Civ VI is done. So how does Civ V look in comparison?

[Gorbles]

Why should I not compare Civ VI to Civ V with VP? I do compare it, because everyone have a choice to play with the mod for free that makes the game so much better, so why should I disregard the option? We are not limited to what original developers did (thanks god). And I've also compared it to Civ V without the VP, so it's on topic.

Because it opens up the discussion to the idea that CiV without VP isn't a "real Civ-style game" either, which seemed to be the argument you were making. You were defining a thing as being a "real" Civilisation game vs. one being not, when I reckon it that for you it's VP that's making the difference there - not CiV itself.

Am I wrong?

 

[CppMaster]

Because it opens up the discussion to the idea that CiV without VP isn't a "real Civ-style game" either, which seemed to be the argument you were making. You were defining a thing as being a "real" Civilisation game vs. one being not, when I reckon it that for you it's VP that's making the difference there - not CiV itself.

Am I wrong?

Not at all. I consider both modded and unmodded Civ V as a "real Civ-style game". VP overhauls the game so much, that it could be treated as a separate game. Hence my comparison of Civ V, Civ V with VP and Civ VI.

 

[Gorbles]

Fair enough! Agree to disagree, sorry for the crossed wires

 

[Zegangani]

Well, it's not like you can't, but it's unfair.

Comparing Civ V BNW with base Civ VI is eligible to a degree, since both are officially made by the devs, and Civ VI even at release was a semi-complete game that included most Features from Civ V complete edition. Whereas Vox Populi is a Fan Made Mod where Modders had all the free time they needed to work on it (and the tools to do it, with the released dll source code), fixed most Bugs of the Game, and filled in the Holes. And it's a continuous work. The Civ VI Devs don't have that privilege, but time and resource constraints, where they need to set priorities. So even comparing Civ V Vox Populi with Civ VI Antology + best Civ VI Mod Collection isn't entitled IMO, since the Modders of the first have access to the source code and can code anything in the Game, including AI, whereas the latter don't have that pleasure (especially when it comes to AI modding).

So we can't say things like "Civ V Vox Populi is much more difficult than Civ VI complete, and the AI is much more smarter and competitive, hence Civ V VP is much superior to Civ VI Complete". That's not fair.

Though you can say that you enjoy one more than the other (despite the other having better AI or something), which you did. No Grievances here .

 

[Naokaukodem]

"Civ V Vox Populi is much more difficult than Civ VI complete, and the AI is much more smarter and competitive, hence Civ V VP is much superior to Civ VI Complete"

For those who played or play VP, that's however true !

 

[Zegangani]

For those who played or play VP, that's however true !

I'm not saying that it it's not true. My point is that comparing the 2 is somewhat inequitable.

 

[CppMaster]

Well, it's not like you can't, but it's unfair.

Yeah, it's unfair for the reasons you provided, but still, but that doesn't really matter. What matters are results, because these is what we end up playing and we decide if we want to play modded version or not. I don't care about developers time etc. I care about the game (or version) that I play.

 

[Zegangani]

What matters are results, because these is what we end up playing and we decide if we want to play modded version or not. I don't care about developers time etc. I care about the game (or version) that I play.

True. And that's why I'm a modder. I prefer VI but I still want some things changed/added/fixed, things that the Devs won't work on.

 

[KayAU]

I agree that VP is different enough that it could almost be considered its own separate game. That said, it is very much built on the foundation laid by Civ 5, and enabled by Civ 5's mod support.

Without VP, I think it's a closer call, but I still prefer Civ 5 to Civ 6. People make a lot of this "4 city tall" thing, but is it really that much worse than the dominant strategy of Civ 6, which is generally just taking advantage of the AI's extreme ineptitude in waging war and expand endlessly? It certainly leads to a lot more tedious micro in the late game, whereas Civ 5 actually gives you some new stuff to focus on, in the form of ideologies and a World Congress that actually makes sense. I would also like to point out that there isn't any sort of limit which says that going beyond 4 cities doesn't work. It's been a while since I played without VP, but as I recall, I usually ended up with around 5-7 cities.

 

[CppMaster]

I agree that VP is different enough that it could almost be considered its own separate game. That said, it is very much built on the foundation laid by Civ 5, and enabled by Civ 5's mod support.

Without VP, I think it's a closer call, but I still prefer Civ 5 to Civ 6. People make a lot of this "4 city tall" thing, but is it really that much worse than the dominant strategy of Civ 6, which is generally just taking advantage of the AI's extreme ineptitude in waging war and expand endlessly? It certainly leads to a lot more tedious micro in the late game, whereas Civ 5 actually gives you some new stuff to focus on, in the form of ideologies and a World Congress that actually makes sense. I would also like to point out that there isn't any sort of limit which says that going beyond 4 cities doesn't work. It's been a while since I played without VP, but as I recall, I usually ended up with around 5-7 cities.

Yes, it is much worse, because it's the same in multiplayer. AI is bad only in singleplayer and for that there is a mod that fixes it a bit.

 

[shaglio]

I would also like to point out that there isn't any sort of limit which says that going beyond 4 cities doesn't work. It's been a while since I played without VP, but as I recall, I usually ended up with around 5-7 cities.

It's been years since I've prowled the Civ 5 forums, but I vaguely remember the people who claimed you couldn't build more than 4 cities did so because they would start getting into happiness issues. But those same people also refused to build the happiness buildings because they cost too much production or cost too much maintenance or something.

Also, I think people usually stuck to 4 cities because Tradition was the optimal Policy Tree and it gave certain bonuses (such a free buildings) to your first 4 cities.

 

[reddishrecue]

It's been years since I've prowled the Civ 5 forums, but I vaguely remember the people who claimed you couldn't build more than 4 cities did so because they would start getting into happiness issues. But those same people also refused to build the happiness buildings because they cost too much production or cost too much maintenance or something.

Also, I think people usually stuck to 4 cities because Tradition was the optimal Policy Tree and it gave certain bonuses (such a free buildings) to your first 4 cities.

Freedom would also make people run into unhappiness issues also. When I would change to autocracy or order though I would get more happiness such as the one from auto which gives you +2 happiness per barrax and armory, etc.. and the one from order which gives you +2 happiness per monument.
The only thing I think now about freedom is that it gives you that much more tourism If I remember correctly.

 

[shaglio]

Freedom would also make people run into unhappiness issues also. When I would change to autocracy or order though I would get more happiness such as the one from auto which gives you +2 happiness per barrax and armory, etc.. and the one from order which gives you +2 happiness per monument.
The only thing I think now about freedom is that it gives you that much more tourism If I remember correctly.

You're talking about the endgame Ideology policies. I was referring to the opening policies of Tradition, Liberty, Honor, and Piety.

 

[reddishrecue]

You're talking about the endgame Ideology policies. I was referring to the opening policies of Tradition, Liberty, and Piety.

Oh, ok... well for those I often used tradition and honor... Liberty was good too, with meritocracy and those road connections which caused a lot of happiness and maybe too much happiness sometimes that I ended up needing more food and golden ages that made me feel spoiled.
Tradition and honor however didn't do this to me. Honor helped my units promote more for the range against those cities while I used tradition for wonders and population/research peaceful oligarchy defense.
Piety, however, was so difficult. I often tried and didn't get that far. The faith bonuses were great, and the income was great, but I ran out of time to keep practicing since civ 6 came out. Production also was kind of slow. I just had to do a few adjustments.

 

[UWHabs]

It's been years since I've prowled the Civ 5 forums, but I vaguely remember the people who claimed you couldn't build more than 4 cities did so because they would start getting into happiness issues. But those same people also refused to build the happiness buildings because they cost too much production or cost too much maintenance or something.

Also, I think people usually stuck to 4 cities because Tradition was the optimal Policy Tree and it gave certain bonuses (such a free buildings) to your first 4 cities.

Often "4 cities" wasn't a strict rule for 4 cities, but it was more about limiting how much you would settle. It was mostly because after those first few cities, every other city was simply a drain on your empire, never worth it to pay off. It wasn't just the happiness - every city added increased the National Wonder cost and restrictions, and also increased science costs too if I recall. I remember I used to go to 5 or 6 if you have a good spot, but you would certainly never want to stretch more than that even if you saw a site with a whole bunch of goodies nearby, you just knew that it wasn't worth it. I think for me that killed the game - I really want a game where if I run into an open peninsula with multiple luxury or bonus or strategic resources, I want to fight to settle it. I don't want to ignore it and just stay like a tiny compact empire.

I don't know if that changed at all with any of the mods, or remember exactly what all the limitations and things that caused problems expanding beyond that meant. For me, even if 6 has a bad AI, one thing it does right is make a good sandbox for a builder. I can be absolutely crushing the AI, but I can still have fun planning my cities, figuring out which spot I want to place my Eiffel Tower in, trying to optimize my National Parks, etc... Yeah, playing as Russia and getting as many +8 or +9 Lavras isn't a challenge, and you can basically claim a victory from turn 2 sometimes when playing as Russia. But is it still fun? To me, more often than not, yes.

 

[KayAU]

Yes, it is much worse, because it's the same in multiplayer. AI is bad only in singleplayer and for that there is a mod that fixes it a bit.

Well, fair enough. I never play in multiplayer, so I am just talking about the single player experience. I can see how Civ 6 might be better as a multiplayer game.

 

[KayAU]

It's been years since I've prowled the Civ 5 forums, but I vaguely remember the people who claimed you couldn't build more than 4 cities did so because they would start getting into happiness issues. But those same people also refused to build the happiness buildings because they cost too much production or cost too much maintenance or something.

Also, I think people usually stuck to 4 cities because Tradition was the optimal Policy Tree and it gave certain bonuses (such a free buildings) to your first 4 cities.

Yeah, the Tradition tree had at least a couple of those "in your first 4 cities bonuses", as well as some diminishing returns for each new city you controlled. And it's not like I'm saying the balance here was perfect, but I don't think it's nearly as severe or rigid as some are making it sound.

I understand some are disappointed that getting a new city is not as rewarding as it maybe should be in Civ 5. However, I get the same kind of disappointment for how unrewarding big cities are in Civ 6.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I understand some are disappointed that getting a new city is not as rewarding as it maybe should be in Civ 5. However, I get the same kind of disappointment for how unrewarding big cities are in Civ 6.

To be honest, I'm disappointed also by the lack of reward *some*, if not too many, new cities create in Civ6. I blame the map generator, or my lack of awareness, but I often experience a lot of turns and my capital is only at 5 pop, not speaking about other low growth cities like no fresh water, coastal with no river, desert as a good spot for Petra, those cities are certainly a lack of opportunity when founded second, third or even first.
My ideal spot for any city would be with fair growth potential (farms triangles), a lot of hills for production (my games are lame production-wise, and building industrial districts in 14 turns, compared to building a university in 22 turns or so, is not worth it) but then if most of my cities hit the 10 pop threeshold, they are at 1, 0 or less in amenities eventhough I have 8-9 different luxuries. So I want them big but in the same time not too much. Well I guess I should incentive food until 10 then production ? But man, all those games with no suitable location for second city...

 

[CppMaster]

Yeah, the Tradition tree had at least a couple of those "in your first 4 cities bonuses", as well as some diminishing returns for each new city you controlled. And it's not like I'm saying the balance here was perfect, but I don't think it's nearly as severe or rigid as some are making it sound.

It is that rigid. Playing non tradition policy and settling 5 or more cities is almost always worse, mostly because happiness and penalty to science and culture.

In Civ6 it's almost always better to settle than not, because you always get additional districts, while the only downside is less amenities which is not a big deal. So Civ5 encourage you to stay at 4 cities, while Civ6 encourage you to expand, which is in the spirit of 4x games.

To be honest, I'm disappointed also by the lack of reward *some*, if not too many, new cities create in Civ6.

The reward is additional districts which heavily outweights the penalty of less amenities.

 

[KayAU]

@CppMaster

I don't agree with you. I'm not claiming to be the world's best player or anything, but I have played a lot of Civ 5, and 5-7 cities works very well. I'm not saying it's necessarily the optimal way to play, but it is very viable. As for non-Tradition, you may have a point, I can't remember the last time I didn't go for Tradition in vanilla Civ 5.

As for Civ 6, it is indeed about getting more districts, which generally means getting more cities. You are certainly encouraged to expand outwards, and I acknowledge that that is one of the Xs in "4X". If there's one thing you can learn from these forums however, it's that people have varying ways to play and varying degrees of enjoyment and tolerance for different aspects of 4X games. I personally find early expansion to be very enjoyable, but as the game goes on, the more cities I have, the more I have to spend my turns making dozens of tiny decisions which I personally find tedious. It is especially bad in Civ 6, due to some questionable UI design, lack of automation, and the large amount of loosely connected content which adds loads more micromanagement to the game. Mid-late game Civ 6 is already a game of many chores, and adding a dozen production orders of marginal importance does nothing to help that.