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

[KayAU]

With regards to the Steam statistics for Civ 5, I think they are extremely impressive. There's no doubt that Civ 6 was a commercially successful game, but it took a good long while before it surpassed 5 in number of active players, and the fact that Civ 5 is still so competitive so long after its release, is a testament to just how good the game is. I think it is also worth noting that it has retained this sizeable player base despite not receiving any new official content or patches for a very long time. I think the last patch was in...2014? That's 8 years ago, and still it has over 20k concurrent players most of the time.

In comparison, Civ 6 is a lot newer, and only recently stopped getting new content. I also think it received more content overall, and the content was of the kind which tends to generate the most attention: new civs, which they were pumping out on a bi-monthly basis. It should not be surprising that it has more players at this point. The surprising thing should be that Civ 5 is still relatively competetive. It will be interesting to see how they compare 2 years further down the line.

 

[LastSword]

I am sorry but there are some assumptions and data interpretation I found invalid. Those large numbers provoke me.
All-time peak is meaningless. We have to consider the trends (more and more people can afford and run AAA titles at release) + advertisment (hype generation) + you must play it day 1 attitude. Many games nowadays, civ6 included, have a powerful day1 peak followed by rapid downfall. All the data related to it (especially %) should be ignored.
Big all-time peak, 24H peak, current values, but no averages (either last day/week/month)... very, very naughty. I will include avg:

Last 30 Days

34,611.7

January 2022

41,708.8

Data taken from: https://steamcharts.com/app/289070
Those numbers do not look good for civ6, I hope the values are at least +50% (since civ6 is available on consoles).

Ever since release I read "it is vanilla, we have to wait for expansions", "we have two expansions, but civ5 is X years of modding scene", it is returning argument that civ6 isn't final. I am sorry, but civ6 reached maturity, in fact considering NFP it received the most development in the series. It cannot be more mature after 6 years.

There is a little doubt that civ6 sales are better, but it is also mark of time (high % of game owners who do not even play once; it is not only related to civ series)(etc.).

The reasons for purchases are pure speculation, I have much different assumptions. Civ6 is the newest iteration (often ignored - in opposite to the lack of "maturity") which is quite a big factor, isn't it? Most casual players will go for the newest game in the series. The factor for civ5 nowadays are lower requirements.

Back to the numbers, we would have to compare them with civ5 pre-civ6 release (2016). I included only avg players again:

April 2016

34,055.3

July 2016

43,326.5

Data taken from: https://steamcharts.com/app/8930
As I wrote, it does not look good for civ6 at all and it has to face the test of time (civ7 release) yet.
I don't understand steam reviews at all (basic human psychology would indicate that negative reviews should outnumber positive ones) and I find it hard to interpret them. I would say that in 2016 there was already an actual trend to negative-bash bad releases (civ5 dodged it) which would explain the difference in negatives.

 

[Linklite]

All-time peak is meaningless. We have to consider the trends (more and more people can afford and run AAA titles at release) + advertisment (hype generation) + you must play it day 1 attitude. Many games nowadays, civ6 included, have a powerful day1 peak followed by rapid downfall. All the data related to it (especially %) should be ignored.

It isn't meaningless, you have to take into account context. You have to look at how much was retained. 6 years after release, all those factors have disappeared, yet Civy has retained not only higher numbers if players, but a higher proportion of it's peak. Both say it's the more popular game...pretty much by definition. A higher peak would make it harder to retain players - if a higher peaker is retain a higher proportion of players, speaks to how much it appeals to players.

Big all-time peak, 24H peak, current values, but no averages (either last day/week/month)... very, very naughty. I will include avg:

Last 30 Days

34,611.7

January 2022

41,708.8

Data taken from: https://steamcharts.com/app/289070
Those numbers do not look good for civ6, I hope the values are at least +50% (since civ6 is available on consoles).

You mention a big killer of the Civ5 argument - Civ5 on Steam competes with Civ5 on Epic and CD. Civ6 on Steam competes with both of those...plus Xbox, PlayStation and Switch. More on this later. Civ5 is massively cheaper as well. I had the opportunity a little while ago to get Civ5 and everything with it for less than £5. The cheapest I've seen the Civ6 equivalent is £25.

Ever since release I read "it is vanilla, we have to wait for expansions", "we have two expansions, but civ5 is X years of modding scene", it is returning argument that civ6 isn't final. I am sorry, but civ6 reached maturity, in fact considering NFP it received the most development in the series. It cannot be more mature after 6 years.

If that's true, that Civ6 has reached maturity, then the numbers are comparable, and they favour Civ 6.

The reasons for purchases are pure speculation, I have much different assumptions. Civ6 is the newest iteration (often ignored - in opposite to the lack of "maturity") which is quite a big factor, isn't it? Most casual players will go for the newest game in the series. The factor for civ5 nowadays are lower requirements.

I discussed that.

Back to the numbers, we would have to compare them with civ5 pre-civ6 release (2016). I included only avg players again:

April 2016

34,055.3

July 2016

43,326.5

Data taken from: https://steamcharts.com/app/8930
As I wrote, it does not look good for civ6 at all and it has to face the test of time (civ7 release) yet.

While it will be interesting to see how far it drops with Civ 7, this was pre Civ6 and roughly about the position is Civ6 is in now (a bit longer after latest DLC, however, Civ6 has been plagued by problems in the fanbase due to the issues that came with NFP (deserved, but a significant complication). Civ5 was also experiencing a significant uplift at the that time which I can only speculate on (it started before Civy was announced) but I guess that there were leaks about Civ6 spurring a revisit. Previously it was more like 30k. Still, while I don't have figures, when you consider console activity and increased prominence of Epic, Civy must be smashing those numbers.

I don't understand steam reviews at all (basic human psychology would indicate that negative reviews should outnumber positive ones) and I find it hard to interpret them. I would say that in 2016 there was already an actual trend to negative-bash bad releases (civ5 dodged it) which would explain the difference in negatives.

Reviews are.different to complaints/compliments. You're far more likely to just ignore a game you don't like. This is different to complaints/compliments because you actually have to go out of your way to submit them and negativity is a far greater driver for significant action than positivity. That's why you're pestered on apps for reviews - it really skews the reviews if they make it easy, simple and in your face. Far less motivation required.

 

[Bruhmoment]

I am sorry but there are some assumptions and data interpretation I found invalid. Those large numbers provoke me.
All-time peak is meaningless. We have to consider the trends (more and more people can afford and run AAA titles at release) + advertisment (hype generation) + you must play it day 1 attitude. Many games nowadays, civ6 included, have a powerful day1 peak followed by rapid downfall. All the data related to it (especially %) should be ignored.
Big all-time peak, 24H peak, current values, but no averages (either last day/week/month)... very, very naughty. I will include avg:

Last 30 Days

34,611.7

January 2022

41,708.8

Data taken from: https://steamcharts.com/app/289070
Those numbers do not look good for civ6, I hope the values are at least +50% (since civ6 is available on consoles).

Ever since release I read "it is vanilla, we have to wait for expansions", "we have two expansions, but civ5 is X years of modding scene", it is returning argument that civ6 isn't final. I am sorry, but civ6 reached maturity, in fact considering NFP it received the most development in the series. It cannot be more mature after 6 years.

There is a little doubt that civ6 sales are better, but it is also mark of time (high % of game owners who do not even play once; it is not only related to civ series)(etc.).

The reasons for purchases are pure speculation, I have much different assumptions. Civ6 is the newest iteration (often ignored - in opposite to the lack of "maturity") which is quite a big factor, isn't it? Most casual players will go for the newest game in the series. The factor for civ5 nowadays are lower requirements.

Back to the numbers, we would have to compare them with civ5 pre-civ6 release (2016). I included only avg players again:

April 2016

34,055.3

July 2016

43,326.5

Data taken from: https://steamcharts.com/app/8930
As I wrote, it does not look good for civ6 at all and it has to face the test of time (civ7 release) yet.
I don't understand steam reviews at all (basic human psychology would indicate that negative reviews should outnumber positive ones) and I find it hard to interpret them. I would say that in 2016 there was already an actual trend to negative-bash bad releases (civ5 dodged it) which would explain the difference in negatives.

Well civ6 obviously ain't doing HORRIBLY, but it's still fascinating to see civ 5 have almost half the players that civ 6 has. Technically, you're not wrong when you say the game is "done", but it's not fully matured, either. All of the dlc's have been released, but not enough time has passed for it to be considered fully done. Obviously, since you modded civ 5, you might have a personal bias towards the game.
Civ 6 didn't fail - it still has several big youtubers playing the game - now, if you look at civilization 5, I wouldn't be able to name out big youtubers that play it anymore, previously, there was FilthyRobot, Marbozir, etc.
I think it's just a race to see which game collapses in on itself first

 

[AA-Ritz]

I'd add another thing, which is that unpacked cities seems to make a civilization smaller, not larger. I like the district mechanism, but even on large maps, a player quickly runs out of free space. In contrast, Civ V's cities maintain open spaces between them, creating a sense of real distance and open ground. Your civilization simply feels larger. There are other benefits to one-tile cities, as well - islands are easier to settle and terrain is easier to read.

I've been spending some time back in V lately and had this same thought. I do like the districts but the sense of scale is lost. I think the fact you can put a district essentially anywhere in a city's boundary contributes. I would like to see a smaller scale version of districts and the requirement that they are adjacent to the city center or another district that is so that they all have to be connected within a more compact space. Coupled with an increase in the minimum tile distance between cities might restore a larger feel.

 

[LastSword]

It isn't meaningless, you have to take into account context. You have to look at how much was retained. 6 years after release, all those factors have disappeared, yet Civy has retained not only higher numbers if players, but a higher proportion of it's peak. Both say it's the more popular game...pretty much by definition. A higher peak would make it harder to retain players - if a higher peaker is retain a higher proportion of players, speaks to how much it appeals to players.

I am sorry, but if anything you should compare a peak in average players.
If you truely believe it is important than civ5 has retained a much better percentage after 6 years than civ6.
In six years we will be able to compare civ5 after 12 years and civ6 after 12 years.

You mention a big killer of the Civ5 argument - Civ5 on Steam competes with Civ5 on Epic and CD. Civ6 on Steam competes with both of those...plus Xbox, PlayStation and Switch. More on this later. Civ5 is massively cheaper as well. I had the opportunity a little while ago to get Civ5 and everything with it for less than £5. The cheapest I've seen the Civ6 equivalent is £25.
If that's true, that Civ6 has reached maturity, then the numbers are comparable, and they favour Civ 6.

Civ5 on DVD still required steam (at least mine did). Otherwise we can consider civ5's peak to be undervalued. :> What about sharing? We lack any proper data.
Hardly a killer argument. One could argue that civ5 would be more popular if it were available on other platforms.
The price I find irrevelant, otherwise one can argue civ6's popularity is inflated, because it was free on epic games.

While it will be interesting to see how far it drops with Civ 7, this was pre Civ6 and roughly about the position is Civ6 is in now (a bit longer after latest DLC, however, Civ6 has been plagued by problems in the fanbase due to the issues that came with NFP (deserved, but a significant complication). Civ5 was also experiencing a significant uplift at the that time which I can only speculate on (it started before Civy was announced) but I guess that there were leaks about Civ6 spurring a revisit. Previously it was more like 30k. Still, while I don't have figures, when you consider console activity and increased prominence of Epic, Civy must be smashing those numbers.

I intentionally included low April value and high July (after civ6 announcement). Data does not indicate any significant uplift (July only slightly better than February). There was a significant (33%) drop after civ6 release though.
I am sorry, but those NFP issues are a nitpick in comparision to what civ5 received from civ4 fanbase.

Reviews are.different to complaints/compliments. You're far more likely to just ignore a game you don't like. This is different to complaints/compliments because you actually have to go out of your way to submit them and negativity is a far greater driver for significant action than positivity. That's why you're pestered on apps for reviews - it really skews the reviews if they make it easy, simple and in your face. Far less motivation required.

Yeah, I would just say it must be a generation gap thing, because for me making a review is also such a drag I have never bothered to make one.

Anyway, I was not arguing civ6 popularity (it is definitely more popular), just a math behind it. As you noticed we lack all the needed data and we shouldn't flash those big numbers around.
Popularity is rather irrevelant, civ5 was more popular than civ4 and... yeah, it was not necessary better or more polished stuff.
I am concerned about civ6 numbers, because I would like for series to thrive and expand. New game in the series not only should peak a precedessor but also by a proper exponential margin.
And as a sales go, the data gathering will continue. It is so complicated, because one can assume that civ5 was responsible for a good civ6 numbers. Every game in the series is an advertisement for the next one. As the popularity goes, civ6 will be also judged in some way by civ7 values. Crazy, isn't it?

 

[aieeegrunt]

I think it's very personal which one you like better. The fact that civ 5 despite being the older version still has 10-20k players still on it shows that it has some staying power, for sure. It's not just people that have picked it up on a 5$ sale. My view is very clear based on my personal Steam stats, where I have over 3x more hours in civ 6 rather than civ 5. Of course, I never really got around to trying Vox Populi, maybe if I had, I would have stuck around longer on civ 5.

At least for me, even if the civ 6 AI is pretty pathetic at times, Civ 6 is actually still a fun sandbox game. Like, it can be fun optimizing your cities, building up your land, role-playing your leader, etc... Just because you don't have to be a perfect tactician to defeat the AI, it can still be a good game. I never really saw the same thing in civ 5. Whether it was game balance or something else, it just never really kept me wanting to come back to give it another shot. But 6 still has enough that I still have things I kind of want to try, so I'm still not bored by it. Like my current game is at this point a single player game within a single player game - I can just ignore the AI completely, and play my own game. And it's still more or less fun to continue going through, optimizing things, making my land and my empire as good as it can be. I don't think I ever felt that way in civ 5.

I can’t remember specifics but civ 5 definitly missed the mark in a big way for me

 

[Cedbird77]

I've been stuck with only a tablet for a bit, so went back and loaded up Civ V to see how it compared as a final product to Civ VI as a final product. It made me realize that for all the conveniences and improvements to Civ VI (an in-game clock!), there was always something about Civ VI that seemed to be missing: emergent storytelling.

TL;DR: Civ VI is better in almost every way except in the thing that I liked most about Civ V, which was its feeling of emergent storytelling, and I think the cause is Civ VI's agenda system.

Here's the scenario: I started out as Morocco on a nice desert floodplain. I quickly realized that I was pinned between an ocean on one side and two city-states on the other. I needed space to expand. On the other side of the city-states was the Maya, who had pledged to protect both. I focused on building up my military, and raiding and weakening the nearest city-state. Pacal warned me to leave it alone, and I blew him off. My second attack resulted in the Maya declaring war and advancing with a large army of inexperienced and obsolete units, who I slaughtered in a pitched battle across the river. I then advanced and conquered the nearest city-state.

Why it matters: Now I may have no idea what the AI was "thinking," but that scenario is as clear as anything Thucydides would write. I had obvious reasons for doing what I was doing, and the Maya had obvious reasons for doing what they were doing. I needed to expand, and the Maya needed to maintain a buffer state and uphold their credibility. OF COURSE I had more experienced and upgraded units, because I was focused on military expansion. OF COURSE the Maya threw a large, unprepared army against me, because it had to build its forces quickly once it realized the threat and while it still could benefit from the nearby city-state units. Whether that was the result of good AI or just happenstance is kind of irrelevant, because it's the kind of thing that I recall happening in most of my Civ V games, where my mind was always able to ascribe clear motives to the AI's moves.

That's just not something that happens in the Civ VI, and I think that's why the game has always felt unsatisfying despite its leaps forward in game mechanics and its vast array of leaders and civilizations.

If I had to guess why Civ VI lacks a sense of emerging storytelling, I'd guess that it's the fault of the agenda system. In theory, an agenda system sounds cool - hey, leaders are people too, and they have biases. But in practice, it creates random incentives and disincentives that don't seem to have any real weight to them. The AI attacks you just because. It wants to trade with you just because. It wants what it wants for no real reason and with no rational explanation.

If there's something to be learned from this, it's that Civ VII could improve by losing the agenda system. I don't blame Firaxis for trying it - it was worth a shot! But some things just don't work out. The name of the game is "Civilization," not "Leader," and tying a civ's story to the whims of one regent makes the game actually feel less realistic, not more. After all, in real life, heads of state do lots of things they aren't interested in because they need to shore up political support. LBJ wanted to create a huge welfare state in the USA; he wound up micromanaging a war in East Asia.

My suggestion: Firaxis, you like 1/3 new. How about the 1/3 new being rotating leaders? If a leader's agenda is at odds with the needs of that civilization, that leader is replaced with someone who will [push back the enemy/improve happiness/fix the budget crisis]. It would put new emphasis on the long-term interests of a Civ. It could create new mini-games/strategies in that players could try to get hostile leaders switched out with politicians more amenable to your civ. It would be more realistic, since countries do change leaders and vice-versa. And it would allow for all sorts of new gameplay mechanics, such as democracy being advantageous in that its changes of leaders are less disruptive but occur more often, whereas monarchies are the opposite.

What say you, Civ fans?

Civ 6 is a great game. But if I were to close my eyes and pick one. Civ 5 is better. You touched on some of the things. For me it is Civ 5 was a tougher game. The AI was better and they brought the heat militarily every now and then. Civ 5 was much more complete as the series went along. Civ 6 was never a complete game. There are still too many loose ends. But I still have a lot of fun playing it.

 

[shaglio]

It's funny, but for me, the things that I like better about Civ 6 are all simple and superficial. Things like Map Pins, Lenses, keeping your Pantheon when another religion is the majority in your city, and the fact that, once you unlock the ability for ships to enter ocean, they all can do it without having to be upgraded to Caravels and Frigates. Those are the little things that make it harder for me to go back to Civ 5.

What I don't like about Civ 6, and therefore don't miss when going back to Civ 5, is the major features: Districts, Governors, Religious Combat, Natural Disasters, the Global Warming mechanic, and Civ 6's version of Golden Ages. Sadly, it's these things that are likely to be carried forward into Civ 7, and don't make me optimistic for my chances of enjoying the game.

 

[blackbutterfly]

Civ 6 is a great game. But if I were to close my eyes and pick one. Civ 5 is better. You touched on some of the things. For me it is Civ 5 was a tougher game. The AI was better and they brought the heat militarily every now and then.

Yes, and this is key!
Civ V is a far more challenging game

Nostalgia playing Old World made me crack open Civ V after a decade.
It's scenarios are truly exceptional. Into the Renaissance and Scramble For Africa.

 

[Green172]

The civ 5 scenarios were 1000 betters than whatever Firaxis dragged in for 6, I don't like 5, but I've put most of the time I played messing around in the cool scenarios. I'll stay with 6 generally.

 

[blackbutterfly]

The civ 5 scenarios were 1000 betters than whatever Firaxis dragged in for 6, I don't like 5, but I've put most of the time I played messing around in the cool scenarios. I'll stay with 6 generally.

Oh, you might like the scenarios I did for Civ VI then

Inspired by the two Conquests of The New World scenarios and adding a little Civ VI flavor -> Colonization of The New World & Colonization of The New World DELUXE.
(These are on Steam. If anyone wants them on CivFanatics let me know and I'll post them).

 

[Redaxe]

The civ 5 scenarios were 1000 betters than whatever Firaxis dragged in for 6, I don't like 5, but I've put most of the time I played messing around in the cool scenarios. I'll stay with 6 generally.

The only sad part is that they didn't upgrade Wonders of the Ancient World & Into the Renaissance with BNW

 

[agonistes]

I'd add another thing, which is that unpacked cities seems to make a civilization smaller, not larger. I like the district mechanism, but even on large maps, a player quickly runs out of free space. In contrast, Civ V's cities maintain open spaces between them, creating a sense of real distance and open ground. Your civilization simply feels larger. There are other benefits to one-tile cities, as well - islands are easier to settle and terrain is easier to read.

While I'm happy to recommend that Firaxis ditch the agenda system, I'm less enthusiastic about removing districts. However, perhaps they can integrate more into the districts, the way they brought back "stacked armies" in the form of Corps and Armies. Two easy ways to do this: (a) let cities build neighborhoods in districts, and (2) bring wonders back into city centers. Integrating non-specialty districts into specialty districts (an aquaduct runs through this theater district!) would do a lot to reduce clutter and keep more space between cities.

I agree.

While I enjoyed slapping down districts and such, by the end of a game the map was too cluttered. Also, the game had incredibly small maps. Having an empire was impossible.

The ai couldn't handle war, there was too much unit cluster (sometimes literally every single tile had a unit - how is that fun?), diplomacy was awful...

Vi has nice visibles and sounds, but its not much of a 4x grand strategy game. And its tiny tiny tiny.

At least V let you build an empire.

 

[Redaxe]

It's funny, but for me, the things that I like better about Civ 6 are all simple and superficial. Things like Map Pins, Lenses, keeping your Pantheon when another religion is the majority in your city, and the fact that, once you unlock the ability for ships to enter ocean, they all can do it without having to be upgraded to Caravels and Frigates. Those are the little things that make it harder for me to go back to Civ 5.

What I don't like about Civ 6, and therefore don't miss when going back to Civ 5, is the major features: Districts, Governors, Religious Combat, Natural Disasters, the Global Warming mechanic, and Civ 6's version of Golden Ages. Sadly, it's these things that are likely to be carried forward into Civ 7, and don't make me optimistic for my chances of enjoying the game.

Interesting - I read about Civ 6 and the graphics, the Districts (just seemed an unnecessary forced mechanic) & Religious Victory turned me off. Religious Victory in particular - without breaking the rules of the forum - Out of all the religions in the world there's only 2 that have an obsession with 'saving, conquering or converting people' and those are both abrahamic religions. Eastern religions like Buddhism & Taoism are much closer to philosophies that emphasis balance and harmony with your environment. Religion in Civ 5 was definitely better designed. It was more of a bonus system that you could use to augment your victory condition; be it conquest, culture or diplomacy but it was more of a means to end.

That said the biggest let downs in Civ 5 is the excessive micromanagement of tiles - spending half of your time moving workers around to build farms is a pretty terrible design decision - why can't cities build farms themselves? I'd rather they put more mechanics in the game (like governments, taxation, health etc...) that require more management of your civilisation and also allow for faster growth in the ancient era but introduce a dark age mechanic too to make overextension more risky. BNW really took a mediocre game and made it unique but it is still let down by a boring early-mid game that carries too many badly designed mechanics from the Vanilla Civ 5.

 

[blackbutterfly]

The only sad part is that they didn't upgrade Wonders of the Ancient World

But the ancient world scenario was the precursor to Conquests of Alexander in Civ VI.

IMO it's an improvement.

As for Into the Renaissance, I'm considering porting it to Civ VI. Is there any interest?

When I ported Conquests of the New World I really made it for Civ VI, giving it a scrambled New World (instead of a completely random one) and incorporated the Preserve district (and ethos):

Civ is all about "the chop" so I wanted to turn that on it's head, especially in light of climate change.

Re: settling the Americas, "What if you could start over?". Chop or preserve?

I hope you check it out.

 

[Iconian]

@Linklite

There are lots of factors to think about when considering the popularity of any games. I haven't gone into the data in depth, but from what I can tell I think Civ 5 has more staying power, and more people seem to consider it the better game.



The most important thing that I feel was neglected in the posts above:

Civilization 5 came out in September 2010. Steamcharts doesn't have any data for Civ 5--or any games, so far as I can tell--before June 2012.

So Civ 5 was out for almost two years before the data you quoted started to be recording. I'd very much bet that Civ 5's actual peak number of players came sometime in those first two years before Steam began to track the data.

In addition to this, I suspect every game in the series will be more popular than the previous one simply through momentum. For example: if in 2018 you've never played a Civilization game, but you keep hearing more and more about them for years and decide you want to try it out, chances are that you're just going to go and buy the most recent one and play it, rather than try to look back and figure out which is the best one.

It would be my guess that in 10 or 20 years, if Civ 7 is never released, more people will probably be playing and looking back fondly on 5 than 6. I just think it has more staying power.

 

[Redaxe]

But the ancient world scenario was the precursor to Conquests of Alexander in Civ VI.

IMO it's an improvement.

As for Into the Renaissance, I'm considering porting it to Civ VI. Is there any interest?

When I ported Conquests of the New World I really made it for Civ VI, giving it a scrambled New World (instead of a completely random one) and incorporated the Preserve district (and ethos):

Civ is all about "the chop" so I wanted to turn that on it's head, especially in light of climate change.

Re: settling the Americas, "What if you could start over?". Chop or preserve?

I hope you check it out.

I was actually in the process of designing a Civ 5 'Into the Classical Era' which would be the sequel to Wonders of the Ancient World - I guess it would be similar to the Conquests of Alexander but more of a parallel universe. Until I lost my harddrive and I didn't have anything backed up...

The scenario would start around 330 BC in an alternate world where Alexander failed to conquer Persia and his empire had split up into various factions.
Factions would be Ptolemaic Egypt, Rome, Carthage, Celts, Persians among others..... The map is mostly already covered by historical cities, most ancient/classical wonders from WotAW (Mausoleum, Temple of Artemis, Pyramids, Great Lighthouse etc...) are already on the map and most are owned by CityStates in their historical locations. If you want Wonders you'll need to conquer them. Only a handful of Wonders such as Oracle & Great Library are able to be built (those with 1 off bonuses).

Some CityStates like Tyre would have access to unique resources like Tyrian Dyes - this and most Wonders being owned by CityStates makes this an objective based map. I wanted to have an overhaul of Religion and Social Policies to be more focused on trade based empires and late-classical autocracies but maybe one day i'll pick it up again.

 

[blackbutterfly]

I was actually in the process of designing a Civ 5 'Into the Classical Era' which would be the sequel to Wonders of the Ancient World - I guess it would be similar to the Conquests of Alexander but more of a parallel universe. Until I lost my harddrive and I didn't have anything backed up...

One word: GitHub.

I highly recommend source control for Civ modders everywhere.
I know modding is the wild wild west of programming (hacking?) but it's only when you lose your hard drive do you appreciate software engineering

 

[Bridog7]

When playing Civ VI early on, I still thought 5 was the better game, but after playing Civ VI for a long time, and then playing 5 for first time in a while. This is a hot take, but Civ V to me does not age well. By that I mean, I'm just not a fan of the graphics at this point in time. Like yes Civ IV is old, but it feels timeless the look. You still feel you're a new game but with more simplistic graphics, whereas 5 does feel like it's from 10 years go. It's still a great game, but I would much rather play VI. I know people criticize the cartoon graphics, but I actually don't mind it, and plus it is what we had for Civ Rev. Which was so much fun to play.