Should I start with this game or Civ V?

[Returning Lurker]

5 with expansions and DLC. Better civ selection, better flavor, AI is still dumb but can still threaten you on higher levels whereas 6 is just a cakewalk, some of the scenarios in 5 are actually fun and well designed if that’s your bag whereas none of the civ 6 scenarios have tickled my fancy.

 

[Leyrann]

5 with expansions and DLC. Better civ selection, better flavor, AI is still dumb but can still threaten you on higher levels whereas 6 is just a cakewalk.

Civ VI is not a cakewalk for 99% of the players. Remember that this forum is not the average.

I myself have almost 400 in Civ VI and another 400 in Civ V, I've been on this forum since before Civ VI release and have paid attention to different strategies, and by nature I am also a bit of an optimizing player, and yet I can only barely handle Civ VI Deity.

 

[Tarzan737]

I tried Vox Populi when I already had several hundred hours experience with Civ V but I couldn't get used to it. It's a weird and hard to use UI imo, and I didn't get much forther than that.

Was it long time ago you tried vox populi? If it was i suggest you to put 3-4 more hours to test. I have 1500h of civ5 but it has never been as good as now. But ofcourse everyone have different taste but if you can try it again then do it.

 

[PhilBowles]

Civ V and Civ VI are easy and sometimes run into the Monopoly syndrome where we all know who will win but have to sit through til the end (or exit, there are few players worldwide relatively speaking that have won a full game of VI judging by Steam statistics).

Civ IV arguably had the best balance and most competent AI (they are better at stacks than 1UPT combat). It also has the steepest learning curve, best main menu music (vanilla anyway), and most interesting domestic city management (free of the tall-favoring happiness penalties of V, or the ridiculous district production times of VI).

Civ IV also has the best official scenarios, ranging from a tactical zombie shooter to a fantasy epic to a space scenario with hologram leaders to World War II to the Chinese unification of ancient times.

Hmm, not sure I tried the Civ IV scenarios. The later Civ V scenarios - which had entire DLC packs or major elements of expansions devoted to them - are generally very good, and the Scramble for Africa was widely praised here. Unfortunately the older ones (with one exception) were not updated to accommodate gameplay changes - so while I loved the 1066 scenario it's impossible to go back to as it's a combat-based scenario using the base game's 10HP combat system instead of the G&K/Civ VI 100HP one.

As I put it on another thread, at this stage Civ VI is a more 'fun' and immersive game for players more focused on the flavour of the series, while Civ V remains a better strategy game. Choices are fewer but more meaningful, and if you don't play to set optimal build orders you can find online or exploit the system's weakness by going all-in on combat it can be challenging (yes, it's still easier than Civ IV). Civ VI has a steep learning curve but it's a "hard to learn, easy to master" breed of game where, once you have a handle on the mechanics, there's not really much more to learn to succeed.

Also, I wouldn't recommend Civ VI unless you also get Rise & Fall, or Civ V without at least Gods & Kings and preferably both expansions. Civ V + either or both expansions is better than Civ VI without, but if you aren't getting expansions for either game Civ VI is better.

 

[Leyrann]

Was it long time ago you tried vox populi? If it was i suggest you to put 3-4 more hours to test. I have 1500h of civ5 but it has never been as good as now. But ofcourse everyone have different taste but if you can try it again then do it.

It was sometime around Civ VI release, I think after it.

As I put it on another thread, at this stage Civ VI is a more 'fun' and immersive game for players more focused on the flavour of the series, while Civ V remains a better strategy game.

If that's what you're going for you should go for Civ IV, not Civ V.

 

[PhilBowles]

If that's what you're going for you should go for Civ IV, not Civ V.

Indeed, Civ IV is the last entry in the series that hit both immersion and strategy well, but from what I've seen of earlier posts on the thread Civ IV isn't up for consideration by the OP.

 

[ashendashin]

Civ VI is a great game, it's already got great mods (so "use VP" isn't really an argument; AI+ and Civ Flavour Deity did a good job of fixing AI issues in the past and probably will do so again once they're updated and if you do dislike the UI you can use CQUI which is apparently (don't ask me why; I don't like it) much better). And that's basically the only two reasons why people dislike Civ VI.

As for Civ V, there's just a lot of fundamental errors in that game. To balance expansion (instead of making it a mindless "more is better", something all Civ titles struggle with in one way or another) it gives straight up penalties, which are also very visible and because of that very annoying. A major source of income is connections between cities, but you get those by building roads... which cost maintenance, making it a mathematical exercise to find out if you should build a road. All your empire happiness is calculated in a single number. Whenever that dives below 0 for one reason or another (every time a city grows, for example) all your cities have 75% reduced growth, making for a very staggered growing of your cities. The World Congress is extremely tedious to work with, as typically you just end up banning random luxeries. City states are controlled by throwing money at them. Diplomacy victory is basically economic victory, as you win a diplomatic victory by getting votes in the World Congress, which you get from controlling city states.

No AI mods for Civ 6 can do anything close to what Vox Populi does since they haven't released the DLL. VP largely pulled away from the flavor system so the AI runs on actual logic and the tactical combat simply can't get the work it needs in Civ 6.

Those fundamental errors are why VP is an overhaul. There's a ton of Civ IV stuff reintroduced and while penalties still exist they were reworked to make a ton of approaches viable. Hell I've changed strategies plenty of times in the middle of a game because far off civs would affect my play. Your complaints about Civ 5 were addressed by VP to a degree but apparently the UI is your issue. You can always install it without EUI which is the default installation.

 

[PhilBowles]

No AI mods for Civ 6 can do anything close to what Vox Populi does since they haven't released the DLL. VP largely pulled away from the flavor system so the AI runs on actual logic and the tactical combat simply can't get the work it needs in Civ 6.

Those fundamental errors are why VP is an overhaul. There's a ton of Civ IV stuff reintroduced and while penalties still exist they were reworked to make a ton of approaches viable. Hell I've changed strategies plenty of times in the middle of a game because far off civs would affect my play. Your complaints about Civ 5 were addressed by VP to a degree but apparently the UI is your issue. You can always install it without EUI which is the default installation.

I think I need to reinstall Civ V and try this mod. It seems to be echoing a lot of what people were saying before Civ V's DLL was released, in that Civ IV with Rhyse and Fall (it seems barely anyone here plays the game unmodded) was ahead of Civ V in part because the latter was less moddable.

 

[Leyrann]

No AI mods for Civ 6 can do anything close to what Vox Populi does since they haven't released the DLL. VP largely pulled away from the flavor system so the AI runs on actual logic and the tactical combat simply can't get the work it needs in Civ 6.

Those fundamental errors are why VP is an overhaul. There's a ton of Civ IV stuff reintroduced and while penalties still exist they were reworked to make a ton of approaches viable. Hell I've changed strategies plenty of times in the middle of a game because far off civs would affect my play. Your complaints about Civ 5 were addressed by VP to a degree but apparently the UI is your issue. You can always install it without EUI which is the default installation.

I'm going to make a guess here. You haven't played with Civ Flavour Deity.

 

[ashendashin]

I'm going to make a guess here. You haven't played with Civ Flavour Deity.

...You really think the flavor system is all that Civ 6 needs to have adjusted? A practically scripted building preference? How about diplomacy, tactics, and generally adapting to the situation?

Edit:
Wow, and it's even specially made for the massive boosts the AI gets on Deity.

 

[Leyrann]

...You really think the flavor system is all that Civ 6 needs to have adjusted? A practically scripted building preference? How about diplomacy, tactics, and generally adapting to the situation?

Edit:
Wow, and it's even specially made for the massive boosts the AI gets on Deity.

I'm not talking about how it works, I'm just saying that it makes the AI perform much better. I thought that was what you wanted to see?

Honestly, I don't care how any mod works, all I want to see when I'm looking for a mod to improve AI performance is, indeed, that the AI performs better, preferably without gaining any more cheats. Whether you change two lines of code or write a 100% new AI? Couldn't care less.

 

[ashendashin]

I'm not talking about how it works, I'm just saying that it makes the AI perform much better. I thought that was what you wanted to see?

Honestly, I don't care how any mod works, all I want to see when I'm looking for a mod to improve AI performance is, indeed, that the AI performs better, preferably without gaining any more cheats. Whether you change two lines of code or write a 100% new AI? Couldn't care less.

I'll go by your signature this time. It's gamey. Dumb at the same time, but most importantly gamey. I like playing a dynamic game where the AI feels like other players.

Seriously, VP does a hell of a lot more than you think. Regardless, it's not even possible to get as much performance out of the AI with Civ 6's current mod support, even with mods like that. Difficulty =/= good AI. VP doesn't even give near as many bonuses to the AI as the base game.

 

[Leyrann]

I'll go by your signature this time. It's gamey. Dumb at the same time, but most importantly gamey. I like playing a dynamic game where the AI feels like other players.

Seriously, VP does a hell of a lot more than you think. Regardless, it's not even possible to get as much performance out of the AI with Civ 6's current mod support, even with mods like that. Difficulty =/= good AI. VP doesn't even give near as many bonuses to the AI as the base game.

When does an AI feel like a player to you? I don't get that part.

To me, it feels like a player when it tries it's best within the rules to get stuff done, and that's basically describing Civ Flavour Deity.

Note that Civ Flavour Deity doesn't give any bonuses to the AI, it's purely the value they give different yields and districts and stuff that's changed.

 

[ashendashin]

When does an AI feel like a player to you? I don't get that part.

To me, it feels like a player when it tries it's best within the rules to get stuff done, and that's basically describing Civ Flavour Deity.

Note that Civ Flavour Deity doesn't give any bonuses to the AI, it's purely the value they give different yields and districts and stuff that's changed.

...This is getting ridiculous. Civ Flavour Diety only adjusts building flavors. This doesn't suddenly make the AI capable of diplomacy, decent unit movement, city placement, or anything that actually requires the AI to look at a situation and adjust accordingly.
Vox Populi doesn't make the AI perfect. It isn't human. But the one thing it does is make the AI capable of playing a game where others can affect their civilization. They make sensible and advanced deals, declare war when it will benefit them, move their units well enough to at least hold their own while advancing against weaker fronts, and actually feel like they're all playing their part in the world.

VP removes AI bonuses because the AI no longer needs as many. Not being confined to singular plays leaves the game open to interpretation. Not massively, since there's still good and bad plays, but enough to make it feel like it's not a damn sandbox since the AI will adjust to the situation well enough to continue towards success.

 

[DWrightMets07]

I'm really into playing Civ with mods, but I'm terrible at making them myself, so when there is a major update I generally have to wait a little while for them to update. I tried to go back to V once during that time and it was a rough transition since I had gotten so used to VI. I agree with the majority here, you should go straight to VI, it's overall a better game at this point but they're so different it'd take even more time to learn V then learn the new systems in VI.

 

[PhilBowles]

...This is getting ridiculous. Civ Flavour Diety only adjusts building flavors. This doesn't suddenly make the AI capable of diplomacy, decent unit movement, city placement, or anything that actually requires the AI to look at a situation and adjust accordingly.
Vox Populi doesn't make the AI perfect. It isn't human. But the one thing it does is make the AI capable of playing a game where others can affect their civilization. They make sensible and advanced deals, declare war when it will benefit them, move their units well enough to at least hold their own while advancing against weaker fronts, and actually feel like they're all playing their part in the world.

VP removes AI bonuses because the AI no longer needs as many. Not being confined to singular plays leaves the game open to interpretation. Not massively, since there's still good and bad plays, but enough to make it feel like it's not a damn sandbox since the AI will adjust to the situation well enough to continue towards success.

In fairness in some of these areas the AI is helped by the basic Civ V systems. Diplomatic options are more advanced and diplomacy in the base game is already heavily coded around tripartite relations, making the AI better at monitoring (if, as coded in the base game, not necessarily appropriately responding to) global relation changes. Cities are intrinsically easier to defend in Civ V: they have walls by default, those walls are stronger, and the smaller maps both produce more chokepoints and make it easier for the AI to simply block access with walls of units. Plus, by the end of Civ V's run the base game's AI unit behaviour was much better than it's usually given credit for - it could appropriately use counters, it could hit and run with cavalry, and it generally made reasonable decisions about where to attack rather than just rushing the capital.

I haven't used the actual mod, but Civ V gives mods more to work with beyond access to the source code - its systems weren't as AI-hostile as those in Civ VI and, where Civ V and Civ VI systems are comparable, Civ V AI was already some way ahead of the current state of Civ VI.

 

[ohmybob]

I've heard a lot of good things about IV, but it's just so old. I dont know

 

[ashendashin]

In fairness in some of these areas the AI is helped by the basic Civ V systems. Diplomatic options are more advanced and diplomacy in the base game is already heavily coded around tripartite relations, making the AI better at monitoring (if, as coded in the base game, not necessarily appropriately responding to) global relation changes. Cities are intrinsically easier to defend in Civ V: they have walls by default, those walls are stronger, and the smaller maps both produce more chokepoints and make it easier for the AI to simply block access with walls of units. Plus, by the end of Civ V's run the base game's AI unit behaviour was much better than it's usually given credit for - it could appropriately use counters, it could hit and run with cavalry, and it generally made reasonable decisions about where to attack rather than just rushing the capital.

I haven't used the actual mod, but Civ V gives mods more to work with beyond access to the source code - its systems weren't as AI-hostile as those in Civ VI and, where Civ V and Civ VI systems are comparable, Civ V AI was already some way ahead of the current state of Civ VI.

Still though, there was plenty in V that was AI unfriendly which VP needed to deal with. There's more than AI programming involved. The base game needed to be overhauled starting from the core. The same would apply to Civ VI, but unfortunately core systems can't be overhauled without the source. Besides I think diplomacy is actually one of the larger messes Gazebo(VP lead) had to deal with.

Chokepoints make the game easier for the human, actually. Open terrain is terrifying when dealing with VP's warmongers since the AI still gets enough bonuses to make up for humans being plain better at planning.

I've heard a lot of good things about IV, but it's just so old. I dont know

Civ 4 is good, especially with mods. But for pure Civ 4 style then Vox Populi reintroduced plenty of mechanics from it that keep the game immersive with loads of features, so I'd recommend that if you want a less washed up looking game.

 

[PhilBowles]

Still though, there was plenty in V that was AI unfriendly which VP needed to deal with. There's more than AI programming involved. The base game needed to be overhauled starting from the core. The same would apply to Civ VI, but unfortunately core systems can't be overhauled without the source. Besides I think diplomacy is actually one of the larger messes Gazebo(VP lead) had to deal with.

One thing I've long maintained is that Civ V has the best underlying diplomacy system in the series - it's the only one that meaningfully departs from a simple trade window and that requires monitoring relationships between more than two civs: AI civs care as much or more as your behaviour towards their friends and rivals as they do your relations with them. While modifiers due to your relations to other civs' allies and enemies existed previously, they rarely had detectable effects on AI behaviour.

It was also the most AI-hostile diplomacy system in the series (Civ VI's has been simplified a bit too much, I suspect as a reaction to that) because it was mechanically more complicated and the wider assortment of often conflicting modifiers compared with other games led to behaviour that seemed erratic to people who hadn't put the time in to understand the system. So I can see that it presented a particular challenge to try and fix, but it started with the strongest foundation of any Civ game.

I've heard a lot of good things about IV, but it's just so old. I dont know

It's worth a look, but it's very different from the more recent games and is unfortunately not as cheap as most games its age. If you pick it up you'll need the Complete Edition (this includes Warlords, which is included by default in Beyond the Sword, but the package costs no more than just buying the base game plus Beyond the Sword, and the Complete Edition also contains the spin-off Colonization at no extra cost. You just need to be aware that, if you pick this up, the only version you need to install to play the full game is Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword).

 

[ohmybob]

I guess my main concern is that if I skip to VI, will I be greatly missing out by not experiencing previous entries? Would it really be that bad to go from VI to other games in the series?

I am still very much on the fence. V is cheaper and is more complete and it would give be a great longevity for the series as a whole, but VI is newer and I just love the graphics