I’ve been hit by 1 nuke, 2 fighters, a dozen of archers, some horses and... you get the point.
Ironically, in civ 6, probably because of silly agendas, leaders are much more into the whole war stuff than in V. Its just so silly and nonsensical

Also: the strategic map in 6 is bit too messy as well. And the 3D map is, well, not strategic

Last one: the WC in VI is god awfull. Theres not a single proposal i care for.
In V, you could argue that banning crabs would make sense in real life, but it could hurt you, those damn crabs!! Or even flip a city. Because people want crabs!!
So anyway, WC in V was a real danger!

And the damn apostle spam !! God, i hate those. The whole mechanic is idiotic.

 

[criZp]

I think religion is so bland in Civ 6, it might as well not be there. You either go for a religious victory or ignore it, as so many of the choices affect nothing but faith generation/apostles/missionaries. Even the housing and amenity boosts are basically useless, because constructing a district is not worth it just to get 2 housing and 1 amenity (and that's the best case scenario). Even diplomatically, Civ 6 religion has little impact, except with 3 specific civs. Even then, they can be soothed through other means.This contrasts really poorly with Civ 5, where religion was a significant influence on gameplay whichever direction you went.

Religion in civ 5 was the same as it is in civ 6. Except with endless prophets instead of apostles.

 

[kb27787]

Religion in civ 5 was the same as it is in civ 6. Except with endless prophets instead of apostles.

Faith was more scarce in BNW... also, to keep your pantheon you must found a religion and keep your cities that way (and so simply having a religion with rather weak beliefs can still be gamebreaking if the pantheon is gamebreaking). That, and you could buy great engineers to build one-turn wonders with faith (almost impossible to generate thousands of faith unless you have either a faith pantheon or gets to take divine inspiration + grand temple... if you wanted to plant a holy site in BNW you must have founded a religion to be able to recruit a prophet).

Actually one of the worst things in VI is that you get to keep your pantheon no matter what. I say cities should follow the pantheon of the religion that it follows.

Also, this is minor, but having a religion boosts ALL tourism by 25% to civs that follow the same religion (no need to even found the religion, just adopt one)... this is removed in VI and instead slapped a -50% tourism penalty to different religion civs for relics and holy city. Moreover world religion gives the holy city a further +25% tourism.

If BNW had the district adjacency and local amenities mechanism of VI then I'd say it would be a pretty great game.

 

[criZp]

So it comes down to thing slightly different, thing bad.

 

[fantsu]

They are pretty close, but 6 is already better.
Both are ways behind 4 and 2. I regard original Civilization higher too. I think 3 is between 6 and 5.

The AI is just really bad for a modern game in both. Original and the second can make out with it in my opinion, they just made the way here and are still really enjoying to play.
4 is the pinnacle, it has problems too, but less than others. 2 relies too much in city spam and theres no penalty for it. 5 was an absolute joke when it came out. It did redeem itself somewhat, but I consider it bottom of the bunch.
No civ game has been bad so far. Dont get me wrong. I even love the forgotten Civ4:Colonization.

 

[bc1]

I respectfully disagree : Civ VI AI is worse than civ V.
It's way too easy to win at Civ VI.
At least there's a bit of a challenge with Civ V deity...

 

[iammaxhailme]

I think there are pros and cons to both games but I think I prefer 5 by a little bit. I certainly don't think either one could be declared to make the other obsolete, though.