this game is better than civ 6 or old world?

[heime2003]

i cant buy all three so i have to choose whichever is the best strategy game overall

[skallben]

No it is not. It's an unfinished product with a gazillion of issues. The base game is fun and has some novel concepts but all in all poorly implemented and balanced. And in the end, a poorly balanced 4X game is not a good one, regardless of all other qualities.

[knighttemplar1960]

No. It might get up to average in another year and a half but its not looking promising.

[Dorok]

Civ6 is more a 4X builder lite sim civilization game, I advise it.

I didn't knew Old World was finally released on Steam thanks for the tips.

For HK wait more except if you want an Early Access game, but above the flaws and the problems it is a better strategy game than civ6, in my very minority opinion, and despite civ6 is a better game from far.

[Gut]

Originally posted by heime2003:

i cant buy all three so i have to choose whichever is the best strategy game overall

They are all good games.

Civ6 is more a civ game for childs. Old World is more a civ game for adult (like Civ4). Humankind will be great in one expansion or two.

[Dorok]

Originally posted by Gut:

Originally posted by heime2003:

i cant buy all three so i have to choose whichever is the best strategy game overall

They are all good games.

Civ6 is more a civ game for childs.

Childish insulting, you are the child here.

[Halifax789]

civ 6 is very very good, once you move the difficulty up to King I believe. You can expect the lose quite a bit. Sort of the simple to learn, hard to master.

Humankind has a novel set of rules/ mechanics, and is the most beautiful, and is good up to late midgame. but it then stalls and has either boring, or impossible runaway effects around the time you get ironclads, then becomes frustrating or boring. its too bad, because it really is a beautiful game and I like the unique mechanics.

havnt played old world yet that game is like brand new

[Halifax789]

FYI civ 5 is fantastic as well, and has a somewhat different set of mechanics than civ6 - you can think of them as two separate, very good, games. civ 5 is a little more adult, civ 6 is a little more cartoony which I dont like, but I love the late game of civ 6.

in Civ 6, Once sea levels rise, it completely changes the layout of the map and heavily crushes the leader so makes a sort of 'reset' a little bit that makes the late game very interesting.
FYI to do this you will need to get the civ 6 mod that makes 75% of threatened hexes flood. Of course in real life 99% of threatened areas will flood, but the 50 or 75% setting makes a more interesting game-ist set up where you might gamble on not building dikes (which slow you down by at least 10-15 turns)

[Dorok]

A style looking more realist isn't more adult, moreover it's still very far from reality which is still a problem because sooner or later it becomes dated civ5 looks so ugly nowadays, civ6 will never have this problem because it has enough style.

Cartoons for kids, movies for adults, nope it's not working like that. Chess is cartoony and for adults.

[DrWonderbaum]

I don't know that this game is good yet but I have to disagree with everyone here saying that Civ 6 is a good game. It's terribly balanced since the DLCs, it reintroduced city spamming which is just mindless and boring and if you like any kind of worthwhile combat you can forget about it, the AI has no idea how to use their units and the developers are totally comfortable with that. Some will argue that AI combat is never "good" in 4X games and while they do have a point, Civ 6 brings this to a new level. Unless the AI has an outright tech advantage you will never lose. They will never employ a strategy. Forget about a smart one, they will not employ an approach. They will just sort of smear their units in various directions until you've destroyed them. There should be outrage about this and thus, fixes but unfortunately, too many people are more interested in shouting down the criticisms, explaining why it needs to continue to be bad.

You may want to hold off on Humankind. I've heard Old World is great but I haven't played it....the era setting doesn't really interest me...you might try Stellaris if you're willing to do a space 4x game. I've heard Civ5 AI was better but I do distinctly remember combat being equally terrible. 1 unit per tile doesn't work in it's current implementation. You could try Civ 4, despite stacks of doom I do remember the AI being worthy opponents at higher difficulty but that was a long time ago and I was a lot younger.

[chaney]

I'd agree with those suggesting Civ 5. It has higher ratings and a lower cost than Civ 6.
In my opinion it is a better game as well.

[Dorok]

Civ6 didn't reintroduce city spamming because Civ5 doesn't forbid city spamming, that's even a serious hole in the design, making a lot stronger focus on happiness first.

But anyway a civ like game forbidden big empires, so city spamming, nope it won't happen, or with mechanics like HK tries and serious limit on amount of something named town (towns are more countries in HK).

For the AI it's just implementation, the more rules the more AI, the more mechanic the more AI.

[Dorok]

Originally posted by chaney:

I'd agree with those suggesting Civ 5. It has higher ratings and a lower cost than Civ 6.
In my opinion it is a better game as well.

That's vague words, the problem with such comment is you base your affirmation on what? Graphics and AI? It's not saying better mechanics that civ7 should implement over.

Everything is better in civ6 compared to civ5:
- city building,
- city states and AI usage of city states,
- barbarians with barbarians clans and they broke nothing in case city states spam because it's a competitive game moreover at higher difficulties city states and AIs fight them much better,
- combats with less traffic jam thanks to more roads build sooner and multiple small improvements,
- government and civic system,
- stability versus happiness, but civ needs get back to a dual system,
- double research versus single research,
- builders versus workers,
- units maintenance,
- pollution,
- natural disasters
- diplomacy and trades,
- UI is far superior in civ6,
- more and more.

This let very few to civ5, "better" (ugly) civ5 graphics, better AI which is false at least without mods and all DLC and final version of both games, achievements harassment but it can be widely ignored in SP that said ok civ7 should not reproduce this crap or make it a fully good player option, ability to make mods not compatible with anything else than windows. That's why you find civ5 better? Sigh.

[The Doctor]

Originally posted by heime2003:

i cant buy all three so i have to choose whichever is the best strategy game overall

For some, of course Humankind will be better than both. You're far more likely to find folks who think that way when posing the question here (and yes, I have read most of the responses here so I'm aware of the irony there).

It's simply an okay game at this point. IMO, it's marginally better than Civ VI but not by much and there are things that Civ VI does better, again IMO.

But Old World? No, it's not even close. But again, that's just my opinion, man. I'd imagine some here would H-A-T-E it woth a passion and besides, its focus is solely on the ancient era and not from the Neolithic to the modern era. If you enjoy the ancient era, you'd probably have a blast with OW.

It's what you think that matters. I can't tell you which will be better for you so I'd recommend reading user reviews for all three games instead to help you decide.

[chaney]

Originally posted by Dorok:

Originally posted by chaney:

I'd agree with those suggesting Civ 5. It has higher ratings and a lower cost than Civ 6.
In my opinion it is a better game as well.

That's vague words, the problem with such comment is you base your affirmation on what?
...
That's why you find civ5 better? Sigh.

OP posed a vague question. My basis is as stated: ratings and cost, plus the admittedly irrelevant personal preference.

Some detail then:
Civ V: 96% positive, price has dropped to about half of original.
Civ VI: 83% positive, price is still about nominal full original.
HK: 67% positive, price is original.

The Civ titles each have over 100,000 reviews so those numbers are an imperfect but meaningful representation of broad community opinion. 83% is a common level for a game, 96% is pretty rarefied.

If the OP is struggling with which ONE to choose, they surely must invest a bit of their time looking at play, reviews, sales pitches, whatever because me just saying "I like Civ V in Strategic View mode because it provides denser information without distraction" is very unlikely to be the least bit relevant to them but spending a little time to see what works or doesn't fit for them is super relevant. I feel there is plenty out there already to cover why anyone might prefer either, but the local (in this thread) conversation deserved another bolstering in the form of support for Civ V. Given the OP appears to be quite price sensitive, it may suit them very well.

[Dorok]

Firstly you answer a question OP doesn't have, not a right behavior, it smells more the crusader to roleplay a commercial trying sell the old civ5 to everybody.

OP quoted civ6, eventually for reasons, harass him to make him change his decision is weird, you remind me some boredom commercial that want make me believe they know better than me what I need and want, lol, sure take me for an idiot, facepalm, I mean commercial in general.

Secondly you base your post on vague general information easy to find by OP, zero link with any of your opinion. It's like if you would ask your followers what you think, sorry but that's vain and weird.

Civ 5 strategic mode is saying a lot on civ5 major problem of clarity, I had thrown it to trash because of that (gave up and tried again much later past release).

The civ5 strategic view is awfully ugly, worse than civ1 at least Mac version, that's ridiculous. Alas it spread and for example Humankind is severely hurt by this awful tendency, at least it's less sensible with units because of stacks mainly, and with efforts for bigger units for combats.

And to come back to civ5, the strategic view, your only argument, it's saying a lot for players in general, even if it's fine that it's your point of view.

Again and again, I quote civ5 harassers have very few arguments, one more case.