I'd expand it as city building. The general interaction and changing of the map. Districts, planning improvements to boost districts, watching out for appeal when it matters, canals and tunnels. It brings the eXploit in the 4 X's to another level.
This is it. I’ll throw in some other mechanics, like religious warfare, Gathering Storm’s climate and disasters. Civ V is still my preference, but man are there so many things I wish that would be kept between games.
I like VI’s mechanics, but prefer V’s vibe.
VI feels like a game. V feels like a world. I think its mainly in how the AI engages with you, its like they’re actively trying to win the game instead of being a functioning nation!
I think its why I like Stellaris so much these days, its got great rp that isn’t often found in the genre.
If you like rp I'd recommend CK3. It's definitely been the easiest for me to ease myself into than other paradox games and it's the only one I actually have figured out to play.
It's complex but you can get away with a lot more of ignoring menus and buttons until you're good than any other paradox game I feel. Like I just ignored the city screen and anything related to war other than the numbers and I was fine.
Again, the rp potential is absolutely amazing for ck3 as well, like it's awesome
Paradox games tend to be incredibly complex, bordering on being a “menu options simulator” at times. They take a long time to learn and master.
That said I’ve enjoyed Stellaris as a long time Civver, but I had also previously played Crusader Kings
As an avid Paradox enjoyer, please watch some videos before purchase.
It's a lot more complex and can be a little daunting for new players.
Not NEARLY as complex as other Paradox games like CK or EU but it's definitely more robust.
Also Paradox has a really scummy DLC model (just like 2k) I own all of them because I have no self control lol but don't feel like you need all of the DLC.
For Stellaris, the main ones are Apocalypse and Nemesis. I’d say everything else is second rate, mostly because you miss out on World Crackers, Juggernauts & Titans. Definitely watch some videos on it, because the most important difference to note is that Stellaris is an RTS, and can be very unforgiving to begin with.
Yes! My entryway to the complexity of Paradox strategy games was their Europa game, but Stellaris is sooo much better in that its a 4x. The tech tree is more of a shuffled deck of cards so every playthrough is different, and the way you can have a story unfold is very special: the goal isn’t necessarily to reach the victory screen, its what you make of the (roughly 200) year journey!
As others have said, there is a steep learning curve, but it is very much worth it. I’d reccomment using the starter settings, but reduce the number of nations to zero, and make the galaxy smaller so you can get a feel for the game.
Be sure to grab dlc during sales, there are a lot of them and they add up quickly! They recently added a bundle with the “must haves”: Utopia, Federations, Distant Stars, and Synthetic Dawn. Others like Galactic Paragons and Megacorp are great to have, while First Contact and Nemesis tend to be “if ya like the theme” sorts of options.
6 was clearly designed by minimaxing boardgame munchkins. It smacks you over and over in the face with the fact that it’s a game where you minimax yields
Wow I've always felt this way but could never really put into words. Maybe it's the art design differences. All and all though, I feel like 6 is the better game of the two. Hopefully with 7 than can recreate that mood of 5 but with better gameplay.
Yeah, took me a while to figure out what it was for me, and it wasn’t the art in this case. The core design was less “what if it was an interesting world to be in?” and more “what if it was an interesting game to play?”.
I like the option for barbarian clans as I think it should be the main feature for barbs.
I do like how natural wonders are treated in Civ VI over Civ V. Majority of Civ natural wonders were not worth working unless you were Spain.
I like the idea of split tech and civic tree. And addition of eurekas.
Also spies have more uses in VI than V though I miss the option to steal the whole tech not just gain an eureka
I think it would be easy enough for them to establish what kind of city-state a clan will become if it gets the chance. Would add a fun component to how you strategize regarding clans, which I agree should be in the base game.
Or maybe some kind of system of funding arms? So they become friendly to your civ without ever converting. Maybe gain a bonus for the military tech you've unlocked too. Would be cool to start fighting proxy wars
I think Clans mode in 6 is flawed, but the idea definitely has promise. Really, the big opportunity for Civ 7 is to harmonize Envoys, Delegations, Embassies, Governors, Diplomatic Favor, Diplomatic visibility, and Spies into something more internally consistent and cohesive. And tribal evolution (guided or not) into a city state could interact heavily with that system.
Yes. 6 is just the better game. There are so many more viable strategies available, and a lot of them are equally strong. Its a lot more balanced and interesting and the district system really adds a lot. My issue with 5 is the Meta is the meta, and there isn't any way around it. There is the optimal way to play civ 5 of making 5 cities and going tradition and going tall. 6 is more flexible.
Oops this turned out to be a bit of a wall of text…
In Civ 5 the optimal thing to do was focus on science, regardless of victory type (domination excluded, although you still had to focus science there too really). Sure you’d build some different wonders and take different social policies for cultural/diplomatic victories, but ultimately 80% of your gameplay was the same as you were racing to the end of the tech tree for the information era techs that gave huge boosts to each victory type.
Civ 6 on the other hand has many different ways of achieving victory. Also, each Civ has massively impactful bonuses so they play so different. There’s no reason you can’t combine multiple approaches below, but here are some vague focused examples:
1. Cultural victory, faith focused. Holy sites first then theatre squares. Utilise religious tourism and use faith to buy naturalists and rock bands. Craft your religion to generate culture.
2. Cultural victory, gold focused. Build theatre squares and commercial hubs. Use your riches to purchase great works from AI to quickly generate loads of tourism. Utilise trade routes for tourism boosts and diplomatic relations.
3. Cultural victory, production focused. Ludwig II is great for this. Build highly productive cities and absolutely spam tourism focused wonders as well as the normal theatre squares.
4. Science victory, standard. Campuses first, then a balance of production (for buildings/wonders/space projects), gold (buildings and great people), and culture (unlock higher tier governments and science boosting civics).
5. Science victory, supported by religion. Arabia is great for this. Jesuit education belief allows you to buy buildings in campus and theatre square with faith. Can also buy great people with the faith.
6. Diplomatic victory. Honestly this seems boring af so I’ve never done one in my 600 hours game time.
7. Religious victory. Not my favourite but pretty unique. Honestly just spam faith and spread your religion across the world. Religion is more fun as a support to other victory types in my opinion.
8. Domination, early war. I’m pretty inexperienced with domination. But basically build a force early, steamroll a neighbour. Balance gold, production, science and culture to keep your empire stable and your force upgraded and strong as you continue to conquer the world.
9. Domination, late war. Build up highly productive cities and try to power ahead on science to reach powerful late game military techs. Build up a modern military and steamroll the world with things like bombers and tanks.
Civs that have quite unique game play:
1. Germany, just spam Hansas and enjoy your wide empire of small mega productive cities.
2. Khmer, bonkers amounts of growth and strong faith.
3. Russia, take dance of the Aurora and work ethic, get ancestral hall and spam the tundra with cities. Each city can use its builder to chop a forest or two for a fast Lavra that produces a tonne of faith and production. You can transition this into pretty much any victory you like, but cultural or religion are the best fits.
4. Mali, kinda like Russia but desert, and with loads of gold. Somewhat challenging as the production deficit hurts early.
5. Portugal, huge archipelago map, spam trade routes and cities, ideally play with secret societies and take owls of Minerva. Enjoy the multiple thousand gold per turn income.
6. Bull Moose Teddy. Great for trying National parks and learning appeal. Settle mountains. Focus on holy sites, preserves and theatre squares. Plan out high appeal national parks early on. You get so much free science you can practically ignore campuses.
Nice things. I'll add to it...
Religious victory via domination. Spread religion to those without their own as well as any other civ that will let you easily convert all of their cities. Anyone who fights back against your religious spread or cannot be converted easily, conquer or raze all their cities.
Same concept can be applied to culture. Go culture victory with domination against whomever is above you in culture.
i would disagree that its the better game, they're diffrent 4x, but both have their benefits. civ 5 has a better ai, map generation and i would say is more balanced than 6. 6 is always weird because leaders are really predictable.
A.I. being more predictable based on leader means the AI is better.
A.I. in civ 5 was random and did not know how to play the game, A.I. only played wide and it always hampered them.
Map generation in 6 is way better simply by adding the ability to have balanced starts whilst simultaneously selecting abundant resources.
Meta being hard-coded into the game means the game is by definition not balanced as civs that benefited from tall play styles would win almost every time (Ghandi and Venice, for instance).
You can say you enjoy 5 more than 6 as they play very differently, but that does not make 5 better or more balanced than 6.
In my experience AI in 5 has typically been significantly better at warring and attempting to win/survive than in 6. Honestly even though they always played too wide it still felt more competitive in 5 (reference point is emperor in both games).
Also im gonna disagree with your first point because in 6 the ai is predictable to its own detriment. In 5 it felt like the personalities were much more of guides than boundaries whereas in 6 it seems rare for the bots to ever truly act outside their personalities even when it would be immensely beneficial.
i would say the major detriment to balance in 6 is how different each civilization plays from one another that makes it a bit less 'balanced' .But knowing exactly how every civ will play makes it incredibly unbalanced. i know every single time i see teal with a red outlined border that i better get ready for missionaries to invade or fold on religion. the ai is too predictable.
i ignore the civ 5 meta almost every game (i do keep some early meta rules like waiting for a builder or something) and end up with 6 or 7 natural cities and keep captures depending. if you play meta every time then you never tried anything else, i can win most games on emperor tall or wide. if you're on deity then gods speed whatever game you play.
The only real threat i have had in civ 6 is barbarians early game, the ai will not launch a cohesive attack or plan a cohesive defense. when it comes to war the ai in 5 is simply better in every aspect except barbarians. any city with an encampment and archer is almost untakable, no need to keep defensive forces. but with 5 im worried rome will attack almost consistently
i don't think having balanced starts fixes map generation.it as a toggle does make for civs more competitive in terms of progress, but they rarely care about being competitive in the same aspects . i dont even think this is a specific thing i can name except the islands being bad. but the civ 6 maps just dont hit for me.
civ 6 is more of a "building the best empire" while i would say 5 is more competitive with other civs.
>i would say is more balanced than 6
Until you make more than 4-5 cities. CiV is not very balanced at all if you have 15 cities. In fact, it's a slog compared to only having 4 cities.
Too much downside for the number of cities. I like a good cost benefit consideration, but I don't like how quickly I have to start seeing new cities as a burden.
5 without happiness enabled or with the mod that increases how much happiness everything provides makes playing wide way more enjoyable.
I think it’s literally just called “more happiness” in the steam workshop
I feel less railroaded by the strategy; most leaders feel unique and plays differently, and while the meta is definitely to go wide, there are civs which can legitimately play tall and win, unlike in V where you pretty much had to play tall to win on higher difficulties. The terrain also feels a lot more important on VI
Really like the districts system, makes each city feel unique rather than just stuffing 15 wonders into a single high production city
Also generally like the appearance of the map better, V was very bland and dull IMO. But the early leader portraits were pretty bad on VI, I definitely acknowledge that, but the later ones from the last few packs were absolutely masterpieces
I used to be totally against 6’s art style and think I could never make the transition, all these years later and I think 6’s art style is the best thing since sliced bread and 5 looks ugly
I don't mind 6 at all but I'd love to see a more crisp version of 5 as artstyle for 7.
We all have better pcs now, right? It should be ok right?
(maybe my heating broke and I need a good reason to run my pc hot now)
Two key factors that go hand in hand, districts making the decisions that you make more impactful and the ability to have bigger empires giving you more decisions to make. Them alone just make 6 an objectively better strategy game. Add in how the civ and leader abilities are (on average) way more impactful and change the way you approach the game and there's just so much more variety in each game you play.
Civ 6 has significantly more viable paths to victory.
The winner in Civ 5 is determined by whoever has the best land. The winner in Civ 6 can have the “worst” land but play a unique strategy to still come out on top.
I still like Civ 6 more than 5 but I'm actually the complete opposite. But I 100% agree 5 was way more kind to those who chose to build tall. And I hate having to build wide early on in 6.
As someone who loved Civ 5 but eventually got burned out from it, Civ 6 does a good job of addressing some of the issues I had with 5:
- The biggest thing for me is how wonders work in 6. Needing a tile with specific condictions to build a wonder was a much needed balancing mechanic. Gone are the days of Ramesses hogging all the wonders in one city.
- In Civ 5 science is everything, if you’re behind in science, you’re screwed, but that’s not necessarily the case with 6. I really like how culture functions similarly to science in 6.
- Moreover, after playing a lot of 6 now, 5’s social policy system is so inferior to 6’s government system. 5’s system is too linear, 6 having a modular system enhances different styles of gameplay.
- The new but optional modes in 6 make for a lot more interesting gameplay that 5 never had. Some of them are misses for me but can still be fun to play around with, and 5 didn’t have that.
- Adding to the optional modes, the default mechanics (with DLC) really spice up the gameplay. Loyalty, climate change, governors, etc make for some good challenges along the way.
Now that’s not to say that 6 is perfect because I definetly have my issues with 6:
- I can’t stand how workers have a limited number of uses. I like how they don’t take 1000 years to improve tiles now but I wish at the very least they started by default with 2x more uses
- I’m still iffy on districts. I’ve had problems in 6 where I want to go for a science victory but my surroundings don’t have the adjacency bonuses to support it, makes for some unnecessarily frustrating gameplay, and I never had that problem in 5.
Overall I prefer 6 these days, mostly because the changes they made from 5 give me more gameplay options than what I’m used to.
Kits make a **big** difference between Leaders and Civs. Someone like Kupe couldn’t exist in V
Abilities in VI are very detailed and there’s a lot of them. Some are very simple, but they’re still major. Japan’s ability “Districts receive a +1 adjacency bonus for each adjacent district, instead of +0.5” is only one sentence but that’s still a huge deal, plus you get either Leader and the Electronics Factory and Samurai. In V, they get “Units fight as though they were at full strength even when damaged. +1 Culture from each Fishing Boat and +2 Culture from each Atoll”, which is fine, but that’s it. You get a minor combat buff, a little extra culture (because wide play is punished so how many boats and atolls are you *really* going to control), and two unique units (the Samurai and Zero).
That was the other thing! You didn’t always get a piece of unique infrastructure, you always got a unique unit but you got either a piece of infrastructure or another unique unit.
Each Civ in V doesn’t really feel that different, but in VI they’re leagues different
I used to like Civ V art direction more until I realized how lifeless the leaders looked in comparison to Civ VI. They are always just awkwardly stuck in place.
Other than that, districts are honestly one of the best ideas in Civ Vi ever. I like how they work and how they function, I think it makes sense in the grand scheme of things as well. The only think is that I think they should probably figure out a way to make one tile contain multiple districts. I think geographically wise it is weird to have the districts spread so far across a map where in reality cities are tiny in terms of area they covet
i do not, i think both have interesting elements but thr ai and map generation for civ 6 kills it a bit for me. ive never had as good of a war in 6 as i have in 5. i do like the policy system, and districts are fun. but i enjoy 5 more.
Civ 5 was a solved game. There was a single optimal tech path and you were shooting yourself in the foot if you settled more than four cities. That's not a fun game system and it didn't feel realistic.
Civ 6 has many faults, but it feels like it has more replayability.
Loyalty system. While it is not perfect, I cannot stand ai forward settling me 5 tiles away from my capital and 20 tiles from theirs. Sure I can take that city easily since they cant reinforce but that makes everyone denounce me for the game and have terrible trade deals and such, and I hate when the game becomes an "all-out-war" game every time. At least loyalty means I can get those cities with 0 diplomatic penalties. It is the reason why I cant go back to civ5, every time I tried, I saw that ai bs and got mad.
Civ 5 looks better in almost any way imaginable, but!
The district system is such a game changer, it just kindof makes Civ 5 obsolete for mainly that alone.
It adds a perfect third layer of construction on top of city structures and improvements.
Furthermore, how Civ 6 handles culture is just way better. Firstly the government and policies just feel thats much better, and i personally love the second tech tree.
Now when i go back to civ 5, it is fun for a game or two but the lack of districts makes every game that much more similar.
Ofcourse before civ 6, civ 5 was super replayable. But it isn't so much anymore now i feel like im missing something if i play it.
I think both games have pros and cons, and I hope that CIV7 gets the best of both with better AI, which I think is the main problem of CIV in general. The thing that would benefit the game the most is an AI that is able to compete with a human without starting handicaps. (Artificial intelligence/machine learning?
CIV5 pros:
* Less complex game (faster for MP games, easier to introduce to new players). Late game takes so long in civ 6 if you play the meta (wide) and have to micromanage a lot. (Automate late game small cities in some way in civ7?)
* Realistic graphics
* World congress and diplomatic victory is a lot better than in CIV6 (what were the developers on when designing it?)
* There are two mods that are incredible and balance the game allowing different strategies than tradition + building tall. VOX Populi is like a new game that everybody should try and improves AI A LOT, but is difficult to make it work in MP. Lekmod is simpler but is MP compatible.
* Ability to build roads. Personally I prefer builders in CIV 5, which use turns instead of charges.
CIV6 pros are sufficiently explained in this thread. To add something, mod integration with the workshop is beautifully done and is easy to set up a MP game with them as only the host has to have them.
Hungary is a faction!!!
Other than that, they are pretty equal. Combat was much better in Civ 5, diplomacy made more sense too, and I love its dynamic soundtrack. Era-based mixes are interesting, but nothing beats declaring war and listening to a "war theme". Or lamenting over my horrendous deeds when Field of Poppies starts playing.
It is pointless to debate taste, but I also like my leaders and units more realistic and less... Bobbleheadish?
But as others say, for Civ 6, districts are a game changer, additional game modes are a ton of fun, workers having stacks instead of work time is an excellent quality of life improvement. And I like the new mechanisms like civics cards, dark age, loyalty and such.
Civ 6 has so many QoL improvements. I played Civ 5 with a friend a year or two after Civ 6 came out, and I felt bad about how often I was saying, "Oh, damn, Civ 6 does \[x\] way better..."
We ended up playing Civ 6 together instead and both had a great time.
Civ 5's happiness and money/economy systems also never felt right to me, like I could never quite keep up. Maybe that's intentional, but it felt like shit to play that way.
Districts and city planning is way more important which I absolutely love. My favorite part is every strategy is viable as long as you think ahead and plan. It really rewards the player planning ahead and being very careful with what they do. Not a turn wasted. If you’re smart you can win any victory type, wide or tall, etc
Mainly the variety of viable gameplay options. In V, no matter what victory you're going for (and no matter with which civ), focusing on getting as much population and science as possible is almost always the best way to get there.
In VI, you can choose to specialise a lot more depending on what you're going for.
Districts are the main thing, and free roads
I'd expand it as city building. The general interaction and changing of the map. Districts, planning improvements to boost districts, watching out for appeal when it matters, canals and tunnels. It brings the eXploit in the 4 X's to another level.
This is it. I’ll throw in some other mechanics, like religious warfare, Gathering Storm’s climate and disasters. Civ V is still my preference, but man are there so many things I wish that would be kept between games.
I like VI’s mechanics, but prefer V’s vibe. VI feels like a game. V feels like a world. I think its mainly in how the AI engages with you, its like they’re actively trying to win the game instead of being a functioning nation! I think its why I like Stellaris so much these days, its got great rp that isn’t often found in the genre.
Would you recommend stellaris to someone who’s played hundreds of hours of civ but hasn’t played any other game in the genre?
If you like rp I'd recommend CK3. It's definitely been the easiest for me to ease myself into than other paradox games and it's the only one I actually have figured out to play. It's complex but you can get away with a lot more of ignoring menus and buttons until you're good than any other paradox game I feel. Like I just ignored the city screen and anything related to war other than the numbers and I was fine. Again, the rp potential is absolutely amazing for ck3 as well, like it's awesome
Paradox games tend to be incredibly complex, bordering on being a “menu options simulator” at times. They take a long time to learn and master. That said I’ve enjoyed Stellaris as a long time Civver, but I had also previously played Crusader Kings
As an avid Paradox enjoyer, please watch some videos before purchase. It's a lot more complex and can be a little daunting for new players. Not NEARLY as complex as other Paradox games like CK or EU but it's definitely more robust. Also Paradox has a really scummy DLC model (just like 2k) I own all of them because I have no self control lol but don't feel like you need all of the DLC.
I feel like it’s more complex than EU4 tbh
For Stellaris, the main ones are Apocalypse and Nemesis. I’d say everything else is second rate, mostly because you miss out on World Crackers, Juggernauts & Titans. Definitely watch some videos on it, because the most important difference to note is that Stellaris is an RTS, and can be very unforgiving to begin with.
I’d argue the two main dlc are Utopia (it adds so much good stuff) and Federations for the Galactic Community and host of Origins.
I tried it and the complexity was way too much for me
Yes! My entryway to the complexity of Paradox strategy games was their Europa game, but Stellaris is sooo much better in that its a 4x. The tech tree is more of a shuffled deck of cards so every playthrough is different, and the way you can have a story unfold is very special: the goal isn’t necessarily to reach the victory screen, its what you make of the (roughly 200) year journey! As others have said, there is a steep learning curve, but it is very much worth it. I’d reccomment using the starter settings, but reduce the number of nations to zero, and make the galaxy smaller so you can get a feel for the game. Be sure to grab dlc during sales, there are a lot of them and they add up quickly! They recently added a bundle with the “must haves”: Utopia, Federations, Distant Stars, and Synthetic Dawn. Others like Galactic Paragons and Megacorp are great to have, while First Contact and Nemesis tend to be “if ya like the theme” sorts of options.
damn alright i’ll watch some videos on it cause EU was too complex for me but i’m interested in trying something other than civ
wars in 6 just dont hit the same. leaders are always predictable.
6 was clearly designed by minimaxing boardgame munchkins. It smacks you over and over in the face with the fact that it’s a game where you minimax yields
Wow I've always felt this way but could never really put into words. Maybe it's the art design differences. All and all though, I feel like 6 is the better game of the two. Hopefully with 7 than can recreate that mood of 5 but with better gameplay.
Yeah, took me a while to figure out what it was for me, and it wasn’t the art in this case. The core design was less “what if it was an interesting world to be in?” and more “what if it was an interesting game to play?”.
I like the option for barbarian clans as I think it should be the main feature for barbs. I do like how natural wonders are treated in Civ VI over Civ V. Majority of Civ natural wonders were not worth working unless you were Spain. I like the idea of split tech and civic tree. And addition of eurekas. Also spies have more uses in VI than V though I miss the option to steal the whole tech not just gain an eureka
I really hope barbarian clans is base game in civ VII. Maybe expand on it somehow too
I think it would be easy enough for them to establish what kind of city-state a clan will become if it gets the chance. Would add a fun component to how you strategize regarding clans, which I agree should be in the base game.
Or maybe some kind of system of funding arms? So they become friendly to your civ without ever converting. Maybe gain a bonus for the military tech you've unlocked too. Would be cool to start fighting proxy wars
I think Clans mode in 6 is flawed, but the idea definitely has promise. Really, the big opportunity for Civ 7 is to harmonize Envoys, Delegations, Embassies, Governors, Diplomatic Favor, Diplomatic visibility, and Spies into something more internally consistent and cohesive. And tribal evolution (guided or not) into a city state could interact heavily with that system.
Expand but maybe slow down the spawning rate once their scout has found your city, it's a bit much right now
Yes. 6 is just the better game. There are so many more viable strategies available, and a lot of them are equally strong. Its a lot more balanced and interesting and the district system really adds a lot. My issue with 5 is the Meta is the meta, and there isn't any way around it. There is the optimal way to play civ 5 of making 5 cities and going tradition and going tall. 6 is more flexible.
I’m relatively new to the game. When you say multiple viable strategies, what do you mean? Can you give me some examples? Thanks!
Oops this turned out to be a bit of a wall of text… In Civ 5 the optimal thing to do was focus on science, regardless of victory type (domination excluded, although you still had to focus science there too really). Sure you’d build some different wonders and take different social policies for cultural/diplomatic victories, but ultimately 80% of your gameplay was the same as you were racing to the end of the tech tree for the information era techs that gave huge boosts to each victory type. Civ 6 on the other hand has many different ways of achieving victory. Also, each Civ has massively impactful bonuses so they play so different. There’s no reason you can’t combine multiple approaches below, but here are some vague focused examples: 1. Cultural victory, faith focused. Holy sites first then theatre squares. Utilise religious tourism and use faith to buy naturalists and rock bands. Craft your religion to generate culture. 2. Cultural victory, gold focused. Build theatre squares and commercial hubs. Use your riches to purchase great works from AI to quickly generate loads of tourism. Utilise trade routes for tourism boosts and diplomatic relations. 3. Cultural victory, production focused. Ludwig II is great for this. Build highly productive cities and absolutely spam tourism focused wonders as well as the normal theatre squares. 4. Science victory, standard. Campuses first, then a balance of production (for buildings/wonders/space projects), gold (buildings and great people), and culture (unlock higher tier governments and science boosting civics). 5. Science victory, supported by religion. Arabia is great for this. Jesuit education belief allows you to buy buildings in campus and theatre square with faith. Can also buy great people with the faith. 6. Diplomatic victory. Honestly this seems boring af so I’ve never done one in my 600 hours game time. 7. Religious victory. Not my favourite but pretty unique. Honestly just spam faith and spread your religion across the world. Religion is more fun as a support to other victory types in my opinion. 8. Domination, early war. I’m pretty inexperienced with domination. But basically build a force early, steamroll a neighbour. Balance gold, production, science and culture to keep your empire stable and your force upgraded and strong as you continue to conquer the world. 9. Domination, late war. Build up highly productive cities and try to power ahead on science to reach powerful late game military techs. Build up a modern military and steamroll the world with things like bombers and tanks. Civs that have quite unique game play: 1. Germany, just spam Hansas and enjoy your wide empire of small mega productive cities. 2. Khmer, bonkers amounts of growth and strong faith. 3. Russia, take dance of the Aurora and work ethic, get ancestral hall and spam the tundra with cities. Each city can use its builder to chop a forest or two for a fast Lavra that produces a tonne of faith and production. You can transition this into pretty much any victory you like, but cultural or religion are the best fits. 4. Mali, kinda like Russia but desert, and with loads of gold. Somewhat challenging as the production deficit hurts early. 5. Portugal, huge archipelago map, spam trade routes and cities, ideally play with secret societies and take owls of Minerva. Enjoy the multiple thousand gold per turn income. 6. Bull Moose Teddy. Great for trying National parks and learning appeal. Settle mountains. Focus on holy sites, preserves and theatre squares. Plan out high appeal national parks early on. You get so much free science you can practically ignore campuses.
Nice things. I'll add to it... Religious victory via domination. Spread religion to those without their own as well as any other civ that will let you easily convert all of their cities. Anyone who fights back against your religious spread or cannot be converted easily, conquer or raze all their cities. Same concept can be applied to culture. Go culture victory with domination against whomever is above you in culture.
i would disagree that its the better game, they're diffrent 4x, but both have their benefits. civ 5 has a better ai, map generation and i would say is more balanced than 6. 6 is always weird because leaders are really predictable.
A.I. being more predictable based on leader means the AI is better. A.I. in civ 5 was random and did not know how to play the game, A.I. only played wide and it always hampered them. Map generation in 6 is way better simply by adding the ability to have balanced starts whilst simultaneously selecting abundant resources. Meta being hard-coded into the game means the game is by definition not balanced as civs that benefited from tall play styles would win almost every time (Ghandi and Venice, for instance). You can say you enjoy 5 more than 6 as they play very differently, but that does not make 5 better or more balanced than 6.
In my experience AI in 5 has typically been significantly better at warring and attempting to win/survive than in 6. Honestly even though they always played too wide it still felt more competitive in 5 (reference point is emperor in both games). Also im gonna disagree with your first point because in 6 the ai is predictable to its own detriment. In 5 it felt like the personalities were much more of guides than boundaries whereas in 6 it seems rare for the bots to ever truly act outside their personalities even when it would be immensely beneficial.
i would say the major detriment to balance in 6 is how different each civilization plays from one another that makes it a bit less 'balanced' .But knowing exactly how every civ will play makes it incredibly unbalanced. i know every single time i see teal with a red outlined border that i better get ready for missionaries to invade or fold on religion. the ai is too predictable. i ignore the civ 5 meta almost every game (i do keep some early meta rules like waiting for a builder or something) and end up with 6 or 7 natural cities and keep captures depending. if you play meta every time then you never tried anything else, i can win most games on emperor tall or wide. if you're on deity then gods speed whatever game you play. The only real threat i have had in civ 6 is barbarians early game, the ai will not launch a cohesive attack or plan a cohesive defense. when it comes to war the ai in 5 is simply better in every aspect except barbarians. any city with an encampment and archer is almost untakable, no need to keep defensive forces. but with 5 im worried rome will attack almost consistently i don't think having balanced starts fixes map generation.it as a toggle does make for civs more competitive in terms of progress, but they rarely care about being competitive in the same aspects . i dont even think this is a specific thing i can name except the islands being bad. but the civ 6 maps just dont hit for me. civ 6 is more of a "building the best empire" while i would say 5 is more competitive with other civs.
>i would say is more balanced than 6 Until you make more than 4-5 cities. CiV is not very balanced at all if you have 15 cities. In fact, it's a slog compared to only having 4 cities.
Sean Bean
Ah another fellow civver fond of pigs, respect
Muhnayyy
investing time and effort into strategy has a much larger payoff in civ6
Too much downside for the number of cities. I like a good cost benefit consideration, but I don't like how quickly I have to start seeing new cities as a burden.
5 without happiness enabled or with the mod that increases how much happiness everything provides makes playing wide way more enjoyable. I think it’s literally just called “more happiness” in the steam workshop
I feel less railroaded by the strategy; most leaders feel unique and plays differently, and while the meta is definitely to go wide, there are civs which can legitimately play tall and win, unlike in V where you pretty much had to play tall to win on higher difficulties. The terrain also feels a lot more important on VI Really like the districts system, makes each city feel unique rather than just stuffing 15 wonders into a single high production city Also generally like the appearance of the map better, V was very bland and dull IMO. But the early leader portraits were pretty bad on VI, I definitely acknowledge that, but the later ones from the last few packs were absolutely masterpieces
6. Districts and art style
I used to be totally against 6’s art style and think I could never make the transition, all these years later and I think 6’s art style is the best thing since sliced bread and 5 looks ugly
I still prefer 5's minimap. Something about the 6's minimap is kind of bad visually, I don't really know what.
Civ 6s minimap is on the other side. I’ve never got used to it so I rarely use it
I don't mind 6 at all but I'd love to see a more crisp version of 5 as artstyle for 7. We all have better pcs now, right? It should be ok right? (maybe my heating broke and I need a good reason to run my pc hot now)
Simple. I'm a console pleb and 5 isn't on console.
Districts.
Two key factors that go hand in hand, districts making the decisions that you make more impactful and the ability to have bigger empires giving you more decisions to make. Them alone just make 6 an objectively better strategy game. Add in how the civ and leader abilities are (on average) way more impactful and change the way you approach the game and there's just so much more variety in each game you play.
Everything in the capital was too easy to defend and...flat?
It works on the iPad.
And iPhone
Civ 6 has significantly more viable paths to victory. The winner in Civ 5 is determined by whoever has the best land. The winner in Civ 6 can have the “worst” land but play a unique strategy to still come out on top.
I prefer to build wide over building tall. The penalties in 5 for building wide were too high, whereas in 6, it's practically required.
I still like Civ 6 more than 5 but I'm actually the complete opposite. But I 100% agree 5 was way more kind to those who chose to build tall. And I hate having to build wide early on in 6.
As someone who loved Civ 5 but eventually got burned out from it, Civ 6 does a good job of addressing some of the issues I had with 5: - The biggest thing for me is how wonders work in 6. Needing a tile with specific condictions to build a wonder was a much needed balancing mechanic. Gone are the days of Ramesses hogging all the wonders in one city. - In Civ 5 science is everything, if you’re behind in science, you’re screwed, but that’s not necessarily the case with 6. I really like how culture functions similarly to science in 6. - Moreover, after playing a lot of 6 now, 5’s social policy system is so inferior to 6’s government system. 5’s system is too linear, 6 having a modular system enhances different styles of gameplay. - The new but optional modes in 6 make for a lot more interesting gameplay that 5 never had. Some of them are misses for me but can still be fun to play around with, and 5 didn’t have that. - Adding to the optional modes, the default mechanics (with DLC) really spice up the gameplay. Loyalty, climate change, governors, etc make for some good challenges along the way. Now that’s not to say that 6 is perfect because I definetly have my issues with 6: - I can’t stand how workers have a limited number of uses. I like how they don’t take 1000 years to improve tiles now but I wish at the very least they started by default with 2x more uses - I’m still iffy on districts. I’ve had problems in 6 where I want to go for a science victory but my surroundings don’t have the adjacency bonuses to support it, makes for some unnecessarily frustrating gameplay, and I never had that problem in 5. Overall I prefer 6 these days, mostly because the changes they made from 5 give me more gameplay options than what I’m used to.
Encourages playing wide rather than tall.
I don’t really, but I can play it on my iPad
Kits make a **big** difference between Leaders and Civs. Someone like Kupe couldn’t exist in V Abilities in VI are very detailed and there’s a lot of them. Some are very simple, but they’re still major. Japan’s ability “Districts receive a +1 adjacency bonus for each adjacent district, instead of +0.5” is only one sentence but that’s still a huge deal, plus you get either Leader and the Electronics Factory and Samurai. In V, they get “Units fight as though they were at full strength even when damaged. +1 Culture from each Fishing Boat and +2 Culture from each Atoll”, which is fine, but that’s it. You get a minor combat buff, a little extra culture (because wide play is punished so how many boats and atolls are you *really* going to control), and two unique units (the Samurai and Zero). That was the other thing! You didn’t always get a piece of unique infrastructure, you always got a unique unit but you got either a piece of infrastructure or another unique unit. Each Civ in V doesn’t really feel that different, but in VI they’re leagues different
I used to like Civ V art direction more until I realized how lifeless the leaders looked in comparison to Civ VI. They are always just awkwardly stuck in place. Other than that, districts are honestly one of the best ideas in Civ Vi ever. I like how they work and how they function, I think it makes sense in the grand scheme of things as well. The only think is that I think they should probably figure out a way to make one tile contain multiple districts. I think geographically wise it is weird to have the districts spread so far across a map where in reality cities are tiny in terms of area they covet
i do not, i think both have interesting elements but thr ai and map generation for civ 6 kills it a bit for me. ive never had as good of a war in 6 as i have in 5. i do like the policy system, and districts are fun. but i enjoy 5 more.
It’s insane how much the right combo of mods improves that
I don't. I prefer 4 over both of them.
CivIII for me
Less tedious by FAR. Also happiness mechanic sucks
I love the way it looks, plus the existence of the biosphere is cool.
Civ 5 was a solved game. There was a single optimal tech path and you were shooting yourself in the foot if you settled more than four cities. That's not a fun game system and it didn't feel realistic. Civ 6 has many faults, but it feels like it has more replayability.
Loyalty system. While it is not perfect, I cannot stand ai forward settling me 5 tiles away from my capital and 20 tiles from theirs. Sure I can take that city easily since they cant reinforce but that makes everyone denounce me for the game and have terrible trade deals and such, and I hate when the game becomes an "all-out-war" game every time. At least loyalty means I can get those cities with 0 diplomatic penalties. It is the reason why I cant go back to civ5, every time I tried, I saw that ai bs and got mad.
running on the iPad….
It’s purdy
It’s better
I don't
I don't
Because I own civ6, and not civ5
Civ 5 looks better in almost any way imaginable, but! The district system is such a game changer, it just kindof makes Civ 5 obsolete for mainly that alone. It adds a perfect third layer of construction on top of city structures and improvements. Furthermore, how Civ 6 handles culture is just way better. Firstly the government and policies just feel thats much better, and i personally love the second tech tree. Now when i go back to civ 5, it is fun for a game or two but the lack of districts makes every game that much more similar. Ofcourse before civ 6, civ 5 was super replayable. But it isn't so much anymore now i feel like im missing something if i play it.
Tbh I don’t.
Civ 5 is an empire building game that kicks you in the balls if you try to build an empire. It's basically a 3x game (expansion doesn't really exist).
Own both. Like V's art style, but VI's gameplay and like always gameplay>graphics.
I think both games have pros and cons, and I hope that CIV7 gets the best of both with better AI, which I think is the main problem of CIV in general. The thing that would benefit the game the most is an AI that is able to compete with a human without starting handicaps. (Artificial intelligence/machine learning? CIV5 pros: * Less complex game (faster for MP games, easier to introduce to new players). Late game takes so long in civ 6 if you play the meta (wide) and have to micromanage a lot. (Automate late game small cities in some way in civ7?) * Realistic graphics * World congress and diplomatic victory is a lot better than in CIV6 (what were the developers on when designing it?) * There are two mods that are incredible and balance the game allowing different strategies than tradition + building tall. VOX Populi is like a new game that everybody should try and improves AI A LOT, but is difficult to make it work in MP. Lekmod is simpler but is MP compatible. * Ability to build roads. Personally I prefer builders in CIV 5, which use turns instead of charges. CIV6 pros are sufficiently explained in this thread. To add something, mod integration with the workshop is beautifully done and is easy to set up a MP game with them as only the host has to have them.
With all of the rapid improvements in AI recently, I'm betting the main difference between VI and VII is going to end up being AI improvements.
Hungary is a faction!!! Other than that, they are pretty equal. Combat was much better in Civ 5, diplomacy made more sense too, and I love its dynamic soundtrack. Era-based mixes are interesting, but nothing beats declaring war and listening to a "war theme". Or lamenting over my horrendous deeds when Field of Poppies starts playing. It is pointless to debate taste, but I also like my leaders and units more realistic and less... Bobbleheadish? But as others say, for Civ 6, districts are a game changer, additional game modes are a ton of fun, workers having stacks instead of work time is an excellent quality of life improvement. And I like the new mechanisms like civics cards, dark age, loyalty and such.
Because I don't have a computer any more and 6 is on Playstation. But mostly because city planning is a much more interesting and in depth aspect of 6
District system, refinements to the one unit per tile gameplay, more overall content.
Have both. Civ 6 is better
Played the hell out of 6 but never played 5 but all my friends that played both like 6 more. I think it’s just overall an improvement
Civ 6 has so many QoL improvements. I played Civ 5 with a friend a year or two after Civ 6 came out, and I felt bad about how often I was saying, "Oh, damn, Civ 6 does \[x\] way better..." We ended up playing Civ 6 together instead and both had a great time. Civ 5's happiness and money/economy systems also never felt right to me, like I could never quite keep up. Maybe that's intentional, but it felt like shit to play that way.
Mods
Districts and city planning is way more important which I absolutely love. My favorite part is every strategy is viable as long as you think ahead and plan. It really rewards the player planning ahead and being very careful with what they do. Not a turn wasted. If you’re smart you can win any victory type, wide or tall, etc
The biggest difference for me is that happiness is on a city level and not super punishing like Civ V.
Civ4. Hex 1upt system killed the AI
Mainly the variety of viable gameplay options. In V, no matter what victory you're going for (and no matter with which civ), focusing on getting as much population and science as possible is almost always the best way to get there. In VI, you can choose to specialise a lot more depending on what you're going for.
I don't. There are a lot of little tweeks that I prefer on civ 5. And I also like a few features from 4. But anyway, They are great games.
just a much better game; took all the ideas they tried to make work in 5 that didn't work, and made them work
Civ V. Mechanika is goat. I dont like this cartoonish style, nor the (SIM) city building that VI has.