I don't think so... if civ 7 manages to be such a perfect game to overshadow civ 6... not only will civ 6 be forgotten but civ 4 and 5 will also be forgotten as well.
And You have every right to not care about this, just as much as those who would like to redo some gameplay elements and/or add new ones. Depth in modability of games makes them live longer. Whatever You care about it or not.
Is it robust? Not sure if my computer can handle it. Sometimes it barely handles all the official content which is one of the reasons why I've delayed trying them.
I never bought one for the Switch, but it probably would be the case for me.
I don't think Civ 4 will be forgotten considering how much it is mentioned on these forums as the "last true" Civilization game.
neither have I and I don't think I will considering just how BAD they get Korea wrong... even worse than they got them wrong in civ 6.
maybe to 10% of civ players who are die-hard purest. but to most civ players... they won't remember civ 4, heck I will even say right now 70% of civ players don't care for civ 4... remember people in this forum do NOT represent all of civ players.
Well, before anyone thinks I have more money than sense, I'll point out that I got it for the Switch and mostly play on the Switch, but I got a free copy of the base game on EpicI also didn't feel like paying twice for the same game/content.
So you've not understood anything of what I've written, it's not about a difference in quality between 4-5-6.
(Although Albro managed to make AI somehow use some stuff from the Mod (but not efficiently)).
then what is your point? Mod in civ 6 isn't bad.
how many people actually play civ 6 Vox Populi WORLD WIDE though? Not just civ frantics but world wide. And how many people play civ 6- with or without mod- world wide?
Not sure what's wrong with how Korea is implemented in Civ 4? To me the Native Americans look worse.
1. wangun ( Korean leader in civ 4) looks Chinese.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, even if they were to release a new expansion, it would not accomplish what I would want, as it seems they generally don't like to make systems interact too much. The fact that they made a World Congress system which doesn't affect diplomacy at all is a good example. It also seems like they are not really interested in reworking existing systems, instead preferring to do minor tweaks, like a +1 here and a -2 there. Contrast this with another great 4X, Stellaris. Not only have they introduced a lot of content, they have also completely reworked fundamental systems where they thought it would improve the game, and introduced new ones which are well integrated. I don't agree when people claim that something like every city starting with -1 amenity is a "huge change". It's small balance tweak. I don't believe we will ever see major changes unless it comes in the form of a complete overhaul modpack, akin to what Vox Populi did for Civ V.
But Fraxis did NOT madr vox populi... why are you comparing it to civ 6?
Hey, he agreed with that already!
but imho, don't ask him to explain it again and again as if it was not making any sense. 
I have to wonder if that's not part of the reason why they're not releasing the DLLs. It feels like a large proportion of people on the Civ 6 forum are actually players of previous games who played Civ 6 briefly, decided that itnsucked compared to their mods for 5 and promptly decided that they weren't going to spend any money on it and went back to 5 VP or whatever. Worse, they vent about it on here - there was definitely a period where, had I not already bought Civ 6, I'd have never bought it nor ever seriously considered any other Civ game because of what was being said. I daresay that there were people who were in that situation.Hey, he agreed with that already!
He also explained his point multiple times.
Just go into the subsections of the forum, check out the dates of last posts: you'll see Civ 4&5 have very recent activity.
Some people are still interested 15 years later in the awesome mods that were created. Some people are still developping and improving them.
Personnally, I find this really amazing.
Some people will also likely still be interested for Civ6, we will see, but his opinion is that there will be less people interested in Civ 6 in 10 years than there are now in 4/5.
and I REALLY doubt "civ 7" will contain features that are bigger than civ 6 AT FIRST- before any of DLCs happen, And people will be disappointed and go back to civ 6 for a bit before first DLC of civ 7 happens. That's what happened with civ 5 before first DLC and civ 6 before Rise and Fall. If people can't see the pattern... I'm sorry.
It's not just Civ VI that doesn't live up to the expectations of Players who played and enjoyed previous iterartions of the Series, but nowadays most 4X Games in general. In the Past, 4X Strategy Games used to be more engaging but without too much mechanisms for the Player to feel too much (and enough for the AI to handle everything right). A perfect example is Master of Orion II, which was built on the first Game (and Master of Magic) but included more of everything, which isn't always good. it felt too much. The Game was still good, but nonetheless the first Game was much more liked by the Fans than the second one. And don't mention MoO III to the Series' Fanbase, they will mostl likely ban you immediately
Most of the 4X Genre Games nowadays try to implement a lot of things at once, mostly to try to beat their predecessors or competitors with new features. Which make those games bloated but at the same time with not much deepness. They also focus on making the game playable by as many Players as possible, to attract new Players, even players that aren't 4X Genre fans, casual Players, Adults AND Kids, lately even mobile players ...etc, which make the Game Mechanisms Simple enough for those Players to understand and enjoy, but at the Cost of the 4X Strategy Fanatics who like more deepness to the gameplay.
Yet, some Games do a really good Job on some of that, like @Kwami 's example of CK3.
I don't think that Games, that have as many Players as possible under their Radar, should change their Mechanisms/Playstyle accordingly. The programming Options Nowadays are nearly Endless, and much better than they used to be in the 90', where 4X Games used to only please the players of this Genre (successfully). What I'm thinking about is Automated Stuff In-game. Distant Worlds Universe offers a lot of automation options to manage nearly every aspect of the Game, which makes even it's larger maps easy managable.
Now Imagine Civ adopting this Systeme into the Game. I saw a lot of Players not liking/enjoying the battle/combat aspect of the Game, and others disliking The Micromanagement of Governors, or bothering about Trade Routs which shouldn't concern the Leader directly but the Citizens. If things could be automated, it would solve three things at the same time, managing things that players don't wanna deal with (don't care about relegion? keep it automated), the Micromanagement of some things (Some People enjoy micromanaging their Cities with tall play, others would rather go wide but have tactical Combat/Battles), and New Players could easily concentrate on one/some thing(s) at a Time, while everything else is automated.
