Civ V vs VI in terms of flexibility & snowballing

[iammaxhailme]

I constantly bounce between Civ 5 and 6. One thing I like in 6, is that it feels that your strategies (especially in the very early stages of the game) can be more flexible, whereas in Civ 5 I often follow basically the same pattern (rush library, start by opening tradition, then rush through liberty). I feel somewhat severely gimped if I deviate from that pattern unless I'm doing a specific type of runthrough. In 6, it feels like I can be a bit more flexible, and feel less compelled to do the "optimal" thing right at the beginning. But can you really? What is your opinion in terms of minmaxing/ rigidly doing the EXACT right thing, in comparison between the two games?

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Depends on your difficulty level. Not sure there's that much difference at Prince/King as you're not as constrained in Civ 5 at that difficulty.

If you're talking Immortal/Deity, though, then:

Civ 5: there's a clearly optimal approach that applies in almost all circumstances
Civ 6: tried to avoid Civ 5's problem but ended up making almost any approach work in almost any circumstances

I understand what they were trying to do in Civ 6 - encourage decisions based on the map, not have there be one clearly superior strategy - but they got the balance wrong. Once you survive the first few turns, you don't need to worry about min/maxing decisions, as you'll have a hard time losing because the AI meanders it's way towards victory and doesn't/can't materially impact you to slow down your own victory.

 

[blackbutterfly]

I constantly bounce between Civ 5 and 6. One thing I like in 6, is that it feels that your strategies (especially in the very early stages of the game) can be more flexible, whereas in Civ 5 I often follow basically the same pattern (rush library, start by opening tradition, then rush through liberty).

Yeah, in this respect Civ VI is better. There is the potential for more replayability and diverse strategies. That is one plus of having more systems and ones that are more complex and micro.

However, Civ V had a great deal of content. Civs, scenarios & maps: excellent ones at that.

 

[Victoria]

rigidly doing the EXACT right thing, in comparison between the two games

I got bored of V quickly and also found artillery and planes OP so also unit wise eventually I would end up using the same units over and over.

People in VI cannot even agree on what unit to build first and your path through the trees can differ based on strategy. There is still some standardish stuff like Archers, Feudalism, and Knights but certain civs can alter these as well.

VI certainly feels a lot more flexible but then its easier and so allows more flexibility. As it gets harder maybe some of that will go.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I got bored of V quickly and also found artillery and planes OP so also unit wise eventually I would end up using the same units over and over.

I thought Civ 5 had the rock-paper-scissors (or "combined arms approach", if you prefer) of combat pretty good. Yes, when Artillery is deployed, it obsoletes old units, as it should, and combat becomes about who can position their Artillery to concentrate their fire power best. But that only lasts for a short time, then Tanks can roll your Artillery if not properly defended, and Bombers change the game once again, threatening both your Artillery and Tanks, so now you need AA Units and Fighters while Artillery becomes of limited value in a more fluid battlefield, until you develop Rocket Artillery and they're back in business.

I'd argue that the relative value of all units, comparing combat efficiency to costs, was better balanced in Civ 5 than in Civ 6, and that all units in Civ 5 had a time and a place when they were useful, more so than Civ 6. The biggest miss in Civ 5 were Machine Guns, which were revolutionary and permanently changed Infantry tactics in real life, yet are a step backwards in Civ 5 due to the range nerf because they aren't provided with the opportunity fire against moving enemy units that make them so deadly in the real world.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I really liked much of 5's units and concepts and systems, had they just been able to nail down the the balance of the tree so that Four Cities wasn't the clear only way to go.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I really liked much of 5's units and concepts and systems, had they just been able to nail down the the balance of the tree so that Four Cities wasn't the clear only way to go.

Civ 5 didn't start out that way. It ended up that way. One more expansion might have tilted the balance back a bit.

But then the lead designer of the expansions was going to be the lead designer for Civ 6, so it's not surprising that they decided to simply start over again with a new iteration allowing him to incorporate all his ideas and not just those that would work with the Civ 5 engine. I wouldn't be surprised if unpacking the cities (i.e. moving buildings to the surrounding tiles) was something Beach wanted to do in Civ 5 but the engine didn't allow it. In the new Civ 6 engine it eventually became districts.

On that front, I understand Beach also wanted to incorporate more terrain features in the game, and those haven't shown up yet in Civ 6. So expect canals and possibly other things (a new version of railroads?) in the next expansion.

 

[RealHuhn]

I think in terms of variable strategies in the early/mid game up to Renaissance/Industrial era, CIV6 is miles ahead of CIV5. I've experimented with tons of different openings on Deity and a lot of them work really well. There simply isn't an optimal build order like 4 cities to National College (at least peacefully, early warmongering is still too OP in 6). Even if the Deity AI would win around, let's say turn 230, there still wouldn't be a set path to victory.

In late game however, CIV5 is still king because it does have a lot more features and game changing events like the World Congress or ideological differences. In CIV6 it feels more like pressing next turn to see the victory screen, especially the science VC. You literally have to spam workers for 20-30 turns. It's pretty silly. At least in culture VC, you can still build relevant wonders, seaside resorts, national parks, plant trees, dig up artifacts etc. Late game needs more content to spice things up.

I wouldn't go back to CIV5 though. Flexibility in early game is more fun than in late game, at least for me.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I think in terms of variable strategies in the early/mid game up to Renaissance/Industrial era, CIV6 is miles ahead of CIV5. I've experimented with tons of different openings on Deity and a lot of them work really well. There simply isn't an optimal build order like 4 cities to National College (at least peacefully, early warmongering is still too OP in 6). Even if the Deity AI would win around, let's say turn 230, there still wouldn't be a set path to victory.

In late game however, CIV5 is still king because it does have a lot more features and game changing events like the World Congress or ideological differences. In CIV6 it feels more like pressing next turn to see the victory screen, especially the science VC. You literally have to spam workers for 20-30 turns. It's pretty silly. At least in culture VC, you can still build relevant wonders, seaside resorts, national parks, plant trees, dig up artifacts etc. Late game needs more content to spice things up.

I wouldn't go back to CIV5 though. Flexibility in early game is more fun than in late game, at least for me.

I agree with this. I'd like to see the AI offer at least the same amount of challenge in the late game of Civ 6 that it offers in the late game of Civ 5.

I'd love to see the AI in Civ 6 be capable of winning a Deity game by turn 230 (standard speed, normal map sets). Heck, if it could even win by turn 300, that would be a start.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

I think in terms of variable strategies in the early/mid game up to Renaissance/Industrial era, CIV6 is miles ahead of CIV5. I've experimented with tons of different openings on Deity and a lot of them work really well. There simply isn't an optimal build order like 4 cities to National College (at least peacefully, early warmongering is still too OP in 6).

Civ6 is nowhere because the game is too easy to weed out weak from strong strategies. Civ6 vanilla Deity approximated to CIV's Monarch, and the expansion is regarded to be even easier than vanilla. Meanwhile CIV's Monarch was halfway to how difficult Immortal was, and Immortal was halfway to how difficult Deity was despite being just one step up.

 

[blackbutterfly]

Civ6 is nowhere because the game is too easy...

Yup. Civ VI Deity feels like Prince now.

R&F was supposed to make snowballing more difficult (?) but in fact I seem to be snowballing harder now. (i.e. more like avalanche).

One other improvement over Civ V is: no super-OP UUs like The Hun's Battering Ram (which is now available to all), Assyria's Siege Tower (same) or Arabia's Camel Archer. (Though I really miss camels in Civ VI!). Many OP promotions are also gone like +1 range to ranged class units: only siege weapons in Civ VI. These changes should've made Civ VI harder but no it didn't.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Yup. Civ VI Deity feels like Prince now.

R&F was supposed to make snowballing more difficult (?) but in fact I seem to be snowballing harder now. (i.e. more like avalanche).

One other improvement over Civ V is: no super-OP UUs like The Hun's Battering Ram (which is now available to all), Assyria's Siege Tower (same) or Arabia's Camel Archer. (Though I really miss camels in Civ VI!). Many OP promotions are also gone like +1 range to ranged class units: only siege weapons in Civ VI. These changes should've made Civ VI harder but no it didn't.

They also went half-way towards fixing one of the most awkward aspects of Civ 5, but then stopped and didn't complete the process. The Archer line having a range of 2 but then downgrading to range 1 at Machine Guns was just a bad design. Civ 6 found the solution with Slingers starting at a range of 1, but then rather than keeping that solution, went back to range 2 at Archer and then again back to range 1 at Machine Guns again. Range 1 always is the right solution.

 

[kb27787]

Not sure what you mean by snowball, but yes BNW had a very specific tech path early game (not that you dont have options but all other options than tradition to fast NC are subpar).
RnF on the other hand makes civs who had an advantage early game through conquest snowball much harder (conquest was a terrible strategy in BnW since research agreements were so powerful and diplomacy was so important thanks to WC... Coupled with the increased unhappiness and social policy cost)
What RnF needs is a boost to peaceful, self-founded cities... Not necessarily punishing wide play (wide and peaceful should be viable), but conquest needs a huge nerf beyond the loyalty mechanic.

 

[Shorlin]

The main problem with Civ5 was how restrictive and punishing global happiness was, In Civ6 you don't have that constant threat looming over you so are more free to play the map/civ or whatever strat you enjoy.
In terms of snowballing I think 6 is way more snowbally. Mainly for the same reason, global happiness

 

[azbestor]

I really liked much of 5's units and concepts and systems, had they just been able to nail down the the balance of the tree so that Four Cities wasn't the clear only way to go.

Regarding 4 cities, Sullas ICS game in early Civ5 proves something different. Just 2 cents.

 

[Mozzington]

I guess Poland also felt planes were overpowered too.

 

[RohirrimElf]

In civ 6 min/maxing does not really matter if you got through the first 2 era’s. From my experience the early game is really important. After that phase it feels likes the difficulty setting has been lowered by 1-2 levels. forget about religion and building wonders. Expand as fast as possible while defending your own territory. For me this is the optimal strategy for immortal and deity.

 

[MaximusPlatypus]

I used NQmod for BNW multiplayer a few years back, and got used to Piety and Honor being viable opener as that mod allows, and the subtle buffs to weak pantheons.
Deity AI still puts up a decent game in NQ sp

 

[blackbutterfly]

forget about religion and building wonders. Expand as fast as possible while defending your own territory. For me this is the optimal strategy for immortal and deity.

Exactly! Play like Kongo or India. (In fact playing Mvemba or Chandragupta is good practice for this strategy).

Religion is only important for civs like Spain, Poland, Arabia, etc. who have a buff tied to religion. Even Tamar doesn't have to found a religion: just have a (majority) religion.

 

[Eva-kun]

In civ 6 min/maxing does not really matter if you got through the first 2 era’s. From my experience the early game is really important. After that phase it feels likes the difficulty setting has been lowered by 1-2 levels. forget about religion and building wonders. Expand as fast as possible while defending your own territory. For me this is the optimal strategy for immortal and deity.

Expansion is just that important. I tend to go for Golden Age policy allowing the purchase of settlers and if I have decent faith output, then I just spam settlers in a city with Magnus' promotion. AI can't punish most players due to their limitation in combat.