Among MANY things that attract me to Civ 5 the main one is being able to sign down on that paper everytime you adopt a policy. Just sounds and feels so proper.
Yeah, now in Civ 6 you just change policies and to get a new bonus you have to rid of the old 1 which doesnt feel like a boost but like a new option and sometimes you need to adopt a bunch of new policies just to change the old 1 meanwhile you gain no value for all the culture that you spent...
@@DragoniteTrainerthe policies are dynamic and become increasingly better over time. They good a job with the civic tree, as you move up in governments you increase your policy cards and you have to make decisions for what you want from your civilization during an era. If you wanna mass focus on troop production then the policy cards for are a lot better than the social policies of 5, then in the next era you can change your policies to focus on economic development.
Great video, but there is a word that you, and the people in the comments, are using wrongly: graphics. It is VERY important not to confuse it with AESTHETICS. See, graphics are about polygons, shaders, textures, and in that department, Civ 6 obviously surpasses Civ 5. What you talked about in the video was actually the aesthetics of the games, and I agree the Civ 5's more realistic aesthetic is more enjoyable and appropriate for a game with roots in history. Why is it important to use graphics x aesthetics corretly? Because that IS the language of the developers, and we get what we ask. If people keep demanding better graphics with no regard to aesthetics, they will keep pushing for it: ugly and/or uninspired games with amazing textures and whatnot. I'm NOT saying Civ 6 is ugly/uninspired, just that we jumped a fire (cartoony is not the worst scenario, but definitely not an improvement, imo). Hugs from Brazil !
Theres actually a known phenomenon with game graphics that make older games look more realistic than modern ones. It has to do with the mind being able to fill in details for low graphics games where as increasing the detail starts to make things start to feel off. Same with movies. Look at the older "The Hulk" movie compared with the newer one. The old one just looks more real.
@@pabsmanhere I completely agree! The Assassin's Creed games come to mind. Even thought AC2 has way less... "realistic" graphics than AC Origins, for example... in our minds it was just as amazing back then, and some details (like cloth physics) were actually better done!
oh my god thank you so much for this. Whenever I talked about the "Graphics", something felt off in the back of my head but I just couldnt put it to words. You just did and solved a great Dilemma for me.
You nailed it all really. Both excellent games. My only real beef with 6 is the childish graphics also which look like my sleep paralysis demons. Civ 5 graphics are practically perfect in that regard.
This right here. Childish is a good word to describe it. It looks like a cartoon, and the AI look like they were just peeled off of a cereal box. Every time I see one of them I can picture some 8 year old in a grocery store pointing to a box of cereal asking if they can get a box of Frederick Flakes.
@@LiquidModernityTastesLikeUrine Well, at least you didn't make an argument against it nor did you state in any way that I was mistaken or incorrect in my statement. So in all accounts, it's a viable argument for the Civ VI animations.
I've mostly shifted to 6 but I like that 5 has much less to micromanage. I really dislike limited use builders in civ 6 and I like playing a tall game as opposed to basically needing to go super wide in 6.
I've only tried civ 6 when it just came out so I'm sure it's much better now, but the builders being one use only is a big factor that turned me off to it.
If the districts in Civ 6 had their own building queue instead of having to build the district and then the buildings/units in said district would've helped me to get into the game.
@@dudemanmcgee7595 as the other guy who replied to your comment said, I'm not sure what you mean, because the builders in civ 6 do start with 3 charges with the option to add 2 extra charges with policy cards.
I currently have 3,642 hours in Civ 5 and the reason I play Civ 5 over Civ 6 because of the added city micromanagement they introduced. I dont get it, they realized that there was too much micromanagement with all of the units in Civ 4 and made it so only 1 military unit,/worker,/great person can be on a hex in Civ 5 to do away with the micromanagement and then turn around in Civ 6 and add more city micromanagement instead. Oh and the goofy graphics :p
You dont need to micro manage in civ 6 unless you want perfect yields in a city. Having said that They should have an option to plan out a city in advance. So you can micro manage if you want and avoid micromanaging every turn if you dont want to
I used to love the stack...made a LEADER worthwhile same have 2.9k in Civ 5 looked at 6, read revue watched the vid and said...NO its not a grand strategy game its a baby city management game, so no I will stay will civ 5 until they get the message...must see the daily players from steam they KNOW.
I think you forgot about one important factor - Civ5 is more challenging. I just went back to Civ5 after many years of playing Civ6. Civ6 was boring to me. Yeah, the start was always fun, but when you survive start (even on deity), I mean no Zulu wiped you from the map, It became just boring. And It was easy win after. When I returned to civ5 I have almost bankrupted my first few games and also AI was challenging for me in mid and late game, attacking with enormous armies. So it was no longer "survive start = easy win". That made me wanna play more.
I personally found Civ V to be more appealing both artistically and in terms of gameplay. It is very easy to pick up and play even if it's your first civ game.
I put hundred of hours into both. The big issue I had with civ 5 was the global happiness. It was a slog trying to expand more cities without any of the later age policies.
I've never played 6 but that was my feeling as well: there are too many options. Everything is a tree. You have to build stuff in districts and workers/builders can't make roads? I have no idea why they added those goofy cartoon graphics, either. It's like they were trying to appeal to kids who can't realistically handle the game.
I've been enjoying Civ since 1991 and Civ 5 (with all the DLC) is still my favourite. I want to really like Civ 6 but just can't get into it . . . yet.
I've been playing Civ5 online with my girlfriend for the past few days and she asked me if we could buy Civ6 together because it's on sale on Steam. I really considered buying it, but after watching a few videos.... uuugh - just no. The design is way too cartoonish and cardboardy to me. Well if at least there would be an option or mod to toggle between a cardboard or realism style. I hope a Civ7 will be get a more serious look again.
@@TheBabyCaleb Yes, the art-design is much better now. But i am not sure if i will like the new "Ages" System and that my Nation is changing during the gameplay. Probably its just "Roman Empire" becomes "Italy" in modern days, which is not that bad.
Playing tall being a real strategy and the national wonders are what I miss most in Civ 6. Especially the national wonders. Knowing there's a wonder that you can always build, even on higher difficulties, once you meet the requirements (like a Monument in every city) is huge. It also scaled with the amount of cities you had so again a reason for tall play.
Civ 5 just looks better. Honestly, thats the bottom line for me. I'm sure I would like civ 6, but the initial graphics just put me off so much that I stick with civ 5.
In civ 5 I prefer the gameplay, visuals and leader AI. However, I am beginning to prefer civ 6 simply because imo the civ abilities are more interesting and have more depth. The civs are what attracted me to civilisation in the first place so yeah. Also I like that you can actually win with religion now. I know you aren't always going to go for a religious victory but it just feels a bit better in 6 nevertheless to me. Also, I completely agree with the points made about happiness changing into loyalty, housing and amenities to restrict growth / expansion
@@hydraph4843 np, was kinda trying to go off his point of mod support. That mod and a few others IMO are “essential” mods that don’t change the game but make the base content even better
@@TheCivLifeR Nothing better than decimating the AIs when suddenly you lose as you capture a city of theirs to religious victory. Honestly I found religion the least interesting part of Civ 5, mostly because AI will just spam missionaries nonstop.
Definitely agree about the graphics! I have thousands of hours in Civ 5 & definitely like the graphics better. Can we talk about setting the builders to automate & sit back while they improved your empire.
I just have never gotten over the graphics and the change in leaders for civ 6. I want to play my William of Orange (Netherlands) and Isabella (Spain). I would have liked it if they kept some of the symbolic abilities as well, because they haven't I just have too much nostalgia for Civ 5 and just can't ever really want to play Civ 6.
I am one of those people that still play Civ5. I have 340 hours on it total (vs 30 hours on Civ6). But I have to say that my reasons are entirely different from what you describe in the video. I prefer 5 over 6 because for whatever reason (I genuinely have no idea why), every one of my games in 6 is boring, not memorable and has absolutely nothing going on for hundreds of years of in-game time. I end up skipping dozens of turns in a row, just clicking on the button and all events that do happen seem to be triggered by my actions, such as deciding to expand, attack or build a new cool thing. Whereas in 5, there is always something that requires my attention - be it rowdy powerful neighbours that are preparing for war, a contested city-state without which I'll dip into negative happiness, wrong ideology taking over the world, one civ becoming a world power on the other side of the planet and so on. There is a sense of urgency, and important decisions need to be made almost every turn. And this continues until the lategame, during which the game admittedly becomes much more of a chore. I tried liking Civ6, but whenever I have spare time, and feel like having a game of Civ, I always inevitable choose 5 over 6, even though I would love to play something new at this point.
First played civ 6. Played a few games to the end and was really getting into it, then started playing civ 5 multiplayer with friends and now I can’t get past 30 turns on civ 6 before I turn it off and play 5 instead
I first started in Civ 3, Civ V is still the pinnacle of Civ. Mainly because it has a fun late game. In Civ V, you play tall, plus the puppet system. This means late game I still only need to manage my 4 cities that I built and cherished over the course of the game. In all other Civ's if you're conquering the world, you're forced to micromanage a boatload of cities that you don't care about. I don't want to manage 50 conquered cities, I only want to deal with the 4 I personally founded and cared for. In Civ V, you don't even need to leave garrisons, which further lowers the bookkeeping. (Previous civs, you were supposed to leave garrisons at all of the cities you take, imagine the hassle.) In Civ V, I just conquer enemy capitals for the wonders, and not bother managing them. Note, in Crusader Kings, you can have a massive empire, but you only need to manage your own demesne, imagine the nightmare of managing hundreds of provinces manually. In EU4 and HOI3, there isn't much micro-managing of states due to abstraction. The district system in Civ 6 is more annoying than fun, it feels like a bad game of Tetris, it just isn't fun. On the other hand, in Civ V, I can use citadels to expand my borders for resources, that's fun. There's some seriously satisfying when I use a general to steal 3 plots of aluminum. Civ V is much simpler, but it's simplicity is so much fun. Another is army management, in Civ V, I use a small amount of well-promoted units. Reinforcing is fairly limited. In older civ's, it involved mass spam of whatever I can build and I had to manually move everything to the front lines. One thing Civ V is missing is a convoy system to make long-distance transit of armies easier. Civ V really mastered the less is more concept.
The Civ 6 district system can be tedious but I think that's mostly UI related and it's really only annoying without UI mods or if horses pop up where you wanted a government plaza. But there's a reason Tetris is still popular after all these years. It's legitimately fun to plan out a labyrinth of dams and aqueducts to get a hansa with +10 production. Civ 5 certainly has it's annoying moments too -- constantly fighting happiness can be a grind -- but I agree that they really nailed the late game and kept it interesting, simultaneously simplifying empire management without sacrificing complexity and depth. And it's SO nice to be able to play tall without it being some massive handicap. Not to mention the introduction of hex tiles. It is the best Civ game I think. Although I thought Civ 6 was way more enjoyable at launch. It took me a long time to warm to Civ 5 and I don't think it was very good until Brave New World.
@@michaelahurt I'd rather the district system be more like the Sims or Cities Skylines, where it's just for style or for fun. It becomes tedious when it's used as a strategic gameplay element. There's nothing more frustrating to find out you're one tile off, or there's a mismatched tile somewhere. (Civ V actually fixed this issue by letting you expand borders or snipe resources with Citadels, citadel placement is both fun and strategic). Stellaris notably removed the district gameplay entirely, I guess they figured it was too tedious.
@@warrenhammer7262 That's what the UI mods are for. You just pin everything down when you get your second settler. But city placement has always been my favorite part of the game so I might be biased. Districts are just an extension of city placement.
@@michaelahurt I definitely like the idea of districts and customizing your city shape, but I guess I just dislike the implementation of it. Another issue I found is the AI can't do proper district planning and tons of wonders never get built that way. Whereas Civ V, the AI spam builds wonders, all the more reason to invade and capture.
I only played C6, but I'm not sure I want to start learning C5. I want to ask you as someone who knows both games well: I suffered a lot from slow moving units in C6, and suffered more from having to deal with the tedious internal affairs of the country, than to devote myself to enjoying foreign policy, Since you play the two games a lot, you must be well aware of what I suffer from. The question is, does the C5 game have the same problems that I mentioned? Thank you
As somebody who loves to OCC or play tall in my Civ V games, it's been a huge step out of my comfort zone to play in Civ VI, as one city quite simply can't have it all. Building settlers and units and going to war was never my strong suit, cause I always felt that I was neglecting my city whenever I would build a unit. Now Civ VI has me thinking in the exact opposite terms, haha. It's taken some getting used to, for sure.
I think the main reason both are so popular comes down to both being so different. From gameplay to graphics, both have their own unique styles. Overall just 2 really solid games.
Worst change to civ 6 in my opinion were the weird gameplay changes to workers. If I have a worker build three improvements why does it disappear? In reality if I have an employee do a job for me they don't disappear when the job is finished. Another dumb change was that traders now make roads instead of workers. In real life workers build roads and then traders use them but in civ 6 traders build roads for no apparent reason.
@@darkemperor418 I liked it. It made sense and allowed for customization/optimization. A lot of my late-game antics were dedicated to building railroads on every available tile.
I have thousands of hours in Civ games. I think the take that civ 5 if somehow deeper than 6 is so insane. Districts alone make civ 6 so much more deep... You have to plan and choose where to place districts and wonders to maximize your gameplay. And while its fun to spam them whoops don't forget you still need some productive tiles and growth tiles. Like in Civ 5 you literally just build improvements on tiles and laugh all the way to the bank as you spam specialists. This fundamental difference sets the game apart so much. Not to mention builder charges, governor titles, secret societies etc etc.
after 200 hours on civ 5, the transition to 6 has been interesting. I think the thing i dislike most about civ 6 is trying to scroll through the god damn map, like wtf???
I hated how fast the tech and cultural paths advanced in civ6, and I hated that they removed defined play paths - like picking core policies (tradition/liberty) and then going a space race or diplomacy or other route. I don't always like sprawling out, and civ 6 is basically a sprawl game. They added some complexities in civ 6, but I didn't really appreciate a lot of those added complexities. The game also rewards a single targeted gameplay path, and if something throws a wrench in your plans it didn't seem you had the flexibility to try to play through to a different win condition or play style. I didn't end up investing in the expansions after release, and with my impression of feature bloat clogging up the gameplay loop, I don't think I would have enjoyed most of their additions.
I didn't like the instabuilding of builders, where the only had 3 uses and died, and civ 5 seemed more balanced. some one starts to roll and it just landslides. You can't really build tall in 6. Civ 5 was harder to Min-Max
The reason civ 5 ran better than 6 is because civ 5 didn't have all your buildings on the map tiles but inside your city, therefore it didnt have to now load each visual of the buildings. Civ 5 is a masterpiece and play it to this day. Best graphics but i wish there was a mod to add features of civ 2 and 3, with Civ 2(building on your throne/palace) and Civ 3(view of your buildings, like a helicopter looking over a giant land mass. I love that they fixed in the stacking horror in civ 5 and the graphics are way better than 6s cartoon characters. Good video 👍
I'd have to argue your point that videocards these days are only good for two years. The 1080 is still a great card that many people use and it's like 5 or 6 years old now.
@@TheCivLifeR My 1050 runs civ 6 perfectly even with multiple web pages, an emulator running in the background, and a zoom meeting. I think the processor and RAM have something to do with it as well.
I haven't played civ 5 but when I first saw it a few years ago, I thought the graphics were horrible compared to civ 6 (I'm specifically talking about the tiles and how easy they are to read between the 2 games). But then again, I often play on strategic map mode soo. (1:58 is a good point though)
Man, I ended up with more hours in Civ beyond earth than Civ VI. A lot of comments I see say that Civ VI took a while to get into/used to, and I would like to make the point that no one says that about V. Almost as if one is a timeless masterpiece and the other just isn't it. Beyond that, I think the fact that the community is asking for a Civ VII when no one was asking for a Civ VI says a lot.
The weird thing is I would say that Civ V’s graphics aren’t what I’d consider super realistic, it’s much more like an oil painting. That’s part of why it aged well.
IMO Civs 6 and 5 share a very common DNA (hexes, city states, combat etc) but depart on how they implement it. That's why I still play 5 every now and then because 6 doesn't feel like a bigger and better sequel that improves upon everything 5 did, Instead it is a breathe of fresh air on a new direction (Districts vs single city, +CS vs +%CS, Envoys vs CS Quests, Civic Tree vs Social Policy Branches etc..). Makes sense because 5 was a masterpiece and to make a sequel to improve upon all of it was just asking for failure, only solution was to create another Masterpiece. Hence, 5 and 6 both have active players. Some of them may even be common to both like me
I only played C6, but I'm not sure I want to start learning C5. I want to ask you as someone who knows both games well: I suffered a lot from slow moving units in C6, and suffered more from having to deal with the tedious internal affairs of the country, than to devote myself to enjoying foreign policy, Since you play the two games a lot, you must be well aware of what I suffer from. The question is, does the C5 game have the same problems that I mentioned? Thank you
@@waseem8830s a person who plays both, the unit movement speed is pretty much a constant in both, for that I recommend building roads where you travel a lot, and Civ 5 still has a fair amount of internal affairs, that's the point of the game, but I find that there's less micromanaging in 5
I still owe both of them. And sometimes I feel the urge to switch to Civ 5 for couple of playthroughs. Civ 5 was what introduced me to the franchise and I still love it.
I played every Civ game since 1991. Civ 6 was the first that I hated. Pure manure. Worst expansions set and the most monolithic strategic options spectrum. Also, Civ 5 have the best mods so far, so it's still a fresh game even for veterans. Cheers!
5 is just more fun than 6. There's just far less tedious micro. Who decided that having to both build loads of citites, and meticulously pre-plan their districts was fun? Who thought a huge array of policy cards, none of which show their direct benefits without a mod, was fun? Production costs are so expensive for districts that it makes a very slow and boring game, especially with the limited use builders. Aaaand then add in the awful slow unit movement, which drags it out even more? Ugh.
You forgot that apart from "start quick game" the rest is just broken. It is almost impossible to start a custom game without breaking something. And when you do, some bug crashes the game - eg. loyalty kills your city or you run out of pantheon choices and stuck at choosing pantheon screen. Imagine payng 100 euros for that shit
Diplomacy is so much better in Civ5, I feel like maps feel more natural and make more sense. The amount of times I have to restart in Civ6 to avoid being on a desert tile squeezed between a tundra and swamp tile smh
Bad starting locations are the most fun for me now. One of the most games fun I've played in VI is a Tundra/Desert start with Shaka. God starts are too easy. I've shared the seed before but no one seems to want to take me up on it.
I'm sick and wanted to install an old strategy game to play in my semi zombie state.... I have over 15x MORE playtime in Civ 5 than Civ 6; thanks for reminding me why and which to install, not to mention the DLCs, haha.
It was first a couple a months ago I actually swich to Civ 6. I do enjoy Civ 6, don't get me wrong on that. But I still prefer Civ V, for many of the reasons mentioned in the video. I will also add, that the menus and interface of Civ V was much more intuitive. Doubleclick on a city, and you get all the information you want. To get the same information in Civ VI cities, you have to open several menus, and you still don't get as much information as in Civ V. For example: production modifiers. I might be a control freak, but I enjoy to know which politics, buildings, civ abilites etc. that gives me production bonus - for example: 15 % wonder production bonus from this civic, 15 % from this pantheon etc. BTW, Civ V don't have any delay when it comes to changes in science and money output after a deal or change in policy, like Civ 6 have. In Civ VI, you have to run, well, almost a two-digits numbers of mods, and use 10 minutes to change hotkeys, to make the game playable. In Civ V it just works. And regarding hotkeys, Civ V is less rigid, and allows you to use arrow keys both for swiching between cities AND navigate the map. And IMO, Civ V also have a better production/science balance. In Civ VI, I often have a much higher science output than production, that makes me miss several units (unless I buy them), because I often reach the next tier before I've build/trained them.
I only played C6, but I'm not sure I want to start learning C5. I want to ask you as someone who knows both games well: I suffered a lot from slow moving units in C6, and suffered more from having to deal with the tedious internal affairs of the country, than to devote myself to enjoying foreign policy, Since you play the two games a lot, you must be well aware of what I suffer from. The question is, does the C5 game have the same problems that I mentioned? Thank you
Honestly, on the point evoked on 10:45, it depends heavily to the sensibility of people towards good UX/UI or overall lisibility. I can definitely assure you that those would tell Civ 6, as it is just more polished in that regard. The rest has been ngl already told in other comments, I won't repeat.
For me the Civ 6 Policy cards and civics tree make the game play so much more flexible (in 5 you either went Liberty or Tradition and you had to make that decision in the first 20 turns and you were stuck with it.
Btw Tradition is almost always to go, it's just better from both a gold and happiness point of view even if u go wide. The last 2 policies are just too broken. Liberty should only be considered if you seriously lack production at your start. I play either on Immortal or Deity random civ's.
I have only recently started playing Civ 6, and I actually really like the art style and the animations. A lot of the other changes seem to have added more strategy, and I like that even if sometimes I miss Civ 5's stuff.
I'm one of the people that's always preferred the graphics in Civ 6. Realism doesn't age as well, the cartoony graphics being meant to better showcase what's happening on the map works better for the direction taken with districts and buildings, and the bright colours and bulbous shapes just make the game feel a lot more engaging, at least for my ADHD ass. I'd say that Civ V graphics are definitely starting to show its age, and it generally just looks and feels a lot more dry and dull. Maybe the newer graphics are less realistic, but it's still a video game, with mechanics based in realism, so it works for me.
I can completely see why people like civ 6's artstyle more make no mistake. Its just that due to the overlap with the historical community the cartoony graphics are going to be controversial and turn a lot more people away then would be in a broad sense. The artstyle is objectively GREAT. The style might not appeal to everyone though
I most definitely prefer civ6 graphics. I prefer the brighter colors- except when I'm in a dark age. Honestly I'd rather not have that dark age lighting feature. My only complain is some of the leader portraits/animations. I'm looking at you Gandhi. Civ5 is just a touch too dark for me, though I don't mind the realistic look. For civ6 the only graphics mod I run is hillier hills.
I play hoi, eu4, ck3, civ etc etc. Find civ6 by far the easiest game to look at for hours. Unsure where the "cartoony graphics" issue is coming from as not a single map gamer i know has ever raised this as a concern, unless its just a personal dislike?
I don't mind that you like Civ 6's style better, but are you seriously telling me that Civ 5's style has aged poorly? I think Civ 5 still looks great...
Great video , but personally i think Civ 5 is overrated and in everything that is improved there is a thing that is dumbed down . One main problem for me was that in Civ 3 for example you have direct control with slider how to distribute science, happines and money. So the strategy was to sense the right timing when to push science to key tech or key war if you have resourses, when to stop science at all to gain money . In civ 5 there is no such control, there is no decisions of this type and science , happiness and money are hard fixed. If you have them - you have them and you don't have control. The only strategy here is to build buildings. Second - the war and wargaming is highly discouraged with all the penalties for new cities and overall clumsiness of movement from one unit per hex. It is hard to move units because they can't pass each other and it is hard to bring reinforcements. Because no one build roads in every hex movement is slow . There is also no enough space to maneuver big armies .And because of the one unit per hex you can't express numerical advantage of troops - even if you have the resourses you don't have space to move them and they fight one by one. The whole game is giving the illusion of choice and tunneling the gameplay to tall strategy with lots of buildings. One of the things Civ 6 did better is removing the penalty for actually expanding and settle more cities. And there is broken things in Civ 5 like city states bonuses and gold reign supreme in the relations. Make lots of gold - have infinite food and culture. The whole science mechanic with population and percentage increase building and wonders favors a lot a super cities - if you actually expand or going to war is is actually harder to get techs .
Civ V is a great game and I still play it with friends, but imo Civ VI is is another big step in the Civilization series. Advantage Civ V: -easier for new players to understad. Civ VI can be really daunting at the beginning. -I prefer this golden age system. In VI your population may hate yout, but you can still enter a golden age. Advantage Civ VI: -More clearly represented. You have the opportunity to search wonders on the map, to see where you can settle, city-states have the colour of their type, many diplomatic information,... All of this was much more complicated in Civ V -More variety in Victory Options: Religious victory added, culture got enhanced and you can conquer cities without having this enormous disadvantage in happines. In Civ V you normaly focus only on science. Culture, religion and money are less important -More variety in strategy: In Civ V you normally build science, food and production buildings, culture and economic buildings are really bad. The District-system in Civ VI makes this much more complex. What to build depends on geographic factors like rivers or mountains and on the already builded things. I love this district-system. For new players very difficult, but if you are in civ, you will love it -City-States offer much more options. You can use their military and they have individual bonusses -Much more variety in Great Persons and you are in a competition for them -Not everyone will agree: I love the loyality concept, I prefer the world congress here and the spy-sytem is much more variable -Added coincidence factors like volcanoes and storms (already existed in Civ IV) , added the Energy-System and appeal-system For both: Graphic doesn't matter so much for me, I like variety. The biggest problems are Multiplayer and the AI. They really have to work on this. Sorry for my english, I am not an english mother-tongue speaker :)
@@Kirby9373 so what the game itself is amazing just cos people will delete the game cos of graphics and hasn't actually played the game doesn't mean it's bad. Personally I like the vibrant colours plus it's a very deep game.
@DarkEmperor it's not about the corny mobile-game tier graphics. The issue with civ 6 is from the gameplay feeling rigged and non-influenticial, unlike all previous civ games
Best thing about Civ V for me were the mods, 1 in particular, the mod 'Superpowers of the world' or something, which let you build cities of 5 tiles instead of 3 so 11 in diameter and best of all let you put 2 military units on 1 tile, like an archer and swordman, made some interesting combat with this... Anyway... cool video! Thanks!
The point on performance is a great point. I don't use it much, but I have an old office PC with very minimal specs from the late 2000s-early 2010s that can run Civ V just fine if I wanted to.
I want Civ 5 but with Civ 6's amenities system instead of happiness. The only thing I don't like about Civ 5 is how much the game punishes you for going over like 3-4 cities.
Install VOx Populi, the community patch for civ 5. It doesnt punish you for going wide as the vanilla game, and it doesnt make it like the only way to play the game like in civ 6,. U can thank me later
One thing i find really wierd about civ 6 is i have archers for 100 turns, then suddenly i have electricity, something about the pacing is really strange
I prefer the gameplay upgrades that come with Civ 6, and having Civ on mobile devices is lots of fun and convenient. For the next game, I hope they go back to the realistic art style of 5, just with quality of life and gameplay improvements of 6. Make 7 the ultimate PC gaming Civilization, but keep updating 6 as the more streamlined game.
I think that Civ5 did a better job than 6 at keeping conquest from being a dominant strategy, something that is always a reasonable approach, and very often the best approach, in any situation. They did this by putting enough clogs on the benefits of bigness of empire, wide more than tall, with happiness the main such clog, that for much of the game you would be very limited in your ability to conquer more than two of your neighbors. You had to use satellites and city states artfully to accomplish what in 6 you can do just by getting more of your own wholly-owned cities. Ideology eased things up because it had a lot of happiness bennies, so you could resume a program of conquest and/or fully assimilating your satellites after you got there, especially if you got there first. Earlier in the game you could get happiness from religion, but they imposed this trade-off whereby you couldn't then choose the scientific policy group without giving up all your religion policies. This is where the game is at its best, where it makes you choose between two very good strategies, because it won't let you have both. I like the mechanics of 6 better, but it just doesn't do as good a job of forcing you to make hard choices between these two core functions, science and conquest.
I only played C6, but I'm not sure I want to start learning C5. I want to ask you as someone who knows both games well: I suffered a lot from slow moving units in C6, and suffered more from having to deal with the tedious internal affairs of the country, than to devote myself to enjoying foreign policy, Since you play the two games a lot, you must be well aware of what I suffer from. The question is, does the C5 game have the same problems that I mentioned? Thank you..
@@waseem8830 I don't think that 5 and 6 differ much on the balance between managing your economy and fighting wars. (I assume you mean fighting wars by "enjoying foreign policy"). Even if your sole interest in this game is to do well at conquest, you have to get and stay ahead in tech to get the more advanced units, have enough gold to upgrade to the advanced versions of your heavily promoted units, and have enough highly productive cities to churn out new units. You won't escape the need to pay attention to at least those three aspects of your economy -- tech, gold, and production -- by going to 5. You might consider 4X games where the economic development aspect is more rudimentary (e.g., the Total War series) if you don't enjoy playing the city builder aspect of 4X games. When you talk about "slow moving units", if you literally mean their low movement points per turn, then Civ 5 will also provide no relief. It's the same two movement points except for cavalry units until later eras when your units start to get mechanized. If you mean that war in Civ 6 often gets pretty static and positional rather than having a lot of free-wheeling maneuver, I think you will find that 5 opens that up a bit. Walls and encampments are more powerful in 6, so if you don't have a clear tech advantage going in to an attempt at conquest, it's easy to get bogged down in siege warfare I suspect the devs did that, made it easier for the AI to slow you down by forcing you to engage in siege warfare, in order to limit the attractiveness of conquest as a strategy. Overall, the effect of successful conquest is to shrink the economy of your victim and increase your own, which is such an obvious and powerful good thing that everyone would do that always to the exclusion of any other strategy unless they made it difficult to succeed or made it less useful somehow. Civ 6 makes conquest difficult by slowing it down into siege warfare, while also having this loyalty mechanic which dooms your conquered cities to an endless cycle of revolt unless you move quickly to conquer enough cities in rapid succession that all of them together can be loyalty viable. Civ 5 makes a large empire less attractive by making the number of cities you own and population points you own create a much tighter happiness leash. Conquered cities you just straight up annex to your empire add to that a huge happiness penalty until you build a courthouse ,a fairly expensive building. Once you reach a certain limit, generally no more than one, maybe two, of your neighbors, you have to settle for making conquered cities puppets until you inch up your happiness level to the point that you have enough slack to be able to annex one of your puppets and start its courthouse. Both approaches tend to nerf conquest, but 5 does it indirectly, by making it take a while to digest your conquests without causing unhappiness problems. Civ 5 leaves combat itself more free-wheeling than 6, which achieves the nerfing of conquest by making the conquest itself more difficult with its walls, encampments, and loyalty mechanic
@@2gtomkins Thanks for the reply 🌹 I played c5 a few days ago, and everything was exactly as you said. For example, the two games are very similar, which I did not expect. As for the differences, unfortunately, each game has different features. ... Graphics: That was shocking, I thought the C5 is better graphically because I hate the cartoony design of the C6 But in C5, the colors are pale, there is no night, and when I take a closer look I see the lack of details and animations for cities and buildings, unlike C6. I was wrong when I jumped into the bandwagon and thought that C5 is better graphically💔 just because of the better design ... ... Artificial intelligence of the enemies: I felt it was better in C5 but as the cities get bigger the game becomes more complicated, and then you can laugh at the stupidity of the AI in both games ... ... warmonger penalty: C6 Once you conquer a few cities, all players will hate you because you are a warmonger, so you end up lonely 🥹 I did not encounter a warmonger problem in C5, but there are no alliances in C5 unless you choose your allies before starting the game, which means you can't occupy them later So both games are disappointing 💔 ... I downloaded a mod that removes the warmonger penalties from C6 and it works fine I hope that I can enjoy C6 by occupying many cities and maintaining good relations with others, to keep trade and alliance, because that's a fun part of the game rather than being alone ... ... happiness: C5's happiness rate is common to all cities, This is better than dealing with each city separately, but it also prevents you from controlling many cities because that destroys the happiness of all your cities C6 has other consequences of the invasion So again I don't feel there is advantage for one game over the other .... .... Workers In C5 they don't disappear but they are slow to work and you have to build roads manually using them In C6 they are faster and disappear after using them three times, so I won't be bothered with them forever Personally, I prefer C6 workers In the end I hope that the upcoming C7 will combine the features of the two games, design C5 with graphics C6, reduce occupation penalties, develop artificial intelligence for enemies, facilitate control of cities to maintain happiness and productivity without wasting a lot of time
I'm curious, im a regular civ 5 player and just bought civ 6 but the map dynamics seem different. on civ 5 you could have 15 players on a tiny or small map and then each get 1 or 2 cities until you had to start attacking others. in civ 6 you can only have like 5 or 6 players on a small map, which means every civ can have like 10 cities before you have to attack others for more land. is that a thing about civ 6? you cant just play with 1 0r 2 cities for a while, you have to have loads, probably to hold all the wonders and districts but just seems a bit annoying
I know why I played civ 5 for so long after civ 6 came out... $60 for the new civ 6?! Plus another $50 for the expansion? I waited until the price dropped to $10 and I am now happily playing civ 6. I guess I'm a cheap ass
100+ euro for a broken, unfinished game. I bought it for 30.... And I still regret, it's just like every other modern game. Most of the good stuff in previous parts removed or doesn't work. To start a decent map in civ 6 is almost impossible without something breaking apart.
I still remember when i switched from Civ4 to Civ5... I felt the same way as majority of people do about civ5 to civ6. Also im still running Civ5 on my 15 years old pc
@@doomslayer9257 i think there was a video rating all civ games from 1 to 6 (not by graphics but by enjoyment and features). Civ4 is where this franchise started growing and most of the features in 5 and 6 debuted in 4
@@markmorris7123 I don't think staking is less realistic than the silly one unit per tile limit. For me Civilization games are Grand Strategy games, you should not care about tactical details, staking worked wonderfully well. And you do still have strategies with stacking, especially attacking is hard in Civ4 when tech are similar to the defensive side.
ive always loved the feel of civ 5 its whole vibe feels fun for rp purposes as well as competitive gameplay with friends, civ 6 still fun but feels more like a kid game in vibes, with gather storm however civ 6 feels much better and "finished" feeling if you play civ 6 with no dlc it feels not done or a simplified version of civ 5 for elderly to play
The deeper mechanics of Civ 6 not because it more intricate but because it seems like the AI doesn't take full advantage of the mechanics. It gives me a better chance on higher difficulties compared to Civ 5 when I use those mechanics right.
The ai is actually really easy to beat in civ 5 just do the tradition mega city science strat. Pick tradition settle 4 cities preferable all coastal. Send internal food trade routes to your capital. Focus down all the science techs and wonders. Save all your great scientists and then once you build research labs in all your cities set them all to science focus for 10 turns. After that use AL your great scientists and burst to xcom squads or the rocket parts and then win the game.
I feel like civ 6 just tried too hard to change everything, even stuff that mechanically functioned perfectly. Certain things like social policy became over complicated
I was scrolling through comments hoping to find a kindred spirit. Civ 2 is what I started with way back in the day. I remember how I'd hated it at first cause I had no idea what it was or how it worked, those were the days before youtube, but I kept at it and felt such a sense of accomplishment when I finally figured it out and then eventually got good at it. Till this day it's one of the more memorable games and experiences for me. Would kill for a remake.
Another terrible thing about civ 6 are the leaders chosen.. I mean how on earth is eleanor of Aquatine a valid choice..Yes she was very strong and capable but she was not a direct ruler and ultimately failed in her rebellion to overthrow England.. Victoria is a fair choice..However the choice for England should always be either Alfred, Edward, Henry V, Elizabeth, and yes maybe Victoria..And this is the case with almost all the civilisations in this aesthetically terrible game
I don't know what they were on with half of the leaders and a fifth of the civs (Canada, Australia, etc.), other than "current-day politics". Did they really not have a real Mayan leader to pick? (Also Maya being the tall Civ in 6, when playing tall in real life was what annihilated Mayan supremacy before the Spanish learned they existed, heh).
I think you really hit the nail on the head with the graphics part. I really don’t like the graphics in civ 6 and as stupid as it sounds, that’s a big reason why I don’t play that game. That and the fact I’m just a lot more accustomed to civ 5’s mechanics. Overall, I just can’t bring myself to enjoy civ 6 nearly as much as civ 5.
yeah it's really weird. I normally don't care about graphics, if they are outdated or low quality or whatever. But the civ 6 graphics are just fundamentally unfitting, such a turn off.
For me Civ V is the better of the two. There are many reasons, but the main one is that Civ VI is far more map dependent than 5 is. Your starting location can really be the difference between a victory or defeat. Civilization has always had the tag line of "just one more turn," but I feel that with Civ VI "just one more restart" is more appropriate. I do agree that the art style of Civ V is a lot better than Civ VI, both in terms of leaders and the map. In fact, there is a mod for Civ VI that converts the map to one which emulates the look of the Civ V map (too bad there's not one for the leader screens as well). In Civ V it is easy to distinguish hills, whereas in Civ VI this is not always the case. I really hope that Civ VII follows the Civ V example rather than the Civ VI one. Thanks for the video, I enjoyed it a great deal and hope that you start doing some Civ V playthroughs and guides in the future.
Civ 5 has grown on me and on many other players. Its just such a well balanced game, so much thought put into every mechanic. Great graphics, living community. Civ5 is a fantastic game and Civ 6 just couldn't quiet reach that level. BUT: I think its also important to note that Civ6 is far from a trash game. They clearly kept many mechanics from Civ5, they did an overhaul, not a complete rework. And because of that civ6 is a totally fine game. I respect everyone who prefers Civ6 for their own reasons and since Civ6 is actively being supported with new expansions and balancing it still has potential. I would say: Civ 5 = Outstanding game Civ 6 = Good game And thats a good thing. So many franchises just drop the ball completely and make super low quality continuations. Civilization isn't one of those.
I hate the quotes in Civ6, They are snarky and seem to mostly be from comedians and humourists. One of the joys of Civ was memorizing those quotes and hunting some of them down, and using them in daily life, but I can come with my own smartass comments on everything, that's not hard or profound.
I disagree with you on that loyalty and amenities are a good growth restriction, I usually have like 8/9 cities by turn 100 and I don't like that, it prevents me from going tall like in civ5 I would just have 4/5 cities untill way later into the game which made me actually think about where and when to settle instead of spamming settlers
Just had a turn take about 3-4 minutes in Civ6 with 7 AIs on a standard map. Pain. Thinking of playing Civ5 instead just because of how Civ6 performs on my 12 year old CPU.
As an owner of both Civ 6 and Civ 5 a few remarks I still play Civ 5 but I might give Civ 6 another shot as it was still early days. Why though, there are mechanics I had to learn (districts), I really like that caravans creates roads in Civ6. What I dislike about civ 6 is the way tech bonus and "policies" are obtained which imo creates a way to play the game rather then have free choice on what to do. The dealbreakers on Civ 6 it isn't the graphics (even though I prefer 5) what is? Research bonuses, also applicable for the civic tree. Getting research reduction by doing stuff in the game like make 3 archers causes there to be an optimal way to play any game. So the game plays you more then you play the game in Civ 6 thats how I feel. Its a new mechanic im just not a fan off. Even though I can see were they are coming from. Civs that are known for a certain trait will more likely develop that trait --> research. But gameplay wise I think it should go. Another dealbreaker are the mapsizes. Normal in Civ 6 feels like tiny or duel in Civ 5. A part of the fun is looking for good locations to place your next city, not just plant it close to you because u won't have room for a 4th maybe even a third. I like to see me as a strategy gamer as the top 3 of my steam is EU4 3k hours, Civ 5 1.1K, Total War: Shogun 2: 825 Civ 6: 33 hours
" So the game plays you more then you play the game in Civ 6" Interesting observation. I hadn't thought about it that way. I don't like having to do certain things just to get a tech boost, and not getting that tech boost made me feel like I was falling behind. I much prefer the freedom of building and researching what I want, when I wanted, depending on my grand strategy and what might be happening from one turn to the next. Not that it matters much to me. I quit playing civ6 years ago for a number of reasons, not just the cartoony graphics. I do feel like you have a lot more freedom with your research and grand strategy with civ5.
I only played C6, but I'm not sure I want to start learning C5. I want to ask you as someone who knows both games well: I suffered a lot from slow moving units in C6, and suffered more from having to deal with the tedious internal affairs of the country, than to devote myself to enjoying foreign policy, Since you play the two games a lot, you must be well aware of what I suffer from. The question is, does the C5 game have the same problems that I mentioned? Thank you
@@waseem8830 I'm not realy that experienced in civ 6 from memory movement is 90% the same there are differences on how rough terrain and river crossings work. You can get rebels if you dont keep an eye out on your happiness. Often unhappiness comes from cities growing too quick or having too many of them. The higher your difficulty the more of a problem it is. on the highest difficulty I usually wouldn't go for more then 5 mby 6 cities.
Looking through the comments and I don't understand how some people think civ 6 looks better,, I think civ 6 looks like it was made for children. I play civ 5 unmodded. But civ 5 multiplayer with vox populi mod is amazing..Anyone who hasn't played either,, I advise you to buy civ 5, not civ 6. I tried to like civ six..I've been playing civ since civ 2.. And I've always thought that it's got better with each installment,, that stopped at six. Civ six is slow, cluncky and the aesthetics are horrible (childlike). Civ 5 is one of the best turn based strategy games out right now.. Even if it's a decade old
Second Channel cause im a menace :D ua-cam.com/channels/MWxbfaNKctPK7gXIkiFkLw.html
Among MANY things that attract me to Civ 5 the main one is being able to sign down on that paper everytime you adopt a policy. Just sounds and feels so proper.
Yeah, now in Civ 6 you just change policies and to get a new bonus you have to rid of the old 1 which doesnt feel like a boost but like a new option and sometimes you need to adopt a bunch of new policies just to change the old 1 meanwhile you gain no value for all the culture that you spent...
LOVE THATT SOUND
@@DragoniteTrainerthe policies are dynamic and become increasingly better over time. They good a job with the civic tree, as you move up in governments you increase your policy cards and you have to make decisions for what you want from your civilization during an era. If you wanna mass focus on troop production then the policy cards for are a lot better than the social policies of 5, then in the next era you can change your policies to focus on economic development.
Modern era and onwards you hear printer noises.
every time i hear someone mention civ v "wOuLd yOu bE inTeResTeD iN a TradE agrEeMenT witH enGlaNd" starts playing on loop in my head
lmao that line is more iconic then nuclear ghandi
Yup, it's the best loop. But also funny talks can be with Blue tooth or Indonesia.
Nah it's the mongols for me. That bastards language is still in my head.
I’m not the only one!
You just unlocked a core memory for me
Civ 5 is way more immersive overall in my option.
Great video, but there is a word that you, and the people in the comments, are using wrongly: graphics. It is VERY important not to confuse it with AESTHETICS. See, graphics are about polygons, shaders, textures, and in that department, Civ 6 obviously surpasses Civ 5. What you talked about in the video was actually the aesthetics of the games, and I agree the Civ 5's more realistic aesthetic is more enjoyable and appropriate for a game with roots in history.
Why is it important to use graphics x aesthetics corretly? Because that IS the language of the developers, and we get what we ask. If people keep demanding better graphics with no regard to aesthetics, they will keep pushing for it: ugly and/or uninspired games with amazing textures and whatnot.
I'm NOT saying Civ 6 is ugly/uninspired, just that we jumped a fire (cartoony is not the worst scenario, but definitely not an improvement, imo).
Hugs from Brazil !
this right here couldnt put it to words
Theres actually a known phenomenon with game graphics that make older games look more realistic than modern ones. It has to do with the mind being able to fill in details for low graphics games where as increasing the detail starts to make things start to feel off. Same with movies. Look at the older "The Hulk" movie compared with the newer one. The old one just looks more real.
@@pabsmanhere I completely agree! The Assassin's Creed games come to mind. Even thought AC2 has way less... "realistic" graphics than AC Origins, for example... in our minds it was just as amazing back then, and some details (like cloth physics) were actually better done!
oh my god thank you so much for this.
Whenever I talked about the "Graphics", something felt off in the back of my head but I just couldnt put it to words. You just did and solved a great Dilemma for me.
You nailed it all really. Both excellent games. My only real beef with 6 is the childish graphics also which look like my sleep paralysis demons. Civ 5 graphics are practically perfect in that regard.
This right here. Childish is a good word to describe it. It looks like a cartoon, and the AI look like they were just peeled off of a cereal box. Every time I see one of them I can picture some 8 year old in a grocery store pointing to a box of cereal asking if they can get a box of Frederick Flakes.
Yep needs to go back in civ v style, its to childish to me.
I prefer the Civ VI art style, makes the leaders look very expressive.
@@mcihay246 there is always one... incredible...
@@LiquidModernityTastesLikeUrine Well, at least you didn't make an argument against it nor did you state in any way that I was mistaken or incorrect in my statement.
So in all accounts, it's a viable argument for the Civ VI animations.
I've mostly shifted to 6 but I like that 5 has much less to micromanage.
I really dislike limited use builders in civ 6 and I like playing a tall game as opposed to basically needing to go super wide in 6.
I've only tried civ 6 when it just came out so I'm sure it's much better now, but the builders being one use only is a big factor that turned me off to it.
@@dudemanmcgee7595 not sure about non multiplayer but in it builders start with 3 charges and policy cards to add 2
If the districts in Civ 6 had their own building queue instead of having to build the district and then the buildings/units in said district would've helped me to get into the game.
@@dudemanmcgee7595 as the other guy who replied to your comment said, I'm not sure what you mean, because the builders in civ 6 do start with 3 charges with the option to add 2 extra charges with policy cards.
@@PureePlayer and 1 from a governor, and Pyramids adds more too doesn't it?! Oh, and China Builders just flat out get an extra one too!
I currently have 3,642 hours in Civ 5 and the reason I play Civ 5 over Civ 6 because of the added city micromanagement they introduced. I dont get it, they realized that there was too much micromanagement with all of the units in Civ 4 and made it so only 1 military unit,/worker,/great person can be on a hex in Civ 5 to do away with the micromanagement and then turn around in Civ 6 and add more city micromanagement instead. Oh and the goofy graphics :p
You dont need to micro manage in civ 6 unless you want perfect yields in a city.
Having said that
They should have an option to plan out a city in advance.
So you can micro manage if you want and avoid micromanaging every turn if you dont want to
@@zedantXiang map tacks do the job for me
@@helpme2401 Yeah they are god send, I'd like the possibility of queueing building you cant build yet in the build queue tho.
I used to love the stack...made a LEADER worthwhile same have 2.9k in Civ 5 looked at 6, read revue watched the vid and said...NO its not a grand strategy game its a baby city management game, so no I will stay will civ 5 until they get the message...must see the daily players from steam they KNOW.
I think you forgot about one important factor - Civ5 is more challenging.
I just went back to Civ5 after many years of playing Civ6. Civ6 was boring to me. Yeah, the start was always fun, but when you survive start (even on deity), I mean no Zulu wiped you from the map, It became just boring. And It was easy win after.
When I returned to civ5 I have almost bankrupted my first few games and also AI was challenging for me in mid and late game, attacking with enormous armies. So it was no longer "survive start = easy win". That made me wanna play more.
I personally found Civ V to be more appealing both artistically and in terms of gameplay. It is very easy to pick up and play even if it's your first civ game.
I put hundred of hours into both. The big issue I had with civ 5 was the global happiness. It was a slog trying to expand more cities without any of the later age policies.
Civ 5 is just simpler and more fun to play. I feel like I need a spreadsheet and 10 UA-cam videos open when I boot up 6.
I've never played 6 but that was my feeling as well: there are too many options. Everything is a tree. You have to build stuff in districts and workers/builders can't make roads?
I have no idea why they added those goofy cartoon graphics, either. It's like they were trying to appeal to kids who can't realistically handle the game.
"Builders jumping 30 feet into the sky and slamming their hammer down like a budget thor cosplay" - hilarious! 😂👍
I've been enjoying Civ since 1991 and Civ 5 (with all the DLC) is still my favourite. I want to really like Civ 6 but just can't get into it . . . yet.
I've been playing Civ5 online with my girlfriend for the past few days and she asked me if we could buy Civ6 together because it's on sale on Steam. I really considered buying it, but after watching a few videos.... uuugh - just no. The design is way too cartoonish and cardboardy to me. Well if at least there would be an option or mod to toggle between a cardboard or realism style. I hope a Civ7 will be get a more serious look again.
@@berzerk1450 what do you think of Civ 7s graphics? I personally think they’re really good
@@TheBabyCaleb Yes, the art-design is much better now. But i am not sure if i will like the new "Ages" System and that my Nation is changing during the gameplay. Probably its just "Roman Empire" becomes "Italy" in modern days, which is not that bad.
Playing tall being a real strategy and the national wonders are what I miss most in Civ 6. Especially the national wonders. Knowing there's a wonder that you can always build, even on higher difficulties, once you meet the requirements (like a Monument in every city) is huge. It also scaled with the amount of cities you had so again a reason for tall play.
Civ 5 just looks better. Honestly, thats the bottom line for me. I'm sure I would like civ 6, but the initial graphics just put me off so much that I stick with civ 5.
I play civ 5 almost daily. It has unbelievable replay value.
You still do a year later?
Nah I got a job but I do still play
Relatable
@@georgebush2024realest comment
@@lua2woodstill playing
In civ 5 I prefer the gameplay, visuals and leader AI. However, I am beginning to prefer civ 6 simply because imo the civ abilities are more interesting and have more depth. The civs are what attracted me to civilisation in the first place so yeah. Also I like that you can actually win with religion now. I know you aren't always going to go for a religious victory but it just feels a bit better in 6 nevertheless to me.
Also, I completely agree with the points made about happiness changing into loyalty, housing and amenities to restrict growth / expansion
its definitely more intuitive and interesting. And civ 6 religious victory is a nice addition. And happiness still gives me nightmares to this day lol
You can win w religion in civ 5, the workshop exists. Search “extra victory conditions”, provides economic and religious victory opportunities
@@burnaboa I didn't know that, thanks for letting me know
@@hydraph4843 np, was kinda trying to go off his point of mod support. That mod and a few others IMO are “essential” mods that don’t change the game but make the base content even better
@@TheCivLifeR Nothing better than decimating the AIs when suddenly you lose as you capture a city of theirs to religious victory. Honestly I found religion the least interesting part of Civ 5, mostly because AI will just spam missionaries nonstop.
Definitely agree about the graphics! I have thousands of hours in Civ 5 & definitely like the graphics better. Can we talk about setting the builders to automate & sit back while they improved your empire.
lol try that in vox populi deity
I just have never gotten over the graphics and the change in leaders for civ 6. I want to play my William of Orange (Netherlands) and Isabella (Spain). I would have liked it if they kept some of the symbolic abilities as well, because they haven't I just have too much nostalgia for Civ 5 and just can't ever really want to play Civ 6.
I am one of those people that still play Civ5. I have 340 hours on it total (vs 30 hours on Civ6). But I have to say that my reasons are entirely different from what you describe in the video.
I prefer 5 over 6 because for whatever reason (I genuinely have no idea why), every one of my games in 6 is boring, not memorable and has absolutely nothing going on for hundreds of years of in-game time. I end up skipping dozens of turns in a row, just clicking on the button and all events that do happen seem to be triggered by my actions, such as deciding to expand, attack or build a new cool thing.
Whereas in 5, there is always something that requires my attention - be it rowdy powerful neighbours that are preparing for war, a contested city-state without which I'll dip into negative happiness, wrong ideology taking over the world, one civ becoming a world power on the other side of the planet and so on. There is a sense of urgency, and important decisions need to be made almost every turn. And this continues until the lategame, during which the game admittedly becomes much more of a chore.
I tried liking Civ6, but whenever I have spare time, and feel like having a game of Civ, I always inevitable choose 5 over 6, even though I would love to play something new at this point.
First played civ 6. Played a few games to the end and was really getting into it, then started playing civ 5 multiplayer with friends and now I can’t get past 30 turns on civ 6 before I turn it off and play 5 instead
I first started in Civ 3, Civ V is still the pinnacle of Civ. Mainly because it has a fun late game.
In Civ V, you play tall, plus the puppet system. This means late game I still only need to manage my 4 cities that I built and cherished over the course of the game. In all other Civ's if you're conquering the world, you're forced to micromanage a boatload of cities that you don't care about. I don't want to manage 50 conquered cities, I only want to deal with the 4 I personally founded and cared for.
In Civ V, you don't even need to leave garrisons, which further lowers the bookkeeping. (Previous civs, you were supposed to leave garrisons at all of the cities you take, imagine the hassle.)
In Civ V, I just conquer enemy capitals for the wonders, and not bother managing them.
Note, in Crusader Kings, you can have a massive empire, but you only need to manage your own demesne, imagine the nightmare of managing hundreds of provinces manually. In EU4 and HOI3, there isn't much micro-managing of states due to abstraction.
The district system in Civ 6 is more annoying than fun, it feels like a bad game of Tetris, it just isn't fun. On the other hand, in Civ V, I can use citadels to expand my borders for resources, that's fun. There's some seriously satisfying when I use a general to steal 3 plots of aluminum.
Civ V is much simpler, but it's simplicity is so much fun.
Another is army management, in Civ V, I use a small amount of well-promoted units. Reinforcing is fairly limited. In older civ's, it involved mass spam of whatever I can build and I had to manually move everything to the front lines.
One thing Civ V is missing is a convoy system to make long-distance transit of armies easier.
Civ V really mastered the less is more concept.
The Civ 6 district system can be tedious but I think that's mostly UI related and it's really only annoying without UI mods or if horses pop up where you wanted a government plaza. But there's a reason Tetris is still popular after all these years. It's legitimately fun to plan out a labyrinth of dams and aqueducts to get a hansa with +10 production.
Civ 5 certainly has it's annoying moments too -- constantly fighting happiness can be a grind -- but I agree that they really nailed the late game and kept it interesting, simultaneously simplifying empire management without sacrificing complexity and depth. And it's SO nice to be able to play tall without it being some massive handicap. Not to mention the introduction of hex tiles. It is the best Civ game I think.
Although I thought Civ 6 was way more enjoyable at launch. It took me a long time to warm to Civ 5 and I don't think it was very good until Brave New World.
@@michaelahurt I'd rather the district system be more like the Sims or Cities Skylines, where it's just for style or for fun.
It becomes tedious when it's used as a strategic gameplay element. There's nothing more frustrating to find out you're one tile off, or there's a mismatched tile somewhere. (Civ V actually fixed this issue by letting you expand borders or snipe resources with Citadels, citadel placement is both fun and strategic).
Stellaris notably removed the district gameplay entirely, I guess they figured it was too tedious.
@@warrenhammer7262 That's what the UI mods are for. You just pin everything down when you get your second settler.
But city placement has always been my favorite part of the game so I might be biased. Districts are just an extension of city placement.
@@michaelahurt I definitely like the idea of districts and customizing your city shape, but I guess I just dislike the implementation of it.
Another issue I found is the AI can't do proper district planning and tons of wonders never get built that way.
Whereas Civ V, the AI spam builds wonders, all the more reason to invade and capture.
I only played C6, but I'm not sure I want to start learning C5. I want to ask you as someone who knows both games well: I suffered a lot from slow moving units in C6, and suffered more from having to deal with the tedious internal affairs of the country, than to devote myself to enjoying foreign policy, Since you play the two games a lot, you must be well aware of what I suffer from. The question is, does the C5 game have the same problems that I mentioned? Thank you
As somebody who loves to OCC or play tall in my Civ V games, it's been a huge step out of my comfort zone to play in Civ VI, as one city quite simply can't have it all. Building settlers and units and going to war was never my strong suit, cause I always felt that I was neglecting my city whenever I would build a unit. Now Civ VI has me thinking in the exact opposite terms, haha. It's taken some getting used to, for sure.
I bought Civ5 ~1 year before Civ6 released and it didn't seem at all like old game. And I still played it a lot since then.
I think the main reason both are so popular comes down to both being so different. From gameplay to graphics, both have their own unique styles. Overall just 2 really solid games.
Worst change to civ 6 in my opinion were the weird gameplay changes to workers. If I have a worker build three improvements why does it disappear? In reality if I have an employee do a job for me they don't disappear when the job is finished. Another dumb change was that traders now make roads instead of workers. In real life workers build roads and then traders use them but in civ 6 traders build roads for no apparent reason.
Tedious road building in civ5
@@darkemperor418 I liked it. It made sense and allowed for customization/optimization. A lot of my late-game antics were dedicated to building railroads on every available tile.
I have thousands of hours in Civ games. I think the take that civ 5 if somehow deeper than 6 is so insane. Districts alone make civ 6 so much more deep... You have to plan and choose where to place districts and wonders to maximize your gameplay. And while its fun to spam them whoops don't forget you still need some productive tiles and growth tiles. Like in Civ 5 you literally just build improvements on tiles and laugh all the way to the bank as you spam specialists. This fundamental difference sets the game apart so much. Not to mention builder charges, governor titles, secret societies etc etc.
its not deeper, but still very deep for a game in its own right
@@TheCivLifeR Oh don't get me wrong I agree, your point about if the game released today was spot on.
I guess its probably best to differentiate depth with complexity. That's my two cense
Try Civ V with Vox Populi / community patch
If you download Vox Populi you get what Civ 6 shouldve been
A civ 5.2
after 200 hours on civ 5, the transition to 6 has been interesting. I think the thing i dislike most about civ 6 is trying to scroll through the god damn map, like wtf???
I hated how fast the tech and cultural paths advanced in civ6, and I hated that they removed defined play paths - like picking core policies (tradition/liberty) and then going a space race or diplomacy or other route. I don't always like sprawling out, and civ 6 is basically a sprawl game. They added some complexities in civ 6, but I didn't really appreciate a lot of those added complexities. The game also rewards a single targeted gameplay path, and if something throws a wrench in your plans it didn't seem you had the flexibility to try to play through to a different win condition or play style.
I didn't end up investing in the expansions after release, and with my impression of feature bloat clogging up the gameplay loop, I don't think I would have enjoyed most of their additions.
I didn't like the instabuilding of builders, where the only had 3 uses and died, and civ 5 seemed more balanced. some one starts to roll and it just landslides. You can't really build tall in 6. Civ 5 was harder to Min-Max
The reason civ 5 ran better than 6 is because civ 5 didn't have all your buildings on the map tiles but inside your city, therefore it didnt have to now load each visual of the buildings. Civ 5 is a masterpiece and play it to this day. Best graphics but i wish there was a mod to add features of civ 2 and 3, with Civ 2(building on your throne/palace) and Civ 3(view of your buildings, like a helicopter looking over a giant land mass. I love that they fixed in the stacking horror in civ 5 and the graphics are way better than 6s cartoon characters. Good video 👍
I'm still rocking Civ 4. Although I wish it kept the unit automation, espionage, and fortress designs of civ3
I'd have to argue your point that videocards these days are only good for two years. The 1080 is still a great card that many people use and it's like 5 or 6 years old now.
really? Not too knowledgeable on that front, I remember my macbook couldnt run civ 6 but ran civ 5 fine
@@TheCivLifeR were you recording this on that MacBook? I've never seen terrain have to load in like that before
@@Wip3ou7 ye lol
@@TheCivLifeR My 1050 runs civ 6 perfectly even with multiple web pages, an emulator running in the background, and a zoom meeting. I think the processor and RAM have something to do with it as well.
I play civ 6 on a surface pro lol
I haven't played civ 5 but when I first saw it a few years ago, I thought the graphics were horrible compared to civ 6 (I'm specifically talking about the tiles and how easy they are to read between the 2 games). But then again, I often play on strategic map mode soo. (1:58 is a good point though)
Brave New World opening is moving. That alone for me really makes me play CivV again and again.
Man, I ended up with more hours in Civ beyond earth than Civ VI. A lot of comments I see say that Civ VI took a while to get into/used to, and I would like to make the point that no one says that about V. Almost as if one is a timeless masterpiece and the other just isn't it. Beyond that, I think the fact that the community is asking for a Civ VII when no one was asking for a Civ VI says a lot.
The weird thing is I would say that Civ V’s graphics aren’t what I’d consider super realistic, it’s much more like an oil painting. That’s part of why it aged well.
IMO Civs 6 and 5 share a very common DNA (hexes, city states, combat etc) but depart on how they implement it. That's why I still play 5 every now and then because 6 doesn't feel like a bigger and better sequel that improves upon everything 5 did, Instead it is a breathe of fresh air on a new direction (Districts vs single city, +CS vs +%CS, Envoys vs CS Quests, Civic Tree vs Social Policy Branches etc..). Makes sense because 5 was a masterpiece and to make a sequel to improve upon all of it was just asking for failure, only solution was to create another Masterpiece. Hence, 5 and 6 both have active players. Some of them may even be common to both like me
I only played C6, but I'm not sure I want to start learning C5. I want to ask you as someone who knows both games well: I suffered a lot from slow moving units in C6, and suffered more from having to deal with the tedious internal affairs of the country, than to devote myself to enjoying foreign policy, Since you play the two games a lot, you must be well aware of what I suffer from. The question is, does the C5 game have the same problems that I mentioned? Thank you
@@waseem8830s a person who plays both, the unit movement speed is pretty much a constant in both, for that I recommend building roads where you travel a lot, and Civ 5 still has a fair amount of internal affairs, that's the point of the game, but I find that there's less micromanaging in 5
I still owe both of them. And sometimes I feel the urge to switch to Civ 5 for couple of playthroughs. Civ 5 was what introduced me to the franchise and I still love it.
I played every Civ game since 1991. Civ 6 was the first that I hated. Pure manure. Worst expansions set and the most monolithic strategic options spectrum. Also, Civ 5 have the best mods so far, so it's still a fresh game even for veterans. Cheers!
5 is just more fun than 6. There's just far less tedious micro. Who decided that having to both build loads of citites, and meticulously pre-plan their districts was fun? Who thought a huge array of policy cards, none of which show their direct benefits without a mod, was fun? Production costs are so expensive for districts that it makes a very slow and boring game, especially with the limited use builders. Aaaand then add in the awful slow unit movement, which drags it out even more? Ugh.
You forgot that apart from "start quick game" the rest is just broken. It is almost impossible to start a custom game without breaking something. And when you do, some bug crashes the game - eg. loyalty kills your city or you run out of pantheon choices and stuck at choosing pantheon screen. Imagine payng 100 euros for that shit
Civ 5 has a strategic warfare element which Civ 6 lacks
Diplomacy is so much better in Civ5, I feel like maps feel more natural and make more sense. The amount of times I have to restart in Civ6 to avoid being on a desert tile squeezed between a tundra and swamp tile smh
maps true, but id probably give diplomacy to civ 6 honestly, civ 5's was garbage (they both are tbh)
Bad starting locations are the most fun for me now. One of the most games fun I've played in VI is a Tundra/Desert start with Shaka. God starts are too easy. I've shared the seed before but no one seems to want to take me up on it.
@@jyutzler You must be a really good player, I'm trying to beat Emperor for the 3rd time lol, kind of a noob.
@@longclaw22-72 Watch more CivLifeR videos.
@@jyutzler thats a very bad tip
Civ 6 feels less grand compared to Civ 5
I'm sick and wanted to install an old strategy game to play in my semi zombie state.... I have over 15x MORE playtime in Civ 5 than Civ 6; thanks for reminding me why and which to install, not to mention the DLCs, haha.
It was first a couple a months ago I actually swich to Civ 6. I do enjoy Civ 6, don't get me wrong on that. But I still prefer Civ V, for many of the reasons mentioned in the video.
I will also add, that the menus and interface of Civ V was much more intuitive. Doubleclick on a city, and you get all the information you want. To get the same information in Civ VI cities, you have to open several menus, and you still don't get as much information as in Civ V. For example: production modifiers. I might be a control freak, but I enjoy to know which politics, buildings, civ abilites etc. that gives me production bonus - for example: 15 % wonder production bonus from this civic, 15 % from this pantheon etc. BTW, Civ V don't have any delay when it comes to changes in science and money output after a deal or change in policy, like Civ 6 have.
In Civ VI, you have to run, well, almost a two-digits numbers of mods, and use 10 minutes to change hotkeys, to make the game playable. In Civ V it just works. And regarding hotkeys, Civ V is less rigid, and allows you to use arrow keys both for swiching between cities AND navigate the map.
And IMO, Civ V also have a better production/science balance. In Civ VI, I often have a much higher science output than production, that makes me miss several units (unless I buy them), because I often reach the next tier before I've build/trained them.
I only played C6, but I'm not sure I want to start learning C5. I want to ask you as someone who knows both games well: I suffered a lot from slow moving units in C6, and suffered more from having to deal with the tedious internal affairs of the country, than to devote myself to enjoying foreign policy, Since you play the two games a lot, you must be well aware of what I suffer from. The question is, does the C5 game have the same problems that I mentioned? Thank you
Honestly, on the point evoked on 10:45, it depends heavily to the sensibility of people towards good UX/UI or overall lisibility. I can definitely assure you that those would tell Civ 6, as it is just more polished in that regard. The rest has been ngl already told in other comments, I won't repeat.
For me the Civ 6 Policy cards and civics tree make the game play so much more flexible (in 5 you either went Liberty or Tradition and you had to make that decision in the first 20 turns and you were stuck with it.
Not true..I play immortal and nearly always play piety,, though I do usually combine in with liberty
@@markmorris7123 damn i don't have the balls to do that. Like city growth and hapiness is soo much better in Tradition.
Btw Tradition is almost always to go, it's just better from both a gold and happiness point of view even if u go wide. The last 2 policies are just too broken. Liberty should only be considered if you seriously lack production at your start.
I play either on Immortal or Deity random civ's.
you can just adjust settings to keep promotions or social policies, and use them whenever you want.
I have only recently started playing Civ 6, and I actually really like the art style and the animations.
A lot of the other changes seem to have added more strategy, and I like that even if sometimes I miss Civ 5's stuff.
The graphics of civ6 is the sole reason why I never bought civ6. Refuse to play a game that takes a step back.. it's an obvious money grab.
Civ 5 just feels and looks so much better, especially the civ leaders. Civ 6 feels like a mobile game or Fortnite minigame
I'm one of the people that's always preferred the graphics in Civ 6. Realism doesn't age as well, the cartoony graphics being meant to better showcase what's happening on the map works better for the direction taken with districts and buildings, and the bright colours and bulbous shapes just make the game feel a lot more engaging, at least for my ADHD ass. I'd say that Civ V graphics are definitely starting to show its age, and it generally just looks and feels a lot more dry and dull. Maybe the newer graphics are less realistic, but it's still a video game, with mechanics based in realism, so it works for me.
I can completely see why people like civ 6's artstyle more make no mistake. Its just that due to the overlap with the historical community the cartoony graphics are going to be controversial and turn a lot more people away then would be in a broad sense. The artstyle is objectively GREAT. The style might not appeal to everyone though
I most definitely prefer civ6 graphics. I prefer the brighter colors- except when I'm in a dark age. Honestly I'd rather not have that dark age lighting feature. My only complain is some of the leader portraits/animations. I'm looking at you Gandhi. Civ5 is just a touch too dark for me, though I don't mind the realistic look. For civ6 the only graphics mod I run is hillier hills.
I play hoi, eu4, ck3, civ etc etc. Find civ6 by far the easiest game to look at for hours. Unsure where the "cartoony graphics" issue is coming from as not a single map gamer i know has ever raised this as a concern, unless its just a personal dislike?
I don't mind that you like Civ 6's style better, but are you seriously telling me that Civ 5's style has aged poorly? I think Civ 5 still looks great...
@@marten8148 yes. Realistic graphics always show their age faster than a cartoont artsyle
Great video , but personally i think Civ 5 is overrated and in everything that is improved there is a thing that is dumbed down . One main problem for me was that in Civ 3 for example you have direct control with slider how to distribute science, happines and money. So the strategy was to sense the right timing when to push science to key tech or key war if you have resourses, when to stop science at all to gain money . In civ 5 there is no such control, there is no decisions of this type and science , happiness and money are hard fixed. If you have them - you have them and you don't have control. The only strategy here is to build buildings. Second - the war and wargaming is highly discouraged with all the penalties for new cities and overall clumsiness of movement from one unit per hex. It is hard to move units because they can't pass each other and it is hard to bring reinforcements. Because no one build roads in every hex movement is slow . There is also no enough space to maneuver big armies .And because of the one unit per hex you can't express numerical advantage of troops - even if you have the resourses you don't have space to move them and they fight one by one. The whole game is giving the illusion of choice and tunneling the gameplay to tall strategy with lots of buildings. One of the things Civ 6 did better is removing the penalty for actually expanding and settle more cities. And there is broken things in Civ 5 like city states bonuses and gold reign supreme in the relations. Make lots of gold - have infinite food and culture. The whole science mechanic with population and percentage increase building and wonders favors a lot a super cities - if you actually expand or going to war is is actually harder to get techs .
Civ V is a great game and I still play it with friends, but imo Civ VI is is another big step in the Civilization series.
Advantage Civ V: -easier for new players to understad. Civ VI can be really daunting at the beginning.
-I prefer this golden age system. In VI your population may hate yout, but you can still enter a golden age.
Advantage Civ VI: -More clearly represented. You have the opportunity to search wonders on the map, to see where you can settle, city-states have the colour of their type, many diplomatic information,... All of this was much more complicated in Civ V
-More variety in Victory Options: Religious victory added, culture got enhanced and you can conquer cities without having this enormous disadvantage in happines. In Civ V you normaly focus only on science. Culture, religion and money are less important
-More variety in strategy: In Civ V you normally build science, food and production buildings, culture and economic buildings are really bad. The District-system in Civ VI makes this much more complex. What to build depends on geographic factors like rivers or mountains and on the already builded things. I love this district-system. For new players very difficult, but if you are in civ, you will love it
-City-States offer much more options. You can use their military and they have individual bonusses
-Much more variety in Great Persons and you are in a competition for them
-Not everyone will agree: I love the loyality concept, I prefer the world congress here and the spy-sytem is much more variable
-Added coincidence factors like volcanoes and storms (already existed in Civ IV) , added the Energy-System and appeal-system
For both: Graphic doesn't matter so much for me, I like variety. The biggest problems are Multiplayer and the AI. They really have to work on this.
Sorry for my english, I am not an english mother-tongue speaker :)
I actually played Civ 6 and before 5 and absolutely hated it, but I'm so addicted to 5 i still play it for hours at times
Now with civ 7 becoming like humankind I bet this won't change
I broke at the dad joke, you got me there
I like civ5 the best, but personally i think civ4 was more ahead of its time than civ5
Some things I like more about Civilization VI are that people aren’t constantly on the brink of revolution at -52 happiness and the wonders.
I may have to try civ 6 again now that the updates and DLC came out. I gave civ 6 a solid try years ago, and I felt like nothing I did had an impact
Civ6 now is absolutely worth it
@@darkemperor418 the graphics look odd
@@Kirby9373 so what the game itself is amazing just cos people will delete the game cos of graphics and hasn't actually played the game doesn't mean it's bad. Personally I like the vibrant colours plus it's a very deep game.
@DarkEmperor it's not about the corny mobile-game tier graphics. The issue with civ 6 is from the gameplay feeling rigged and non-influenticial, unlike all previous civ games
@@Kirby9373 to me I don't see that as a problem to be honest
Best thing about Civ V for me were the mods, 1 in particular, the mod 'Superpowers of the world' or something, which let you build cities of 5 tiles instead of 3 so 11 in diameter and best of all let you put 2 military units on 1 tile, like an archer and swordman, made some interesting combat with this... Anyway... cool video! Thanks!
I caught Civ6 spawning 6 troops from one city in one turn because I was winning the war. I have not played 6 in the two years since.
The point on performance is a great point. I don't use it much, but I have an old office PC with very minimal specs from the late 2000s-early 2010s that can run Civ V just fine if I wanted to.
I want Civ 5 but with Civ 6's amenities system instead of happiness. The only thing I don't like about Civ 5 is how much the game punishes you for going over like 3-4 cities.
Install VOx Populi, the community patch for civ 5. It doesnt punish you for going wide as the vanilla game, and it doesnt make it like the only way to play the game like in civ 6,. U can thank me later
Civ6 has cartoons. But 5 is more bad ass
One thing i find really wierd about civ 6 is i have archers for 100 turns, then suddenly i have electricity, something about the pacing is really strange
I prefer the gameplay upgrades that come with Civ 6, and having Civ on mobile devices is lots of fun and convenient.
For the next game, I hope they go back to the realistic art style of 5, just with quality of life and gameplay improvements of 6. Make 7 the ultimate PC gaming Civilization, but keep updating 6 as the more streamlined game.
I think that Civ5 did a better job than 6 at keeping conquest from being a dominant strategy, something that is always a reasonable approach, and very often the best approach, in any situation. They did this by putting enough clogs on the benefits of bigness of empire, wide more than tall, with happiness the main such clog, that for much of the game you would be very limited in your ability to conquer more than two of your neighbors. You had to use satellites and city states artfully to accomplish what in 6 you can do just by getting more of your own wholly-owned cities. Ideology eased things up because it had a lot of happiness bennies, so you could resume a program of conquest and/or fully assimilating your satellites after you got there, especially if you got there first. Earlier in the game you could get happiness from religion, but they imposed this trade-off whereby you couldn't then choose the scientific policy group without giving up all your religion policies. This is where the game is at its best, where it makes you choose between two very good strategies, because it won't let you have both. I like the mechanics of 6 better, but it just doesn't do as good a job of forcing you to make hard choices between these two core functions, science and conquest.
I only played C6, but I'm not sure I want to start learning C5. I want to ask you as someone who knows both games well: I suffered a lot from slow moving units in C6, and suffered more from having to deal with the tedious internal affairs of the country, than to devote myself to enjoying foreign policy, Since you play the two games a lot, you must be well aware of what I suffer from. The question is, does the C5 game have the same problems that I mentioned? Thank you..
@@waseem8830 I don't think that 5 and 6 differ much on the balance between managing your economy and fighting wars. (I assume you mean fighting wars by "enjoying foreign policy"). Even if your sole interest in this game is to do well at conquest, you have to get and stay ahead in tech to get the more advanced units, have enough gold to upgrade to the advanced versions of your heavily promoted units, and have enough highly productive cities to churn out new units. You won't escape the need to pay attention to at least those three aspects of your economy -- tech, gold, and production -- by going to 5. You might consider 4X games where the economic development aspect is more rudimentary (e.g., the Total War series) if you don't enjoy playing the city builder aspect of 4X games.
When you talk about "slow moving units", if you literally mean their low movement points per turn, then Civ 5 will also provide no relief. It's the same two movement points except for cavalry units until later eras when your units start to get mechanized.
If you mean that war in Civ 6 often gets pretty static and positional rather than having a lot of free-wheeling maneuver, I think you will find that 5 opens that up a bit. Walls and encampments are more powerful in 6, so if you don't have a clear tech advantage going in to an attempt at conquest, it's easy to get bogged down in siege warfare
I suspect the devs did that, made it easier for the AI to slow you down by forcing you to engage in siege warfare, in order to limit the attractiveness of conquest as a strategy. Overall, the effect of successful conquest is to shrink the economy of your victim and increase your own, which is such an obvious and powerful good thing that everyone would do that always to the exclusion of any other strategy unless they made it difficult to succeed or made it less useful somehow.
Civ 6 makes conquest difficult by slowing it down into siege warfare, while also having this loyalty mechanic which dooms your conquered cities to an endless cycle of revolt unless you move quickly to conquer enough cities in rapid succession that all of them together can be loyalty viable.
Civ 5 makes a large empire less attractive by making the number of cities you own and population points you own create a much tighter happiness leash. Conquered cities you just straight up annex to your empire add to that a huge happiness penalty until you build a courthouse ,a fairly expensive building. Once you reach a certain limit, generally no more than one, maybe two, of your neighbors, you have to settle for making conquered cities puppets until you inch up your happiness level to the point that you have enough slack to be able to annex one of your puppets and start its courthouse.
Both approaches tend to nerf conquest, but 5 does it indirectly, by making it take a while to digest your conquests without causing unhappiness problems. Civ 5 leaves combat itself more free-wheeling than 6, which achieves the nerfing of conquest by making the conquest itself more difficult with its walls, encampments, and loyalty mechanic
@@2gtomkins Thanks for the reply 🌹 I played c5 a few days ago, and everything was exactly as you said. For example, the two games are very similar, which I did not expect. As for the differences, unfortunately, each game has different features.
...
Graphics:
That was shocking, I thought the C5 is better graphically because I hate the cartoony design of the C6
But in C5, the colors are pale, there is no night, and when I take a closer look I see the lack of details and animations for cities and buildings, unlike C6.
I was wrong when I jumped into the bandwagon and thought that C5 is better graphically💔 just because of the better design
...
...
Artificial intelligence of the enemies:
I felt it was better in C5 but as the cities get bigger the game becomes more complicated, and then you can laugh at the stupidity of the AI in both games
...
...
warmonger penalty:
C6 Once you conquer a few cities, all players will hate you because you are a warmonger, so you end up lonely 🥹
I did not encounter a warmonger problem in C5, but there are no alliances in C5 unless you choose your allies before starting the game, which means you can't occupy them later
So both games are disappointing 💔
...
I downloaded a mod that removes the warmonger penalties from C6 and it works fine
I hope that I can enjoy C6 by occupying many cities and maintaining good relations with others, to keep trade and alliance, because that's a fun part of the game rather than being alone
...
...
happiness:
C5's happiness rate is common to all cities, This is better than dealing with each city separately, but it also prevents you from controlling many cities because that destroys the happiness of all your cities
C6 has other consequences of the invasion
So again I don't feel there is advantage for one game over the other
....
....
Workers
In C5 they don't disappear but they are slow to work and you have to build roads manually using them
In C6 they are faster and disappear after using them three times, so I won't be bothered with them forever
Personally, I prefer C6 workers
In the end
I hope that the upcoming C7 will combine the features of the two games, design C5 with graphics C6, reduce occupation penalties, develop artificial intelligence for enemies, facilitate control of cities to maintain happiness and productivity without wasting a lot of time
Civ 5 just looks and feels too old for me to go back to.
Civ 4 is still GOATed
I'm curious, im a regular civ 5 player and just bought civ 6 but the map dynamics seem different. on civ 5 you could have 15 players on a tiny or small map and then each get 1 or 2 cities until you had to start attacking others. in civ 6 you can only have like 5 or 6 players on a small map, which means every civ can have like 10 cities before you have to attack others for more land. is that a thing about civ 6? you cant just play with 1 0r 2 cities for a while, you have to have loads, probably to hold all the wonders and districts but just seems a bit annoying
I know why I played civ 5 for so long after civ 6 came out... $60 for the new civ 6?! Plus another $50 for the expansion? I waited until the price dropped to $10 and I am now happily playing civ 6. I guess I'm a cheap ass
100+ euro for a broken, unfinished game. I bought it for 30.... And I still regret, it's just like every other modern game. Most of the good stuff in previous parts removed or doesn't work.
To start a decent map in civ 6 is almost impossible without something breaking apart.
I still remember when i switched from Civ4 to Civ5... I felt the same way as majority of people do about civ5 to civ6. Also im still running Civ5 on my 15 years old pc
I only play civ5. Should i go back and try Civ4?
Civ4 is definitely the best civ game so far. The civ community still play the 4 mainly, also a bit of 6. My personal opinion: 4 > 6 > 5
@@doomslayer9257 i think there was a video rating all civ games from 1 to 6 (not by graphics but by enjoyment and features). Civ4 is where this franchise started growing and most of the features in 5 and 6 debuted in 4
@@olivierconstant9997 I hated civ 4.. Stacking the units is just not realistic..and makes for boring gameplay
@@markmorris7123 I don't think staking is less realistic than the silly one unit per tile limit. For me Civilization games are Grand Strategy games, you should not care about tactical details, staking worked wonderfully well. And you do still have strategies with stacking, especially attacking is hard in Civ4 when tech are similar to the defensive side.
I legit didn’t know they had a Civ 6 until I saw it on Steam when I was trying to buy Civ 5.
ive always loved the feel of civ 5 its whole vibe feels fun for rp purposes as well as competitive gameplay with friends, civ 6 still fun but feels more like a kid game in vibes, with gather storm however civ 6 feels much better and "finished" feeling if you play civ 6 with no dlc it feels not done or a simplified version of civ 5 for elderly to play
When Civ 6 came out, everyone thought the graphics were originally for the Civ Revolution mobile game and then scrapped for a PC game
The deeper mechanics of Civ 6 not because it more intricate but because it seems like the AI doesn't take full advantage of the mechanics. It gives me a better chance on higher difficulties compared to Civ 5 when I use those mechanics right.
The ai is actually really easy to beat in civ 5 just do the tradition mega city science strat. Pick tradition settle 4 cities preferable all coastal. Send internal food trade routes to your capital. Focus down all the science techs and wonders. Save all your great scientists and then once you build research labs in all your cities set them all to science focus for 10 turns. After that use AL your great scientists and burst to xcom squads or the rocket parts and then win the game.
fun fact battlefield 2042 has half of the players of civ 5 currently
In civ 6 I just build airplanes . And I win everytime . Airplanes are so over powered and the ai can't build anti air defense
I feel like civ 6 just tried too hard to change everything, even stuff that mechanically functioned perfectly. Certain things like social policy became over complicated
I am still waiting for civilization 2 remake.It was simple,fast,and georgious ;) just straight to the point.
I was scrolling through comments hoping to find a kindred spirit. Civ 2 is what I started with way back in the day. I remember how I'd hated it at first cause I had no idea what it was or how it worked, those were the days before youtube, but I kept at it and felt such a sense of accomplishment when I finally figured it out and then eventually got good at it. Till this day it's one of the more memorable games and experiences for me. Would kill for a remake.
Another terrible thing about civ 6 are the leaders chosen.. I mean how on earth is eleanor of Aquatine a valid choice..Yes she was very strong and capable but she was not a direct ruler and ultimately failed in her rebellion to overthrow England.. Victoria is a fair choice..However the choice for England should always be either Alfred, Edward, Henry V, Elizabeth, and yes maybe Victoria..And this is the case with almost all the civilisations in this aesthetically terrible game
I don't know what they were on with half of the leaders and a fifth of the civs (Canada, Australia, etc.), other than "current-day politics". Did they really not have a real Mayan leader to pick? (Also Maya being the tall Civ in 6, when playing tall in real life was what annihilated Mayan supremacy before the Spanish learned they existed, heh).
Bruh i can happily play unmodded skyrim to this day but i havent touched civ 5 without at least 10 mods in like a decade lol
Yeah especially if you get Skyrim ae
Civ5 mechanics are just better. Civ6 feels like a new cartoon like mobile game.
Pro tip for civ 5, just disable happiness. Much better experience for the player and it even makes the ai more comfortable with expansion.
I think you really hit the nail on the head with the graphics part. I really don’t like the graphics in civ 6 and as stupid as it sounds, that’s a big reason why I don’t play that game. That and the fact I’m just a lot more accustomed to civ 5’s mechanics. Overall, I just can’t bring myself to enjoy civ 6 nearly as much as civ 5.
yeah it's really weird. I normally don't care about graphics, if they are outdated or low quality or whatever. But the civ 6 graphics are just fundamentally unfitting, such a turn off.
Totally agree
For me Civ V is the better of the two. There are many reasons, but the main one is that Civ VI is far more map dependent than 5 is. Your starting location can really be the difference between a victory or defeat. Civilization has always had the tag line of "just one more turn," but I feel that with Civ VI "just one more restart" is more appropriate. I do agree that the art style of Civ V is a lot better than Civ VI, both in terms of leaders and the map. In fact, there is a mod for Civ VI that converts the map to one which emulates the look of the Civ V map (too bad there's not one for the leader screens as well). In Civ V it is easy to distinguish hills, whereas in Civ VI this is not always the case. I really hope that Civ VII follows the Civ V example rather than the Civ VI one. Thanks for the video, I enjoyed it a great deal and hope that you start doing some Civ V playthroughs and guides in the future.
Civ 5 has grown on me and on many other players. Its just such a well balanced game, so much thought put into every mechanic.
Great graphics, living community. Civ5 is a fantastic game and Civ 6 just couldn't quiet reach that level.
BUT: I think its also important to note that Civ6 is far from a trash game. They clearly kept many mechanics from Civ5, they did an overhaul, not a complete rework. And because of that civ6 is a totally fine game. I respect everyone who prefers Civ6 for their own reasons and since Civ6 is actively being supported with new expansions and balancing it still has potential.
I would say:
Civ 5 = Outstanding game
Civ 6 = Good game
And thats a good thing. So many franchises just drop the ball completely and make super low quality continuations. Civilization isn't one of those.
With the historical part of us players you nailed, that's why I Also love assassin's creed games
Vox Populi is the only reason I play Civ 5. This mod made Civ 5 the best ever Civ game in the series
I hate the quotes in Civ6, They are snarky and seem to mostly be from comedians and humourists. One of the joys of Civ was memorizing those quotes and hunting some of them down, and using them in daily life, but I can come with my own smartass comments on everything, that's not hard or profound.
Think it's also Sir Patrick's commanding voice
I disagree with you on that loyalty and amenities are a good growth restriction, I usually have like 8/9 cities by turn 100 and I don't like that, it prevents me from going tall like in civ5 I would just have 4/5 cities untill way later into the game which made me actually think about where and when to settle instead of spamming settlers
Alexander denounced me... Then everyone else denounced me... Let's just say that was a domination victory 😂
Civ 6 is an insult to my eyes. It is so annoying to look at.
Just had a turn take about 3-4 minutes in Civ6 with 7 AIs on a standard map. Pain. Thinking of playing Civ5 instead just because of how Civ6 performs on my 12 year old CPU.
Also, the Civ 5 multiplayer (especially with balance mods) is a lot better than 6's.
As someone who played civ 5, Civ 6 and humankind,, civ 5 BNW is still the best for me
As an owner of both Civ 6 and Civ 5 a few remarks I still play Civ 5 but I might give Civ 6 another shot as it was still early days. Why though, there are mechanics I had to learn (districts), I really like that caravans creates roads in Civ6. What I dislike about civ 6 is the way tech bonus and "policies" are obtained which imo creates a way to play the game rather then have free choice on what to do.
The dealbreakers on Civ 6 it isn't the graphics (even though I prefer 5) what is? Research bonuses, also applicable for the civic tree. Getting research reduction by doing stuff in the game like make 3 archers causes there to be an optimal way to play any game. So the game plays you more then you play the game in Civ 6 thats how I feel. Its a new mechanic im just not a fan off. Even though I can see were they are coming from. Civs that are known for a certain trait will more likely develop that trait --> research. But gameplay wise I think it should go.
Another dealbreaker are the mapsizes. Normal in Civ 6 feels like tiny or duel in Civ 5. A part of the fun is looking for good locations to place your next city, not just plant it close to you because u won't have room for a 4th maybe even a third.
I like to see me as a strategy gamer as the top 3 of my steam is EU4 3k hours, Civ 5 1.1K, Total War: Shogun 2: 825 Civ 6: 33 hours
" So the game plays you more then you play the game in Civ 6" Interesting observation. I hadn't thought about it that way. I don't like having to do certain things just to get a tech boost, and not getting that tech boost made me feel like I was falling behind. I much prefer the freedom of building and researching what I want, when I wanted, depending on my grand strategy and what might be happening from one turn to the next. Not that it matters much to me. I quit playing civ6 years ago for a number of reasons, not just the cartoony graphics. I do feel like you have a lot more freedom with your research and grand strategy with civ5.
@@necrasin yeah that freedom was taken away and thats why I don't play Civ 6
I only played C6, but I'm not sure I want to start learning C5. I want to ask you as someone who knows both games well: I suffered a lot from slow moving units in C6, and suffered more from having to deal with the tedious internal affairs of the country, than to devote myself to enjoying foreign policy, Since you play the two games a lot, you must be well aware of what I suffer from. The question is, does the C5 game have the same problems that I mentioned? Thank you
@@waseem8830 I'm not realy that experienced in civ 6 from memory movement is 90% the same there are differences on how rough terrain and river crossings work. You can get rebels if you dont keep an eye out on your happiness. Often unhappiness comes from cities growing too quick or having too many of them. The higher your difficulty the more of a problem it is. on the highest difficulty I usually wouldn't go for more then 5 mby 6 cities.
Looking through the comments and I don't understand how some people think civ 6 looks better,, I think civ 6 looks like it was made for children. I play civ 5 unmodded. But civ 5 multiplayer with vox populi mod is amazing..Anyone who hasn't played either,, I advise you to buy civ 5, not civ 6. I tried to like civ six..I've been playing civ since civ 2.. And I've always thought that it's got better with each installment,, that stopped at six. Civ six is slow, cluncky and the aesthetics are horrible (childlike). Civ 5 is one of the best turn based strategy games out right now.. Even if it's a decade old
I'm old enough to remember when people were bitching about Civ 4 being too cartoony lmao. Civ 3 is still the pinnacle of the series for me btw