Civ5 just feels like I’m making a civilization. The workers running around representing the most important part of human society, the working class citizens, is a huge part of this. Many other things but you’ve covered them
The real problem with Civ 6 AI is that it can't handle the level of minmax needed to play the game properly. - Swapping policy cards - Spamming infinite cities 4 tiles away - Plan for future districts adjacencies - Handling builders with finite charges - Fighting a war intelligently
For being easier to pick, it sure is hellish to plan districts on Civ6, and after letting all your pins down for your perfect triple aqueduct factory setup, a horse appears in the middle out of nowhere destroying your entire plan
That's true, but unless you're on deity, you don't need to put that much effort into planning what goes where exactly. As long as you plan the right districts in the right city and don't just build random districts, then you're probably fine
I wish they had made agendas a feature for players too. Basically every Civ has a civ agenda, then a leader has a leader agenda, and finally every player (PC or not) gets a random secret agenda (if we want it to be really fun, change it every era). All agendas are requirements on other players, it may be relative to you, or absolute. First every agenda has a strength. Basically if the agenda requirements are met in your continent, you get the basic strength (local power), if you are able to keep it worldwide you get a stronger version (world power). Next every agenda has two levels, which increases the bonus. If all your allies and players you've recently done friendly actions with (generous trades, gifts, etc.) fulfill the requirement you get the first level. If all players you are not at war with fulfill the requirements, then you get the second bonus. The idea is that the agendas represent ideals, culture, beliefs, etc. of a civilization, and ultimately when a player is aligned with the desires of their civilization and leader, they word better. The benefit is that now agendas are an interesting tradeoff. Yes, you could get a powerful ally with Seondeok by focusing on science, but this will give her a bonus on science that would give her an edge on science victory against you. But by strategic use of spies and intrigue you could keep stealing tech from her and sabotaging her own progress to science victory to make up for it. Or maybe you aren't going for science victory, but want close allies for your own agenda, and the extra science frees your resources to focus on something else, like domination.
CIV 5 is not about outsmarting the AI (very easy) or beating it. Its about building a truly beautiful and harmonic empire while battling the challenges that may introduce. Thats the kind of feeling that the games give me still 15 years later.
I love Civ 5 because of Venice. I can play in a unique way buy buying enemy cities instead of building my own. Finally all that trading is actually useful
I, actually, broke Venice, while playing civ V. That "puppet cities" thing. You see, one of my cities was taken by bot, but I won it back. And I could actually choose to annex city. That's how my one-city challenge turned to two-cities challenge
Most of my highly played games on steam have around 250-300 hours played. Civ 6 around 50 hours. But Civ 5 is around 3000 plus hours. This game never gets old. I often tell myself just another 30 mins. Then I look outside and the sun is coming up lol.
according to Steam DB, Civ 6 is more Popular than 5, since it has more active players. its still impressive how long Civ 5 managed to stay alive though.
Its the artstyle that is mostly keeping players from playing civ 6. St first i hated it too, but i fell in love with the new mechanics of the game it is more complex and and diverse in gameplay rather than just focusing in one strategy for each and every leaders.
@@eannane8712 yeah the variation of mods in Civ 6 is nothing compared to Civ 5 however I think what makes Civ 6 more playable is the Loyalty Mechanic. I think border gore is a massiv issue in every civ game
The main thing about civ 6 that I dislike, is the fact that for every victory type it's always optimal to spam more cities. Due to how they have implemented districts, having a big population gives diminished returns after like pop 10-12 or so. Combined with the removal of the extra tech cost from total cities, means that its always the best choice to spam settlers. After you just place the district that correlates with your preferred victory type and boom you win the game. After I realized that, it made the strategy of vanilla kind of boring.
Yeah it seems like an extreme overcorrection to how poorly wide empires were done in Civ V with how hard happiness is to come by, you're practically forced to go tradition or only have tiny population cities in Civ V. To be fair to Civ VI having more cities should always be the optimal play going into a new game, as long as there is fertile land you should settle it, the costs of the city will always pay itself off in the long run. However, they should have kept the mechanics like increasing the total science and culture costs when you have more cities. More people means you need more science to educate and culture to influence them. Then again having 11 ecstatic cities with 280 population before turn 200 is just broken.
In Civ IV you were more punished by quickly planting many cities, rising upkeep costs do really cut the research funding, so tech progress is getting slower. When population grows and tiles get worked, cottages become bigger etc. it all starts to pay off but it's still an early game investment. Civ V was indeed more about playing tall, while CIv VI kinda went in the other direction, where planting more cities is preferable, especially for civs like Germany. Every settler and worker become more expensive to produce, and amenities are starting to be spread thin, but if you pick good spots with resources or got some entertainment then it shouldn't be an issue.
And now CIV 7 focused more on leaders and changing CIV every era I love Firaxis approach of trying new things instead of making the same game because the previous one was liked
Waw someone who is not just crying about change. I aggree and i want them to experiment and try new things. I personaly love the district system in civ 6. Love how my city grows with them
I grew up on Civ 5, but stopped playing it for a few years and then came back to the genre with Civ 6. I sunk a few hundred hours into Civ 6 over the span of about a year, without playing Civ 5 at all. Then, I went back to Civ 5, and I was blown away! I was always someone who didn't like Civ 6's cartoony tone. It feels like a board game, rather than a gritty "rise of civilization" simulator. On top of that, I don't like how they introduced multiple personalities for some of the leaders like Theodore Roosevelt and Cleopatra. I'd have much preferred the devs to add completely new leaders or new civs, instead of reusing old leaders. Adding Washington instead of a second Teddy, or Napoleon instead of a second Catherine, would have been much more enticing to me. For a long time I thought that was the only thing Civ 5 did better than Civ 6, but then I went back and actually played Civ 5 again and realized how wrong I was. For starters, the AI was actually competent! They posed a serious challenge and were much more engaging to play with. The extra diplomatic flair that the AI has in Civ 5 also makes the experience much more dynamic and interesting. I felt that the combat was also better, and not just because there were actual armies on the field instead of just 3 mega-warriors. I remember my first game back being extremely fun in the late game because it was so dramatic due to the ideologies! New friendships formed, new enemies formed, and a world war broke out! It was nothing like Civ 6, and it was a blast. The whole experience made me realize that I didn't truly appreciate how good Civ 5 was until I spent some time away playing what I didn't realize was an inferior game.
@@Thenarratorofsecrets Dang it, I've been exposed as a jacked and girthy CivLifeR subscriber! 💀 And yes, I was raised on the Civ franchise! I discovered Civ 2 on my mom's old computer when I was young and got addicted, then spent hundreds of hours in Civ 3, then skipped 4 and spent hundreds of hours on 5. Fun fact: Civ 5 is the reason I created a Steam account! Even funner fact: Civ 3 is 34 days older than me!
@@AndrewChicken 2 got me as well, specifically Test of time, it had a fantasy mode which was sweet. I skipped 3, but played about 1000 hrs on 4, damn you're just a kid, i was pretty much an adult when 3 came out.
I’m new to the civ series I had the games on my steam library collecting dust, I really like the feel of Civ 3 for what you described a gritty rise of civilization and it won’t be pretty, I feel like older games get overlooked because ‘newer = better’ but Civ 3 is serious and it’s definitely not nostalgia.
@@ivanmarinkovic3938Hills are invisible (Forested and Jungled Civ5 Hills sometimes are, usually not) Jungles are recolored forests (Civ5 Jungles are way different) Tribal villages do not exist (ruins do) And the palette is barf literally vomit
Coming from civ5 were I repeatedly got destroyed trying to beat diety and then playing deity on civ6 for the first time and winning easily made me think the game is too easy.
Yeah coming from Civ 5 deity difficulty, Civ 6 feels like a dip in the kiddie pool. I do appreciate that the early game is less formulaic in 6 on higher difficulties, though. I got sick of tradition openers after a while in 5.
Civ 5 is superior because mods are far more stable and you can use multiple playstyles either playing long or tall. Civ 6 on the other hand you just settle 10 cities and hope you win, also every Civ 6 multiplayer we have to disable diplomatic victory so nobody just cheeses the game
Looks like you are just bad. There is no reason to "hope" to win. Also you can play easily with less than 10 cities or with way more, all depending on yourself and oyur plan for the game. Diplomatic Victory in Multiplayer? Well, if you are to dumb to solve the problem ingame, than its your own fault the person wins it. There is actually no way to win multiplayer with diplomatic victoy, if your enemies dont let you do it. Civ 6 has completly stable mods as well, you can play with like 40 and the game will still be completly fine. Youre talking shit dude.
I think civ 6 looks good, personally like the more vibrant colors. I understand that the cartoony artstyle turns people off, but a decent unrealistic art style will look good in 10 years where a realistic looking game will probably look dated in 10 years.
Not untrue, and Civ 6 didn't do it bad either, it's special and lively, but Civ5's realism and technology of the time (2010 was of course already a very advanced stage) brought the perfect type of it. Looking at Augustus years and titles before compared to the one in Civ 5 is a whole other experience and impact for a person. Ramses, Washington and other leaders too.
As somebody that has played all civs, except 1, a lot. I can say that I found Civ 5 forcing the player to play tall to be inferior to Civ 4 in every way. With the expansions I really like 6 and I still play it.
Yeah, and the sense of vast swathes of the habitable map remaining vacant because it's disadvantageous to settle doesn't feel right from a gameplay standpoint, and is totally untrue to history.
Civ 5 doesn't force you into tall. Just more population you have the stronger the city. Civ 6 is about small town stronger then bigger which is dumb. I play wide with huge populace cities in both game as Rome.
@SuperDarkMan12TV yea you can. I done one city challenge of diety pretty easy..both games are easy both games you can play tall or wide. It's 4x every 4x you can. Just at a disadvantages in later eras if you don't ally city states in civ 6 cuz sometimes you don't got oil or coal or uranium.
The loyalty mechanism is what keeps me playing Civ 6 rather that 5. It was really annoying in 5 where a rival Civ would settle a city randomly next to your Civ, you had to fill every space of land unless you wanted some random neighbor popping up. 6 adds a layer of risk and danger that a city to far from your capital can be flipped though loyalty, then this ties in with the Era scores, dark age can be disastrous. Great addition.
Theres alot more mechanisms like this in civ 6 that makes the game more realistic in a way. Appeal for tourism, trade routes, religous pressures, adjacency bonuses, etc. for me i like the how satisfying other victory conditions are rn, in civ 5 i feel like theyre just afterthoughts.
I will probably always play Civ V. It is my favorite and always will be. I play a modded version now with things like expanded religions, resource compendium, city health and plagues, hex conquer and release, and a few others. I have a modded Rome which grants the legion the march promotion automatically, and every building shared with all your cities grants +2 golden age points. It really makes you think about how wide you want to build your empire, because the improved legion makes it much easier, but the golden ages will be harder to achieve. City health is an important modded feature, because it limits the good places for cities. You have to take into consideration resources and terrain that can negatively impact your city's health, as plagues can destroy a very unhealthy one.
one thing I LOVE in civ 6 that isnt executed as well in civ 5 is that in the late game you can look at your empire with many of the wonders you havespent a lot of production building all thoose districts roads neigborhoods etc it looks awsome like a lively city but in civ its just a giant skyscraper city surrounded by mines and farms
To me Civ 6 felt like playing with a cheap Lego knock-off with bad connecting pieces. Civ 5 feels like a piece of artwork that is pleasing to craft and look at.
If I were the devs, I would be stupid to ignore the success of Civ 6 and go instead the Civ 5 route, which sold less. As a player I would love a Civ 5 route but man from a business standpoint, Civ 7 should be more like Civ 6
Civ 6 is one of those games that I quickly grew attached to after civ 5 solely because of another game making me realize what I didn't like about it, happiness. For the unfortunate souls that played beyond earth the health system was iirc basically happiness in a fresh coat of paint. And I only remember this because 10 turns in my cities were unhealthy and I could do nothing. After that, going back to civ 5 was permanently soured from that and civ 6 became my favorite afterwards.
The thing I like most about civ6 is the improved happiness system. It allows for a wider range of opportunities to do with your empire as you want. It definitely falls prey to meta play styles, which is certainly a negative aspect of civ6. But it also allows the player to have more fun throughout the game because they have more options. To me this characterizes the difference between civ5 and civ6, though civ6 is more flawed strategically, it is more versatile and for me personally more fun to play.
Good point: both games were made for different target audiences thus are different games, even though belong to the same family. Rather than 6 being a "better game" than 5 because of update-progression. I still play 5 maybe because I think it's better thought out and more mature as I am an older player. Old World is where I scratch the itch though, only wish OW was in future space.
Definitely agree with a lot of this. I replay civ 5 a lot more but there are a ton of things that I prefer in civ 6 ESPECIALLY the city planning thanks to the district mechanic. It does come with the curse of missing the small things like being able to build a damn canal when my city is ONE TILE away from sea when I play civ 5
I moved, changed jobs, and got married during civ 5 - after I had a pc that could run it. Basically missed it and spent more time in 6. I need to go back. Thanks!
I think something that goes under discussed when comparing Civ5 and 6 is how the district system allowed the devs to get lazy when designing new civs. In civ4/5 the civs were largely custom with the devs hand making each one to reflect its historical strengths/strategies. In civ6 the civs feel like they are made from a template with one district being given a new name and a slight buff to one resource or another but is otherwise the same as it’s generic counterpart available to everyone else. The devs can say that it is technically unique, it has its own code, it’s own name, and does something slightly different. But from a player standpoint it never feels unique, it always feels very negligible.
While you compare Civ4 to Civ5 remember, that in opposite to Civ5, great majority players do not use Steam version of Civ4 and Steam statictics shows only a marginal part of how often Civ4 is actually played. You can still compare activity on forums and definitely Civ4 is not dead, never ever even was close to be dead. Civ4 will live forever.
I stopped playing CIV6 because it was too much of a headache to plan out districts. I wasn't bad at it. In fact for months after the game came out I dominated in multiplayer. But it was still a pain in the ass to place down all your pins and constantly adjust.
The districts is one of my favourite ideas in a strategy game and the ability to raid coastal units is so fun too but there are so many other things that make me prefer V, the fact that your builders actually matter and getting one stolen is actually annoying, that you don't have to restrain from building builders until feudalism to be optimal, that the culture tree is distinct from the tech one and much less harder to keep track of, that city states feel like allies and not just a random bonus to add to your collection, that diplomacy make fucking sense, that builders can build roads and you don't have to worry about another type of civil unit for that and that I don't have to worry about the second military victory that religious victory is.
I love slow games, even so much as to purposefully decrease the game pace sometimes, but the decision paralysis is always crippling. I know with time and practice I can reduce how long it takes for me to make each decision, and eventually beat diety, but I'm just not there yet. Civ 6 allowed me to cross that invisible hurdle much more easily as a new player such that I can actually enjoy the depth of certain mechanics, and the weight of my choices.
One thing that I hope they change is that leaders have a larger impact on changing the way a civ plays. Since Greece was the only Civilization to have two leaders when Civ 6 came out they didn't consider how certain leaders would seem less useful given their Civilization. If they wanted to try a really interesting solution they could make it so you are allowed to choose any leader to lead any civilization to create all kinds of unique strategies and synergies. It's either that or just having as many leaders as possible for each civ, and having each one have a different focus, which would have the AI more focused.
I've played 1k hours of 5 and 500 hours of 6 before burning out on both of them. 5 has meatier decisions, and 6 has smaller but more frequent decisions (little optimizations with the card game for example). One major advantage 6 has is the unstacking of cities, with districts and wonders taking their own tiles. Some may find it tedious or goofy, but I can't go back to one tile cities after this and I hope they keep it for 7.
It unrealistic however. In reality, compared to the scale of the planet, a city really just covers one tile. So it is completely reasonable for a strategy game that features troop movements and placement, to make cities also one tile. Otherwise the scale would become off or they would have to make the maps very much bigger to compensate, for which there are not enough computing resources for this type of game.
I played civ5 for 2 years while I’ve been playing civ 6 since day one despite its repetitive nature and the incompetency of deity ai. Like in one of my games, Gilgamesh had 2 biplanes by turn 120 and i was still able to conquer him with musket men… I don’t know but i find civ6 more fun
In Civ6 AI doesn't seem to use air units, only anti-air units. Heck in Civ6, AI was so dumb it wouldn't even upgrade his units as it goes through tech, so they would have bunch of starting spearman units run around in Atomic era. In Civ5, AI would sometimes use bombers\jets, but they nerfed it because let's be honest, Deity AI would just obliterate PC because AI cheats in these games. They either get free units at will or get massive, like 90% discount, which is why AI is always able to spam religious units for example.
@@J.J.Jameson_of_Daily_Bugle This is something Firaxis broke during the patch cycle. Before the expansion packs, the AI used planes fairly well. I remember abandoning a war because Arabia's planes were shredding me to pieces.
With regards to mods, civ 6 is better. In 5 playing with mods disables achievements, where in six they don’t. There are so many great quality of life mods for 6 that I can use and still get my achievements, but they weren’t even a consideration in 5.
I am a big civ player. I beating civ 6 deity is super easily. I win every civ 6 deity game. Civ 5 has Lek mod, which adds depth and rebalances the game. I swear to god playing against the AI with that mod sometimes is impossible where I only win two-thirds of the time on deity. Last game, I won science, no war turn 162 on quick, and the ai was probably only 5 to 10 turns away from winning. This difficulty the ai brings and complexity/variety of strategies in lek civ 5 is what makes me come back every time.
I disagree to an extent about leader ability variety/depth as i do honestly feel having played 1000 hrs of civ 6 with about 500 being spent playing deity exclusively that there are plenty of leaders who completely change the way you play your game much to the same degree that those in civ 5 do occasionally even more I'd say. One thing about civ 6 leaders ESPECIALLY after the leader pass is that there's certainly a big amount of leader redundancy but tbf the game has tons of leaders! So there's room for some junk although it is a shame the way some of them were handled. Where i totally agree is tone, and it legit put me off of playing civ 6 until gathering storm came out and i decided to give it another chance. I'll also add that on top of the art i actually do personally find a tonal difference in the music which i enjoy more in civ 5. Also agree the AI in these games (particularly noticable in 6 as i believe it's mechanics are slightly more complicated especially in the way they interlink) need improvement bug time. It's a little embarrassing that we're 10 years from the launch of civ 5 and the AI has not made big improvements. Last thing I'll say is that given the way expansions changed both civ 5 and 6 drastically for the better i would say that unfortunately it's almost an expectation now that on release civ games are just not a fully fleshed out/finished product and waiting it out with the previous gen games while you wait for major expansions is sometimes the better strategy (at least for me personally).
What I hate most in Civ 6 is that I always feel like I have to play to min-max (like getting points for golden age or choosing district locations based purely on points) instead of playing according to my heart's desire.
As someone new to Civilization, first game being 6, I really like the way 6 is played. I can’t speak on how Civ 5 was but watching the video it doesn’t look anymore fun or better than what Civ 6 is for me so I guess the changed that happened did invite newer players
It's because civ 5 is more casual friendly than civ 6 IMO. As a casual player I can still hop into civ 5 from time to time and still do well enough. I hop into Civ 6 and it's far more easier to screw up with decisions made 25-50 turns ago or stuff you just forget. Add in late game mechanics, city flipping, the problems that came from 5 to 6 and I don't want to play 6 outside of the first 100ish turns. Honestly, completely turned me off of buying new games in the entire genre because of it, especially Civ 7, which sounds like they're doubling down in things I don't like in 6 but still trying to fix the problems it caused. Started playing PDX games and never went back except for 5.
Me playing Civ 6 on my own: Man this game is pretty complicated it'll take forever to learn all the nuances. This guy: Civ 6 is over simplistic baby trash.
I think it has to do with the learning curve. Games have in my mind 3 differn't states of learning to play, Your a NOOB is it not fun becuase you have no clue what you are doing. Stage two is you have enough knowledge for the game to be fun. The finally stage is you are near a master or near enough to not make a differnce. What makes a game good to me is the second stage being easy enough to reach. Quick enough were you don't just give up. However it should take a while to master the game. CIv 5 is really easy to get the second stage, nearly impossible to master. Civ 6 confuses the player so they never get to stage 2. atleast that was my expierce with the games.
Things are always complex at first, and then seem simple after you master them. When A says "this is simple" while B thinks it's complex, often A isn't smarter than B. Usually A just has much more experience than B.
@@TotheSoundOfThunderingEngines Literally opposite for me. Still have no idea what people so like in civ5, while civ6 just immediately clicked with me. Just idea of making districts and builders with chargers are much more intuitive and understandable. But what is problem with civ6 is that for mastering your skill you have to play online. Random lobbies are shit and biggest online community are competitive and is using balance mod made by themselves.
Civ V is popular because that's around when gaming became "main stream".. CIV IV is actually the best CIV out there, hands down. It has the best AI, best game flow, best diplomacy that actually makes sense, best tech tree setup, best alternate fun options for games, best dynamic situations, best movement system.... everything was way more in depth and fleshed out, and expansive.
Imo civ 4 + the realism invictus mod is still my favorite civ game, I only play the newer civ games because civ 4 doesn't work on linux The newer civ games just feel more boardgame-ified then the previous entries imo also civ 6 slandered my favorite historical ruler: Cyrus the Great (Kurus Shah #1) and portrayed him as a ruthless backstabber when he was one of the most humanist rulers of his day
Title implies less bias than you seem to have, but I respect your opinion. I like both games a lot and the reason I switch between them is that they're so different and it just comes down to which mechanics I wanna exploit at the time.
I still like Civ 3 the best. Been with the series since one. For some reason I could never get into 5, but according to Steam I have played Civ 6 almost 2,000 hours. To me, Civ 6 is like a city builder but on an empire wide scale. It makes the early game scouting, with or without scouts, absolutely crucial. Those first hundred or so turns I think are the best in the whole series, but after that… Civ V? I definitely prefer the art style, the look of the map, and the World Congress feature. That’s really about it though. To each his own, of course. I know lots of veterans who don’t consider 5 or 6 proper Civ games at all.
Re: AI section. I distinctly remember AI constantly spamming settlers, then cheating by having a standing army so big they go in hundreds of gold in debt per turn, and extremely low amenities with no ill effects whatsoever
The unit promotions I agree so much. And example for that is that since Privateers are able to capture enemy ships, I make sure to build them then upgrade to destroyers later. Those "Privateer Class" destroyers are the ones I use to capture submarines which I use as nuclear missile carriers when upgraded. Destroyers I build or I got from Ironclads are what I use to capture cities I build submarines as attack subs, captured ones are part of my nuclear trident. One more is with battleships. You can specialize a battleship for offshore bombardment or you can specialize it to support your destroyers and cruisers in naval combat.
Both games are good, both provide different experiences which is good, because they don't compete too much with each other (outside of the basic concept and title). And I guess Civ 7, if they'll make it work will also become a game that is there with its own playerbase that's not conflicting with neither 5 or 6. Recently I've played Civ 5 for the first time in like 5 or 6 years. It has some problems, like horrendous UI compared to Civ 6 UI. Defensive Pact (which is kinda a worse version of Civ 6 Alliances) is a double edged sword where you automatically will attack one of your allies if they bicker with each other. Also, AI is way less friendly (and more predictable to when they plan to backstab you and with whom) - and I know that Civ 6 AI has a reputation of being that, but in my first Civ 6 game (back when alliances didn't had a limit and were plain) I got 18 out of 19 civs as declared friends or allies (the stray one was Montezuma), something that's not possible in Civ 5. Even now majority of my games in Civ 6 end up as a friend to majority of civs. But it also has some nice things. F.e. in this game I tried to get a culture victory. I managed to be the second in the game who adopted an ideology. After that every civ that tried to go for culture victory adopted my ideology (even if it wouldn't benefit them), because game has tourism bonus for shared ideology - which could be something like AI not thinking about districts in Civ 6. That's something which would never happen in Civ 6, because I think they have set paths of their goverments. Another funny AI quirk that's not happening in Civ 6 (at least not directly) is a world scale war against one civ - basically friendly strong leader ask you (and I assume everyone else) to go to war with a problematic civ, after which rest of your friends that dislike this civ will also go to you asking to go to war against this civ (in 6 it exists as an emergency, which feels more like a competition than a political move). Overall I feel like Civ 5 has more detailed mechanics. Meanwhile Civ 6 is way busier, because it has so many side objectives (especially now with all dlcs) you could go through that could keep you occupied, especially with 7 game modes (city state quests, golden ages, eurekas, emergencies, leader agendas, wonder and district requirements) which makes you constantly work for something outside of the main goal.
The happiness mechanic it's flawed no debate on that, but its flaw is that going into (-1~ -9) instilled a 75% Food penalty. Just way to harsh. A balanced penalty would have been (Unhappiness * 12.5% = Food penalty (max 75% penalty).
6 simply bored me, I still put in over a hundred hours, but compared to the several thousand hours I have into 5.. well yeah, I just enjoy it more and challenge myself early to victory conditions and change up my leader and I can put in another thousand. Hopefully Civ 7 holds me for longer!
The thing I miss the most from Civ 5 is the way unique units and improvements worked. Many units will hold onto their special traits even after upgrading, and unique improvements made by other civs will stay even after you took the city for yourself. Cool to see history linger throughout the ages.
There’s a lot of aspects from Civ 6 that I feel is good, but just not finely tuned. Having eurekas/inspirations, energy consumption (and emissions), district limitations, loyalty pressures, etc. kinda forces you to explore and interact with the world more (and conquer them, occasionally) rather than in Civ V. The district adjacency and wonder requirements also make geography matter in the way that it didn’t in Civ V. But sometimes the numbers are not so balanced (like loyalty of captured cities and how people go through the tech & cultural tree too fast), and the AIs definitely suck in juggling these elements. The wide bias in Civ VI, along with other mechanics, also makes the end-game (post-industrial) felt flat. There’s a lot more to do: more infrastructure to build, more support units to build, but they are meaningless because by the way the game is constructed, your win/loss is already locked by settling a lot of cities at the start. Wars to conquer them are notoriously hard, so there’s no more room to expand. And without the tensions from differing ideologies (ffs, sometimes the civs chose tier-1 governments in modern era?!), there is no “iron curtain” to demolish (despite the many cold-war cards). At this stage, you’re just going through the processions to make you win faster
Most of the things I consider problems are with the AI, and those can be resolved by mods. As someone has never played Civ 5 and has over 1,000 hours in Civ 6 the argument I always hear is, "Remember when you had to play the game a very specific way based solely on what civilization you chose and if that victory path is cut off then your just fucked? That was awesome." Don't get me wrong, the AI doesn't even try to win anything other then a science victory without mods. But at least in Civ 6 your goal is to first set up a bunch of cities and get a feel for your neighbors. You check what resources you have and then you figure out what your victory condition is as more information becomes available. I think that the mechanics of civ 6 lends itself more to a good strategy game, clearly a worse roleplaying game, but a better strategy game. In the end this isn't Crusader kings. I look at the other Civ leaders as immortal God-Kings acting how you would expect an immortal God-King to act, they are trying to "win", and while like I said the AI isn't good at this without using mods, I don't really think you should think of the Civ leaders as normal people, or civilization 6 as a roleplaying game. It is more like a game of 30D chess.
If you actually max out the shock or drill upgrades for your units, you unlock more upgrades which are quite ridiculous. You get upgrades like attacking twice each turn, with each attack costing 1 movement point, or +1 range. You can also get heal each turn even if you attack on land units. This is way easier done with military exp buildings and brandenburg gate and/or the autocracy policy total war. Unit upgrades are actually insane and so fun.
There’s a really good mod called superpower in civ 5, which basically fulfills everyone’s wide and tall fantasy. Essentially by the end of the game the AI will develop ridiculous amount of military, and it forces the game to end in a showdown between powerful player and AI factions. It’s created by Chinese civ 5 players so the current latest version on steam is quite a bit old, but still a great mod. It introduces a lot of concepts like immigration and added 2 more additional components per civilization, and essentially made everyone good (imo the best civs are the US, Germany, and China). It also got civ6 concepts back like loyalty in terms of corruption and amenities in terms of consumer goods. It’s highly worth a try imo but it might be a bit tough on your pc
I found out a couple of weeks ago 6 years in that my wife actually liked Civ V so we bought her a copy and the rest of the DLC I needed and we have played 100+ hrs since, we dropped Stardew, cult of the lamb and Forza to play Civ V after I've easily put over 2000 hrs into it since it came out I still can't understand why they took the art style from Civ Revolution and made it the main look of the series, Civ 6 is genuinely an eyesore to look at
The ones who bash on Civ VI usually never or barely play it. The ones who don't want to try it are mainly concerned with the graphics, which I find a tad baffling.
civ 5 mods are fantastic as well, playing with really small unit models, but increasing the number of models per squad, actually makes armies clashing look way better
If you want historical accuracy, you shouldn't be playing a Civ game to begin with. I find it laughable anyone would think Civ 5 is in any way more historical than other entries in the franchise. lmao
A key issue is that the soundtrack in Civ 6 is just so repetitive with a few tracks per game…Civ 5 had many more, but of course Civ 4 had the richest ost - I can’t say that playing hours of Civ 6 doesn’t get grating with the music after a while and I think it contributes to the overall feeling of an inferior entry to the series
Civ 5 has plenty more background tracks, common ones used by each group of civs, and gives leaders’ themes variations during war. They did more with less compared to 6
I wonder how many of those people still playing Civ5 are members of the No Quitters group. A community driven rebalancing of game mechanics to further multiplayer enjoyment... As you say yourself, You can do some weird stuff in Civ6, but no warrior is going to beat a musketmen in civ5. As for myself, i prefer watching over playing myself, and civ5 is simply better to understand. It's simpler in a way, it doesn't have so many new mechanics attached to it, and the color palette is nicer to the eyes.
I still prefer Civ 4. I tried Civ 5 with all dlc, and considered it dumbed down. Also disliked the 1 unit per tile traffic jams. Didn't bother to try Civ 6 due to all the negative reviews at the time. The ultimate Civ experience is Civ 4 with the gigantic Caveman2Cosmos mod. 1000 techs, hundreds of unit types, thousands of buildings, hundreds of wonders, and many new game mechanics.
thats really interesting I played civ 5 a lot, 1000+ hour plus. but i have not really touched it all after civ 6 came out. I did not like civ 6 at first the art style and new mecs felt bad(builder charges and loyalty), but after playing it really grew on me. alought this video is making me want to try civ5 agian.
Civ 6 is my choice for multiplayer hands down. All of the issues of AI go out the window when there's another human player. The simplicity is also a benefit in multiplayer since I won't have to wait 20 minutes for my enemy to finish their turn.
The “extra hour” is very expensive for me in both games. The early game is uncertain and exciting, but once I know I already won and need at least another 30m to 1h30m to finish I just quit.
Interesting to see that I'm not the only one who feels this way. I always thought that Civ 5 felt like actually being a world leader, while Civ 6 felt like watching a cartoon.
Civ 6 often side tracks my strategy by bribing me with side quests for Envoys, and Eurekas/Inspirations. I can end up playing a different game than I wanted to.
I really liked civ 5 but unlike what the video says, I found civ6 harder to pick up. It wasn't hard to play persay, but the new mechanics, policies, eurekas and districts, all feel like mechanics you can highly optimize, which in turn makes me feel bad for not optimizing for getting every eureka, which in turn just makes me not want to play. Civ 5 was honestly much more simple and straight forward.
Same here. I bought a game called "Civilization", not Ultimate Tile Placement Optimizer Every moment playing Civ6 reminds the player to engage in min-maxing every mechanic that pops up
I still play Civ 4. Founding corporations with the BTS DLC, and spreading them like religions was a vibe, and they never should have removed the random event mechanic, like plague, flooding, earthquakes, or random discoveries like accidentally discovering smokeless powder, increasing pre-modern gunpowder units. Civ IV rocked.
Civ 5 alliance for me was rare so I just went biggest army and if you don't like me we'll deal with my legions. Civ 6 all the Ai say they love my Roman empire, still attacks me 😂 and I outnumber them by 10 to 1.. yea diplomacy in civ really needs to be fixed. I swear last 3 games I did I wasn't even going for Domination til Ai forced me into it. Some reason they love me but love to fight me more.
I wonder why Humankind is so unpopular. It has such a great combat mechanics, for people who enjoy domination victory I think this game is way more fun purely because of this aspect. But the game becomes quite repetitive.. the more you play it. Not a lot of variance, I pick pretty much same races all the time (cuz others are quite useless for warmongering) and the AI is just weak.. even with mods. I think ideal Civ would have combat like in Humankind + policy thing from civ6 and the rest of the stuff is like civ5 more or less.
I played a lot of Civ 5, and play Civ 6 in every expansion... the 2 thing that inovate in Civ 6 Distrits and Card Policies, kill the game, u always pick the meta thing for policies and destroy the map removing every tile resorce to put some distritcs.,
I like Civ 5 more because, less WORKLOAD than Civ 6, I like workers that keep going by themselves and don't have to keep getting new ones, and they can make roads too, also a big deal to me is letting a city rest when I have so many, I don't want to have to keep assigning new tasks forever I want to be able to set a city on money or science and stay there until I decide to change it.
Civ5 just feels like I’m making a civilization. The workers running around representing the most important part of human society, the working class citizens, is a huge part of this. Many other things but you’ve covered them
Sounds like a communist value but what would that appeal to other people who like civilisations?
Civ 6 AI: “I have something I want you to do to avoid pissing me off, but I’m not gonna tell you what it is until you fuck up and piss me off”
That is not high on my list.
The real problem with Civ 6 AI is that it can't handle the level of minmax needed to play the game properly.
- Swapping policy cards
- Spamming infinite cities 4 tiles away
- Plan for future districts adjacencies
- Handling builders with finite charges
- Fighting a war intelligently
Is my wife secretly a Civ 6 dev?
@@guysmiley4830 boomer
@@JohnSmith-ik8nt Millennials can have wives too
I loved 5's "Art Deco" theme way more than 6's "Age of Discovery" theme. It managed to make the granary icon look like an epic monument.
yeah, in every single icon they had a ray of sunshine, seemed like everything was going to be epic and you will start an actual empire
All the unit icons were better too. Made the Civilopedia way more fun to read.
@@anthonybramante2921 Yeah true, it was one of the few times I actually read the wikipedia
Civ 4 though peaked in that every single building actually has a model that appears in the cities. :)
@@chromasus9983 civ 4 is so ugly compared to 5 though. You'd think they were made 20 years apart by how drastic the difference in looks is
For being easier to pick, it sure is hellish to plan districts on Civ6, and after letting all your pins down for your perfect triple aqueduct factory setup, a horse appears in the middle out of nowhere destroying your entire plan
I really like the district system tbh
This happened to me today 😂
That's what the "Removable Resources and Features" mod is for. ;)
LOL, bruh moment
That's true, but unless you're on deity, you don't need to put that much effort into planning what goes where exactly. As long as you plan the right districts in the right city and don't just build random districts, then you're probably fine
Diplomacy in civ 6 is like negotiating with a toddler. Civ 5 was top tier!
id agree with this tbh
"You must do as I say, or I will destroy you!"
"Hammurabi, would you like some olives and a nap?"
Always wondered actually why? Cuz the diplo ai in civ 6 is basically non existent
wait there was ever good diplomacy in civ? am i the only one that has bipolar npcs in every round?
I wish they had made agendas a feature for players too.
Basically every Civ has a civ agenda, then a leader has a leader agenda, and finally every player (PC or not) gets a random secret agenda (if we want it to be really fun, change it every era).
All agendas are requirements on other players, it may be relative to you, or absolute.
First every agenda has a strength. Basically if the agenda requirements are met in your continent, you get the basic strength (local power), if you are able to keep it worldwide you get a stronger version (world power).
Next every agenda has two levels, which increases the bonus. If all your allies and players you've recently done friendly actions with (generous trades, gifts, etc.) fulfill the requirement you get the first level. If all players you are not at war with fulfill the requirements, then you get the second bonus.
The idea is that the agendas represent ideals, culture, beliefs, etc. of a civilization, and ultimately when a player is aligned with the desires of their civilization and leader, they word better.
The benefit is that now agendas are an interesting tradeoff. Yes, you could get a powerful ally with Seondeok by focusing on science, but this will give her a bonus on science that would give her an edge on science victory against you. But by strategic use of spies and intrigue you could keep stealing tech from her and sabotaging her own progress to science victory to make up for it. Or maybe you aren't going for science victory, but want close allies for your own agenda, and the extra science frees your resources to focus on something else, like domination.
CIV 5 is not about outsmarting the AI (very easy) or beating it. Its about building a truly beautiful and harmonic empire while battling the challenges that may introduce. Thats the kind of feeling that the games give me still 15 years later.
I love Civ 5 because of Venice. I can play in a unique way buy buying enemy cities instead of building my own. Finally all that trading is actually useful
Austria can do the same through "Diplomatic Marriage", their unique ability. Same thing though, you have to pay money to acquire city states.
I always play as Venice too. I love the puppet states thing.
One of the real strengths of Civ 5 over Civ 6 was that you could just play the game SO differently depending on the civ.
@@shawn576 And if Genghis Khan was in the game it was a real challenge to get them before he captured them all.
I, actually, broke Venice, while playing civ V. That "puppet cities" thing. You see, one of my cities was taken by bot, but I won it back. And I could actually choose to annex city. That's how my one-city challenge turned to two-cities challenge
"Watch this. [Surprising but reasonable silence.] Now watch this. [Annoying logo noises.]"
lmao
This could've been entire video. But no, author had to dig deeper.
theres no way yall really care about that shit lmao what a joke, its the first 10 seconds of the game.
@@Dev_242 Also this is totally out of context, there are fucking logos at the beginning of Civ 5 too
Most of my highly played games on steam have around 250-300 hours played.
Civ 6 around 50 hours.
But Civ 5 is around 3000 plus hours. This game never gets old.
I often tell myself just another 30 mins. Then I look outside and the sun is coming up lol.
CIV 5 14,742.4 avg players
CIV 6 41,158.0 avg players
Your title of the video: Why Is Civ 5 Still More Popular Then Civ 6?
90% of UA-cam nowadays seems to be clickbait titles. But I guess it's working since I clicked on this video because I had the same thought as you.
Dude is nothing but click bait, with the ability to speak so many words yet say so little for 8-16 minutes each day.
I view popularity as interchangeable with favorability
Its actually a good video.
Civ VI is available on a lot more platforms as well, that's even more players not yet covered by Steam numbers!
according to Steam DB, Civ 6 is more Popular than 5, since it has more active players.
its still impressive how long Civ 5 managed to stay alive though.
Yeah, it's just a clickbait title.
Its the artstyle that is mostly keeping players from playing civ 6. St first i hated it too, but i fell in love with the new mechanics of the game it is more complex and and diverse in gameplay rather than just focusing in one strategy for each and every leaders.
@@edmardenosta5006 for me it's the game pace. It's too fast in Civ 6 and Civ 5 has more and better mods
It's also mods.
The civ 5 mods nearly perfected civ 5 imho.
@@eannane8712 yeah the variation of mods in Civ 6 is nothing compared to Civ 5 however I think what makes Civ 6 more playable is the Loyalty Mechanic. I think border gore is a massiv issue in every civ game
The main thing about civ 6 that I dislike, is the fact that for every victory type it's always optimal to spam more cities. Due to how they have implemented districts, having a big population gives diminished returns after like pop 10-12 or so. Combined with the removal of the extra tech cost from total cities, means that its always the best choice to spam settlers. After you just place the district that correlates with your preferred victory type and boom you win the game. After I realized that, it made the strategy of vanilla kind of boring.
This is why I like playing on smaller maps.
There's a shit ton and I mean a shit ton of mods to fix your problem. Try the wide and tall mod
@@Brandon-eb6gx Mods like that make the AI play worse, which is the last thing this game needs.
Yeah it seems like an extreme overcorrection to how poorly wide empires were done in Civ V with how hard happiness is to come by, you're practically forced to go tradition or only have tiny population cities in Civ V. To be fair to Civ VI having more cities should always be the optimal play going into a new game, as long as there is fertile land you should settle it, the costs of the city will always pay itself off in the long run. However, they should have kept the mechanics like increasing the total science and culture costs when you have more cities. More people means you need more science to educate and culture to influence them.
Then again having 11 ecstatic cities with 280 population before turn 200 is just broken.
In Civ IV you were more punished by quickly planting many cities, rising upkeep costs do really cut the research funding, so tech progress is getting slower. When population grows and tiles get worked, cottages become bigger etc. it all starts to pay off but it's still an early game investment.
Civ V was indeed more about playing tall, while CIv VI kinda went in the other direction, where planting more cities is preferable, especially for civs like Germany. Every settler and worker become more expensive to produce, and amenities are starting to be spread thin, but if you pick good spots with resources or got some entertainment then it shouldn't be an issue.
I love that each CIV game is different
I would hope so.
And now CIV 7 focused more on leaders and changing CIV every era
I love Firaxis approach of trying new things instead of making the same game because the previous one was liked
Waw someone who is not just crying about change. I aggree and i want them to experiment and try new things. I personaly love the district system in civ 6. Love how my city grows with them
I grew up on Civ 5, but stopped playing it for a few years and then came back to the genre with Civ 6. I sunk a few hundred hours into Civ 6 over the span of about a year, without playing Civ 5 at all. Then, I went back to Civ 5, and I was blown away!
I was always someone who didn't like Civ 6's cartoony tone. It feels like a board game, rather than a gritty "rise of civilization" simulator. On top of that, I don't like how they introduced multiple personalities for some of the leaders like Theodore Roosevelt and Cleopatra. I'd have much preferred the devs to add completely new leaders or new civs, instead of reusing old leaders. Adding Washington instead of a second Teddy, or Napoleon instead of a second Catherine, would have been much more enticing to me.
For a long time I thought that was the only thing Civ 5 did better than Civ 6, but then I went back and actually played Civ 5 again and realized how wrong I was. For starters, the AI was actually competent! They posed a serious challenge and were much more engaging to play with. The extra diplomatic flair that the AI has in Civ 5 also makes the experience much more dynamic and interesting. I felt that the combat was also better, and not just because there were actual armies on the field instead of just 3 mega-warriors.
I remember my first game back being extremely fun in the late game because it was so dramatic due to the ideologies! New friendships formed, new enemies formed, and a world war broke out! It was nothing like Civ 6, and it was a blast. The whole experience made me realize that I didn't truly appreciate how good Civ 5 was until I spent some time away playing what I didn't realize was an inferior game.
Civ6 is two leagues below 5.
Holy shit Andrew chicken plays CIV?
that said I prefer 6.
@@Thenarratorofsecrets Dang it, I've been exposed as a jacked and girthy CivLifeR subscriber! 💀
And yes, I was raised on the Civ franchise! I discovered Civ 2 on my mom's old computer when I was young and got addicted, then spent hundreds of hours in Civ 3, then skipped 4 and spent hundreds of hours on 5. Fun fact: Civ 5 is the reason I created a Steam account! Even funner fact: Civ 3 is 34 days older than me!
@@AndrewChicken
2 got me as well, specifically Test of time, it had a fantasy mode which was sweet. I skipped 3, but played about 1000 hrs on 4,
damn you're just a kid, i was pretty much an adult when 3 came out.
I’m new to the civ series I had the games on my steam library collecting dust, I really like the feel of Civ 3 for what you described a gritty rise of civilization and it won’t be pretty, I feel like older games get overlooked because ‘newer = better’ but Civ 3 is serious and it’s definitely not nostalgia.
My biggest problem with civ 6 is that fog of war and terra incognita look identical. Civ 5 has more clear graphics, much easier on the eyes
How can those unsaturated, greyish, depressing colors be easier on the eyes?
@@ivanmarinkovic3938 cus im not tryna look at this beige colored map for hours at a time its ugly like barf bro
@@ivanmarinkovic3938Hills are invisible (Forested and Jungled Civ5 Hills sometimes are, usually not)
Jungles are recolored forests (Civ5 Jungles are way different)
Tribal villages do not exist (ruins do)
And the palette is barf
literally vomit
Coming from civ5 were I repeatedly got destroyed trying to beat diety and then playing deity on civ6 for the first time and winning easily made me think the game is too easy.
Yeah coming from Civ 5 deity difficulty, Civ 6 feels like a dip in the kiddie pool.
I do appreciate that the early game is less formulaic in 6 on higher difficulties, though. I got sick of tradition openers after a while in 5.
@overused6632 I wouldn't say it's unnessarily difficult. It's challenging and winning that feels really fun
Civ 5 is superior because mods are far more stable and you can use multiple playstyles either playing long or tall. Civ 6 on the other hand you just settle 10 cities and hope you win, also every Civ 6 multiplayer we have to disable diplomatic victory so nobody just cheeses the game
Looks like you are just bad.
There is no reason to "hope" to win. Also you can play easily with less than 10 cities or with way more, all depending on yourself and oyur plan for the game.
Diplomatic Victory in Multiplayer? Well, if you are to dumb to solve the problem ingame, than its your own fault the person wins it. There is actually no way to win multiplayer with diplomatic victoy, if your enemies dont let you do it.
Civ 6 has completly stable mods as well, you can play with like 40 and the game will still be completly fine. Youre talking shit dude.
Civ 4 has way better mods than Civ 5 tho
Back before Civ6 was released, everyone was clowning on Civ5 and saying Civ4 is better.
I distinctly remember this and being pissed that after the industrial era workers stopped "working" and the bug fix was hidden behind Gods and Kings.
Plot twist - Civ IV is still better than Civ V
@@ReclusiarchBraumBTthey fixed it??? Yeah that bug was so annoying I stopped playing.
Never had the worker bug?
@@AceyAce859 yeah, and I stopped playing after that because it became so annoying and distracted from the rest of the game
I think civ 6 looks good, personally like the more vibrant colors. I understand that the cartoony artstyle turns people off, but a decent unrealistic art style will look good in 10 years where a realistic looking game will probably look dated in 10 years.
thats a good point
That's one of the many reasons why TF2 is still alive and popular to this day
Civ 5 is so homely though
Not untrue, and Civ 6 didn't do it bad either, it's special and lively, but Civ5's realism and technology of the time (2010 was of course already a very advanced stage) brought the perfect type of it.
Looking at Augustus years and titles before compared to the one in Civ 5 is a whole other experience and impact for a person. Ramses, Washington and other leaders too.
@@infinitedonuts Atmosphere was also key for that
As somebody that has played all civs, except 1, a lot. I can say that I found Civ 5 forcing the player to play tall to be inferior to Civ 4 in every way. With the expansions I really like 6 and I still play it.
I personally prefer it to spamming cities to win, but to each their own.
Yeah, and the sense of vast swathes of the habitable map remaining vacant because it's disadvantageous to settle doesn't feel right from a gameplay standpoint, and is totally untrue to history.
Civ 5 doesn't force you into tall. Just more population you have the stronger the city. Civ 6 is about small town stronger then bigger which is dumb. I play wide with huge populace cities in both game as Rome.
You can play Tall or Wide in Civ 5. You can't do that in Civ 6.
@SuperDarkMan12TV yea you can. I done one city challenge of diety pretty easy..both games are easy both games you can play tall or wide. It's 4x every 4x you can. Just at a disadvantages in later eras if you don't ally city states in civ 6 cuz sometimes you don't got oil or coal or uranium.
The loyalty mechanism is what keeps me playing Civ 6 rather that 5. It was really annoying in 5 where a rival Civ would settle a city randomly next to your Civ, you had to fill every space of land unless you wanted some random neighbor popping up. 6 adds a layer of risk and danger that a city to far from your capital can be flipped though loyalty, then this ties in with the Era scores, dark age can be disastrous. Great addition.
Civ rev had a similar system of loyalty for flipping cities
Theres alot more mechanisms like this in civ 6 that makes the game more realistic in a way. Appeal for tourism, trade routes, religous pressures, adjacency bonuses, etc. for me i like the how satisfying other victory conditions are rn, in civ 5 i feel like theyre just afterthoughts.
@@generaltobias3777WOW i havent played Civ Rev in ages 🤣. Gotta go see how the speedrunners are doing now
I will probably always play Civ V. It is my favorite and always will be. I play a modded version now with things like expanded religions, resource compendium, city health and plagues, hex conquer and release, and a few others. I have a modded Rome which grants the legion the march promotion automatically, and every building shared with all your cities grants +2 golden age points. It really makes you think about how wide you want to build your empire, because the improved legion makes it much easier, but the golden ages will be harder to achieve. City health is an important modded feature, because it limits the good places for cities. You have to take into consideration resources and terrain that can negatively impact your city's health, as plagues can destroy a very unhealthy one.
Civ feel like different flavors of skittles. Just depends what you’re feeling that day
Didn't know how much I needed Shikamaru explaining the intriquite differences of two world-renown 4X strategy games to me, until today.
I still play Alpha Centauri, the best Sid Meier game :)
It really is. I'd love to see it updated with a hex mesh - one that actually wraps a globe and isn't a flat map - and AI that's actually good.
Good memories there.
Yeah ! It's also my favorite
I miss Sid Meier's Colonization
one thing I LOVE in civ 6 that isnt executed as well in civ 5 is that in the late game you can look at your empire with many of the wonders you havespent a lot of production building all thoose districts roads neigborhoods etc it looks awsome like a lively city but in civ its just a giant skyscraper city surrounded by mines and farms
allat just to lose anyways
To me Civ 6 felt like playing with a cheap Lego knock-off with bad connecting pieces.
Civ 5 feels like a piece of artwork that is pleasing to craft and look at.
i really hate the happiness feature of civ 5. Like bro we winning and conquering the world be fking happy.
It’s good but I’m not good at it therefore it’s bad 😎
Love your candor. Well placed.
based
If I were the devs, I would be stupid to ignore the success of Civ 6 and go instead the Civ 5 route, which sold less. As a player I would love a Civ 5 route but man from a business standpoint, Civ 7 should be more like Civ 6
Civ 6 is one of those games that I quickly grew attached to after civ 5 solely because of another game making me realize what I didn't like about it, happiness. For the unfortunate souls that played beyond earth the health system was iirc basically happiness in a fresh coat of paint. And I only remember this because 10 turns in my cities were unhealthy and I could do nothing. After that, going back to civ 5 was permanently soured from that and civ 6 became my favorite afterwards.
happiness is the worst mechanic conjured by man in any game.
The thing I like most about civ6 is the improved happiness system. It allows for a wider range of opportunities to do with your empire as you want. It definitely falls prey to meta play styles, which is certainly a negative aspect of civ6. But it also allows the player to have more fun throughout the game because they have more options. To me this characterizes the difference between civ5 and civ6, though civ6 is more flawed strategically, it is more versatile and for me personally more fun to play.
That and artillery having 3 range (ai sucks vs and with ranged units) is about all i can remember from Civ6
@@TheCivLifeRthis is why I will never play Civ 5 ever again
Come to the Civ IV side, we have local happiness and local health which are both actually manageable.
Good point: both games were made for different target audiences thus are different games, even though belong to the same family.
Rather than 6 being a "better game" than 5 because of update-progression. I still play 5 maybe because I think it's better thought out and more mature as I am an older player. Old World is where I scratch the itch though, only wish OW was in future space.
"You can't hold on to every city state..."
Enrico and Alexander: "Bet..."
I got Civ 6 for free on epic 3-4 years ago, played it for 2 hours and haven't touched it since, meanwhile I'm literally playing Civ V right now 😂😂
Definitely agree with a lot of this. I replay civ 5 a lot more but there are a ton of things that I prefer in civ 6 ESPECIALLY the city planning thanks to the district mechanic. It does come with the curse of missing the small things like being able to build a damn canal when my city is ONE TILE away from sea when I play civ 5
I moved, changed jobs, and got married during civ 5 - after I had a pc that could run it. Basically missed it and spent more time in 6. I need to go back. Thanks!
I think something that goes under discussed when comparing Civ5 and 6 is how the district system allowed the devs to get lazy when designing new civs. In civ4/5 the civs were largely custom with the devs hand making each one to reflect its historical strengths/strategies. In civ6 the civs feel like they are made from a template with one district being given a new name and a slight buff to one resource or another but is otherwise the same as it’s generic counterpart available to everyone else.
The devs can say that it is technically unique, it has its own code, it’s own name, and does something slightly different. But from a player standpoint it never feels unique, it always feels very negligible.
Yeah, good point. Civ 5 had a few truly unique civs.
While you compare Civ4 to Civ5 remember, that in opposite to Civ5, great majority players do not use Steam version of Civ4 and Steam statictics shows only a marginal part of how often Civ4 is actually played. You can still compare activity on forums and definitely Civ4 is not dead, never ever even was close to be dead. Civ4 will live forever.
I stopped playing CIV6 because it was too much of a headache to plan out districts. I wasn't bad at it. In fact for months after the game came out I dominated in multiplayer. But it was still a pain in the ass to place down all your pins and constantly adjust.
Soviet Union fell in 1991, dude
That's closer to 2010 than 2024
@@BrendoIsGaming What?!
@@thebatman8864 what what?
But 2010 closer to 2024 than 1991
@@gezasuto3216 Literally what I said
The districts is one of my favourite ideas in a strategy game and the ability to raid coastal units is so fun too but there are so many other things that make me prefer V, the fact that your builders actually matter and getting one stolen is actually annoying, that you don't have to restrain from building builders until feudalism to be optimal, that the culture tree is distinct from the tech one and much less harder to keep track of, that city states feel like allies and not just a random bonus to add to your collection, that diplomacy make fucking sense, that builders can build roads and you don't have to worry about another type of civil unit for that and that I don't have to worry about the second military victory that religious victory is.
I love slow games, even so much as to purposefully decrease the game pace sometimes, but the decision paralysis is always crippling. I know with time and practice I can reduce how long it takes for me to make each decision, and eventually beat diety, but I'm just not there yet. Civ 6 allowed me to cross that invisible hurdle much more easily as a new player such that I can actually enjoy the depth of certain mechanics, and the weight of my choices.
One thing that I hope they change is that leaders have a larger impact on changing the way a civ plays.
Since Greece was the only Civilization to have two leaders when Civ 6 came out they didn't consider how certain leaders would seem less useful given their Civilization.
If they wanted to try a really interesting solution they could make it so you are allowed to choose any leader to lead any civilization to create all kinds of unique strategies and synergies.
It's either that or just having as many leaders as possible for each civ, and having each one have a different focus, which would have the AI more focused.
I've played 1k hours of 5 and 500 hours of 6 before burning out on both of them. 5 has meatier decisions, and 6 has smaller but more frequent decisions (little optimizations with the card game for example). One major advantage 6 has is the unstacking of cities, with districts and wonders taking their own tiles. Some may find it tedious or goofy, but I can't go back to one tile cities after this and I hope they keep it for 7.
Districts are a puzzle game for micromanaging autists.
It unrealistic however. In reality, compared to the scale of the planet, a city really just covers one tile. So it is completely reasonable for a strategy game that features troop movements and placement, to make cities also one tile. Otherwise the scale would become off or they would have to make the maps very much bigger to compensate, for which there are not enough computing resources for this type of game.
@@ratatoskr1069 TBH, the city of Tokyo is over half the size of the state of New Jersey.
I played civ5 for 2 years while I’ve been playing civ 6 since day one despite its repetitive nature and the incompetency of deity ai. Like in one of my games, Gilgamesh had 2 biplanes by turn 120 and i was still able to conquer him with musket men… I don’t know but i find civ6 more fun
Yeah, this is where I stand. Five does some things better but overall I find Six more fun.
In Civ6 AI doesn't seem to use air units, only anti-air units. Heck in Civ6, AI was so dumb it wouldn't even upgrade his units as it goes through tech, so they would have bunch of starting spearman units run around in Atomic era.
In Civ5, AI would sometimes use bombers\jets, but they nerfed it because let's be honest, Deity AI would just obliterate PC because AI cheats in these games. They either get free units at will or get massive, like 90% discount, which is why AI is always able to spam religious units for example.
@@J.J.Jameson_of_Daily_Bugle This is something Firaxis broke during the patch cycle. Before the expansion packs, the AI used planes fairly well. I remember abandoning a war because Arabia's planes were shredding me to pieces.
With regards to mods, civ 6 is better. In 5 playing with mods disables achievements, where in six they don’t. There are so many great quality of life mods for 6 that I can use and still get my achievements, but they weren’t even a consideration in 5.
I am a big civ player. I beating civ 6 deity is super easily. I win every civ 6 deity game. Civ 5 has Lek mod, which adds depth and rebalances the game. I swear to god playing against the AI with that mod sometimes is impossible where I only win two-thirds of the time on deity. Last game, I won science, no war turn 162 on quick, and the ai was probably only 5 to 10 turns away from winning. This difficulty the ai brings and complexity/variety of strategies in lek civ 5 is what makes me come back every time.
Try domination victory only with deity. You'll be sweating and experience adrenaline for hours.
I disagree to an extent about leader ability variety/depth as i do honestly feel having played 1000 hrs of civ 6 with about 500 being spent playing deity exclusively that there are plenty of leaders who completely change the way you play your game much to the same degree that those in civ 5 do occasionally even more I'd say. One thing about civ 6 leaders ESPECIALLY after the leader pass is that there's certainly a big amount of leader redundancy but tbf the game has tons of leaders! So there's room for some junk although it is a shame the way some of them were handled. Where i totally agree is tone, and it legit put me off of playing civ 6 until gathering storm came out and i decided to give it another chance. I'll also add that on top of the art i actually do personally find a tonal difference in the music which i enjoy more in civ 5. Also agree the AI in these games (particularly noticable in 6 as i believe it's mechanics are slightly more complicated especially in the way they interlink) need improvement bug time. It's a little embarrassing that we're 10 years from the launch of civ 5 and the AI has not made big improvements. Last thing I'll say is that given the way expansions changed both civ 5 and 6 drastically for the better i would say that unfortunately it's almost an expectation now that on release civ games are just not a fully fleshed out/finished product and waiting it out with the previous gen games while you wait for major expansions is sometimes the better strategy (at least for me personally).
Might try Civ 5 now, (will tell you later if I thank you or hate you for it)
lmk
Give it a good run
Any update? Xd
@@isaakring2573 No
What I hate most in Civ 6 is that I always feel like I have to play to min-max (like getting points for golden age or choosing district locations based purely on points) instead of playing according to my heart's desire.
You can mod most of this to your preference. Also multiplayer compatible.
As someone new to Civilization, first game being 6, I really like the way 6 is played. I can’t speak on how Civ 5 was but watching the video it doesn’t look anymore fun or better than what Civ 6 is for me so I guess the changed that happened did invite newer players
It's because civ 5 is more casual friendly than civ 6 IMO. As a casual player I can still hop into civ 5 from time to time and still do well enough. I hop into Civ 6 and it's far more easier to screw up with decisions made 25-50 turns ago or stuff you just forget. Add in late game mechanics, city flipping, the problems that came from 5 to 6 and I don't want to play 6 outside of the first 100ish turns. Honestly, completely turned me off of buying new games in the entire genre because of it, especially Civ 7, which sounds like they're doubling down in things I don't like in 6 but still trying to fix the problems it caused. Started playing PDX games and never went back except for 5.
Me playing Civ 6 on my own:
Man this game is pretty complicated it'll take forever to learn all the nuances.
This guy:
Civ 6 is over simplistic baby trash.
lmao thats strategy games for you
I think it has to do with the learning curve. Games have in my mind 3 differn't states of learning to play, Your a NOOB is it not fun becuase you have no clue what you are doing. Stage two is you have enough knowledge for the game to be fun. The finally stage is you are near a master or near enough to not make a differnce. What makes a game good to me is the second stage being easy enough to reach. Quick enough were you don't just give up. However it should take a while to master the game. CIv 5 is really easy to get the second stage, nearly impossible to master. Civ 6 confuses the player so they never get to stage 2. atleast that was my expierce with the games.
Civ 6 is over simplistic baby trash.
Things are always complex at first, and then seem simple after you master them.
When A says "this is simple" while B thinks it's complex, often A isn't smarter than B. Usually A just has much more experience than B.
@@TotheSoundOfThunderingEngines Literally opposite for me. Still have no idea what people so like in civ5, while civ6 just immediately clicked with me. Just idea of making districts and builders with chargers are much more intuitive and understandable.
But what is problem with civ6 is that for mastering your skill you have to play online. Random lobbies are shit and biggest online community are competitive and is using balance mod made by themselves.
Don't get me wrong, I like civ 5, but the stats clearly don't agree with your argument that Civ 5 is more popular, just look at steam charts
Civ V is popular because that's around when gaming became "main stream"..
CIV IV is actually the best CIV out there, hands down. It has the best AI, best game flow, best diplomacy that actually makes sense, best tech tree setup, best alternate fun options for games, best dynamic situations, best movement system.... everything was way more in depth and fleshed out, and expansive.
I love CIV IV so much, I hop between CIV IV & CIV V a lot, I love them both
Imo civ 4 + the realism invictus mod is still my favorite civ game, I only play the newer civ games because civ 4 doesn't work on linux
The newer civ games just feel more boardgame-ified then the previous entries imo
also civ 6 slandered my favorite historical ruler: Cyrus the Great (Kurus Shah #1) and portrayed him as a ruthless backstabber when he was one of the most humanist rulers of his day
Title implies less bias than you seem to have, but I respect your opinion. I like both games a lot and the reason I switch between them is that they're so different and it just comes down to which mechanics I wanna exploit at the time.
I still like Civ 3 the best. Been with the series since one. For some reason I could never get into 5, but according to Steam I have played Civ 6 almost 2,000 hours. To me, Civ 6 is like a city builder but on an empire wide scale. It makes the early game scouting, with or without scouts, absolutely crucial. Those first hundred or so turns I think are the best in the whole series, but after that…
Civ V? I definitely prefer the art style, the look of the map, and the World Congress feature. That’s really about it though. To each his own, of course. I know lots of veterans who don’t consider 5 or 6 proper Civ games at all.
Civ 3's tone was so on point. Sadly it's age is starting to show quite a bit now.
Re: AI section.
I distinctly remember AI constantly spamming settlers, then cheating by having a standing army so big they go in hundreds of gold in debt per turn, and extremely low amenities with no ill effects whatsoever
Sounds like 4.
The unit promotions I agree so much.
And example for that is that since Privateers are able to capture enemy ships, I make sure to build them then upgrade to destroyers later. Those "Privateer Class" destroyers are the ones I use to capture submarines which I use as nuclear missile carriers when upgraded.
Destroyers I build or I got from Ironclads are what I use to capture cities
I build submarines as attack subs, captured ones are part of my nuclear trident.
One more is with battleships. You can specialize a battleship for offshore bombardment or you can specialize it to support your destroyers and cruisers in naval combat.
Both games are good, both provide different experiences which is good, because they don't compete too much with each other (outside of the basic concept and title). And I guess Civ 7, if they'll make it work will also become a game that is there with its own playerbase that's not conflicting with neither 5 or 6.
Recently I've played Civ 5 for the first time in like 5 or 6 years.
It has some problems, like horrendous UI compared to Civ 6 UI. Defensive Pact (which is kinda a worse version of Civ 6 Alliances) is a double edged sword where you automatically will attack one of your allies if they bicker with each other. Also, AI is way less friendly (and more predictable to when they plan to backstab you and with whom) - and I know that Civ 6 AI has a reputation of being that, but in my first Civ 6 game (back when alliances didn't had a limit and were plain) I got 18 out of 19 civs as declared friends or allies (the stray one was Montezuma), something that's not possible in Civ 5. Even now majority of my games in Civ 6 end up as a friend to majority of civs.
But it also has some nice things. F.e. in this game I tried to get a culture victory. I managed to be the second in the game who adopted an ideology. After that every civ that tried to go for culture victory adopted my ideology (even if it wouldn't benefit them), because game has tourism bonus for shared ideology - which could be something like AI not thinking about districts in Civ 6. That's something which would never happen in Civ 6, because I think they have set paths of their goverments. Another funny AI quirk that's not happening in Civ 6 (at least not directly) is a world scale war against one civ - basically friendly strong leader ask you (and I assume everyone else) to go to war with a problematic civ, after which rest of your friends that dislike this civ will also go to you asking to go to war against this civ (in 6 it exists as an emergency, which feels more like a competition than a political move).
Overall I feel like Civ 5 has more detailed mechanics. Meanwhile Civ 6 is way busier, because it has so many side objectives (especially now with all dlcs) you could go through that could keep you occupied, especially with 7 game modes (city state quests, golden ages, eurekas, emergencies, leader agendas, wonder and district requirements) which makes you constantly work for something outside of the main goal.
The happiness mechanic it's flawed no debate on that, but its flaw is that going into (-1~ -9) instilled a 75% Food penalty. Just way to harsh.
A balanced penalty would have been (Unhappiness * 12.5% = Food penalty (max 75% penalty).
6 simply bored me, I still put in over a hundred hours, but compared to the several thousand hours I have into 5.. well yeah, I just enjoy it more and challenge myself early to victory conditions and change up my leader and I can put in another thousand. Hopefully Civ 7 holds me for longer!
The thing I miss the most from Civ 5 is the way unique units and improvements worked. Many units will hold onto their special traits even after upgrading, and unique improvements made by other civs will stay even after you took the city for yourself. Cool to see history linger throughout the ages.
There’s a lot of aspects from Civ 6 that I feel is good, but just not finely tuned. Having eurekas/inspirations, energy consumption (and emissions), district limitations, loyalty pressures, etc. kinda forces you to explore and interact with the world more (and conquer them, occasionally) rather than in Civ V. The district adjacency and wonder requirements also make geography matter in the way that it didn’t in Civ V. But sometimes the numbers are not so balanced (like loyalty of captured cities and how people go through the tech & cultural tree too fast), and the AIs definitely suck in juggling these elements.
The wide bias in Civ VI, along with other mechanics, also makes the end-game (post-industrial) felt flat. There’s a lot more to do: more infrastructure to build, more support units to build, but they are meaningless because by the way the game is constructed, your win/loss is already locked by settling a lot of cities at the start. Wars to conquer them are notoriously hard, so there’s no more room to expand. And without the tensions from differing ideologies (ffs, sometimes the civs chose tier-1 governments in modern era?!), there is no “iron curtain” to demolish (despite the many cold-war cards). At this stage, you’re just going through the processions to make you win faster
My older brother played civs 5 alot, like he has thousands of hours and every now and then we all get on to play a game (He always wins)
Most of the things I consider problems are with the AI, and those can be resolved by mods. As someone has never played Civ 5 and has over 1,000 hours in Civ 6 the argument I always hear is, "Remember when you had to play the game a very specific way based solely on what civilization you chose and if that victory path is cut off then your just fucked? That was awesome."
Don't get me wrong, the AI doesn't even try to win anything other then a science victory without mods. But at least in Civ 6 your goal is to first set up a bunch of cities and get a feel for your neighbors. You check what resources you have and then you figure out what your victory condition is as more information becomes available. I think that the mechanics of civ 6 lends itself more to a good strategy game, clearly a worse roleplaying game, but a better strategy game.
In the end this isn't Crusader kings. I look at the other Civ leaders as immortal God-Kings acting how you would expect an immortal God-King to act, they are trying to "win", and while like I said the AI isn't good at this without using mods, I don't really think you should think of the Civ leaders as normal people, or civilization 6 as a roleplaying game. It is more like a game of 30D chess.
If you actually max out the shock or drill upgrades for your units, you unlock more upgrades which are quite ridiculous. You get upgrades like attacking twice each turn, with each attack costing 1 movement point, or +1 range. You can also get heal each turn even if you attack on land units. This is way easier done with military exp buildings and brandenburg gate and/or the autocracy policy total war. Unit upgrades are actually insane and so fun.
Plus one range on battleships is op
There’s a really good mod called superpower in civ 5, which basically fulfills everyone’s wide and tall fantasy. Essentially by the end of the game the AI will develop ridiculous amount of military, and it forces the game to end in a showdown between powerful player and AI factions. It’s created by Chinese civ 5 players so the current latest version on steam is quite a bit old, but still a great mod. It introduces a lot of concepts like immigration and added 2 more additional components per civilization, and essentially made everyone good (imo the best civs are the US, Germany, and China). It also got civ6 concepts back like loyalty in terms of corruption and amenities in terms of consumer goods. It’s highly worth a try imo but it might be a bit tough on your pc
I found out a couple of weeks ago 6 years in that my wife actually liked Civ V so we bought her a copy and the rest of the DLC I needed and we have played 100+ hrs since, we dropped Stardew, cult of the lamb and Forza to play Civ V after I've easily put over 2000 hrs into it since it came out
I still can't understand why they took the art style from Civ Revolution and made it the main look of the series, Civ 6 is genuinely an eyesore to look at
The ones who bash on Civ VI usually never or barely play it. The ones who don't want to try it are mainly concerned with the graphics, which I find a tad baffling.
Yeah pretty much. They got overwhelmed by districts and quit.
civ 5 mods are fantastic as well, playing with really small unit models, but increasing the number of models per squad, actually makes armies clashing look way better
I think Civ 6 is good for the average game player. More freedom, but not super accurate to history. If you want historical accuracy, Civ 5 is for you.
Overcomplicated mess without rhyme or reason.
If you want historical accuracy, you shouldn't be playing a Civ game to begin with. I find it laughable anyone would think Civ 5 is in any way more historical than other entries in the franchise. lmao
@@gianni.sacciloto Someone once said Civ is Smash bros for History and it's always stuck with me lol
i generally prefer paradox games for this reason, but civ 5 is still far more realistic than 6, and more realistic than 4. So his point still stands.
5 words: Control over your road construction. That was the deal breaker for civ 6, i felt like i didn't have control over my tile improvements
A key issue is that the soundtrack in Civ 6 is just so repetitive with a few tracks per game…Civ 5 had many more, but of course Civ 4 had the richest ost - I can’t say that playing hours of Civ 6 doesn’t get grating with the music after a while and I think it contributes to the overall feeling of an inferior entry to the series
Civ 5 has plenty more background tracks, common ones used by each group of civs, and gives leaders’ themes variations during war. They did more with less compared to 6
Very good video came away with interesting perspective.
1. right amount of complexity
2. looks better
3. theodora
Trying to follow the gameplay in the background is like watching a Christopher Nolan film
I wonder how many of those people still playing Civ5 are members of the No Quitters group. A community driven rebalancing of game mechanics to further multiplayer enjoyment... As you say yourself, You can do some weird stuff in Civ6, but no warrior is going to beat a musketmen in civ5. As for myself, i prefer watching over playing myself, and civ5 is simply better to understand. It's simpler in a way, it doesn't have so many new mechanics attached to it, and the color palette is nicer to the eyes.
Civ6 AI is brain dead compared to CIv5
I still prefer Civ 4. I tried Civ 5 with all dlc, and considered it dumbed down. Also disliked the 1 unit per tile traffic jams. Didn't bother to try Civ 6 due to all the negative reviews at the time.
The ultimate Civ experience is Civ 4 with the gigantic Caveman2Cosmos mod. 1000 techs, hundreds of unit types, thousands of buildings, hundreds of wonders, and many new game mechanics.
I gotta try out civ 4 at some point, seems amazing
My friends and I all went back to civ 5 the ai is so broken in 6 it's laughable.
thats really interesting I played civ 5 a lot, 1000+ hour plus. but i have not really touched it all after civ 6 came out. I did not like civ 6 at first the art style and new mecs felt bad(builder charges and loyalty), but after playing it really grew on me. alought this video is making me want to try civ5 agian.
Civ 6 is my choice for multiplayer hands down. All of the issues of AI go out the window when there's another human player. The simplicity is also a benefit in multiplayer since I won't have to wait 20 minutes for my enemy to finish their turn.
Double tech tree, district puzzle, civics card game, first past the post Great Persons.
What simplicity? It's an over complicated clustersuck.
@@heinzriemann3213 none of those things are complicated
@@Mastikator All of them are micro hell and in combination they make long term strategy impossible to work out.
@@heinzriemann3213 sounds like a skill issue tbh
@@Mastikator It's a day job issue. I already have one.
Ngl, I love how the borders are in civ 5 instead of strictly hexagonal like in civ 6
The “extra hour” is very expensive for me in both games.
The early game is uncertain and exciting, but once I know I already won and need at least another 30m to 1h30m to finish I just quit.
Interesting to see that I'm not the only one who feels this way. I always thought that Civ 5 felt like actually being a world leader, while Civ 6 felt like watching a cartoon.
If it ain't broke, also it's easily accessible for more people as you don't have to fork out another 40 quid for the same game...
Civ 6 often side tracks my strategy by bribing me with side quests for Envoys, and Eurekas/Inspirations. I can end up playing a different game than I wanted to.
I really liked civ 5 but unlike what the video says, I found civ6 harder to pick up. It wasn't hard to play persay, but the new mechanics, policies, eurekas and districts, all feel like mechanics you can highly optimize, which in turn makes me feel bad for not optimizing for getting every eureka, which in turn just makes me not want to play.
Civ 5 was honestly much more simple and straight forward.
Same here. I bought a game called "Civilization", not Ultimate Tile Placement Optimizer
Every moment playing Civ6 reminds the player to engage in min-maxing every mechanic that pops up
I played civ 6 for maybe 300 hours and still feel like I barely know what I'm doing.
I still play Civ 4. Founding corporations with the BTS DLC, and spreading them like religions was a vibe, and they never should have removed the random event mechanic, like plague, flooding, earthquakes, or random discoveries like accidentally discovering smokeless powder, increasing pre-modern gunpowder units.
Civ IV rocked.
I think both had positives, but Civ 5 had a lot more for me.
This is a very good analysis of the differences between the two games tho
Civ 5 alliance for me was rare so I just went biggest army and if you don't like me we'll deal with my legions. Civ 6 all the Ai say they love my Roman empire, still attacks me 😂 and I outnumber them by 10 to 1.. yea diplomacy in civ really needs to be fixed. I swear last 3 games I did I wasn't even going for Domination til Ai forced me into it. Some reason they love me but love to fight me more.
I wonder why Humankind is so unpopular. It has such a great combat mechanics, for people who enjoy domination victory I think this game is way more fun purely because of this aspect. But the game becomes quite repetitive.. the more you play it. Not a lot of variance, I pick pretty much same races all the time (cuz others are quite useless for warmongering) and the AI is just weak.. even with mods. I think ideal Civ would have combat like in Humankind + policy thing from civ6 and the rest of the stuff is like civ5 more or less.
I played a lot of Civ 5, and play Civ 6 in every expansion... the 2 thing that inovate in Civ 6 Distrits and Card Policies, kill the game, u always pick the meta thing for policies and destroy the map removing every tile resorce to put some distritcs.,
For me its the fact civ 5 wasn’t on console is why i played civ 6 more when i got a better pc i started playing civ 5
Bruh when Civ 5 came out it was disappointing as hell. Crazy that people say Civ 5 is better now.
I like Civ 5 more because, less WORKLOAD than Civ 6, I like workers that keep going by themselves and don't have to keep getting new ones, and they can make roads too, also a big deal to me is letting a city rest when I have so many, I don't want to have to keep assigning new tasks forever I want to be able to set a city on money or science and stay there until I decide to change it.
Wait, Civ 5 gets an update next month?