(Poll) Is Civ6 currently in a more 'complete' state than Civ5 was at release?

[UncivilizedGuy]

Absolutely. Civ5 was so barebones I didn't buy it until G&K was released.

 

[AriochIV]

Civ V was a mess on release. There's no comparison.

 

[ExemplarVoss]

I have not tried spies yet, so I'm not sure about that system.

Functional, but extra-clunky. I'm not sure what thought process led to making them decide to have it interact with the world like a trader unit, but add extra decisions after the city choice in that narrow window along the left side of the screen..

 

[Staal]

You can buy it. It is more complete and a good game right now. With balancing it'll get better.

 

[Staal]

Functional, but extra-clunky. I'm not sure what thought process led to making them decide to have it interact with the world like a trader unit, but add extra decisions after the city choice in that narrow window along the left side of the screen..

Myself on the other hand hated the Civ V spies. I much prefer the in game representation. Along with Great People they have removed the movement micro management. Overall I think it works great.

 

[labellavienna]

I'm wondering myself, but just because Civ V was tweaked and patched up well over the years doesn't mean Civ VI will be...they could just ignore the bugs and not fix anything...only popping out expansions to line their pockets. *sigh* I really hope not.

 

[bcaiko]

I think it is better, but some strange details (like overlooking the ability to name cities) have been left out. Not being able to turn of unit cycling is almost game breaking. And I agree with those who say the UI is absolutely terrible.

 

[Martin Alvito]

It's a much better set of problems to have.

Balance is very possibly worse. The AI is probably dumber. Many of the new features are fairly useless.

However, a lot of that can be fixed or at the very least improved by changing some cost/benefit parameters and giving the AI more production bonuses on higher difficulty levels. The CiV design didn't leave the designers a lot of space to fix its problems, and for some reason they willfully ignored some of the more pressing issues or at least failed to understand how players would end-run their solutions. Outside of the AI's military incompetence, a lot of the issues in Civ VI can be brought into line simply by adjusting .xml parameters. I don't see a lot of systems that require a ground-up rebuild this time around.

Long story short, we should have a relatively functional game a lot faster.

 

[drubell]

Civ 5 release let you win the game with 4 horsemen.

The map scripts originally had very little hills which had everyone complaining about how little production was available in the game.

The tech tree was a joke and allowed you to fly through several eras quickly (though, the Civ 6 tech tree is definitely not perfect currently either).

Civ 5 release mechanics were barebones compared to Civ 6 release mechanics. Some of the Civ 6 release mechanics definitely need tweaking, but they're certainly there.

I don't think anyone who played Civ 5 on release could seriously say that Civ 6's release state is equal or worse.

 

[Biz_]

i think civ5 vanilla supported more strategies than civ6 does

civ6 is full of a lot of random inconsequential stuff that you can optimize, but i'm having a hard time seeing how any of it matters

there are too many prerequisites on all the techs and policies, so every game feels similar.
i can change the order in which i do things to be a few turns quicker based on what my map looks like, but it always ends up in the same place

 

[joncnunn]

It has enough features to feel like a complete game; however there are specific instances in Civ VI dealing with the AI where parts of the Civ V AI fixed in one of the patches reverted back to broken Civ V Vanilla CD state, which makes it as a whole feel like the game was rushed on release before it was ready by a few months for marketing reasons.

 

[Zenstrive]

It has everything, but balance. Things need to be rebalanced. Districts industrial costs, for one. Flow of the tech trees, on the other.

 

[Brianstorm]

Civ V was a beta for Civ VI, and it's a huge improvemnt. Unfortunately the problems with VI other than Global Happiness have been kept on. The tech tree is still garbage, 1UPT isn't working for the AI and they've added some problems. Hell, large and huge maps are smaller than in Civ VI and the production is way off on Epic and Marathon. I doubt they even tested anything on those levels more than the minimum. It needs some patching very soon as well as some fresh blood to work on the expansions, I think this team has done all they can with Civ.

 

[lamaros]

This, for me, is a better game now than Civ 5 is now. Almost everything they've added makes the game better.

As they address a few minor bugs and balance issues it will get even better.

I'm really enjoying it and highly recommend it to anyone.

"It needs some patching very soon as well as some fresh blood to work on the expansions, I think this team has done all they can with Civ."

I disagree with this completely. This team is worlds ahead of Beyond Earth.

 

[Big J Money]

This poll is loaded. I feel that Civ V was more 'complete' in that it felt more polished to me. This one feels like the balance needs lots of tweaking and I'm running into lots of bugs.

But your option requires me to interpret 'complete' as having more content and features. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact. So I don't understand the purpose of this thread. Civ V vanilla can't be said to have be 'lacking features and content' or else you'd have to say the same for every version of Civ before VI. They add some new things each release.

 

[TapewormLondon24]

A jigsaw with half the peices missing is more complete than Civ 5 was at launch.

6 Needs some small tweaks, but nothing on even a fraction of the overhaul 5 had.

But that aside after 4 days of non stop playing I believe that Civ 6 is a better strategy game all round.

Real choices are back, city specialisation needed, main elements of last iterations expats included and expanded, but the real evidence is in the fact people on this forum are already discussing strategy and tactics.

That didn't happen properly for ages with 5. Because it was a hot mess.

 

[Raider]

Civ 6 is definitely more feature rich than Civ 5 vanilla was on release. However, the features than Civ 6 has are just unfinished as they were in Civ 5. The AI is incompetent and need major improvements before this game has any real value as a single player challenge. Balance and completely off and some things are outright (and very obviously) broken, such as the example of selling dual-produced horse archers for net gold benefit. Other systems are just not tuned right, such as technology pace and eurekas. This game needs major patching and additional work before it's a complete and fully playable product. In that respect, it is no different than Civ 5 vanilla.

 

[Staal]

Fortunately the poll bares out the reality. The negative-nancies can post what they like. Fixes and tweaks needed all over but Civ 6 is streets ahead of 5. The two cannot be compared.