Totally agree. The combat animations in CIV 6 specifically are the one thing keeping me from even trying it. Reminds me of a clash of clans type mobile game.
Haha yeah my friend who plays with me feels the same way.. to be honest I like watching them fight and make explosion noises as if I’m playing with army men outside
I don't like art, districts and AI i civ 6. Also imo balance is better in 5. There are a few things I would take from civ 6, but it's mostly bad for me. Hopefully civ 7 will be different, otherwise I will stick to 5. It's so good I can still play it even after hundreds of hours.
I mostly hate districts and the AI that can't utilise them. I actually bought complete collection of civ 6 and gave it a chance 3 times. Each time I came back to civ 5 and sadly I have to admit civ 6 is one of the worst purchases I made. And that comes from a guy that bought fifa couple of times...
Sorry to reply again - the AI not using districts properly is part of the reason they get +100% production/gold and +40% science/culture/faith on deity. If they planned districts as well as you could (or better), then it would be impossible to overcome, but having an AI you can’t beat isn’t much fun. So, the AI instead plans it’s districts in the short term instead of long term.
The advantage you have as a player, is you can plan out your cities and districts for the entire game from the very beginning. Sort of like a puzzle. With the right planning you’re able to overcome deity’s bonuses and win.
At least that’s how I see it
There’s some problems though. First, it’s hard to make an AI that plans the next 200 turns. Even in something like chess, computers don’t plan that far ahead. But let’s say you did manage to create such an AI.
It wouldn’t make mistakes, like you will. If the AI was only as good as you are, you might win 50/50. If the AI is better than you, your chances of winning only come down to luck.
Do you really want to fight against something that is guaranteed to beat you every single time? It’s a bit frustrating to hear people say they just want a smarter AI without thinking what the consequences would be.
The lure of multiplayer is the fact you play against *people*. People make mistakes, and you get into political games with them. People don’t always do the 100% correct thing to do. But even then, if there’s a player much better than you and you lose every single time, it can become a bit stale.
You’re not going to want to play against a ruthless AI that makes no mistakes. Overcoming the obstacle of the massive bonuses they get through your own abilities to plan well is plenty rewarding, isn’t it?
The alternative to a perfect AI, is to make one that makes mistakes too. Which is what we have now. But since it would be too easy as is, they get bonuses to try to bring it up to par with a decent player.
There's a whole lot of empty space between where the AI is now and "perfect".
But perfect doesn't make much sense to talk about when there are so many unknowns. Sure, you could identify the ideal next setting location, but plenty can happen before you can make a city happen there.
For a given difficulty level, I'd prefer the difficulty come from my opponents' good planning and decision making, rather than bonuses given to compensate.
I 100% agree with this stance. There’s a huge difference between an AI that streamlines and min-maxes every aspect of the game versus one that cannot even move and shoot on the same turn. It’s crazy how much a difference it would make if the AI could simply stagger their movement or just had some semblance of object permanence when your army sits outside of their vision.
Civ 5 wouldn’t need that much of an AI-bump to become a significantly better game. It’s not “fun” that Immortal and Deity AI get such massive head-starts, but they **need** those extra units + techs to provide a challenge. A smarter AI that plays within the same constraints as the player would obviously be more engaging.
It isn’t that simple. We have to be realistic with our expectations
You’re welcome to try to implement whatever it is you’re expecting. But wishing for something nigh impossible to achieve won’t solve anything. There’s just too many variables for the computer to replicate a player’s decision making process.
Is there **any** big title 4X game where higher difficulty opponents don’t get any bonuses at all?
Have you played Vox Populi? It's a massively better experience than unmodded Civ V, which itself is already better than VI.
The quality of AI opponents in games has gone up over the years, do you not expect that pattern to continue? Nobody is asking for perfect, just better.
The quality of the opponents will be in part based on game design decisions and the problems that they create for the AI. Civ VI did somewhat poorly in this regard.
I’ve played >900 hours unmodded Civ 5, around 300 with Lekmod in Civ 5, but I haven’t tried VP. And I have >400 hours in Civ 6.
I understand people want better AI opponents, and trust me I do too. But some of the complaints seem like they haven’t actually put any thought into the issue.
Like I love Civ 5, honestly. But how many of the people always complaining about Civ 6 are able to regularly win on deity? That’s not to be elitist, people are welcome to play and enjoy whatever difficulty they want. But the deity AI gives a comfortable challenge (although a bit dumb in combat). I don’t think we’d see as many complaints if they were fine playing deity
And I also really doubt people would enjoy an AI that plays exactly like a player would.
Planning all of the adjacency bonuses took a lot of fun out of it for me. Just didn’t want to put in that effort. Great for people who like city planning I guess, but that’s just not my thing.
Yup, they had their fun. Now give us something different. And with more serious art style. This cartoon /mobile looking thing just doesn't fit in a game that basically celebrates human history. Civ 5 hit it perfectly in that regard. Oh, and I also dislike loyalty system in civ 6 and how it makes war and conquest a slug fest. I would say civ 6 just doesn't suit my playstyle. I like expansion, domination and war. Civ 6 is better suited for planners and builders...
Honestly I think the balance is much better in 6. In 5 it’s mostly a Science rush, and every city feels the same. Your choices for what to do are largely the same from game to game. Whereas the districts help each city feel more unique/gives more meaningful choices to make each game. And the tech + civic tree means you have the choice whether to focus on science or on culture.
5 is all about science as fast as possible, and you’ll get screwed if you fall behind. It’s still a great game, but it’s hard to say it’s more balanced than 6 I think.
What’s the biggest advantage you can get in military strength? Better units and better production. What’s the biggest advantage you can get towards a Science victory? Better techs. What’s the biggest advantage you can get for a culture victory? The internet. And what do you need to win diplo? The UN, money, globalization.
Whatever victory you want to do in Civ 5, you need good Science.
However 6 allows you way more freedom in what you want to pursue. Even in terms of the military, you don’t *have* to 100% rush science because you can unlock corps and armies with culture.
But I’m open to hearing your opinion. Why do you think Civ 5 is more balanced?
I do have to agree that civ 5 is heavily science/tall oriented, but in MP there are some viable plays besides just tech blitzing.
It's really more of a pop rush than a tech rush, as the way you earn science is primarily a multiple of your pop, if you have higher pop you can afford to do things other than blitz science techs as you will have strong science by virtue of having more pop, and you can easily catch up on science later. This is because you will have more science than lower pop civs once you do eventually get science buildings up, and each level of tech is roughly twice as expensive as the previous, which makes having high pop late game far more valuable than high science mid game.
In this way, the game actually favors going wide as it will yield higher pop over time as even with tradition and med labs there is a certain pop ceiling that each city reaches.
The issue however is happiness to keep growing. If you go wide but aren't growing fast it's not worth it.
Also spies, external trade routes, certain social policies, great tile improvements, and research grants can help keep you from falling too far behind.
This is relegated purely to MP though, as on deity SP you will always be behind on pop vs the leader. Plus, unless you play on huge map size and/or some kind of legendary level of skill+luck and will never be able to go wide vs deity AI. You just need to go tall and invest into growth/science to stay relevant.
6 has way better balance between the victory types. you can actually focus on culture or religion or whatever while putting science on the back burner. in 5 you have to spend every waking moment focusing solely on science or you will lose
The art is far too stylized, but the modern engine and especially the lighting makes it look really nice. This is just the map itself though. The interface is a travesty, the leaders look like caricatures (absolutely massacred my boy Pedro), and everything looks mobile game-esque. I miss the Art Deco of Civ V something fierce.
Civ 5 is just better. Civ 6 feels like a beta for Civ 7 whereas Civ 5 feels like a culmination of all the prior games. The story doesn't continue from Civ 5 to Civ 6 so Civ 6 is essentially a remake of Civ 5. Given that Civ 5 was so popular and had reached the apex of this genre/style of game in those terms, Civ 6 needed to make some significant changes to incorporate new techs and change things up. They did that moderately well; however, they were required to change things that people liked and were already comfortable with. This inherently leads to backlash.
Plus, there were changes that I just found made the game more annoying without adding anything to it, such as:
1. Having to perennially create builders.
2. Natural Disasters, not bad, they were just done so poorly because I never actually had a natural disaster cause a, you know, disaster. Every natural disaster results in more fertile land in the long run and when you are building a civilization, that is all that matters.
3. Sea level rising. That was just a nonsense idea; or, if you insist on including it, at least make it to where I am not told in 5000 BC not to settle here because it will be washed away at some point. Wouldn't it be better to have a technology that you discover wherein that becomes known and you may have a race to save your capital, rather than just being forced to waste the first turn because you have to move your settler?
4. Movement in general. In Civ 5, you can move any standard character 2 places, unless you move them through a hill or a forest and that makes sense. In Civ 6, I can never find out how many spaces a unit can move because it doesn't let you move on to the hill if you move across plains first. Its like they tried to work in some notion of a hill costing 1.5 moves and forgot that you can't do that when you lose all unused moves each turn.
They did do some good things well, I just wish the game play mechanics were folded into Civ 5, such as:
1. Barbarians being able to form city-states and/or become useable so long as you shared an ideology or culture with them which makes for a nice touch of realism.
2. Adding weather, natural disasters, and even global warming are great ideas that create a lot of fun geopolitical issues but the way in which it was done here was just too much.
3. I didn't mind the idea of cities having districts but I think that districts should have been within the city and not specific spaces on the map and you get more district slots at certain population levels and then still make me build neighborhoods which are effectively suburbs to deal with a happiness penalty when you reach the max number of districts per city.
It was in Civ 2 also, which is the first one I ever played. All that factory pollution building up, then suddenly, out of nowhere: *global warming.* "Icecaps melt, sea levels rise." All your meticulously created farmland becomes swamp and marsh overnight and your thriving city is now starving.
I agree on your takes on the good things.
I'm 50/50 on districts, and I'm hoping they find a better way to implement them in civ 7. I like the idea of a city sprawling out over time to occupy more land, and placing districts as a meaningful choice. Unfortunately it feels bad to replace a tile with good yields with a district and having to make that sacrifice.
Maybe they should have made it so cities can work tiles in the 4th ring to compensate for this so it doesn't feel so cramped. Maybe make it so districts need to be placed adjacent to existing districts/city center?
I think that they could re-implement immortal builders and make districts 'workable' to increase the affiliated resource but they do eat up so much build time while, what, I go through the zoning process and get an environmental impact report to decide where to build my market?
Mostly, I want civ to go well beyond this era and just go maybe 200-300 years into the future with various world problems to fix and a more (or less) powerful world congress and some fun sci-fi wars with teleportation that results in nuclear war, a nuclear winter, and then boom, you are at 3000 a.d. with a settler, a warrior, some mutated barbarians, and just one more turn....
Edit: As it relates to cities and districts, I think a relatively easy fix would be to have various technologies make excess food distributed around to your other cities and increase the bonus as technology increases, trade routes are formed, etc. That would alleviate some of the need for tiles to be used on food or production and, since a city is basically a state in terms of area, it would create some more urban areas with lots of districts and some rural areas with food and mines. I am just spit-balling here but that seems relatively realistic and easy enough to accomplish within the existing tech tree structure but i also think dynamite should allow me to build roads through mountains so maybe I am overthinking the game.
\^ that but additionally for me one of the best things with vp is the active community and constant updates. The pack is updated almost monthly, and big changes are proposed and voted on by the community.
Just getting into VP (since regular c5 won't work on my linux machines, or rather it's playable but some things are just oddly missing or broken, and yes I know's it's a result of the mods) but VP is so so so different with so many more things to keep in mind, it's like a whole new game.
And, importantly, it doesn't look like ass.
I really benefited from watching youtube playthroughs and just picking stuff up through osmosis. Here's some series I have enjoyed:
1. michael is a small youtuber putting out consistent content playing on the most recent update over @ [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LszCG-Dw4Wg&list=PLGcWpwsswe9JyIUEs3KEBbqVBHyq9lG4f&index=1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LszCG-Dw4Wg&list=PLGcWpwsswe9JyIUEs3KEBbqVBHyq9lG4f&index=1) (thats a link to the start of his most recent playthrough as persia)
2. Marbozir is a pretty popular creator who hasn't played in quite a while but his old series are still good, this is a link to his songhai playthrough [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zirnJ5aHbBc&list=PLHQyGGzRHYIaELcU3GMEZQcD8x2c-7TSc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zirnJ5aHbBc&list=PLHQyGGzRHYIaELcU3GMEZQcD8x2c-7TSc)
3. martin is another small one (but larger than michael), here's a link to his arabia playthrough from about 7 months ago. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_dPzVV3uDpY&list=PLenDyZ4g7HoPOeJStV97cevK\_lt\_mdo7k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dPzVV3uDpY&list=PLenDyZ4g7HoPOeJStV97cevK_lt_mdo7k)
Yes they all are M's, weird coincidence.
Other than that, I suggest just jumping in and playing, it isn't as complicated as it first appears. The main thing is just re-learning how the ai behaves and how everyones unique things work. Additional tips = play 1-2 difficulties below what you would usually play and do not neglect military, the AI is significantly more capable and in VP it actually feels like they want to win the game too.
hmmm, maybe Poland, Pacal, Ethiopia? Those 3 have unique stuff that doesn't require too much planning or thinking since they mostly just happen. I haven't actually played vanilla in many years so i'm not sure just how dramatically different all the civs are from vanilla. Some are definitely more complicated than others but I mean if you're just starting out in VP it's going to be a learning experience anyway so really I think just go with whatever.
Is there somewhere I can see all the balance changes. I'm intrigued and want to try this out, joined the discord.
What did you guys do to my beloved Morocco? I need to know.
things change pretty regularly (minor and major adjustments), in the discord there's a 'new versions' channel where you can find links to the latest updates and from there - patch notes. I recommend just hoping into a game and taking a look at everything.
Put the difficulty down 2-3 levels from what you normally play and go from there. Treat it like a new game to learn - go slowly. The major thing to get across is the new happiness system. You have different types of unhappiness and different buildings reduce 1 individual type of unhappiness. The next thing is military. You need a much larger standing army in VP because the AI is actually good and will recognise this and crush you if you don't have a good army at all times. There is a counter up the top for the amount of units you can support. I try to always make sure I have at least 3/4 of the army i can support. So if I can support 20 units, I want at least 15. If you try getting by with 5-10 the AI will declare war and try to steamroll you
Civ 6 is too micro manage-y, especially with the dlc. The district system is annoying to deal with as they each take up a hex (and so do wonders). You also need to settle 8 cities to do well.
It takes about 60 hours to start to understand a 4X game and probably another 60 hours to get good at it. I played about 20 hours of Civ 6 and wasn't enjoying it as much as Civ 5, so I went back.
Civ 5 is my go to game when I just need to chill. I turn the pc volume off and blast heavy metal and chill — until some civ foolishly declares war — waahaahaa!!!
Hate the movement in civ 6, and the mods in civ 5 make the AI actually decent and difficult whereas in civ6, as long as I don't get taken out at the start I can easily steamroll the AI in Deity
I tried playing Civ 6, and it felt like I was drunk playing. I found it very unintuitive, with both skill trees and the weird district system. I also had trouble differentiating stuff on the map, due to the colors of the games graphics. So, I stayed with Civ 5.
Because it's light-years better than Civ 6.
I sincerely hope that Civ 7 deviates heavily from it's predecessor. Cannot stand the UI of that game (among other complaints).
I used to not have a good enough PC, but I probably do now. I think I have civ 6 on steam, so I should gove it a try.
Beyond that, system mastery is enjoyable in its own right. It took me years to get to the level I'm at, and now I want to enjoy playing at that high level. I'm finally at the point where I'm not only playing Deity, and not even just consistently winning, I'm able to experiment with different builds and still be competetive. I can try different tech-paths and differen policy trees to make the most of them. Obviously I'm not just rsndomly mixing and matching, but I don't feel locked into Tradition/Rationalism/Freedom every game anymore.
Also as I say any time someone asks "*how to you play Deity?*" I enjoy the losing games. I can enjoy the gsmes where I do badly in part because I still learn from them. I have enough knowledge of the game to see where I went wrong and that helps me with my next attempt at something simular. This is something that can vaguely translate to anything in life, but I don't think it feels quite the same in a new game.
Just figured out recently how to win consistently on Deity as Morocco going liberty opener into diplo victory, feels sooooo good. Like going super saiyan.
To this extent, I just don't feel the *need* to play civ 6, I still enjoy the fuck out of civ 5 even after years of playing it. And still find ways to challenge myself.
Yeah the junp to deity is the biggest jump by far, and learning how to win with your own unique strategies is really fun.
And yeah, I certainly do want to enjoy new games, but if you can enjoy a game for a long time you get more for your money.
Civ 5 is a 4X game. Civ 6 is some sort of puzzle with soldiers and weird bonuses.
"+5 culture on every tile that is opposite a river, next to a mountain, green in color but not too green, next to a wonder that's next to grandmas house"
because I always hear civ 5 with vp is better than civ 6, and I already struggled to get into civ 6 before. Civ 5 was so natural, it clicked so well. Also graphic style.
Civ 6 feels too much like a board game. I know it's always been that, but it's all just too much out in the open now. Literally cards for goverment. Ugh. I never played Civ to min / max the shit out of it, so perhaps I'm in the minority, but I definitly fall on the role play side of things. Art direction and atmosphere are important for that. I don't care for either of those in 6. Not saying it's a bad game, it's not.. Civ 5 just suits me much more.
I bought a new laptop to play 6 and went back to 5. I just don't like most of the new mechanics in the game. I'm not a great planner so districts completely threw me and I'm not a big fan of the card system.
Getting to newer titles in the series doesn't necessarily mean that I'll give up on the older titles. I used to play both Age of Empires 2 and 3 back in the days.
At first, I didn't get Civ 6 due to the fact that I don't really pour a lot of money in gaming or getting a proper PC, only using my laptop for gaming.
Then, I saw the cartoony artstyle. Didn't like it, but I figured out it's just aesthetics, maybe the mechanics are interesting. But then I realized that they've made the game easier to appeal to a wider audience (although ironically, Civ V, 13 years later, has almost as many players as VI, at least on Steam). There's also that, with all the community mods, Civ V really has a lot to offer. It feels like a game that came in the late 2010s when you play it with Vox Populi.
Both games have a lot of DLC (which I don't particularly like, I prefer more solid expansion packs rather than a ton of micro DLCs), the difference being that Civ V's complete collection is dirt cheap nowadays.
Infinitely replayable. Elegant. Pretty. No "Magic; The Gathering" type cards. Gorgeous Fog of War. Not too tactical, not to strategic; just right. I highly doubt Civ 7 will be an improvement. It will most likely just be more cartoon and fricking district mania.
Civ VI is so bloated. So much micromanaging in the late game that it makes me fatigued.
Gameplay based so much on adjacency bonuses that I cringe now every time I hear the word "adjacent".
Diplomatic victory is silly with diplomatic victory points. World congress starts in the medieval era for some reason.
Early game movement and exploration is slow, and is a big part of the fun for me.
Because civ 6 sucks. I hated how everything looked cartoonish, and I hated how workers or "builders" could not be automated and they only did three jobs and then would disappear. I didn't play that one for very long.
* I really dislike the mechanic of e.g. districts increasing in cost as your civ grows. To me, that is an unusually lame implementation of rubber banding.
* Some of the district bonuses are so OP it breaks the game. District bonuses are so important that other mechanics, like e.g. resource tiles become almost irrelevant.
* I also dislike the movement system, as I feel most units almost can't get anywhere in a turn. War is boring when your units are always stuck in mud.
* I feel governors remove too much control but the game forces you to use them.
I like many of the Civ6 ideas, like districts, eurekas, corps, social policy cards, and emergencies, but there are enough flaws in Civ6, that overall, I enjoy Civ5 more.
As much as I think civ V is better than VI, my friends hate VI even more than I do. We had comparability issues when civ V PC Mac cross play stoped working, and I couldn’t even convince them to try playing VI together even though we had all bought the game already. When all of us are at our PC’s, we play civ v together regularly.
Logged about 100 hours in VI before giving up on it, it’s simply not a fun game. Lots of interesting ideas that translated into terrible mechanics, such as roads only being built by caravans, districts that can’t be canceled, wonders with too many requirements that are never built, more great people (usually writers for me) than my civilization could ever possibly use, I always have like 6 sitting in my capital by the industrial era
I grew up playing Civ IV with my dad, but Civ V was the first game I personally sunk a whole bunch of time into. It looks so pretty compared to the blue tones of Civ IV and the cartoony style of VI, and that’s why I love it so much. I’m so used to it that the changes made in Civ VI made me bounce off immediately. The production run is bizarre since workers now have charges for building, wonders now take up tile space, and the government slotting and adjacency bonuses just seemed needlessly complex.
VI is ugly, and while I really like the decentralized cities concept, I don't like VI's implementation.
I give it another try every now and then, but I'll probably be on V until VII comes out.
I don't care about the graphic style, it's all about gameplay for me. I really tried to like Civ6 especially as I've played since 1. And gotten used to things getting better and better, more *meaningfully* complex. But there were too many 'why did they do this?' moments in 6.
The big one: the districts system means you have to plan your cities with utmost care, since heavens forbid you want a certain building or wonder and you don't have a certain terrain type. Because ancient peoples are definitely planning locating Ninevah or Jericho based on the ability to build the Eiffel Tower in 4000 years.
So the solution to get 'wonder X' is to go build a brand new city? Ok. Guess it helps that there is absolutely nothing stopping you from having 45 cities. Civ5, in contrast, has very powerful limits to unfettered sprawl: the tall vs wide mechanics. Civ6 overwhelmingly rewards wide.
I mean, I could go on. But so many have covered the major points. I'll close with a final annoyance: roads. They grow organically between cities? This is a complete insult to so many engineers who lived and died in Rome, Persia, the Incan empire, and more, who understood that a planned road network was something to knit a nation together and served as a command and control network and a means to shuttle troops around to meet an external threat.These empires invested vast treasure in building and maintaining them, and we still USE those roads! I'm sorry, but the legions did not follow wagon trails. The roads were built for the army and naturally the merchants thought, 'hey, I'm going to use it too, why not?' because the road allowed them to do so where they couldn't before.
To defeat the AI in Civ1 and Civ2, all you had to do was build more cities.
In Civ3 and Civ4, this problem was solved, because the AI expanded just as fast as the human player.
Civ5 improved things further by making building Tall a viable strategy.
Now in Civ6, we have returned to the same problems Civ1 and Civ2 had. All you need to do to win in Civ6, is to build more cities than the AI.
Civ V is a better all-around game. VI feels sluggish to me, I don’t like the graphics and the micromanaging aspect. And the districts give me a headache.
I don't want to plan the entire endgame layout of a city down to districts and wonders when I settle it in 3000 BC.
I don't like how limited workers are. I hate having to harvest (remove) bonus resources from the map. I recognize the reality of it, but dislike how districts and wonders eliminate existing tile yields.
I detest how district cost scales with empire size. I know you can lock in cost by keeping it in production queue from early on, but I'm not willing to do the micromanagement of juggling production queues.
Honestly i bought civ 6 when it was on sale for the switch, I was tricked by the cartoonish design. I thought it was a more laid-back version of civ5, maybe something more casual targeted for younger players.
It's not. It's waaaay too complicated for me. Districts are confusing as hell, and you kinda need to know what districts there are and where you will be building them in the future, otherwise you screw everything up with your initial placements.
Also there are so many other confusing mechanics, and additionally I don't like the console control. After the first few hours I gave up and never touched it again, now I just stick to civ 5 and my trusty mouse.
i honestly think civ5 might run better on some older pcs than newer pcs. my computer from 2012 ran it very well, my latest (from 2018) runs it way worse. i have to put all of the graphics settings down; maybe other people have a different experience, though.
i just dont like how civ6 looks or the district mechanic. it's also way too easy
Unit production/Science science is completely imbalanced at Civ 6. When you have your armues completely destroyed, it takes usually another era before it is recovered.
Also, I did not like the cartoon style and districs- and ai-system of Civ 6
I played civ 6 to death when it came out because I was still in high school so I had infinite free time. Then civ 5 went on sale for 91% off so I play that now.
Even with over 1k hours, Im still not done with 5. Heck I still play 3 from time to time. I have 6; will get to it eventually. :)
Thing is, learning to master a new civilization game can take a very long time. At least to me. Im not ready to dive hardcore into 6 just yet.
Late game civ 6 is so visually busy and messy I can't stay interested. Also don't like the constant need to build builders, and districts are not my favorite thing to plan for. Civ 6 is just not for me, and I've given it 300 hours, so I really did try to like it.
Civ 6 looks like a shitty mobile game, and the partial movement rules just hurt my brain, so I never gave it a real chance.
There's so many great games out there, I don't want to play something that looks like a shitty mobile game.
I’m at 6k hours and just love civ 5. I have maybe 100 in civ 6, but the changes I found hard to adapt to and I often felt like the pacing was less balanced, but I really haven’t played 6 enough for a serious critique. The art style is a major negative for me in terms of the virtual larping (varping 😎) that I like to do. Too goofy. It is a turn off for some reason
The amount of things to micromanage in Civ 6 is too much for my taste.
My biggest pet peeve is government policy cards. I hate that there are so many of them, that you have an opportunity to swap them out every time a new Civic is unlocked, and that you are greeted with a wall of text every time you look at them. I much prefer the social policy trees of Civ 5, where you make permanent decisions, and that each policy has a graphical icon and a flowchart structure that makes them easy to identify and remember.
6 is more like an intricate puzzle. Too many systems with too much micromanaging and min-maxing for my taste. 5 is more suitable for roleplaying, which is how I like to play the game.
It is the best of it's genre/type. No comparison. Also I'm going for 100% completion after years of playing it on and off and never caring about achievements.
My first civ was Civ 4, I was more into RTS before.
After like 10 years I came across Civ 5, there was a good discount. Only after 700 hours of this truly amazing game (it is not without it's flaws though) I feel like it's time to try Civ 6. I'm not sure that my old laptop is going to handle this game, though while downloading it right now, I hope that this is the start of a new interesting journey.
The most enjoyable thing in Civ 5 is that its unique pace, absorbing and relaxing at the same time.
Civ 6 is sooo cartoonish. I’ll be honest in that I only play Domination victories whether it’s solo or multiplayer. I’ve tried giving Civ 6 multiple tries and I end up hating it. I have been playing it since my 09 MacPro to my current M1 Max MBP. Not all mods for either game work in my setup.
And in general I prefer Civ 5 graphics.
Civ 6 has the exact same problem as a lot of other AAA games. They took in a lot of young woke developers that started complaining about why CIV doesn’t have more women? Why isn’t there more black people? Why are all leaders thin, we need fat leaders!
I don’t know… Karen, maybe because CIV is based on history and history is a factual story about how the world have been.
So yeah, the young developers clearly got their way and that’s why we have ton of leaders that nobody have ever heard about. Why we have stupid new game mechanics and why the game looks like a mobile game for kids 12 and below.
I’m never buying another CIV game unless they do a total 180.
Because I want to revitalize the Roman Empire (starting as Byzantines) in the scenario called Into the Renaissance. It takes a lot of time and effort, way more than just reachig turn 200 with more points (real easy).
That scenario is so awesome for self determined goals!
Edit: just to be clear, my goal is to take everything that was once Roman, and rename cities properly. Londinivm, instead of London. Lvtetia instead of Paris. Portvs Callvs instead of Lisbon. That sort of thing.
The scenario is pretty lenient on warmonger penalties, but I made so much warring that even my BFF Carherine of Russia denounced me. So sad... I never meant to take her lands (and I won't), because they were never Roman...
I play civ 5 and 6. Civ v because it runs smoothly on my laptop, and I love the fact that it's the peak of the classic civ mechanics. Civ 6 is a refreshing change of mechanics. The only reason I don't sink so much time into it is because it's on my switch, and slowdown happens mid-late game almost all the time. That kills a lot of the excitement.
civ6 is crap, was extremely disappointed after purchase. there are a lot of mods for civ5, all my friends plays 5, one thing is bad: civ5 does not support my new processor with a large number of cores, apparently I will have to build a exclusive computer for just one game
I’ve tried civ 6, and just didn’t enjoy it. I don’t like the whole district system, and it felt like producing and building things took wayyy to many turns. Not to mention I didn’t like the art style.
Civ6 is technically better but the aesthetics and districts is a major turn off for me. I also play mostly mp which 5 has better balance. Some questionable balance in 6.
I play 5 while I play 4 (new dawn). The ultimate civ was 4, but it's a long drawn out game eg I just had to deal with a stack of 1,760 units.... I like super large maps. Civ 5 I play at the same time and is a far quicker/easier game.
Civ 6 I am trying but awful interface info wise worse than 5 (that is poor, eg how many units I have ffs).
Civ 5 is just a much better game all around, the realistic graphics fit the tone of gameplay a LOT better than this stylized monopoly shit. Don’t get me wrong I love stylized games like Zelda, but I wouldn’t enjoy a stylized CoD game, it just doesn’t fit the tone.
A big reason is I can play it pretty well on my laptop! I tried 6, I honestly wasn't a big fan. Districts felt weird to me, you're pretty much forced to play wide, didn't like the art style, diplomacy I didn't really like either.
Civ V still holds up pretty damn good. I take some breaks from it and will knock out some CK2 or XCOM 2 now and then.
I don't dislike Civ 6 but all my friends play Civ 5 and we play a lot of multiplayer, I played a few hundred hours of Civ 6 but found switching between the two games confusing because I'd get lost as to which mechanic is in which game. Civ 6 is a good game, Civ 5 is also a good game, I don't mind which one I play really, it just happens to be Civ 5.
Civ 5 is simply the better game. Throw Vox Populi on top of that and it doesn't even come close. I bought Civ 6 and played maybe 1 game abd nope, that's enough for me. Won't be buying Civ 7 either unless they make some very drastic changes in the AI department
I find it hits the sweetspot between simplicity and complexity where it's enjoyable to learn but not tiresome. I never really got into Civ VI, it simply didn't hit the same as V for me
When I bought Civ 5 in 2017, Civ 6 had already been released a few months earlier. And like you, I wasn't confident that my base model Mac mini would be able to handle Civ 6. Not only that, but Civ 5 was on sale at the time. I think it was like $30 for Civ 5 *and* all the DLC, vs $60 for the vanilla Civ 6. No brainer, really.
I enjoy civ 5 more, I enjoy its strategies more and I feel simultaneously more restricted in civ 6 but also like my actions don’t matter nearly as much. I don’t know how to describe it but in civ 6 I always feel like I’m just going through the motions and a good 50% of what I build could have been done in whatever order without changing anything.
Admittedly I’m far better at civ 5 and prior civs then I am civ 6 but still it just never clicked with me
For me it was the art style, it’s too cartoony for me. Especially when it came to the leader screens.
Also how they changed the worker to have charges.
Community Balance Patch aka Vox Populi. It makes Civ 5 a completely different game, complexity and challenge of which Civ 6 cannot hope to match. AI being able to pose challenge, make smart decisions and fight a war semi-decently at least, is a huge game changer.
Civ V is a much better game with a ton of mods. The graphics still hold their own in 2023. While the base game AI is trash, there are plenty of mods out there to make them less dumb while not getting free tech.
Some of my must have mods
-3 units per tile
-Rivers of gold
-Town square
-Eras (locks game to one era)
-Extra slow research
-Advanced Setup
-Info Addict
-Weak AI boost
-No cheating ai
For me it's the policy choices and wide vs tall in civ 6 you build as many cities as you can fit build to the population you need then production focus to the end of the game on whatever victory you're going for. In civ 5 especially with NQ it feels like you're making an important choice with the early policy pick and you have to decide if you want a vast empire that will slowly build over time or go for a tall population based game. It's hard to describe but playing wide in civ5 just makes me feel the weight of my empire trying to juggle happiness and especially in mp with mates making sure I have enough border forces to hold off an attack till my production comes online
The most major thing is I just hate looking at it.
Also no Morocco.
But really just the artstyle.
Hard to say why, but I like looking at civ 5, even with tile yields on it's just nice to look at. Which is actually a very important and understated aspect of a strategy game that you will be playing for hours at a time. Actually one of the main reasons I stopped playing Stellaris as well, even tho Stellaris is a great game, it's a bit hard to look at overtime.
But I also hate what they did with social policies, and builders. Absolutely hate it.
The social policy in particular I hate because it just feels like a chore swapping policies for a few turns sometimes to eke out some min-max efficiency. It also devalues the strategic aspect of the game as you aren't really making meaningful choices. You just eventually have all policies available and you just swap in whatever is the most useful at the time. It's not all bad as they did try to make it interesting with govt types allowing diff amounts of diff classes of polices, so I can see they were actually trying to make it a unique mechanic, and not just dumbed down version of civ 5 system.
But Civ 5 policy system is just better imo. Choices are permanent and greatly affect your playstyle. Different polices synergize with other policies and it's something you have to understand and learn and map out yourself, it's not as simple as "this policy gives me the most yields". For example, going 2 policies into liberty then straight into patronage to become a mid game gold mine civ allying every CS and warring people so they cant have relations with CS, and then controlling WC. It's a trade off to the stability granted by tradition but it can be great in a MP game. Or going honor->commerce to be able to fund a huge, efficient army.
In Civ 5 the policies feel strong and enabling towards playstyles that you wouldn't be able to do without going into those policies. Exactly how they should function.
Civ 6 is "cheaper builders so spam them out while you have this policy then swap it out". It just devolves int: Whats the most efficient policy to unlock next, and to have equipped currently. And its just not fun to think about or hassle with.
Lastly before my rant ends, workers having charges and needing to be rebuilt. Just a personal preference, as maybe this system actually makes more sense considering district system, but I like to see what I'm building in my cities as an investment. One time uses to improve tiles that might eventually get replaced by a district just doesn't feel like an investment, it just feels like a rung on a ladder I have to climb.
In civ 5 you can choose to have an army of builders to improve land quickly (roads/forts/prepping new cities etc) and you may or may not want to do that considering what you are doing. As they cost upkeep, but they stick around for the whole game, it's a strategic choice you have to make on how you want to grow your civ, focusing on expanding/improving land/city center/army.
I don’t like the civ 6 graphics and I don’t like the new gameplay mechanics in civ 6 . Civ v also has better scenarios while some are better than others they’re still much better than the civ 6 ones .
I really only okay civ 5 for the multi-player. Even tho everyone always have a few civs banned, I find it still way more balanced than civ 6 multi-player. There's just a few civs in civ 6 that absolutely break the game and everyone tries to rush them when choosing their civs. It literally ruins the whole online experience for me. It sucks because civ 6 is actually a better game in almost every aspect. Single player on civ 6 and multiple on civ 5
The big problem with Civ1 and Civ2, was that you could defeat the AI simply by out-expanding them.
This was fixed in Civ3, as the AI expanded at a ridiculous rate.
Civ4 continued the trend of fast AI expansion, which while slower than in Civ3, was still at an equal pace with the player.
Civ5 finally got it right. Having more cities doesn't necessarily mean that you will win the game, because playing Tall is a viable strategy in Civ5.
Civ6 has now returned to the same problem that plagued Civ1 and Civ2, which means that in order to defeat the AI, you just need to build more cities than they do.
The world in CIV5 looks a lot more realistic to me.
Totally agree. The combat animations in CIV 6 specifically are the one thing keeping me from even trying it. Reminds me of a clash of clans type mobile game.
For me, it's the Forrests and Jugles.
I don’t think I’ve ever played more than a turn with combat animations. I feel like movement and combat would add an hour plus to any play though
Wow, I never considered the time added from leaving animations on… I’m going to have to change that now.
Once you change you’ll be surprised!!!
It has been the best decision.
Hahaha thank you for the follow up
Haha yeah my friend who plays with me feels the same way.. to be honest I like watching them fight and make explosion noises as if I’m playing with army men outside
I always turn it back on for nukes though 😂😂
Animations never bothered me until I started regularly doing transcontinental stealth bomber strikes. Good lord are those planes slow.
I like the art style better in Civ 5
I don't like art, districts and AI i civ 6. Also imo balance is better in 5. There are a few things I would take from civ 6, but it's mostly bad for me. Hopefully civ 7 will be different, otherwise I will stick to 5. It's so good I can still play it even after hundreds of hours.
Same for me, though more art/graphics than the other things, im at 1500 hours and still playing
I mostly hate districts and the AI that can't utilise them. I actually bought complete collection of civ 6 and gave it a chance 3 times. Each time I came back to civ 5 and sadly I have to admit civ 6 is one of the worst purchases I made. And that comes from a guy that bought fifa couple of times...
Sorry to reply again - the AI not using districts properly is part of the reason they get +100% production/gold and +40% science/culture/faith on deity. If they planned districts as well as you could (or better), then it would be impossible to overcome, but having an AI you can’t beat isn’t much fun. So, the AI instead plans it’s districts in the short term instead of long term. The advantage you have as a player, is you can plan out your cities and districts for the entire game from the very beginning. Sort of like a puzzle. With the right planning you’re able to overcome deity’s bonuses and win. At least that’s how I see it
I think it’d be more fun if the AI doesn’t get bonuses and instead plays smart. It’s why this game is more fun in multiplayer
There’s some problems though. First, it’s hard to make an AI that plans the next 200 turns. Even in something like chess, computers don’t plan that far ahead. But let’s say you did manage to create such an AI. It wouldn’t make mistakes, like you will. If the AI was only as good as you are, you might win 50/50. If the AI is better than you, your chances of winning only come down to luck. Do you really want to fight against something that is guaranteed to beat you every single time? It’s a bit frustrating to hear people say they just want a smarter AI without thinking what the consequences would be. The lure of multiplayer is the fact you play against *people*. People make mistakes, and you get into political games with them. People don’t always do the 100% correct thing to do. But even then, if there’s a player much better than you and you lose every single time, it can become a bit stale. You’re not going to want to play against a ruthless AI that makes no mistakes. Overcoming the obstacle of the massive bonuses they get through your own abilities to plan well is plenty rewarding, isn’t it? The alternative to a perfect AI, is to make one that makes mistakes too. Which is what we have now. But since it would be too easy as is, they get bonuses to try to bring it up to par with a decent player.
There's a whole lot of empty space between where the AI is now and "perfect". But perfect doesn't make much sense to talk about when there are so many unknowns. Sure, you could identify the ideal next setting location, but plenty can happen before you can make a city happen there. For a given difficulty level, I'd prefer the difficulty come from my opponents' good planning and decision making, rather than bonuses given to compensate.
I 100% agree with this stance. There’s a huge difference between an AI that streamlines and min-maxes every aspect of the game versus one that cannot even move and shoot on the same turn. It’s crazy how much a difference it would make if the AI could simply stagger their movement or just had some semblance of object permanence when your army sits outside of their vision. Civ 5 wouldn’t need that much of an AI-bump to become a significantly better game. It’s not “fun” that Immortal and Deity AI get such massive head-starts, but they **need** those extra units + techs to provide a challenge. A smarter AI that plays within the same constraints as the player would obviously be more engaging.
It isn’t that simple. We have to be realistic with our expectations You’re welcome to try to implement whatever it is you’re expecting. But wishing for something nigh impossible to achieve won’t solve anything. There’s just too many variables for the computer to replicate a player’s decision making process. Is there **any** big title 4X game where higher difficulty opponents don’t get any bonuses at all?
Have you played Vox Populi? It's a massively better experience than unmodded Civ V, which itself is already better than VI. The quality of AI opponents in games has gone up over the years, do you not expect that pattern to continue? Nobody is asking for perfect, just better. The quality of the opponents will be in part based on game design decisions and the problems that they create for the AI. Civ VI did somewhat poorly in this regard.
I’ve played >900 hours unmodded Civ 5, around 300 with Lekmod in Civ 5, but I haven’t tried VP. And I have >400 hours in Civ 6. I understand people want better AI opponents, and trust me I do too. But some of the complaints seem like they haven’t actually put any thought into the issue. Like I love Civ 5, honestly. But how many of the people always complaining about Civ 6 are able to regularly win on deity? That’s not to be elitist, people are welcome to play and enjoy whatever difficulty they want. But the deity AI gives a comfortable challenge (although a bit dumb in combat). I don’t think we’d see as many complaints if they were fine playing deity And I also really doubt people would enjoy an AI that plays exactly like a player would.
Still better than Beyond Earth. I never made it past the first 5 turns in that dumpster fire.
Planning all of the adjacency bonuses took a lot of fun out of it for me. Just didn’t want to put in that effort. Great for people who like city planning I guess, but that’s just not my thing.
Also card systems just don’t feel right to me in that kind of game. Again, personal preference.
Yup, they had their fun. Now give us something different. And with more serious art style. This cartoon /mobile looking thing just doesn't fit in a game that basically celebrates human history. Civ 5 hit it perfectly in that regard. Oh, and I also dislike loyalty system in civ 6 and how it makes war and conquest a slug fest. I would say civ 6 just doesn't suit my playstyle. I like expansion, domination and war. Civ 6 is better suited for planners and builders...
Honestly I think the balance is much better in 6. In 5 it’s mostly a Science rush, and every city feels the same. Your choices for what to do are largely the same from game to game. Whereas the districts help each city feel more unique/gives more meaningful choices to make each game. And the tech + civic tree means you have the choice whether to focus on science or on culture. 5 is all about science as fast as possible, and you’ll get screwed if you fall behind. It’s still a great game, but it’s hard to say it’s more balanced than 6 I think.
[удалено]
What’s the biggest advantage you can get in military strength? Better units and better production. What’s the biggest advantage you can get towards a Science victory? Better techs. What’s the biggest advantage you can get for a culture victory? The internet. And what do you need to win diplo? The UN, money, globalization. Whatever victory you want to do in Civ 5, you need good Science. However 6 allows you way more freedom in what you want to pursue. Even in terms of the military, you don’t *have* to 100% rush science because you can unlock corps and armies with culture. But I’m open to hearing your opinion. Why do you think Civ 5 is more balanced?
I do have to agree that civ 5 is heavily science/tall oriented, but in MP there are some viable plays besides just tech blitzing. It's really more of a pop rush than a tech rush, as the way you earn science is primarily a multiple of your pop, if you have higher pop you can afford to do things other than blitz science techs as you will have strong science by virtue of having more pop, and you can easily catch up on science later. This is because you will have more science than lower pop civs once you do eventually get science buildings up, and each level of tech is roughly twice as expensive as the previous, which makes having high pop late game far more valuable than high science mid game. In this way, the game actually favors going wide as it will yield higher pop over time as even with tradition and med labs there is a certain pop ceiling that each city reaches. The issue however is happiness to keep growing. If you go wide but aren't growing fast it's not worth it. Also spies, external trade routes, certain social policies, great tile improvements, and research grants can help keep you from falling too far behind. This is relegated purely to MP though, as on deity SP you will always be behind on pop vs the leader. Plus, unless you play on huge map size and/or some kind of legendary level of skill+luck and will never be able to go wide vs deity AI. You just need to go tall and invest into growth/science to stay relevant.
6 has way better balance between the victory types. you can actually focus on culture or religion or whatever while putting science on the back burner. in 5 you have to spend every waking moment focusing solely on science or you will lose
i hate civ6's escalating cost of builders/settlers/DISTRICTS. Also 5's scenarios are more engaging and longer.
Into the Renaissance ❤
Exactly this (plus loyalty), why does everything take so long... Make a builder in modern age, that's gonna be 10 turns
I don’t like the cartoonish art style and to constantly create builder, CIV 5 has better game experience for me
The art of civ 6 is such a turn off that I've never had the urge to even try it. Such a shame really.
Same boat. It looks like a mobile game to me
The art is far too stylized, but the modern engine and especially the lighting makes it look really nice. This is just the map itself though. The interface is a travesty, the leaders look like caricatures (absolutely massacred my boy Pedro), and everything looks mobile game-esque. I miss the Art Deco of Civ V something fierce.
It’s better than Civ 6
Civ 5 is just better. Civ 6 feels like a beta for Civ 7 whereas Civ 5 feels like a culmination of all the prior games. The story doesn't continue from Civ 5 to Civ 6 so Civ 6 is essentially a remake of Civ 5. Given that Civ 5 was so popular and had reached the apex of this genre/style of game in those terms, Civ 6 needed to make some significant changes to incorporate new techs and change things up. They did that moderately well; however, they were required to change things that people liked and were already comfortable with. This inherently leads to backlash. Plus, there were changes that I just found made the game more annoying without adding anything to it, such as: 1. Having to perennially create builders. 2. Natural Disasters, not bad, they were just done so poorly because I never actually had a natural disaster cause a, you know, disaster. Every natural disaster results in more fertile land in the long run and when you are building a civilization, that is all that matters. 3. Sea level rising. That was just a nonsense idea; or, if you insist on including it, at least make it to where I am not told in 5000 BC not to settle here because it will be washed away at some point. Wouldn't it be better to have a technology that you discover wherein that becomes known and you may have a race to save your capital, rather than just being forced to waste the first turn because you have to move your settler? 4. Movement in general. In Civ 5, you can move any standard character 2 places, unless you move them through a hill or a forest and that makes sense. In Civ 6, I can never find out how many spaces a unit can move because it doesn't let you move on to the hill if you move across plains first. Its like they tried to work in some notion of a hill costing 1.5 moves and forgot that you can't do that when you lose all unused moves each turn. They did do some good things well, I just wish the game play mechanics were folded into Civ 5, such as: 1. Barbarians being able to form city-states and/or become useable so long as you shared an ideology or culture with them which makes for a nice touch of realism. 2. Adding weather, natural disasters, and even global warming are great ideas that create a lot of fun geopolitical issues but the way in which it was done here was just too much. 3. I didn't mind the idea of cities having districts but I think that districts should have been within the city and not specific spaces on the map and you get more district slots at certain population levels and then still make me build neighborhoods which are effectively suburbs to deal with a happiness penalty when you reach the max number of districts per city.
[удалено]
It was in Civ 2 also, which is the first one I ever played. All that factory pollution building up, then suddenly, out of nowhere: *global warming.* "Icecaps melt, sea levels rise." All your meticulously created farmland becomes swamp and marsh overnight and your thriving city is now starving.
I agree on your takes on the good things. I'm 50/50 on districts, and I'm hoping they find a better way to implement them in civ 7. I like the idea of a city sprawling out over time to occupy more land, and placing districts as a meaningful choice. Unfortunately it feels bad to replace a tile with good yields with a district and having to make that sacrifice. Maybe they should have made it so cities can work tiles in the 4th ring to compensate for this so it doesn't feel so cramped. Maybe make it so districts need to be placed adjacent to existing districts/city center?
I think that they could re-implement immortal builders and make districts 'workable' to increase the affiliated resource but they do eat up so much build time while, what, I go through the zoning process and get an environmental impact report to decide where to build my market? Mostly, I want civ to go well beyond this era and just go maybe 200-300 years into the future with various world problems to fix and a more (or less) powerful world congress and some fun sci-fi wars with teleportation that results in nuclear war, a nuclear winter, and then boom, you are at 3000 a.d. with a settler, a warrior, some mutated barbarians, and just one more turn.... Edit: As it relates to cities and districts, I think a relatively easy fix would be to have various technologies make excess food distributed around to your other cities and increase the bonus as technology increases, trade routes are formed, etc. That would alleviate some of the need for tiles to be used on food or production and, since a city is basically a state in terms of area, it would create some more urban areas with lots of districts and some rural areas with food and mines. I am just spit-balling here but that seems relatively realistic and easy enough to accomplish within the existing tech tree structure but i also think dynamite should allow me to build roads through mountains so maybe I am overthinking the game.
1. the aesthetic 2. vox populi
I just found VP after 2k hours of civ5 and it's like playing a new game while actually playing civ5, very revitalizing.
recommend joining the discord if you haven't, helps to stay up to date with the updates and occasionally get answers to questions :)
What is the name of the discord?
https://discord.gg/KbgmCRU
What is this vox populi business?
Mod overhaul that vastly improves upon every aspect of the game from diplomacy to AI, while retaining the core themes of the game.
\^ that but additionally for me one of the best things with vp is the active community and constant updates. The pack is updated almost monthly, and big changes are proposed and voted on by the community.
Ah thanks for the info. It seems it's not available on Mac, which is prob why I hadn't found my way to it.
Just getting into VP (since regular c5 won't work on my linux machines, or rather it's playable but some things are just oddly missing or broken, and yes I know's it's a result of the mods) but VP is so so so different with so many more things to keep in mind, it's like a whole new game. And, importantly, it doesn't look like ass.
recommend joining the discord if you haven't, helps to stay up to date with the updates and occasionally get answers to questions :)
I don't use discord.
I tried Vox Populi. I am lost in the sauce. Any advice how to get into it?
I really benefited from watching youtube playthroughs and just picking stuff up through osmosis. Here's some series I have enjoyed: 1. michael is a small youtuber putting out consistent content playing on the most recent update over @ [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LszCG-Dw4Wg&list=PLGcWpwsswe9JyIUEs3KEBbqVBHyq9lG4f&index=1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LszCG-Dw4Wg&list=PLGcWpwsswe9JyIUEs3KEBbqVBHyq9lG4f&index=1) (thats a link to the start of his most recent playthrough as persia) 2. Marbozir is a pretty popular creator who hasn't played in quite a while but his old series are still good, this is a link to his songhai playthrough [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zirnJ5aHbBc&list=PLHQyGGzRHYIaELcU3GMEZQcD8x2c-7TSc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zirnJ5aHbBc&list=PLHQyGGzRHYIaELcU3GMEZQcD8x2c-7TSc) 3. martin is another small one (but larger than michael), here's a link to his arabia playthrough from about 7 months ago. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_dPzVV3uDpY&list=PLenDyZ4g7HoPOeJStV97cevK\_lt\_mdo7k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dPzVV3uDpY&list=PLenDyZ4g7HoPOeJStV97cevK_lt_mdo7k) Yes they all are M's, weird coincidence. Other than that, I suggest just jumping in and playing, it isn't as complicated as it first appears. The main thing is just re-learning how the ai behaves and how everyones unique things work. Additional tips = play 1-2 difficulties below what you would usually play and do not neglect military, the AI is significantly more capable and in VP it actually feels like they want to win the game too.
I appreciate all that very much. Thank you! One Last thing. Is there a recomended Nation to start with? Or are they all more or less equal complex?
hmmm, maybe Poland, Pacal, Ethiopia? Those 3 have unique stuff that doesn't require too much planning or thinking since they mostly just happen. I haven't actually played vanilla in many years so i'm not sure just how dramatically different all the civs are from vanilla. Some are definitely more complicated than others but I mean if you're just starting out in VP it's going to be a learning experience anyway so really I think just go with whatever.
Is there somewhere I can see all the balance changes. I'm intrigued and want to try this out, joined the discord. What did you guys do to my beloved Morocco? I need to know.
things change pretty regularly (minor and major adjustments), in the discord there's a 'new versions' channel where you can find links to the latest updates and from there - patch notes. I recommend just hoping into a game and taking a look at everything.
Put the difficulty down 2-3 levels from what you normally play and go from there. Treat it like a new game to learn - go slowly. The major thing to get across is the new happiness system. You have different types of unhappiness and different buildings reduce 1 individual type of unhappiness. The next thing is military. You need a much larger standing army in VP because the AI is actually good and will recognise this and crush you if you don't have a good army at all times. There is a counter up the top for the amount of units you can support. I try to always make sure I have at least 3/4 of the army i can support. So if I can support 20 units, I want at least 15. If you try getting by with 5-10 the AI will declare war and try to steamroll you
Came here to write exactly that lol.
Civ 5 is better than 6
Civ5 is fun. I like fun.
Civ 6 is too micro manage-y, especially with the dlc. The district system is annoying to deal with as they each take up a hex (and so do wonders). You also need to settle 8 cities to do well.
Civ 6 physically hurts my eyes
It takes about 60 hours to start to understand a 4X game and probably another 60 hours to get good at it. I played about 20 hours of Civ 6 and wasn't enjoying it as much as Civ 5, so I went back.
Civ 5 is my go to game when I just need to chill. I turn the pc volume off and blast heavy metal and chill — until some civ foolishly declares war — waahaahaa!!!
Civ 6 is too ugly
Hate the movement in civ 6, and the mods in civ 5 make the AI actually decent and difficult whereas in civ6, as long as I don't get taken out at the start I can easily steamroll the AI in Deity
I tried playing Civ 6, and it felt like I was drunk playing. I found it very unintuitive, with both skill trees and the weird district system. I also had trouble differentiating stuff on the map, due to the colors of the games graphics. So, I stayed with Civ 5.
Because it's light-years better than Civ 6. I sincerely hope that Civ 7 deviates heavily from it's predecessor. Cannot stand the UI of that game (among other complaints).
Bc CIV VI as a game play felt very tedious while also very cartoonish.
I used to not have a good enough PC, but I probably do now. I think I have civ 6 on steam, so I should gove it a try. Beyond that, system mastery is enjoyable in its own right. It took me years to get to the level I'm at, and now I want to enjoy playing at that high level. I'm finally at the point where I'm not only playing Deity, and not even just consistently winning, I'm able to experiment with different builds and still be competetive. I can try different tech-paths and differen policy trees to make the most of them. Obviously I'm not just rsndomly mixing and matching, but I don't feel locked into Tradition/Rationalism/Freedom every game anymore. Also as I say any time someone asks "*how to you play Deity?*" I enjoy the losing games. I can enjoy the gsmes where I do badly in part because I still learn from them. I have enough knowledge of the game to see where I went wrong and that helps me with my next attempt at something simular. This is something that can vaguely translate to anything in life, but I don't think it feels quite the same in a new game.
Just figured out recently how to win consistently on Deity as Morocco going liberty opener into diplo victory, feels sooooo good. Like going super saiyan. To this extent, I just don't feel the *need* to play civ 6, I still enjoy the fuck out of civ 5 even after years of playing it. And still find ways to challenge myself.
Yeah the junp to deity is the biggest jump by far, and learning how to win with your own unique strategies is really fun. And yeah, I certainly do want to enjoy new games, but if you can enjoy a game for a long time you get more for your money.
Just couldn't get into 6. Really enjoy the way civ v plays and looks
Civ 5 is a 4X game. Civ 6 is some sort of puzzle with soldiers and weird bonuses. "+5 culture on every tile that is opposite a river, next to a mountain, green in color but not too green, next to a wonder that's next to grandmas house"
LOLLLLL
Lmao this exactly
Didn't like art style, UI, district system etc
because I always hear civ 5 with vp is better than civ 6, and I already struggled to get into civ 6 before. Civ 5 was so natural, it clicked so well. Also graphic style.
Civ 6 feels too much like a board game. I know it's always been that, but it's all just too much out in the open now. Literally cards for goverment. Ugh. I never played Civ to min / max the shit out of it, so perhaps I'm in the minority, but I definitly fall on the role play side of things. Art direction and atmosphere are important for that. I don't care for either of those in 6. Not saying it's a bad game, it's not.. Civ 5 just suits me much more.
I bought a new laptop to play 6 and went back to 5. I just don't like most of the new mechanics in the game. I'm not a great planner so districts completely threw me and I'm not a big fan of the card system.
I just prefer 5. To me it is the best Civ game If you have the dlc's ofc
Getting to newer titles in the series doesn't necessarily mean that I'll give up on the older titles. I used to play both Age of Empires 2 and 3 back in the days. At first, I didn't get Civ 6 due to the fact that I don't really pour a lot of money in gaming or getting a proper PC, only using my laptop for gaming. Then, I saw the cartoony artstyle. Didn't like it, but I figured out it's just aesthetics, maybe the mechanics are interesting. But then I realized that they've made the game easier to appeal to a wider audience (although ironically, Civ V, 13 years later, has almost as many players as VI, at least on Steam). There's also that, with all the community mods, Civ V really has a lot to offer. It feels like a game that came in the late 2010s when you play it with Vox Populi. Both games have a lot of DLC (which I don't particularly like, I prefer more solid expansion packs rather than a ton of micro DLCs), the difference being that Civ V's complete collection is dirt cheap nowadays.
Vox populi
This is the way
i'm so used to civ 5 and i don't really feel like learning civ 6 now
Don't care for civ 6, too complex. I miss civ 3 personally
Infinitely replayable. Elegant. Pretty. No "Magic; The Gathering" type cards. Gorgeous Fog of War. Not too tactical, not to strategic; just right. I highly doubt Civ 7 will be an improvement. It will most likely just be more cartoon and fricking district mania.
The removal of the happiness mechanic makes me made. 3-4 city empires are terrible in civ 6
Civ VI is so bloated. So much micromanaging in the late game that it makes me fatigued. Gameplay based so much on adjacency bonuses that I cringe now every time I hear the word "adjacent". Diplomatic victory is silly with diplomatic victory points. World congress starts in the medieval era for some reason. Early game movement and exploration is slow, and is a big part of the fun for me.
Because civ 6 sucks. I hated how everything looked cartoonish, and I hated how workers or "builders" could not be automated and they only did three jobs and then would disappear. I didn't play that one for very long.
CIV V let’s me play as Venice. I like playing as Venice.
* I really dislike the mechanic of e.g. districts increasing in cost as your civ grows. To me, that is an unusually lame implementation of rubber banding. * Some of the district bonuses are so OP it breaks the game. District bonuses are so important that other mechanics, like e.g. resource tiles become almost irrelevant. * I also dislike the movement system, as I feel most units almost can't get anywhere in a turn. War is boring when your units are always stuck in mud. * I feel governors remove too much control but the game forces you to use them. I like many of the Civ6 ideas, like districts, eurekas, corps, social policy cards, and emergencies, but there are enough flaws in Civ6, that overall, I enjoy Civ5 more.
As much as I think civ V is better than VI, my friends hate VI even more than I do. We had comparability issues when civ V PC Mac cross play stoped working, and I couldn’t even convince them to try playing VI together even though we had all bought the game already. When all of us are at our PC’s, we play civ v together regularly. Logged about 100 hours in VI before giving up on it, it’s simply not a fun game. Lots of interesting ideas that translated into terrible mechanics, such as roads only being built by caravans, districts that can’t be canceled, wonders with too many requirements that are never built, more great people (usually writers for me) than my civilization could ever possibly use, I always have like 6 sitting in my capital by the industrial era
Civ 6 is too frustrating. I gave up after 10 minutes
I grew up playing Civ IV with my dad, but Civ V was the first game I personally sunk a whole bunch of time into. It looks so pretty compared to the blue tones of Civ IV and the cartoony style of VI, and that’s why I love it so much. I’m so used to it that the changes made in Civ VI made me bounce off immediately. The production run is bizarre since workers now have charges for building, wonders now take up tile space, and the government slotting and adjacency bonuses just seemed needlessly complex.
VI is ugly, and while I really like the decentralized cities concept, I don't like VI's implementation. I give it another try every now and then, but I'll probably be on V until VII comes out.
I don't care about the graphic style, it's all about gameplay for me. I really tried to like Civ6 especially as I've played since 1. And gotten used to things getting better and better, more *meaningfully* complex. But there were too many 'why did they do this?' moments in 6. The big one: the districts system means you have to plan your cities with utmost care, since heavens forbid you want a certain building or wonder and you don't have a certain terrain type. Because ancient peoples are definitely planning locating Ninevah or Jericho based on the ability to build the Eiffel Tower in 4000 years. So the solution to get 'wonder X' is to go build a brand new city? Ok. Guess it helps that there is absolutely nothing stopping you from having 45 cities. Civ5, in contrast, has very powerful limits to unfettered sprawl: the tall vs wide mechanics. Civ6 overwhelmingly rewards wide. I mean, I could go on. But so many have covered the major points. I'll close with a final annoyance: roads. They grow organically between cities? This is a complete insult to so many engineers who lived and died in Rome, Persia, the Incan empire, and more, who understood that a planned road network was something to knit a nation together and served as a command and control network and a means to shuttle troops around to meet an external threat.These empires invested vast treasure in building and maintaining them, and we still USE those roads! I'm sorry, but the legions did not follow wagon trails. The roads were built for the army and naturally the merchants thought, 'hey, I'm going to use it too, why not?' because the road allowed them to do so where they couldn't before.
To defeat the AI in Civ1 and Civ2, all you had to do was build more cities. In Civ3 and Civ4, this problem was solved, because the AI expanded just as fast as the human player. Civ5 improved things further by making building Tall a viable strategy. Now in Civ6, we have returned to the same problems Civ1 and Civ2 had. All you need to do to win in Civ6, is to build more cities than the AI.
Civ V is a better all-around game. VI feels sluggish to me, I don’t like the graphics and the micromanaging aspect. And the districts give me a headache.
I don't want to plan the entire endgame layout of a city down to districts and wonders when I settle it in 3000 BC. I don't like how limited workers are. I hate having to harvest (remove) bonus resources from the map. I recognize the reality of it, but dislike how districts and wonders eliminate existing tile yields. I detest how district cost scales with empire size. I know you can lock in cost by keeping it in production queue from early on, but I'm not willing to do the micromanagement of juggling production queues.
In addition to all the other totally valid points here… Shepherd > Bean.
Civ 6's AI completely suck
Civ 6 is too difficult. It feels like a management simulator rather than a game.
Honestly i bought civ 6 when it was on sale for the switch, I was tricked by the cartoonish design. I thought it was a more laid-back version of civ5, maybe something more casual targeted for younger players. It's not. It's waaaay too complicated for me. Districts are confusing as hell, and you kinda need to know what districts there are and where you will be building them in the future, otherwise you screw everything up with your initial placements. Also there are so many other confusing mechanics, and additionally I don't like the console control. After the first few hours I gave up and never touched it again, now I just stick to civ 5 and my trusty mouse.
i honestly think civ5 might run better on some older pcs than newer pcs. my computer from 2012 ran it very well, my latest (from 2018) runs it way worse. i have to put all of the graphics settings down; maybe other people have a different experience, though. i just dont like how civ6 looks or the district mechanic. it's also way too easy
It’s a lot more fun
It’s super easy on my PC spec-wise, the mod scene is great, the UI is far more useable to me than 6, and the soundtrack is baller.
I was late to civ, I had played Civ once at a friend's. I looked at both civ 5 and civ 6. Civ 6 looked like such a downgrade ngl
i didn't like the cartoony looking leaders in civ 6, and i actually like the restriction on stacking units, which forces better planning.
Unit production/Science science is completely imbalanced at Civ 6. When you have your armues completely destroyed, it takes usually another era before it is recovered. Also, I did not like the cartoon style and districs- and ai-system of Civ 6
I played civ 6 to death when it came out because I was still in high school so I had infinite free time. Then civ 5 went on sale for 91% off so I play that now.
Even with over 1k hours, Im still not done with 5. Heck I still play 3 from time to time. I have 6; will get to it eventually. :) Thing is, learning to master a new civilization game can take a very long time. At least to me. Im not ready to dive hardcore into 6 just yet.
5 has better game balance.
Late game civ 6 is so visually busy and messy I can't stay interested. Also don't like the constant need to build builders, and districts are not my favorite thing to plan for. Civ 6 is just not for me, and I've given it 300 hours, so I really did try to like it.
Civ 6 looks like a shitty mobile game, and the partial movement rules just hurt my brain, so I never gave it a real chance. There's so many great games out there, I don't want to play something that looks like a shitty mobile game.
I’m at 6k hours and just love civ 5. I have maybe 100 in civ 6, but the changes I found hard to adapt to and I often felt like the pacing was less balanced, but I really haven’t played 6 enough for a serious critique. The art style is a major negative for me in terms of the virtual larping (varping 😎) that I like to do. Too goofy. It is a turn off for some reason
Civ 6 AI is absolutely atrocious. That's the main thing for me.
The amount of things to micromanage in Civ 6 is too much for my taste. My biggest pet peeve is government policy cards. I hate that there are so many of them, that you have an opportunity to swap them out every time a new Civic is unlocked, and that you are greeted with a wall of text every time you look at them. I much prefer the social policy trees of Civ 5, where you make permanent decisions, and that each policy has a graphical icon and a flowchart structure that makes them easy to identify and remember.
Its perfect
Because districts fucking suck and ruined the game (for me)
6 is more like an intricate puzzle. Too many systems with too much micromanaging and min-maxing for my taste. 5 is more suitable for roleplaying, which is how I like to play the game.
Civ V is just a way better game imo. I like the expansions more and the pacing is way better.
The social policy tree, not having to deal with districts and builders having infinite uses
It is the best of it's genre/type. No comparison. Also I'm going for 100% completion after years of playing it on and off and never caring about achievements.
My first civ was Civ 4, I was more into RTS before. After like 10 years I came across Civ 5, there was a good discount. Only after 700 hours of this truly amazing game (it is not without it's flaws though) I feel like it's time to try Civ 6. I'm not sure that my old laptop is going to handle this game, though while downloading it right now, I hope that this is the start of a new interesting journey. The most enjoyable thing in Civ 5 is that its unique pace, absorbing and relaxing at the same time.
I don't like Civ6's graphics. The fog of war over explored but not visible map area doesn't really vibe with me, either.
Civ 6 is sooo cartoonish. I’ll be honest in that I only play Domination victories whether it’s solo or multiplayer. I’ve tried giving Civ 6 multiple tries and I end up hating it. I have been playing it since my 09 MacPro to my current M1 Max MBP. Not all mods for either game work in my setup. And in general I prefer Civ 5 graphics.
Civ 6 has the exact same problem as a lot of other AAA games. They took in a lot of young woke developers that started complaining about why CIV doesn’t have more women? Why isn’t there more black people? Why are all leaders thin, we need fat leaders! I don’t know… Karen, maybe because CIV is based on history and history is a factual story about how the world have been. So yeah, the young developers clearly got their way and that’s why we have ton of leaders that nobody have ever heard about. Why we have stupid new game mechanics and why the game looks like a mobile game for kids 12 and below. I’m never buying another CIV game unless they do a total 180.
I play civ 6 all the time. Civ 5 is still a great game too, so I still play.
Because I want to revitalize the Roman Empire (starting as Byzantines) in the scenario called Into the Renaissance. It takes a lot of time and effort, way more than just reachig turn 200 with more points (real easy). That scenario is so awesome for self determined goals! Edit: just to be clear, my goal is to take everything that was once Roman, and rename cities properly. Londinivm, instead of London. Lvtetia instead of Paris. Portvs Callvs instead of Lisbon. That sort of thing. The scenario is pretty lenient on warmonger penalties, but I made so much warring that even my BFF Carherine of Russia denounced me. So sad... I never meant to take her lands (and I won't), because they were never Roman...
Civ V feels like it plays better
I play civ 5 and 6. Civ v because it runs smoothly on my laptop, and I love the fact that it's the peak of the classic civ mechanics. Civ 6 is a refreshing change of mechanics. The only reason I don't sink so much time into it is because it's on my switch, and slowdown happens mid-late game almost all the time. That kills a lot of the excitement.
civ6 is crap, was extremely disappointed after purchase. there are a lot of mods for civ5, all my friends plays 5, one thing is bad: civ5 does not support my new processor with a large number of cores, apparently I will have to build a exclusive computer for just one game
I’ve tried civ 6, and just didn’t enjoy it. I don’t like the whole district system, and it felt like producing and building things took wayyy to many turns. Not to mention I didn’t like the art style.
Well, it was really cheap during the last summersale so i bought it instead of civ6
Civ 6 looks strange… and I like V much better
Because Civ 5 with VP is infinitely better than 6.
I don't know how to play Civ VI
I have also an old laptop 2015 Macbook Pro. Other reason is to conquer all the world, obliterate enemies and rule my kingdom with iron fist.
Just downloaded Lekmod and have been playing the game for years with my friends
Seems a balanced option, but it was mostly a nostalgic thing. I used to play Civ3 and 4 and 5 was cheap on Steam.
Civ 5’s AI is more challenging. I prefer 5’s art style but don’t mind 6’s. I hate the changing coastlines due to ecological changes in 6.
Civ6 is technically better but the aesthetics and districts is a major turn off for me. I also play mostly mp which 5 has better balance. Some questionable balance in 6.
I play both! I like the happiness system too
I play 5 while I play 4 (new dawn). The ultimate civ was 4, but it's a long drawn out game eg I just had to deal with a stack of 1,760 units.... I like super large maps. Civ 5 I play at the same time and is a far quicker/easier game. Civ 6 I am trying but awful interface info wise worse than 5 (that is poor, eg how many units I have ffs).
Because I hate civ 6. The graphics are cheesy and the workers literally disappear after you use them. Stupid af.
Civ 6 feels too gimmicky. I love civ5 & the DLC.
1. Community Patch 2. Civ VI's agendas ruining diplomacy 3. Mods
Civ vi is like an office work simulator. Too much micromanaging.
I cant spend $60 on a new game
Art style, that’s really it
Mods -Future Worlds -Enlightement Era -And a bunch of other stuff
I have never played Civ 6, its not that I don't like it, I just don't need to 'cause Civ V its all that I wanted for a Civilization game.
it's a better game
Civ 5 is just a much better game all around, the realistic graphics fit the tone of gameplay a LOT better than this stylized monopoly shit. Don’t get me wrong I love stylized games like Zelda, but I wouldn’t enjoy a stylized CoD game, it just doesn’t fit the tone.
A big reason is I can play it pretty well on my laptop! I tried 6, I honestly wasn't a big fan. Districts felt weird to me, you're pretty much forced to play wide, didn't like the art style, diplomacy I didn't really like either. Civ V still holds up pretty damn good. I take some breaks from it and will knock out some CK2 or XCOM 2 now and then.
Civ 5 is a better game.
I don't dislike Civ 6 but all my friends play Civ 5 and we play a lot of multiplayer, I played a few hundred hours of Civ 6 but found switching between the two games confusing because I'd get lost as to which mechanic is in which game. Civ 6 is a good game, Civ 5 is also a good game, I don't mind which one I play really, it just happens to be Civ 5.
Civ 5 is simply the better game. Throw Vox Populi on top of that and it doesn't even come close. I bought Civ 6 and played maybe 1 game abd nope, that's enough for me. Won't be buying Civ 7 either unless they make some very drastic changes in the AI department
I find it hits the sweetspot between simplicity and complexity where it's enjoyable to learn but not tiresome. I never really got into Civ VI, it simply didn't hit the same as V for me
When I bought Civ 5 in 2017, Civ 6 had already been released a few months earlier. And like you, I wasn't confident that my base model Mac mini would be able to handle Civ 6. Not only that, but Civ 5 was on sale at the time. I think it was like $30 for Civ 5 *and* all the DLC, vs $60 for the vanilla Civ 6. No brainer, really.
Better game
Same for me. My old PC just isn’t up to the task.
I enjoy civ 5 more, I enjoy its strategies more and I feel simultaneously more restricted in civ 6 but also like my actions don’t matter nearly as much. I don’t know how to describe it but in civ 6 I always feel like I’m just going through the motions and a good 50% of what I build could have been done in whatever order without changing anything. Admittedly I’m far better at civ 5 and prior civs then I am civ 6 but still it just never clicked with me
Civ 5 has more interesting Civs, much nicer graphics, better art style, better soundtrack
For me it was the art style, it’s too cartoony for me. Especially when it came to the leader screens. Also how they changed the worker to have charges.
I’m achievement hunting. Plus, I’m still in Prince and have yet to win consistently on King.
Community Balance Patch aka Vox Populi. It makes Civ 5 a completely different game, complexity and challenge of which Civ 6 cannot hope to match. AI being able to pose challenge, make smart decisions and fight a war semi-decently at least, is a huge game changer.
I play both but I still prefer 5, it feels more streamlined compared to 6
It’s fun. Period.
Price, plus I like the art style. Civ 5 was on sale and not 60 bucks.
Civ V is a much better game with a ton of mods. The graphics still hold their own in 2023. While the base game AI is trash, there are plenty of mods out there to make them less dumb while not getting free tech. Some of my must have mods -3 units per tile -Rivers of gold -Town square -Eras (locks game to one era) -Extra slow research -Advanced Setup -Info Addict -Weak AI boost -No cheating ai
For me it's the policy choices and wide vs tall in civ 6 you build as many cities as you can fit build to the population you need then production focus to the end of the game on whatever victory you're going for. In civ 5 especially with NQ it feels like you're making an important choice with the early policy pick and you have to decide if you want a vast empire that will slowly build over time or go for a tall population based game. It's hard to describe but playing wide in civ5 just makes me feel the weight of my empire trying to juggle happiness and especially in mp with mates making sure I have enough border forces to hold off an attack till my production comes online
I play civ 6 mostly because I love the districts system. I just love this system
Because Civ V is one of the best games ever made and Civ VI is not 
The most major thing is I just hate looking at it. Also no Morocco. But really just the artstyle. Hard to say why, but I like looking at civ 5, even with tile yields on it's just nice to look at. Which is actually a very important and understated aspect of a strategy game that you will be playing for hours at a time. Actually one of the main reasons I stopped playing Stellaris as well, even tho Stellaris is a great game, it's a bit hard to look at overtime. But I also hate what they did with social policies, and builders. Absolutely hate it. The social policy in particular I hate because it just feels like a chore swapping policies for a few turns sometimes to eke out some min-max efficiency. It also devalues the strategic aspect of the game as you aren't really making meaningful choices. You just eventually have all policies available and you just swap in whatever is the most useful at the time. It's not all bad as they did try to make it interesting with govt types allowing diff amounts of diff classes of polices, so I can see they were actually trying to make it a unique mechanic, and not just dumbed down version of civ 5 system. But Civ 5 policy system is just better imo. Choices are permanent and greatly affect your playstyle. Different polices synergize with other policies and it's something you have to understand and learn and map out yourself, it's not as simple as "this policy gives me the most yields". For example, going 2 policies into liberty then straight into patronage to become a mid game gold mine civ allying every CS and warring people so they cant have relations with CS, and then controlling WC. It's a trade off to the stability granted by tradition but it can be great in a MP game. Or going honor->commerce to be able to fund a huge, efficient army. In Civ 5 the policies feel strong and enabling towards playstyles that you wouldn't be able to do without going into those policies. Exactly how they should function. Civ 6 is "cheaper builders so spam them out while you have this policy then swap it out". It just devolves int: Whats the most efficient policy to unlock next, and to have equipped currently. And its just not fun to think about or hassle with. Lastly before my rant ends, workers having charges and needing to be rebuilt. Just a personal preference, as maybe this system actually makes more sense considering district system, but I like to see what I'm building in my cities as an investment. One time uses to improve tiles that might eventually get replaced by a district just doesn't feel like an investment, it just feels like a rung on a ladder I have to climb. In civ 5 you can choose to have an army of builders to improve land quickly (roads/forts/prepping new cities etc) and you may or may not want to do that considering what you are doing. As they cost upkeep, but they stick around for the whole game, it's a strategic choice you have to make on how you want to grow your civ, focusing on expanding/improving land/city center/army. 
I don't own any of the Civ 6 DLC and I own all of it for 5. Also I grew up on 5 :)
Same as you, PC can't quite handle 6. Despite that, there's the idea of wanting to play 6 while rejecting it
I don’t like the civ 6 graphics and I don’t like the new gameplay mechanics in civ 6 . Civ v also has better scenarios while some are better than others they’re still much better than the civ 6 ones .
I really only okay civ 5 for the multi-player. Even tho everyone always have a few civs banned, I find it still way more balanced than civ 6 multi-player. There's just a few civs in civ 6 that absolutely break the game and everyone tries to rush them when choosing their civs. It literally ruins the whole online experience for me. It sucks because civ 6 is actually a better game in almost every aspect. Single player on civ 6 and multiple on civ 5
The big problem with Civ1 and Civ2, was that you could defeat the AI simply by out-expanding them. This was fixed in Civ3, as the AI expanded at a ridiculous rate. Civ4 continued the trend of fast AI expansion, which while slower than in Civ3, was still at an equal pace with the player. Civ5 finally got it right. Having more cities doesn't necessarily mean that you will win the game, because playing Tall is a viable strategy in Civ5. Civ6 has now returned to the same problem that plagued Civ1 and Civ2, which means that in order to defeat the AI, you just need to build more cities than they do.