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

[beetle]

My recommendation to Firaxis is that they try and figure out why IV and V are beloved by so very many (different camps, but lots of players for each, even today) but III and VI were misses. It would be so great if fans of both IV and V also loved VII out of the gate. I think VII only need a few things to be a huge success:

• Hex based map
• Good support for the modding community
• Avoid ICS as winning strategy, but also nerf four-city-Tradition (fine for it to be a viable way to play, but it must not be OP)
• Avoid “stacks of doom” as winning strategy, but allow more than 1UPT
• Player SP choices come with opportunity costs
• Smooth curve between the starting/default difficulty setting and the highest difficulty setting

Sid would not admit it, but the keep-a-third / throw-out-a-third / add-a-third is nonsensical. The later series have so many play aspects that it is obviously lexically impossible to quantify portions in that way. Maybe that argument could be made between II and III, or III and IV?

Sid’s mantra really boils down to: keep some familiar things and change some things. Which is true for every franchise ever!

 

[iammaxhailme]

My recommendation to Firaxis is that they try and figure out why IV and V are beloved by so very many (different camps, but lots of players for each, even today) but III and VI were misses

I wouldn't be so quick to declare V to be so much more universally loved than VI...

 

[Zaarin]

My recommendation to Firaxis is that they try and figure out why IV and V are beloved by so very many (different camps, but lots of players for each, even today) but III and VI were misses.

It seems to me this statement is anecdotal. Civ6 has clearly sold very well and has a lot of players who love it. Also am I the only one who remembers how many people hated Civ5 when it was the current Civ game?

 

[CyberPhy]

Civ V with VP is way way better then VI

 

[Linklite]

Also am I the only one who remembers how many people hated Civ5 when it was the current Civ game?

Probably. Time has a way of making things seem better than they were. I'm convinced that half the complaints on here only really come about because it's already being discussed and we "realise" that there's an issue. In ten years time, people will.be reflecting in the good old days of Civ 6 and how much better it was than Civ VII.

That's not to say that there is no basis for the complaints, only that the discussion blows them up out of proportion.

 

[lefuet]

...Another thing I'd like to see is meaningful restrictions placed upon the player based upon government form. For example, you may have greater authority as a despot or absolute monarch than as a president, constitutional monarch, or doge. Obviously, these shouldn't be too harsh (as civ is a 4X game at heart) but it would be nice if they were more immersive in that regard.

Civ1 had this. I remember trying to declare war to capture the lone settler when the senate overruled me.

 

[ThunderLizard2]

Civ V with VP is way way better then VI

This.

In addition, Civ VI art style is cartoonish. And could they have made a worse AI if they tried? Many of Civ VI mechanics are just micro fest like districts. Looking forward to HumandKind which launches in August - will be the Civ game we were hoping for!

 

[CyberPhy]

This.

In addition, Civ VI art style is cartoonish. And could they have made a worse AI if they tried? Many of Civ VI mechanics are just micro fest like districts. Looking forward to HumandKind which launches in August - will be the Civ game we were hoping for!

Sadly Humankind is not going to have HotSeat

 

[Zegangani]

We can't compare Modded Civ 5 with unmodded Civ VI. The Modders that made AI overhaul Mods, such as Vox Populi for CiV, were dedicated to that specific Project and spent all the Time needed to make such Mods. Something that we can't say about FXS AI Programmers, which have a limited Timeframe durring the developpement cycle to write the AI, and I also don't think that FXS's Focus durring that time is the AI. Which isn't a bad thing for a Company. The Civ Games will sell well anyway, even if AI isn't great (best example: Civ VI), at least as long as it isn't really dumb.

So we can't compare Modded Civ V with unmodded Civ VI, just like we can't compare a possible Civ VI Vox Populi with unmodded Civ 5 (especially since Civ VI has a much better Frame for that than CiV, and base Civ VI is basically CiV 2.0).

I think the Civ VI Problem with AI is that its Mechanics were not fully designed with AI under consideration (or was it and the Devs wanted to code the AI accordingly after they are finished with the Concepts, but didn't come to it because of Time Pressure and Priorities?). Nevertheless, I don't think that Civ VI's AI is bad, dumb or anything. It's actually pretty good, considering the Many stuff it has to .. think about (?). And we just think it is bad, because we mostly notice its dumbness in situations where it pops out, such as War, where it has so many things to consider (Flanking, Terrain Bonuses, Unit Types/CS, Support...etc), and with Districts (AI planning ahead? I oftentimes ignore this myself).

 

[ThunderLizard2]

We can't compare Modded Civ 5 with unmodded Civ VI. The Modders that made AI overhaul Mods, such as Vox Populi for CiV, were dedicated to that specific Project and spent all the Time needed to make such Mods. Something that we can't say about FXS AI Programmers, which have a limited Timeframe durring the developpement cycle to write the AI, and I also don't think that FXS's Focus durring that time is the AI. Which isn't a bad thing for a Company. The Civ Games will sell well anyway, even if AI isn't great (best example: Civ VI), at least as long as it isn't really dumb.

So we can't compare Modded Civ V with unmodded Civ VI, just like we can't compare a possible Civ VI Vox Populi with unmodded Civ 5 (especially since Civ VI has a much better Frame for that than CiV, and base Civ VI is basically CiV 2.0).

I think the Civ VI Problem with AI is that its Mechanics were not fully designed with AI under consideration (or was it and the Devs wanted to code the AI accordingly after they are finished with the Concepts, but didn't come to it because of Time Pressure and Priorities?). Nevertheless, I don't think that Civ VI's AI is bad, dumb or anything. It's actually pretty good, considering the Many stuff it has to .. think about (?). And we just think it is bad, because we mostly notice its dumbness in situations where it pops out, such as War, where it has so many things to consider (Flanking, Terrain Bonuses, Unit Types/CS, Support...etc), and with Districts (AI planning ahead? I oftentimes ignore this myself).

Yes I can and I do compare them. First of all, Firaxis has had 5 years to fix the AI in Civ VI - is that really "limited"? And the devs are being paid!

And why don't we have Vox Populi for Civ VI? Because Firaxis won't release the dll code.

And the mechanics the AI can't handle? Again, Firaxis made those choice which is POOR game design,

So let's not make excuses for Firaxis here.

 

[superpowerfixer]

We can't compare Modded Civ 5 with unmodded Civ VI. The Modders that made AI overhaul Mods, such as Vox Populi for CiV, were dedicated to that specific Project and spent all the Time needed to make such Mods. Something that we can't say about FXS AI Programmers, which have a limited Timeframe durring the developpement cycle to write the AI, and I also don't think that FXS's Focus durring that time is the AI. Which isn't a bad thing for a Company. The Civ Games will sell well anyway, even if AI isn't great (best example: Civ VI), at least as long as it isn't really dumb.

So we can't compare Modded Civ V with unmodded Civ VI, just like we can't compare a possible Civ VI Vox Populi with unmodded Civ 5 (especially since Civ VI has a much better Frame for that than CiV, and base Civ VI is basically CiV 2.0).

I think the Civ VI Problem with AI is that its Mechanics were not fully designed with AI under consideration (or was it and the Devs wanted to code the AI accordingly after they are finished with the Concepts, but didn't come to it because of Time Pressure and Priorities?). Nevertheless, I don't think that Civ VI's AI is bad, dumb or anything. It's actually pretty good, considering the Many stuff it has to .. think about (?). And we just think it is bad, because we mostly notice its dumbness in situations where it pops out, such as War, where it has so many things to consider (Flanking, Terrain Bonuses, Unit Types/CS, Support...etc), and with Districts (AI planning ahead? I oftentimes ignore this myself).

Modders have less time to work then firaxis staff.
Modders have real jobs and obligations while firaxis programmers are being paid to do their job on a daily basis.

I don't know where this "Modders have more time to fix stuff" myth comes from.It is blatantly false and disrespectful toward people using up their free time to make mods.

 

[Gedemon]

Modders have less time to work then firaxis staff.
Modders have real jobs and obligations while firaxis programmers are being paid to do their job on a daily basis.

I don't know where this "Modders have more time to fix stuff" myth comes from.It is blatantly false and disrespectful toward people using up their free time to make mods.

We, as a community, have much more time to work on the AI than Firaxis, as we're not limited by "release date" or "development cost".

 

[KayAU]

When comparing Civ V and Civ VI, I always try to be clear about whether I'm talking about Civ V as the developers made it, or Vox Populi. But I don't think it's unfair to compare either way. You can't escape the fact that Vox Populi does exist, and that it is an excellent game, which many think is far superior to both V and VI, myself included. I also think it is a game which it would have been very possible for Firaxis to have made themselves, both technically and with regards to resources. They could also have contributed to something equivalent being developed for Civ VI by releasing the DLL code. When they choose not to, well, that's their choice to make, but it does have the consequence that modding for Civ VI will be more limited. At this point in the Civ V's life cycle, VP was already well underway. I doubt that we will ever see something equivalent for Civ VI, but would be happy to be wrong.

One thing I'm curious about now, is how the lasting popularity of Civ VI is going to compare to that of Civ V. Civ V, which was released in 2010 and hasn't had official support since 2014, is still doing amazingly well in terms of concurrent players, with around 25k-30k. Many 4X games don't get this ever, and even Civ VI didn't surpass Civ V until late 2019. Now that Civ VI is no longer receiving content, will Civ V surpass it again?

 

[beetle]

It seems to me this statement is anecdotal.

You and @iammaxhailme are invited to look at the the Steam stats, as @KayAU mentioned. IV and V are remarkably long-lived and popular for being such old games.

And for very many of us, V scratched an itch that III and IV did not. And I am on a Mac, so no Vox Populi for me.

Civ6 has clearly sold very well and has a lot of players who love it.

Right, they made it pretty enough. Put it out for Switch and iOS. It is a mass-market product for casual gamers. And Firaxis is, after all, a for-profit company. Once could make the case that it is not actually in their best economic interest for so many people to be playing IV and V instead of VI. But I think Firaxis could release a version that is popular with old school gamers and Sim City / FarmVille types.

After the fact, I found it interesting that of the six things I am looking for in VII, three of them are things to avoid!

Also am I the only one who remembers how many people hated Civ5 when it was the current Civ game?

At launch, V was remarkably incomplete. The conversations turned around after God & Kings, and then Brave New World essentially doubled the play experience. The only people that were still haters at that point were ICS fans.

 

[superpowerfixer]

We, as a community, have much more time to work on the AI than Firaxis, as we're not limited by "release date" or "development cost".

What development costs?
A single ai programmer gets his monthly salary and that is it.There is no seperete qa or additional costs in terms of external developers or assets.

As for release date.The state of the ai at release shows that is irrelevant.

 

[Gedemon]

The development cost of a better AI is not only about the cost in money, it's also about the cost in time.

You've seen the result with 1 programmer, but developing a better AI requires more time, not really more programmers, you need to lock the game's rules first then develop the AI for those.

Problem is the game's rules are not locked at release, they change with patches, balance, DLC, expansions. So the AI is programmed to be easily tweaked, at the cost of it being less specialized. It's also a requirement to work with mods.

Now that the development is ended, you can start working on an AI more specialized. But of course, the issue is also that the development has ended, meaning you can only rely on modders now to make it better.

Of course that doesn't excuse the state of the AI at the end of the development cycle, but explain why we have more time.

 

[youngsteve]

Now that the development is ended, you can start working on an AI more specialized. But of course, the issue is also that the development has ended, meaning you can only rely on modders now to make it better.

.

How can you rely on modders when they haven't the tools to mod it properly. The reason Vox Populi is such a success is the modders have the dll to change the game significantly, for the better. Modders for CIV6 have no such luxury & is the reason the game will always be second rate.

Because of Firaxis stupidety & greed in not releasing the dll I will never buy another civ game again, & I very doubt I will be alone on this. The only reason I bought Civ6 at all, though hardly played it at all, was the hope that modders would release great overhaul mods as before to improve the game. Fooled once, but not fooled twice.

 

[Gedemon]

I don't blame Firaxis, maybe the decision come from 2K, but whatever the reasons, I'm on the same boat here, I don't plan to buy/mod civ7 until I'm sure it's fully moddable this time.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Maybe today at E3 they'll announce and release the DLL Code so Modded Civ 6 will be even better than Modded Civ 5.

Still Civ 6 is definitely a better game than Civ 5, in my opinion, when you look at only official content.

 

[Joch]

Like everything else, it is really a question of what you are looking for. I used to play a lot of Civ 5 and once Civ 6 came out, I was not sure I liked it better, but it definitely grows on you. Civ 6 is the only Civ game I still play, I don't think I have played Civ 5 for 2-3 years.