I have been recently playing civ5, and wondering how do both games compare both in big and very small aspects. The more specific the better, and the less obvious the better (yes, I do dislike civ6 art style as well ) CIV6 > CIV5: WONDER HOARDING One pet peeve which is very rarely (if ever) mentioned. I have always hated how in civ5 there was often this one insane AI wonder builder. With very advanced tech (seemingly focusing on wonders specifically). With a single incredibly OP city (usually capital). Which hoards like half of global wonders of architecture. Very annoying and unbalanced, it is fantastic how in civ6 terrain requirements and free space spread wonders across many cities over the map. CIV6 > CIV5: CITY STATE BUYING Oh God, gold being the main resource needed when handling CS, with their "progress bar" going forever downwards. Annoying as all hells in countless ways (sudden ally sniping, insane AI empires buying everybody with infinite gold, constant pushing beyond the dreaded "lose status" margin). Unabalanced (only gold matters, with constant unreachable runaways). Anti immersive (CS diplomacy being all about throwing money at them). Envoys are so much better. CIV5 > CIV6: TRAVEL TIMES Never understood the need to nerf roads and make rough terrain even rougher. As if the combat and army system in these games couldn't be any more tedious. CIV5 > CIV6: GRAVITAS Forget about art style, there is something deep under the skin of civ5 which makes it more serious, somber and majestic, which is a plus for me - we are building a civilization to stand the test of time, after all.