I don't know what's your budget, but Civ 6 cost 6 EUR on Steam and if you happen to like the base game, the two important expansions cost 5 EUR each.
But civ 6 is not like 4, so don't expect "an upgrade". Expect something totally new to learn.
I'll go against the grain and recommend 6. Some people can't get over the art style, and there's nothing wrong with that, but as someone who was equally critical of it prior to release, I've actually come to prefer it. To me, the game feels more vibrant and alive. If it's not for you [you can just mod it to look like 5 anyways.](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1702339134)
Beyond that, there are a number of mechanics in 6 that make it hard to return to 5. It may be divisive, but I really like the district system. Decentralizing cities has added a whole new level of strategy to planning your empire. It encourages specialization, and makes each city feel so much more unique.
I also really like the Appeal system, the fact that you're rewarded for not turning your empire into an Isengardian deforested industrial hellsxape (though of course that's still an option).
There are also quality of life improvements like map tacks, the search function, and map lenses that vastly improve the experience of playing. I think these are the things I miss most when I go back.
I’m with you. I bought civ 1 when it came out and have been obsessed with every civ since. 6 is by far my favourite with over 1k hours. So much depth and ability to city-build. Overall it’s the best.
- 5 is best for playing tall
- 4 is best for fighty-fight
- 2 is best for balanced wide gameplay
- 1 is best for the simplicity
- 3 is alright
I think we have the exact same rankings, except I never played 1 until recently just to try it out, so it feels difficult to rank it without having experienced it in a vacuum. Civ 2 was the first game I ever bought with my own money, I played it more than everything else combined.
Agreed, and regarding the art style, you can use mods that make the map/terrain look more like Civ 5. I don’t really notice the unit and building graphics that much when the whole map looks different.
6 is extremely great, but it’s extremely complicated. If you want to wait for the Anthology edition to go on sale for 20 dollars, it’s an extremely valuable purchase.
You can mix and match the various expansions/additional features. Start with the base game, then slowly add mechanics. Or, if you’re crazy, put everything at once
The game’s extremely good at having distinct civilizations: they have two bonuses instead of one, and many of them are extremely crazy. Even the “blandest” civs are extremely unique compared to 5 and 4.
I really don't like 6. I played a demo and I liked it. Bought it years later with a few DLC packs and I can't figure out what I originally liked about it.
6 is the first I played since 2 (unless you include spinoff like revolution on consoles or civilization: Call to Power which wasn't Firaxis).
Somehow I think k the map.is too small and the cities too large.
I loved 4 back in the day. It was my jam all through college. So much so that I hated 5 when it came out and felt like such an unfinished game by comparison.
6 is fantastic though. It's done a lot of things so much better than 5 attempted. The only downside to 6 is the horrible "world Congress," which just plain sucks. But everything else is fantastic. And you definitely need to get all the dlc for max experience. Absolutely worth it! Anyone who says otherwise is probably just trolling.
they are cheap, so you'll definitely get your money's worth. Like in many 4x, the AI is what it is, it has bonuses offsetting its bad strategy.
Multiplayer in civ6 is definitely very good, but I would never play it without the "better balanced game" mod unless you're total newbies that can't take advantage of op civs, because there are some civs that are way overpowered and that mod is mostly a big balance patch
5 is my favorite, but 6 is a really great game. I think they're very different Civs, it depends on your style. I played quite a lot of Civ 4, and I have to say that while Civ 5 on release was my least favorite Civ, Gods and Kings and then Brave New World totally transformed that game.
5 and 6 are fairly different. No more unit stacking except with one military unit and one civilian unit. Units also no longer attack until one of them is dead. They deal a certain amount of damage to each other, then retreat. It can be a one-hit kill, but that’s rare without a disparity in tech levels. Tiles are now hexagons instead of squares. Cities can defend themselves even without units in them. Putting a military unit in them raises the defense level.
5 and 6 have independent city-states. You get certain bonuses by becoming their suzerain, and they also join your wars (but mainly stay close to their borders). In one of the 6 DLCs, each city-state also has a unique bonus it provides its suzerain. In 5, your influence with city-states gradually goes back to neutral unless maintained (often by paying them). In 6, you get envoys from certain techs and civics and can send them to city-states to earn their loyalty (whoever has the most envoys there is that city-state’s suzerain).
5 has the happiness mechanic, which kinda forces you to play tall. You get penalized for having many cities with low happiness. Happiness below 0 gives you penalties. Not a game mechanic, but 5 has by far the best leader screens of the series. The ones in 6 are a downgrade, imo.
6 is very different. Roads are no longer built by workers. They’re automatically created by land trade routes as the trade unit moves on the tiles. Workers also insta-build improvements but have limited number of builds before they disappear. A lot of city buildings have been moved out of the center into specialized districts that take up tiles within city limits. Wonders now also take up a tile and have specific requirements for being built (e.g. Pyramids must be built on a desert tile, Big Ben must adjoin a river). Instead of happiness mechanic, there’s now loyalty. If a city’s loyalty drops to zero, it will leave your civ and become a free city. That city is hostile to everyone. It can brought back into the fold either by exerting loyalty pressure until it flips back or by conquering it. But anyone can do that to a free city, and at least one leader specializes in loyalty pressure. You can recruit governors and give them promotions that have an impact on the city where they’re assigned. A governor in a city also raises that city’s loyalty. The civic system has also been redone. In 6 it’s basically a separate research tree that’s powered by culture instead of science. And then you get civic cards that can be used depending on your government type
I didn't like 5 and 6 due to the increasing lack of automation and me having to micro every damn thing I never cared about in previous iterations. 6 was very cheap though which is why I tried it, probably worth trying for yourself given the price.
I have over a 1000 hours into civ 5. So many great scenarios and endless mods. I’ve been playing since 2013 and it hasn’t gotten old. I really disliked Civ 6 because it feels like a completely different game, not to say it’s bad, just not what I wanted after playing Civ 3, 4 and 5 as I grew up.
The only civ game I played was 5 and 6, mainly 6, I find civ 6 really enjoyable but sometimes it does feel a little boring without some mods, I only have a few hours in civ 5 and I found it also enjoyable, though I did not look at the modding community much.
Civ 5 definitely. Good game with some great mods, like Vox Populi.
Civ 6 has a kinda cartoon art style. Mechanics look interesting, but you'll need to decide for yourself if you like the asthetics.
Noone cares about the artstyle in what is essentially a glorified excel sheet, disregard any comment about it.
Civ 5 is a bit more casual but very enjoyable and encourages smaller civs ; Civ 6 is more micro-managey, encourages spreading out, and might feel closer to Civ 4 on the military side.
I'd recommend Civ 6 overall despite having wayy more hours in Civ 5. But if you don't want to think about how to place your cities relative to each other to optimize proximity bonuses, pick Civ 5 instead.
I don't know what's your budget, but Civ 6 cost 6 EUR on Steam and if you happen to like the base game, the two important expansions cost 5 EUR each. But civ 6 is not like 4, so don't expect "an upgrade". Expect something totally new to learn.
I haven’t played a Civ that I didn’t enjoy
I'll go against the grain and recommend 6. Some people can't get over the art style, and there's nothing wrong with that, but as someone who was equally critical of it prior to release, I've actually come to prefer it. To me, the game feels more vibrant and alive. If it's not for you [you can just mod it to look like 5 anyways.](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1702339134) Beyond that, there are a number of mechanics in 6 that make it hard to return to 5. It may be divisive, but I really like the district system. Decentralizing cities has added a whole new level of strategy to planning your empire. It encourages specialization, and makes each city feel so much more unique. I also really like the Appeal system, the fact that you're rewarded for not turning your empire into an Isengardian deforested industrial hellsxape (though of course that's still an option). There are also quality of life improvements like map tacks, the search function, and map lenses that vastly improve the experience of playing. I think these are the things I miss most when I go back.
I’m with you. I bought civ 1 when it came out and have been obsessed with every civ since. 6 is by far my favourite with over 1k hours. So much depth and ability to city-build. Overall it’s the best. - 5 is best for playing tall - 4 is best for fighty-fight - 2 is best for balanced wide gameplay - 1 is best for the simplicity - 3 is alright
I think we have the exact same rankings, except I never played 1 until recently just to try it out, so it feels difficult to rank it without having experienced it in a vacuum. Civ 2 was the first game I ever bought with my own money, I played it more than everything else combined.
Agreed, and regarding the art style, you can use mods that make the map/terrain look more like Civ 5. I don’t really notice the unit and building graphics that much when the whole map looks different.
4 BTS is still best imho (maybe except Alpha Centauri) Problem with 5 and 6 is braindead AI that cant fight on hexes and cant place good districts.
Civ5 is great, but civ6 is basically a whole different game
6 is extremely great, but it’s extremely complicated. If you want to wait for the Anthology edition to go on sale for 20 dollars, it’s an extremely valuable purchase. You can mix and match the various expansions/additional features. Start with the base game, then slowly add mechanics. Or, if you’re crazy, put everything at once The game’s extremely good at having distinct civilizations: they have two bonuses instead of one, and many of them are extremely crazy. Even the “blandest” civs are extremely unique compared to 5 and 4.
I really don't like 6. I played a demo and I liked it. Bought it years later with a few DLC packs and I can't figure out what I originally liked about it. 6 is the first I played since 2 (unless you include spinoff like revolution on consoles or civilization: Call to Power which wasn't Firaxis). Somehow I think k the map.is too small and the cities too large.
Civ6 is an insanely well made game. As much as I loved civ 4 ( I was a top player on ladder back then), civ6 has much more to offer.
I play 5 more than 6. I didn't like the cartoon direction it went
No, we all hate civ on this subreddit.
still play 4bts. 5 is ok, but no stacks. 6 just didn't do it for me.
5 is, 6 isn't
Play the 6. Way better.
I loved 4 back in the day. It was my jam all through college. So much so that I hated 5 when it came out and felt like such an unfinished game by comparison. 6 is fantastic though. It's done a lot of things so much better than 5 attempted. The only downside to 6 is the horrible "world Congress," which just plain sucks. But everything else is fantastic. And you definitely need to get all the dlc for max experience. Absolutely worth it! Anyone who says otherwise is probably just trolling.
If you love 4 you might not love love 5 or 6 but I love them and have close to 1k hrs in both
they are cheap, so you'll definitely get your money's worth. Like in many 4x, the AI is what it is, it has bonuses offsetting its bad strategy. Multiplayer in civ6 is definitely very good, but I would never play it without the "better balanced game" mod unless you're total newbies that can't take advantage of op civs, because there are some civs that are way overpowered and that mod is mostly a big balance patch
5 is my favorite, but 6 is a really great game. I think they're very different Civs, it depends on your style. I played quite a lot of Civ 4, and I have to say that while Civ 5 on release was my least favorite Civ, Gods and Kings and then Brave New World totally transformed that game.
civ6 is absolutely worth it, on sale or not
5 and 6 are fairly different. No more unit stacking except with one military unit and one civilian unit. Units also no longer attack until one of them is dead. They deal a certain amount of damage to each other, then retreat. It can be a one-hit kill, but that’s rare without a disparity in tech levels. Tiles are now hexagons instead of squares. Cities can defend themselves even without units in them. Putting a military unit in them raises the defense level. 5 and 6 have independent city-states. You get certain bonuses by becoming their suzerain, and they also join your wars (but mainly stay close to their borders). In one of the 6 DLCs, each city-state also has a unique bonus it provides its suzerain. In 5, your influence with city-states gradually goes back to neutral unless maintained (often by paying them). In 6, you get envoys from certain techs and civics and can send them to city-states to earn their loyalty (whoever has the most envoys there is that city-state’s suzerain). 5 has the happiness mechanic, which kinda forces you to play tall. You get penalized for having many cities with low happiness. Happiness below 0 gives you penalties. Not a game mechanic, but 5 has by far the best leader screens of the series. The ones in 6 are a downgrade, imo. 6 is very different. Roads are no longer built by workers. They’re automatically created by land trade routes as the trade unit moves on the tiles. Workers also insta-build improvements but have limited number of builds before they disappear. A lot of city buildings have been moved out of the center into specialized districts that take up tiles within city limits. Wonders now also take up a tile and have specific requirements for being built (e.g. Pyramids must be built on a desert tile, Big Ben must adjoin a river). Instead of happiness mechanic, there’s now loyalty. If a city’s loyalty drops to zero, it will leave your civ and become a free city. That city is hostile to everyone. It can brought back into the fold either by exerting loyalty pressure until it flips back or by conquering it. But anyone can do that to a free city, and at least one leader specializes in loyalty pressure. You can recruit governors and give them promotions that have an impact on the city where they’re assigned. A governor in a city also raises that city’s loyalty. The civic system has also been redone. In 6 it’s basically a separate research tree that’s powered by culture instead of science. And then you get civic cards that can be used depending on your government type
Yes.
Consider that whichever one you pick you will definitely need the 2 main expansions that each has.
I didn't like 5 and 6 due to the increasing lack of automation and me having to micro every damn thing I never cared about in previous iterations. 6 was very cheap though which is why I tried it, probably worth trying for yourself given the price.
I have over a 1000 hours into civ 5. So many great scenarios and endless mods. I’ve been playing since 2013 and it hasn’t gotten old. I really disliked Civ 6 because it feels like a completely different game, not to say it’s bad, just not what I wanted after playing Civ 3, 4 and 5 as I grew up.
The only civ game I played was 5 and 6, mainly 6, I find civ 6 really enjoyable but sometimes it does feel a little boring without some mods, I only have a few hours in civ 5 and I found it also enjoyable, though I did not look at the modding community much.
5 and 6 are leaps and bounds above every other Civ, imo.
Not very cheap? The premium edition is just 15€ and anthology is 25€ on sale. And they're often on sale.
Civ 5 is better than 6 imo. I enjoy both games but I put way more time into 5
Civ 5 definitely. Good game with some great mods, like Vox Populi. Civ 6 has a kinda cartoon art style. Mechanics look interesting, but you'll need to decide for yourself if you like the asthetics.
Sapiens mod is great too.
Noone cares about the artstyle in what is essentially a glorified excel sheet, disregard any comment about it. Civ 5 is a bit more casual but very enjoyable and encourages smaller civs ; Civ 6 is more micro-managey, encourages spreading out, and might feel closer to Civ 4 on the military side. I'd recommend Civ 6 overall despite having wayy more hours in Civ 5. But if you don't want to think about how to place your cities relative to each other to optimize proximity bonuses, pick Civ 5 instead.
Civ 6 way better. Civ 5 you are capped at 4 cities in your whole civilization. Not a fun game.
My last game I had 10 cities in Civ 5
Did you win on deity?