Is Civ6 worth it over Civ5?

[Civrinn]

I think the only thing I really do like from Civ 6 is unpacking cities. I think that can be the way forward for the Civ series. The rest, they all can get canned. I stopped playing Civ 6 around R+F and downloaded VP mod for Civ 5. Still playing VP.

 

[Patine]

I think the only thing I really do like from Civ 6 is unpacking cities. I think that can be the way forward for the Civ series. The rest, they all can get canned. I stopped playing Civ 6 around R+F and downloaded VP mod for Civ 5. Still playing VP.

Civ6 does indeed have annoying warts. But it sounds like Civ5 does too. My personal other standby iteration is Civ2, myself, and I don't think 3, 4, or 5 will ever realistically fill that slot.

 

[Acken]

Civ6 could have been great if polished. As it is though it's a mess and I feel it fell ill to the idea that simply adding more and more features will somehow make a great game rather than balancing a few of them. And it can't even be seriously modded afaik.

Ive been enjoying the community games of civ5 more and I think it's time I give VP another go soon.

 

[Mahi]

Is VP supporting multiplayer? I think that's the biggest joke in Civ 5; how hard it is to get mods working with multiplayers, when that actually promoted Civ 5 to be a multiplayer game as much as it was single player.

 

[ashendashin]

Is VP supporting multiplayer? I think that's the biggest joke in Civ 5; how hard it is to get mods working with multiplayers, when that actually promoted Civ 5 to be a multiplayer game as much as it was single player.

You can make a modpack for multiplayer https://civ-5-cbp.fandom.com/wiki/Creating_a_Modpack
Otherwise people post their own modpacks https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/vp-modpack-magnus-mutatio.639974/
Stability is an issue tho

 

[Archon_Wing]

Sorry to tell you that city spam is always the BEST solution in Civ6, which is far more than in Civ5 and Civ4. In Civ5, with 6 cities you will not fall behind too much than with 15 cities if you planning well, but in C6 you might even lose your game if not have enough cities.
City spam punishment is large in Civ5, but in Civ6 there is no punishment, and even give you happiness bonus for new cities; each city can provide huge output if you have a good place and large population in Civ5, but in Civ6 each city has a cap on output, no matter how well you planning.

Yea but you still have to place cities correctly since Settler costs increase so settling random desert spots probably isn't helpful. It's not like say, old school civ, where you just use cities to make more settlers. I think the more accurate note is that there is no real penalty to capturing cities as those are effectively free--- Civ 4 at least made it so that you needed to make sure every city you settled was self-sustaining. As a result, having a lot of cities and city spam has a difference.

And more cities was still better in Civ 4. As it should be. "Tall" is a Civ 5 aberration that basically rewards people for doing nothing, and relying on lucky starts (or bonused civs) and hope you get all your resources in the same spot. Or at least when people want to impose it on 6.... When people start calling 8 city empires wide...ugh; this a'int Sim City. Especially not when I have Sim City 4 regions with more than that.

In the end, Civ 6 fails here because it lacks big % boosts that the previous games got right. I mean, t3 buildings are a bit better now, but they're still too slow

 

[civvver]

Civ6 is more in line with other civ games. Civ5 is really the outlier, it has almost nothing in common with the other games. Which one you prefer just comes down to preference, but if you didn't consider 5 the epitome of the series you'll likely enjoy 6 more and vice versa, cus some people really love 5.

 

[Patine]

Civ6 is more in line with other civ games. Civ5 is really the outlier, it has almost nothing in common with the other games. Which one you prefer just comes down to preference, but if you didn't consider 5 the epitome of the series you'll likely enjoy 6 more and vice versa, cus some people really love 5.

I don't think Civ2, my other go-to iteration of the game, is anything like the others, either (and certainly not Civ5, from what I've heard of it).

 

[Aristos]

And more cities was still better in Civ 4. As it should be. "Tall" is a Civ 5 aberration that basically rewards people for doing nothing, and relying on lucky starts (or bonused civs) and hope you get all your resources in the same spot. Or at least when people want to impose it on 6.... When people start calling 8 city empires wide...ugh; this a'int Sim City. Especially not when I have Sim City 4 regions with more than that.

No in VP it isn't. As I said before, and as a strong one-liner, VP combines the best of both civ 4 and civ 5 into one pack, plus a cunning AI. Civ 6 will never achieve that (unless same team starts working on Civ 6 VP, but they already said multiple times they "hate" civ 6, so no chances there...). In fact, civ 6 is the "joke" in the VP forums. Literally. We joke about it.

 

[ashendashin]

but they already said multiple times they "hate" civ 6, so no chances there

Well, actual responses from G on whether there could be a VP for Civ6 were more along "this is enough of a project for me" or expressing doubt at Firaxis allowing modders the capability. At least that's what I remember right now.
Though there definitely hasn't been many good things said afaik, if at all.

 

[greenOak]

No in VP it isn't. As I said before, and as a strong one-liner, VP combines the best of both civ 4 and civ 5 into one pack, plus a cunning AI. Civ 6 will never achieve that (unless same team starts working on Civ 6 VP, but they already said multiple times they "hate" civ 6, so no chances there...). In fact, civ 6 is the "joke" in the VP forums. Literally. We joke about it.

And I joke about how civ5 is trash (even with VP) among people who think the same way I do. What's your point?

 

[Archon_Wing]

No in VP it isn't. As I said before, and as a strong one-liner, VP combines the best of both civ 4 and civ 5 into one pack, plus a cunning AI. Civ 6 will never achieve that (unless same team starts working on Civ 6 VP, but they already said multiple times they "hate" civ 6, so no chances there...). In fact, civ 6 is the "joke" in the VP forums. Literally. We joke about it.

I mean, I wasn't talking about VP.... I have no interest in body measuring contests on this topic. I was just mentioning the concept of tall being a terrible meme and it clearly originated from Civ 5.. Whether or not mods corrected it or not is another issue since it clearly holds sway as a concept, and I'm somewhat glad it's a dead meme given 6's development.

 

[Boyan_Sun]

In the end, Civ 6 fails here because it lacks big % boosts that the previous games got right. I mean, t3 buildings are a bit better now, but they're still too slow

That's the point. In Civ4 & Civ5, population provide the base, and buildings generally provide the % boosts; but in Civ6, both population and buildings provide base, but nearly no % boosts. And the districts/buildings provide base yield more efficient than population, but you can only have one in each city, so... if you really to maximum some yield, the best way is getting another city then build that specific district. Moreover, to gain more population, it's faster to spread small cities than to grow slowly in big cities - much less food needed. Because of the absence of % scalar to a specific city, these populations yield the same, no matter where they are.

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.

In Civ4 specialization is through something like Wall Street/Academy that provides huge % boosts, or say "National Wonders". This max-min effect results from the fact that a pop or something that provides a corresponding output creates more value in this specialized city than it does elsewhere. Unfortunately Civ6 really lacks of them. GS made the Governors some same effects but I don't think that's enough. Of course, it's perfectly OK to play in your favorite way, you can even win OCC in Civ6, but it requires some very interesting mathematics, a little bit of skills and lucks.

And it really doesn't matter what the difficulty is, more cities are always going to be easier to win than less cities. I personally think finding efficient ways to reduce difficulty is one of the reasons why strategic games are named "strategic". But it is just a game, not reality. In real world bigger is not always better than small I think.

 

[Archon_Wing]

That's the point. In Civ4 & Civ5, population provide the base, and buildings generally provide the % boosts; but in Civ6, both population and buildings provide base, but nearly no % boosts. And the districts/buildings provide base yield more efficient than population, but you can only have one in each city, so... if you really to maximum some yield, the best way is getting another city then build that specific district.

Yea populatjion is so weak; I always thought specialists need to really be a bigger deal.

 

[Ferocitus]

Not true. In my opinion, Civ 5, as released by Firaxis...

As released it was crash-prone rubbish. It took quite a while to stabilise.

Not for everybody, it isn't.

Of course. No game can satisfy 95% of players. Those last 5%, the disgruntled and the nostalgic, have many other options, from Civ 1 to Civ5, so it's not that serious a concern.

 

[acluewithout]

GS made the Governors some same effects but I don't think that's enough.

One thing that holds back Governors from buffing high pop cities is that you can only have one of each type. If you could have, say, two Reynas, you could really use pop to generate gold etc.

Bringing back % boosts for Tier 3 buildings would also maybe help - and also maybe buff Tier 3 buildings - but only for players that don’t win before Tier 3 buildings pop up.

 

[Ferocitus]

One thing that holds back Governors from buffing high pop cities is that you can only have one of each type. If you could have, say, two Reynas, you could really use pop to generate gold etc.

Bringing back % boosts for Tier 3 buildings would also maybe help - and also maybe buff Tier 3 buildings - but only for players that don’t win before Tier 3 buildings pop up.

There are people complaining that it's too easy to win in R&F/GS. Apparently, that's because people hate to lose. And now you are proposing changes that would make it even easier to win at high levels?
LOLX999

 

[acluewithout]

There are people complaining that it's too easy to win in R&F/GS. Apparently, that's because people hate to lose. And now you are proposing changes that would make it even easier to win at high levels?
LOLX999

Governors and their abilities would need to be reworked a bit. And there would still have to be limits to how many times you could select, say, Pingala. It would take some balancing, but done right, you’d be able to have a few of your Cities grow large and be useful, but not all of them, and you still want wide play for great people points / districts etc.

 

[Bradypus]

No in VP it isn't. As I said before, and as a strong one-liner, VP combines the best of both civ 4 and civ 5 into one pack, plus a cunning AI. Civ 6 will never achieve that (unless same team starts working on Civ 6 VP, but they already said multiple times they "hate" civ 6, so no chances there...). In fact, civ 6 is the "joke" in the VP forums. Literally. We joke about it.

I don't frequent game forums for games I dislike. I hope to continue having better things to do than telling people why the things they enjoy are inferior to what I enjoy.

And although I find VP enjoyable, I think I'll stay clear of those forums.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

As released it was crash-prone rubbish. It took quite a while to stabilise.

"as released" meaning the version of Civ 5 you can buy now from Steam, unmodded.

Of course. No game can satisfy 95% of players. Those last 5%, the disgruntled and the nostalgic, have many other options, from Civ 1 to Civ5, so it's not that serious a concern.

​

In the context of a thread asking if Civ 6 is worth it over Civ 5, it's a stretch to suggest that 95% of players would prefer Civ 6. It's even more of a stretch to suggest that for those that don't, it's simply because they're disgruntled or nostalgic.

I will agree it's not a concern. Civ 6 is it's own game and the dev team should continue to develop it in a way that appeals to it's fans.