YA56T

[tetley]

YA56T = Yet Another Civ5/Civ6 Thread


You have probably heard my question before: is it time to go to Civ6? Or stick with Civ5? I played the Civ6 demo and tried looking for other threads, but neither I think likely reflect the latest-and-greatest patches and DLC.

I thought the Civ6 demo was fun, but not as fun as Civ5 when that started. But then, I've logged 1500 hours of Civ5 and am kind of played out. I'm not seeing any good Steam sales of Civ6 bundles yet (when I started playing Civ4, Steam was practically giving it away for free).

 

[ezzlar]

Hard to answer such a general question about what individuals enjoy. However, I have the impression that people who loved Civ 4 considers that Civ 6 is superior to Civ 5. On the other hand, the ones who loved Civ 5 still think Civ 6 is a bit mediocre.

Civ 5 is still more polished than Civ 6. I really didnt like the mechanics in Civ 5 at all so the switch to Civ 6 was a non issue.

 

[Leyrann]

Civ 5 is the first game of the series I played (except Civ 2 long long ago) but I feel very confident in saying both Civ 4 and Civ 6 are superior to Civ 5. There are simply far fewer annoying mechanics like global happiness, scaling tech/culture costs, things like that.

 

[Chefofrats]

I enjoyed Civ IV, I loved Civ V but I much prefer Civ VI. How should I know what you would prefer though? Watch some gameplay clips and decide for yourself, nobody will be able to do it better.

 

[Rup]

For me Civilization 6 with R&F is far better than Civilization 5 complete edition in every way other than the AI.
Civilization 4 is also good and might be arguably the best of these 3 games with the right mods.
I freaking love districts in Civilization VI.
I love Loyalty mechanics in Rise and Fall.
I love governments.

I don't know how CIV V received better rating than Civilization 6 at launch, how can someone release a game about historical Civilizations without religions is beyond me lol

 

[Disgustipated]

if you didn't like the demo, you probably won't like the game. It seems a lot of people who really loved Civ5 hardcore just don't like this game. I hated Civ5 upon release myself, but came to somewhat like it after the expansions. I like the district system and making decisions about districts/wonders/improvements on my land. I absolutely love this game.

I especially like that warfare is not extremely punishing. I hated getting below -10 happiness in Civ5, and I never found a way to avoid that. Civ5 just punishes you too much in my opinion.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I don't know how CIV V received better rating than Civilization 6 at launch, how can someone release a game about historical Civilizations without religions is beyond me lol

Civs 1 through 3 never included a religion component at all, and Civ 4 (like Civ 5) didn't add it until one of the expansions.

A better question is how someone can release a game about historical civilizations and feature lightning-bolt wielding religious "combat" in which Apostles get flanking bonuses?
​

You have probably heard my question before: is it time to go to Civ6? Or stick with Civ5? I played the Civ6 demo and tried looking for other threads, but neither I think likely reflect the latest-and-greatest patches and DLC.

I thought the Civ6 demo was fun, but not as fun as Civ5 when that started. But then, I've logged 1500 hours of Civ5 and am kind of played out. I'm not seeing any good Steam sales of Civ6 bundles yet (when I started playing Civ4, Steam was practically giving it away for free).

Civ 4, Civ 5, and Civ 6 play so differently, it's really a toss up as to which you prefer. I loved the early versions of Civ (1 & 2), was disappointed with 3, never spent a lot of time on 4 as it didn't capture my interest, fell in love with the series again with Civ 5, and am back to being disappointed with 6. You can easily find others here who feel quite differently about their relative preferences within the series.

What's best about Civ 6 for me: districts make city placement decisions more fun and I love the look of the game. What those who enjoy Civ 6 seem to like that hasn't caught my fancy seems to be the wide variety of ways you can play the game and win and the wide variety of different bonuses each civ leader get.

What's worst about Civ 6 for me: the game is robbed of any sense of achievement or accomplishment because none of the things you used to worry about in past iterations of Civ, like getting to a good city site before the AI or winning a Wonder race, matter. A handful of cities in lousy places with no Wonders will still beat the AI to victory, so the stepping stones along the way to victory don't inspire the "one more turn" feeling other versions of Civ have had. Also, the AI leaders as enemies are devoid of character and all play the same as neighbours, i.e. you don't have to adjust your play based on who you're beside.

However, those are just my impressions, and interim ones, as development on Civ 6 has not finished. Others here absolutely love Civ 6, and perhaps you would, too. For the time being, though, I've re-installed Civ 5 and have gone back to playing it while I wait to hear what's next for Civ 6.

 

[Aristos]

A better question is how someone can release a game about historical civilizations and feature lightning-bolt wielding religious "combat" in which Apostles get flanking bonuses?
​

... and with the Mapuche as a "civilization"...

(while the Mayas and Incas are nowhere to be seen)

 

[acluewithout]

What's best about Civ 6 for me: districts make city placement decisions more fun and I love the look of the game. What those who enjoy Civ 6 seem to like that hasn't caught my fancy seems to be the wide variety of ways you can play the game and win and the wide variety of different bonuses each civ leader get.

What's worst about Civ 6 for me: the game is robbed of any sense of achievement or accomplishment because none of the things you used to worry about in past iterations of Civ, like getting to a good city site before the AI or winning a Wonder race, matter. A handful of cities in lousy places with no Wonders will still beat the AI to victory, so the stepping stones along the way to victory don't inspire the "one more turn" feeling other versions of Civ have had. Also, the AI leaders as enemies are devoid of character and all play the same as neighbours, i.e. you don't have to adjust your play based on who you're beside.

However, those are just my impressions, and interim ones, as development on Civ 6 has not finished. Others here absolutely love Civ 6, and perhaps you would, too. For the time being, though, I've re-installed Civ 5 and have gone back to playing it while I wait to hear what's next for Civ 6.

Yup. Agree. I do like that you can pursue multiple strategies, but dislike how easy the game is overall, and how lots of mechanics are really meaningless or using them actually punishes you.

I’m willing to wait and see what happens in the next few months. But if the expansion doesn’t significantly improve the game and fix the current balance and game issues, then sadly I think I’m done (save maybe some modding). Civ VI has all the pieces to be the best game of the series. I hope it gets there.

 

[Rup]

Civs 1 through 3 never included a religion component at all, and Civ 4 (like Civ 5) didn't add it until one of the expansions.
​

You are right about CIV 1 to 3 but not 4.
As far as I remember Civilization 4 has religion at launch.
But I do get what you are saying.But with plethora of things missing from Civilization 5 more so at launch but also after it's 2 expansions.It is the least feature complete modern Civilization title.And with the bad AI at release it was the one of the worst 4X game.

About the lightning bolt part , I do think it is still absurd but I think more of it as a strategic visual rather than what actually happening.
The same way I don't care about units being bigger in size than a district.

I do somewhat agree with everything you said.
The problem with Civilization VI boils down to it's AI and minor balancing(which is doable).

This game need more polishing overall for it to reach it's potential.But still for me Civilization 6 is better than 5.​

 

[ezzlar]

Isn't it obvious that the lightning bolts are a metaphor?

 

[SahintheFalcon]

If you liked big empires (like in Civ 4), you'll love Civ 6.
If you liked tall empires (like in Civ 5), you may or may not like Civ 6.

 

[Chefofrats]

I loved Civ V's tall empires and I can still (sort of) have those in Civ VI, as wide empires with a tall center. Playing on king difficulty I don't have to bother with maximum efficiency, so I can still enjoy building as many wonders as possible and boosting the population of my core cities as far as it will go. I much prefer this roleplaying empire building to the "challenge" of winning on a higher difficulty.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

You are right about CIV 1 to 3 but not 4.
As far as I remember Civilization 4 has religion at launch.
​

​

My bad! You're right. I should never trust my memory.

 

[Aristos]

Isn't it obvious that the lightning bolts are a metaphor?

A metaphor for Fallen Enchantress?

 

[tetley]

Thanks all,

Based on what I'm reading, it sounds like the best thing is to stick with Civ5 and wait. No Steam sales, Civ6 is still being worked on, and consistently I hear the AI is bad. It may not be the worst, though--Galactic Civilization III's and the initial patch of Galactic Civilization II: Dark Avatar's AI's were both really bad. I still had fun with them, because at first you are still playing against yourself (AI or no AI). It's just the the replayability hours go way down once you have already explored everything and you're beating it every time, even at the highest difficulty level.

I waited to make the jump from Civ4 to Civ5, and Civ5 was gobs of fun when I first started. Civ4 at first was not fun at all. But I revisited it after its expansion and several patches, and it became really fun. Both have proven to be great ways to totally screw up your nocturnal biological clock.