Should I start with this game or Civ V?

[ashendashin]

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

If you want to experience the novelty of a new Civ game then go ahead and look at the pretty stuff in Civ VI for a time. You'll still be able to see the worth of previous games if you give them a try. Not like they'll be getting more expensive.
I can't honestly say that you'll be able to fully enjoy Civ VI if you sart with previous modded games.

 

[PhilBowles]

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

There are demos available for all three games (Civ IV: Beyond the Sword, Civ V - with different demos for each expansion - and Civ VI), so it may be worth trying all of those to get a feel for how different they are. I would caution that if I recall correctly, the Civ V demos were short and didn't showcase the game that well; in particular one of the selling points of its final expansion was that it expanded things to do in the late game, which you're not likely to get a feel for from the demo - I haven't played demos for the other games.

Ultimately Civ games are different takes on the same basic concept and there's limited continuity in how they play - the series has shifted fairly drastically in its gameplay every two iterations. Civ III/IV have combat and strategic resource systems missing in the older games, and add the culture resource. Civs V and VI add religion (which existed in cursory form in Civ IV but had previously been absent), active management of trade routes (which had existed in Civ I in more limited form but then been removed), one unit per tile combat, and made significant changes to the victory conditions. Civ IV introduced a couple of systems - Great People and unit promotions - that have remained in every later iteration of the series. Civ V and VI differ more from one another than Civ III did from IV, or than II did from I.

The overall progression of gameplay is generally similar (save in Civ V, which tried to vary the concept by enabling - and pushing a bit too far - small empires with few cities): expand early and then at a relatively steady rate as time goes on, so you'll get a good feel for how Civ games play and feel at the broadest scale, but the way that's implemented differs a lot.

One thing that matters to a lot of people invested in the flavour and history of the game is the selection of civilisations. There are around 20 civs that turn up in every Civ game (eventually - Civ VI is so far missing half a dozen of these), but most of the others vary. It's possible there are civs you might want to play in one entry that aren't available in the others. Mechanically, civs are much more distinct from one another in Civ V and Civ VI - where they have unique traits - than in Civ IV - where each leader has a combination of two traits from a shared pool (with one leader for every possible combination). Civ IV is also the only entry to have multiple leaders for the majority of civs - which means you have a limited ability to 'mix and match' leader traits with a civ's unique unit and building, but also allows more historical characters to be name-checked.

 

[Xmonger]

VI all the way. V became way too predictable, you could 'game' the game too easily, and min-max it too easily. I'm rather a min-max myself, I strive for the optional solution, but I love how VI's map-play forces compromises and tradeoffs on me.

 

[Thormodr]

Civ VI is a far superior game and even more so with Rise and Fall.

Civilization 5 only became a decent game when the community stepped in with Vox Populi.

Civ VI is much more immersive and a lot more interesting decisions to be made.

Once the source code is released for Civ VI and the modders have a lot more to work with, Civilization 5 will be absolutely blown out of the water.

 

[bonafide11]

Civ VI is a much better game than Civ V in my opinion. V was good as all Civ games are but there was too much of a pre-set best way to play. IV was my favorite but it’s a bit dated now and can’t say I recommend going back to it over playing VI.

 

[ohmybob]

Well I found the complete edition of V for just 12 bucks. If I end up wanting to move onto VI sooner than later at least I didn't spend much money. So for now I'll start with V but I'll absolutely get VI eventually.

 

[Thormodr]

Well I found the complete edition of V for just 12 bucks. If I end up wanting to move onto VI sooner than later at least I didn't spend much money. So for now I'll start with V but I'll absolutely get VI eventually.

$12 is a fair price. Look into the Vox Populi mod which is essential for Civilization 5, IMHO.

 

[ohmybob]

I got the mod. I chose to keep the EUI. Is that advisable?

 

[ohmybob]

And thank you everyone for the help. I was surprised/glad to see a forum with such an active community. I have wanted to get into Civ for years. I tried one 10 years ago maybe but quit because it was so much to take in

 

[Thormodr]

I got the mod. I chose to keep the EUI. Is that advisable?

Should be fine. Have fun with it.

 

[ohmybob]

I hope it's ok that I'm not reading all this subtext in the tutorial...I'm hoping I can just kind of learn as I go because I have never seen so much reading in a game explaining stuff in my life

 

[ashendashin]

I hope it's ok that I'm not reading all this subtext in the tutorial...I'm hoping I can just kind of learn as I go because I have never seen so much reading in a game explaining stuff in my life

Yeah there's no actual tutorial for VP besides whatever threads you might find in the forum (which can be outdated due to VP still being updated). Don't bother with advisors either; the VP devs can't touch them. Read the tooltips and civpedia to figure out what everything does as you play.
Feel free to ask questions in the Community Patch Project forum if there's anything unclear to you. Plenty of players there that would help you ease into the game. I use EUI myself but keep in mind it does increase memory costs. Civ 5 is unfortunately 32-bit so memory can be an issue if you take it too far with mods.

Edit:
Oh and you should definitely get Quick Turns to speed up the game

 

[isau]

A consideration is that Civ 6 is not done with its lifecycle, whereas 5 is. Civ 6 will probably see at least one more major expansion, which means it is a "living" game. In the civ series, usually after the second expansion is when the game reaches its zenith.

Civ 5 may still be worth playing, if you play it with the excellent Vox Populi mod. But otherwise I consider it eclipsed by 6 as of the Rise and Fall expansion. By the time we get the next expansion(in a year and a half or so?) it will likely have greatly eclipsed it.

Note that another difference between 5 and 6 is that modders still haven't gotten access to the core DLL files that made the Vox Populi mod possible. That's what allowed those modders control to make extremely effective AI. Civ 6's AI struggles a bit in comparison. It is assumed that we will get access to the Civ 6 DLLs at some point, but no guarantee has been made, it's just tradition for Firaxis to eventually release it.

 

[EirisMania]

A consideration is that Civ 6 is not done with its lifecycle, whereas 5 is. Civ 6 will probably see at least one more major expansion, which means it is a "living" game. In the civ series, usually after the second expansion is when the game reaches its zenith.

Civ 5 may still be worth playing, if you play it with the excellent Vox Populi mod. But otherwise I consider it eclipsed by 6 as of the Rise and Fall expansion. By the time we get the next expansion(in a year and a half or so?) it will likely have greatly eclipsed it.

Note that another difference between 5 and 6 is that modders still haven't gotten access to the core DLL files that made the Vox Populi mod possible. That's what allowed those modders control to make extremely effective AI. Civ 6's AI struggles a bit in comparison. It is assumed that we will get access to the Civ 6 DLLs at some point, but no guarantee has been made, it's just tradition for Firaxis to eventually release it.

Civ 6 struggles a bit? Wow, talk about an understatement. I really like some of the design ideas of 6, but I tried the last patch (minus R&F) to see if they had finally made some progress on the AI. Very disappointed. I am not expecting much, but the only reason I don't win every single time in 6 is because I decide to be a builder and not to invade everyone. And when the AI declares war, I only defend. Well, not fun any more. So I decided to reinstall V and see how it went with the Vox Populi mod. Wow! What a difference! I've had a couple of wars were I was actually challenged and the enemy did sneak attacks, hiding their troops through the flanks. Of course it's not perfect and eventually you can win if you have the numbers and technology, but you have to be on your toes. And this was on Prince! I love the districts in VI but the AI makes it unplayable for me.

 

[Leyrann]

...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.

Yes, it is indeed getting ridiculous that you condemn a mod you haven't even played with.

I, on the other hand, have played with Civ Flavour Deity, and even though I haven't played with it a whole lot (found the mod relatively short before the Rise and Fall release and it needs to be updated per civ first), I noticed a significant improvement in how the AI played.

In regards to your other points:

1. AI has always been capable of diplomacy, I have no idea where you get the idea from they aren't. And if you disagree with me, show me why.
2. Turns out unit movement wasn't that much of a problem after all if they had good units, which they do with the mod. Also, this got improved in R&F, and I can confirm it worked from my own games with R&F.
3. I'm not certain, but I think city placement is also affected by Civ Flavour Deity.
4. And it turns out that if the AI has better resources and a better empire, it also has a better view of situations. We as a community just broke the game by finding more optimal ways to play than the devs had expected, which gave the AI an innate disadvantage in situations, making it look dumb where it would have been the right choice if they'd had an equal economy.

And stop defending Vox Populi, I haven't said anything against the mod, except that I got a headache from the UI. That's also everything I will say about it, as I haven't played enough with it to judge it's contents, but I trust what I hear from people saying that it greatly improves the game.

 

[PeterChu]

In terms of costs-benefits, I would say civ 5 with vox populi mod might be a good entry point for new beginners of the Civ series these days. So you could get a ‘civ 5 with civ 4 flavour' IMHO. Its corporation mechanism remains something wanted in Civ 6 (but you probably wouldn't get it). After that, you could try Civ 5 with Super Power: Clash of Civilizations mod, to get some kind of 'civ 5 with civ 6 flavour'. Then, when you move to Civ 6, it would be cheaper, come with full expansions, and in addition, you can really appreciate those changes in game mechanics.

 

[GermanSettler]

I loved CiV but I would still recommend CiVI.

Mainly because:

• I think leader models and character add a lot of flavour and atmosphere no other Civ had before
• CiVI feels very complete, even before R&F and does not lack any crucial systems. It has imho reached a level of "completness" CiV only reached after two expansions
• I do think the graphics are great and immersive
• I find the new mechanic of Dark/Normal/Golden/Heroic Ages to be extremely addicting. Especially if you do not play as often (I usually need several days to a week to finish a game) there is a lot to figure out and explore (for what do you get era score, how can I play with different line.up of ages etc.)
• I love Civ games when they are still "in development" - speculating what leader will join next etc. Every time there is a small DLC that interests you you can explore the game through a different and changed perspective
• I found CiVI to be more flexible than CiV. With CiV I often felt as if it was impossible to go after a different victory after a while. While that is always the case to some extent, I think it is more of an option now to leave the "best practise" methods and just try it

 

[ashendashin]

And stop defending Vox Populi, I haven't said anything against the mod, except that I got a headache from the UI. That's also everything I will say about it, as I haven't played enough with it to judge it's contents, but I trust what I hear from people saying that it greatly improves the game.

My goal isn't to defend it. It's to provide contrast to Civ 6. Seriously though you can just try it without EUI if that's your issue.

For your other points, I'm getting exasperated with you regarding the state of Civ 6's AI. If you're actually satisfied with it then that's fine. If the game only needs to give everything to the AI including specific building instructions so it can play properly, then I'm sure the next patch will solve everything.

 

[SomeGuyHere]

Well I found the complete edition of V for just 12 bucks. If I end up wanting to move onto VI sooner than later at least I didn't spend much money. So for now I'll start with V but I'll absolutely get VI eventually.

Although you wouldn’t be missing much by skipping civ 5 I would have suggested doing this. Civ 5 is by no means a bad game (of course these forums are for fans of the series so it’s a little biased). I would suggest playing an unmodded game or two before using any mods. Where people are saying the ai is “dumb” it’s because we see all the issues they make on higher difficulties. They do some silly things and at higher levels don’t become better they just get more bonuses, but I don’t think you really notice them when you start playing and are working out the game. As you get better you might but day 1 it really isn’t an issue. This will also let you use the advisors as intended. For a first-time player it makes sense. If you need help you can use the Civapedia (the in-game wiki of everything) and the information will be correct. You can’t always guarantee that with mods as other has stated. Guides are also primarily for the base game if you plan on reading any.

I’m on the side that likes 6 more then 5. I think the decisions in 5 are more permanent or at least much more difficult to change once made. For example, if you wanted to change your Ideology you have to start all over again. It makes sense in game, but I do like the policy cards of 6 more, and districts add something to the game. I also hate global happiness and find the drop outs on multiplayer frustrating when playing with more than a few friends. Diplomatic victory was normally turned off because in multiplayer it’s no fun to have players vote for player 2 just because player 1 is about to get a science victory. Even in single player I find it a boring victory condition. You just need more gold. The civ 6 city state system is better in my opinion. Nothing was a deal breaker after BNW though (I have a lot of hours in civ 5 as I would guess everyone here does), and others miss that mechanic a lot so it’s all personal opinion.

 

[Bad Wolf]

V was good as all Civ games are but there was too much of a pre-set best way to play.

This is what eventually stopped me from playing V. Build four cities and grow them like hell, go Tradition to Rationalism, then pick whichever ideology synergizes with your desired victory type and press "Next Turn" until you win. Gets boring fast once you've figured out (as most Civ V players did after a while) that one path to victory is so clearly superior to all the others.