Is Civ6 worth it over Civ5?

[Ferocitus]

Civ 6/R&F/GS is far more beautiful, interesting and complex.
You should never pay full price for Firaxis games because they treat their fan base with contempt by releasing buggy versions that they don't fix for a couple of years.

 

[Bibor]

No real expert on this forum will disagree with these facts because they are correct and I am at a total loss why you would think otherwise.

Okay then:

That if you do not have enough cities you can lose due to this.

On what difficulty level? There's no mention of that in the OP. The game can be played on Settler to Deity.

Equally while I prefer 6 over 5 you cannot say that air combat in 6 is superior to that in 5. You cannot say that if you are a tall player who prefers a few cities that 6 is better than 5, world congress? .. and most importantly, the GUI in 6 has a lot to be desired..

What you're doing is moving a person from civ6 for no reason, the very game you're actively playing. I see no point in this whatsoever. Also, you're trying to prove me wrong by whataboutism. "Civ6 is superior to Civ5 in every way" - "Yeah, but what about User Interface". When taking all game systems into account, Civ6 is superior to 5. You can find nooks and crannies all day long, just to prove your point.

@Boyan_Sun is one of the best people out there for sharing invaluable knowledge shows a level of disrespect or ignorance that could be damaging to this forum if @Boyan_Sun takes offence.

I didn't single anyone out, you did that.
Having first part of a sentence right, and the second part wrong, does not make the whole sentence right. If I say "It's raining outside, and your coat is green", it might be raining outside but that doesn't make your coat automatically green. It's a very common logical fallacy not just on the civ6 forums but also otherwise. @Boyan_Sun can take as much offence as he wants, if he wants, but there's no valid argument to be had with statements like his, if he doesn't point out the parameters.
A proper sentence would be: "When playing on the highest difficulty level and while aiming for the fastest possible victory, having more cities is always more benficial due to how the mechanics work, compared to those in Civ5."
Various types of players play this game in various ways. Not everyone is interested in what he specifically does or how he does it.

Having clocked over 20.000 hours in Sid 4X games, I can say with some confidence very little can escape my scrutiny in any new civ title, and while I find some features perhaps irritating, I can assure you that Civ6 GS (not vanilla) is a superior game to Civ5. This doesn't mean some people won't prefer Civ5, but without knowing more about the OP and his/her interests, guiding him/her away from civ6 is a really bold thing to do.

Tell that to the Prince of Liechtenstein

And again, whataboutism. That's why I put the (cities) into brackets. More can mean anything from more money per capita to better education per child to more soldiers per enemy. Everything counts. As a wise person said, "Quantity is a quality all of its own"

 

[Victoria]

On what difficulty level? There's no mention of that in the OP. The game can be played on Settler to Deity.

On Prince you can lose with 3 cities easier than you can lose with 6 cities, same on settler. Difficulty does not matter.

What you're doing is moving a person from civ6 for no reason,

The reason is they asked for a balanced fair opinion, not a civ6 is best opinion

I can assure you that Civ6 is a superior game to Civ5.

I have re-installed civV with the Vox expansion and am enjoying the game better than VI currently. It is a question of opinion only. I did play a VI game the other day and lost a unit to a tornado early as well as my capital suffering drought at T16. The flood plains were 1/1 tiles and I just hated it.

 

[Bibor]

I have re-installed civV with the Vox expansion and am enjoying the game better than VI currently. It is a question of opinion only. I did play a VI game the other day and lost a unit to a tornado early as well as my capital suffering drought at T16. The flood plains were 1/1 tiles and I just hated it.

Or you could just be suffering from Civ(6) burnout, which happens to most of us

 

[Victoria]

Or you could just be suffering from Civ(6) burnout, which happens to most of us

Nope I am suffering from irrational feelings toward the design of Victoria and have suffered a bad run of random events that really changed my situation out of my control.

 

[Bibor]

Nope I am suffering from irrational feelings toward the design of Victoria

I agree that Vicky's design is pretty terrible.

 

[Ferocitus]

I agree that Vicky's design is pretty terrible.

It might be a bad design, or it might be an appropriate mess: Victoria didn't actually do much of consequence herself, except vector haemophilia.

 

[Czacki]

Thank you guys for all the input. To clarify: it's not that I really hate expanding or having many cities (no problem there!). What puts me off is ie. when you don't even construct buildings in cities, but instead just spam settlers to get more cities, because more cities beats upgrading your old ones by a wide margin. I believe Civ4 worked that way to an extent at a time. I loved the game but it always annoyed me how meaningless it is to properly manage cities. When playing against my friends, they'd often get the advantage by just spamming average settlements everywhere you could get enough food. My favorite was to create specialized towns, ie. commerce towns (fun with Financial trait obviously ), sea town (great lighthouse), military town (lots of production + war academy from a great general), science town (with great library if possible), yada yada.

Since RPGs are my other favorite kind of games, I like minmaxing

 

[Victoria]

when you don't even construct buildings in cities,

To clarify. You are best to expand first to about 6-8 cities, more gets hard because settlers get expensive. Then after the expansion phase build districts and buildings in the cities. It is a lot more to think about than V

I like minmaxing

This is the game for you then. The idea is to make your victory faster rather than winning or not. That is what min-maxxers d on this version.

 

[Mahi]

VI is just such a huge change in game dynamics that it can be difficult to switch from V to VI. The new game seems to be alot more slow paced that its predecessors and has a different feel to it. In many cases I find VI to be flat out boring, honestly because it feels so slow to me but I keep coming back to it because I haven't figured out to play it in a way that entertains me as much as IV and V did - and I am having difficulties accepting that .. But is the very reason why I'm waiting to buy GS on sale.

I am still, to this day really struggling to get used to the Policy Cards and I'm far away to be convinced that I will ever like them. I think it's the constant planning ahead on timing your Policy cards to be effective and optimal that grind my gears. I appreciate the variations they wanted to implement with the dynamic Policy Cards but I just like Policy Trees better. In a way I think it also make sense that your decesion on early policies will affect your civilization through time. They are the fundament pillars of your civilization's culture and way of living. Policy Cards is just a nerdy pain in the butt, where you need remember to change them all the time depending on what you want to construct next (for example) but you constantly need to time it with new civic unlocks.

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

Or you could just be suffering from Civ(6) burnout, which happens to most of us

That's where I am. I hate it too, since I have to still finish the game with Mali.

For how cheap you can pick up V and VI during sales, I think there is room for both. That said, I give the nod to VI because it offers more toys to play with.

 

[Aristos]

Civ 5 has Vox Populi.

Enough said.

 

[ashendashin]

Civ 5 has Vox Populi.

Enough said.

You've been very pro VP lately. I've not played in what must be well over a year now. Seen anything cool? I still remember always watching out for Ethiopia bribing everyone he could to attack me whenever I got a lead of any sort.

 

[Aristos]

You've been very pro VP lately. I've not played in what must be well over a year now. Seen anything cool? I still remember always watching out for Ethiopia bribing everyone he could to attack me whenever I got a lead of any sort.

Many things have changed in the last few months/weeks. I recommend you pay a visit to the forum, and re-install it if you don't have it. Beats civ 6 blindfolded, handcuffed, leg-amputated. Especially the AI. A superb experience now: the best of civ 4 and civ 5 in one package.

 

[ashendashin]

Beats civ 6 blindfolded, handcuffed, leg-amputated

Stay away from G! He still has much to improve, I'm sure! I don't wanna go back to my favorite oft updated project and see it die! It hasn't even reached gold status yet...

 

[Aristos]

Stay away from G! He still has much to improve, I'm sure! I don't wanna go back to my favorite oft updated project and see it die! It hasn't even reached gold status yet...

Why would it die?

 

[ashendashin]

Why would it die?

Are you implying slavery!? Madness! G's work will shine just as bright with or without cuffs!

Back to the topic, I was hoping for a story from you on one of the recent versions
Often enough there were some civs who's behavior stuck to memory back when I mostly played VP and nothing else. Haven't been playing Civ at all.

 

[Patine]

Though, at the end of the day, players should play and enjoy whichever iteration(s) of Civ that most resonates with them and they most like playing personally, from 1-6, and these toxic comparatives, condemnations, declarations of "objective higher quality", and trashtalking about various iterations (all of which I believe exceed gratuitously exactly what the thread-starter is even asking for) are not at all constructive or condusive to good fellowship.

 

[Aristos]

Haven't been playing Civ at all.

Blasphemy!

Don't let civ 6 destroy your civ-love... not worth it. Go back to whatever version you enjoyed the most, and keep civvin...

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I, myself, have never played Civ5, but I think it's the one that's essentially unplayable (in an enjoyable way) without one custom, highly-comprehensive, fan-made mod or another, if I recall hearing, and is very unsatisfying right out of the box, and feels unfinished. At least this is what I can gather.

Not true. In my opinion, Civ 5, as released by Firaxis, is a better balanced, more challenging, and more interesting game than Civ 6 at it's current stage of development.

Some people like Vox Populi, some people don't. Some people never liked Civ 5 and never will. But lots of people love Civ 5, unmodded.

Civ6 GS is superior to Civ5 in every way.

Civ 6/R&F/GS is far more beautiful, interesting and complex.

Not for everybody, it isn't. People who enjoy Civ 6 feel that way, but lots of other people have dropped Civ 6 because they find the game play is shallow, 99% of your mouse clicks are irrelevant, many of the underlying mechanics are terribly imbalanced, and trying to play the game is an exercise in ignoring how many stupid things are taking place around you.

Civ 6 is unlike any prior version of Civ. You may love it, as many people here do. But it's it's own thing, and if you think you're going to recreate the experience you had playing Civ 5, Civ 4, … Civ 1, you almost certainly won't
​

VI is just such a huge change in game dynamics that it can be difficult to switch from V to VI. The new game seems to be alot more slow paced that its predecessors and has a different feel to it. In many cases I find VI to be flat out boring, honestly because it feels so slow to me but I keep coming back to it because I haven't figured out to play it in a way that entertains me as much as IV and V did - and I am having difficulties accepting that .. But is the very reason why I'm waiting to buy GS on sale.

I admire your patience and hope you get to the point you find Civ 6 enjoyable!!