Civ 7 vs Civ 6

[Omega Sirius]

What's the difference? What will be the same?
I want to know before buying.

[Martin]

Pfft.. Civ 6.

Hmm.. Graphics for children.
Generally a nice interface.
Religion can be actually useful.
Poor combat mechanics. No real use for generals. Units are spread all over.
Trade units make roads.
Roads are useless.
Railroads are useful.
Congress is just a nerf/buff mechanic, diplomacy is kinda useless, city states can be levied and very powerful.
Storms are really annoying. Esp as they are grossly bugged and keep spamming you with the exact same effect repeatedly. Get a flood, fix everything, get another flood.. Build a Dam, never get another flood.
Ai Cheats outrageously. Discover a goodie hut, every other civ nearby zeros in on it, even though they cannot possibly see it. Ai will also ignore some huts, will walk right past them because they know what is offered and it isn't needed. Ai also moves it's units under the shroud, knowing you cannot see them approach, it knows exactly where all of your units are and will attack when they get a certain distance out of range. It will also build units to counter yours even though it has never seen them. ie spearmen v horses etc.
Game can get abit boring after industrial age, all you really tend to do is click end turn.

Civ 7 Looks nicer. Units are still abit bland imo. Ai looks abit better, but then the game is smaller, cpu cycles used in 6 aren't present in 7, obviously the more cpu power available makes for a better ai overall. No real religion, many of the advantages in 6 removed but there are also some nice advantages added in 7 not in 6. 7 has better general combat mechanics, like flanking bonus, ships able to raid and attack land units and towns etc.

I'm actually playing Civ 6 right now.

[Ghiron]

Quite a lot. Too much to explain in a forum post. I'll give you five big changes (there are many more):

1. You don't play the same civ from start to finish. Each age you select a new civ to 'evolve' into (there are 3 ages)
2. Leaders are totally separate from the civ you pick. You can be Benjamin Franklin leading the Spanish Empire, for example
3. No builders, you improve a tile automatically when your city's population grows.
4. Specialty districts are gone. You now choose to construct buildings in a generic "Urban" district instead (example, you can build a bank and library in the same district).
5. Barbarians and city states are sort of combined into one entity. Somewhat similar to how Barbarian Clans mode worked in civ 6. There are neutral "villages" that start off hostile that you can attack or befriend. Befriending them costs resources but then they basically become like a city state.

[Omega Sirius]

Originally posted by Martin:

Pfft.. Civ 6.

Hmm.. Graphics for children.
Generally a nice interface.
Religion can be actually useful.
Poor combat mechanics. No real use for generals. Units are spread all over.
Trade units make roads.
Roads are useless.
Railroads are useful.
Congress is just a nerf/buff mechanic, diplomacy is kinda useless, city states can be levied and very powerful.
Storms are really annoying. Esp as they are grossly bugged and keep spamming you with the exact same effect repeatedly. Get a flood, fix everything, get another flood.. Build a Dam, never get another flood.
Ai Cheats outrageously. Discover a goodie hut, every other civ nearby zeros in on it, even though they cannot possibly see it. Ai will also ignore some huts, will walk right past them because they know what is offered and it isn't needed. Ai also moves it's units under the shroud, knowing you cannot see them approach, it knows exactly where all of your units are and will attack when they get a certain distance out of range. It will also build units to counter yours even though it has never seen them. ie spearmen v horses etc.
Game can get abit boring after industrial age, all you really tend to do is click end turn.

Civ 7 Looks nicer. Units are still abit bland imo. Ai looks abit better, but then the game is smaller, cpu cycles used in 6 aren't present in 7, obviously the more cpu power available makes for a better ai overall. No real religion, many of the advantages in 6 removed but there are also some nice advantages added in 7 not in 6. 7 has better general combat mechanics, like flanking bonus, ships able to raid and attack land units and towns etc.

They should add stacking for units. Unit stacking would make it tons better.

[Lëgënd]

If you want a true assessment, watch the dev diaries, and decide if you agree with the changes. It's very different than 6, but in my opinion in a very good way. This is definitely one of the more polarizing releases of civ recently as people are either very excited about it, or very against it with not much middle ground.

As far as the "major" differences: no having to place districts in one specific spot for min/max purposes, no builders, units don't get xp just commanders who also make movement of units much easier. There are more but those are the major ones.

[Martin]

Yeh I was kinda hoping for better armies after Civ 5 removed stacks, but then stacks of doom were breaking peoples games, the lag they generated would kick people off the net due to memory being overcome etc. Civ 4 was an amazing game to look at, all the units nicely detailed, but stacking was a bad idea, clearly they've made improvements in 7 to allow stacking to work again.

[Omega Sirius]

Originally posted by Martin:

Yeh I was kinda hoping for better armies after Civ 5 removed stacks, but then stacks of doom when breaking peoples games, the lag they generated would kick people off the net due to memory being overcome etc. Civ 4 was an amazing game to look at, all the units nicely detailed, but stacking was a bad idea, clearly they've made improvements in 7 to allow stacking to work again.

Civilization Revolution had unit stacking and it was never a problem.

[Omega Sirius]

Originally posted by Ghiron:

Quite a lot. Too much to explain in a forum post. I'll give you five big changes (there are many more):

1. You don't play the same civ from start to finish. Each age you select a new civ to 'evolve' into (there are 3 ages)
2. Leaders are totally separate from the civ you pick. You can be Benjamin Franklin leading the Spanish Empire, for example
3. No builders, you improve a tile automatically when your city's population grows.
4. Specialty districts are gone. You now choose to construct buildings in a generic "Urban" district instead (example, you can build a bank and library in the same district).
5. Barbarians and city states are sort of combined into one entity. Somewhat similar to how Barbarian Clans mode worked in civ 6. There are neutral "villages" that start off hostile that you can attack or befriend. Befriending them costs resources but then they basically become like a city state.

How is 1. even possible? So does your cities and units convert automatically to another civ? That doesn't make any sense lmao. What were they thinking?

[Oaks]

There is a wealth of material on the new game. Head over to the Civ 7 website or watch some Civ 7 developer Livestreams on YouTube to get a better idea as to what is new.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Omega Sirius:

Originally posted by Martin:

Yeh I was kinda hoping for better armies after Civ 5 removed stacks, but then stacks of doom when breaking peoples games, the lag they generated would kick people off the net due to memory being overcome etc. Civ 4 was an amazing game to look at, all the units nicely detailed, but stacking was a bad idea, clearly they've made improvements in 7 to allow stacking to work again.

Civilisation Revolution had unit stacking and it was never a problem.

Yeh but that was designed for console and whilst I liked playing it, it was hardly a civ game. Civ Rev was like a bare bone mobile game. It looks like it was made for 3yr olds imo. Probably why I liked it so much.

[Pownsya]

It's going to be a very different game. Probably the biggest differences are navigable rivers, Age transitions where you pick a new civ to continue your progress as with each of the three ages, and how settlements start out as towns with no production queu that you can upgrade to full cities as a choice.

You can go to the official website and see the gameplay guides for some info. Review embargos have ended we should be getting full reviews today I think it makes more sense to just look at those as they get published.

[Ramesses XII]

Originally posted by Omega Sirius:

Originally posted by Ghiron:

Quite a lot. Too much to explain in a forum post. I'll give you five big changes (there are many more):

1. You don't play the same civ from start to finish. Each age you select a new civ to 'evolve' into (there are 3 ages)
2. Leaders are totally separate from the civ you pick. You can be Benjamin Franklin leading the Spanish Empire, for example
3. No builders, you improve a tile automatically when your city's population grows.
4. Specialty districts are gone. You now choose to construct buildings in a generic "Urban" district instead (example, you can build a bank and library in the same district).
5. Barbarians and city states are sort of combined into one entity. Somewhat similar to how Barbarian Clans mode worked in civ 6. There are neutral "villages" that start off hostile that you can attack or befriend. Befriending them costs resources but then they basically become like a city state.

How is 1. even possible? So does your cities and units convert automatically to another civ? That doesn't make any sense lmao. What were they thinking?

Precisely it’s insane, horrendous for me, but, unfortunately, it’s true.

And yes, there will be an abrupt shake-up from one era to another, civs will lose their architectural and cultural heritage from one turn to another and cities, buildings, people and armies will acquire new looks...

And yes, we won’t be able to build a civilization that will stand the test of time, because when the new era arrives, that civ will be gone forever...

[Omega Sirius]

Originally posted by Ramesses XII:

Originally posted by Omega Sirius:

How is 1. even possible? So does your cities and units convert automatically to another civ? That doesn't make any sense lmao. What were they thinking?

Precisely it’s insane, horrendous for me, but, unfortunately, it’s true.

And yes, there will be an abrupt shake-up from one era to another, civs will lose their architectural and cultural heritage from one turn to another and cities, buildings, people and armies will acquire new looks...

And yes, we won’t be able to build a civilization that will stand the test of time, because when the new era arrives, that civ will be gone forever...

This alone really ♥♥♥♥♥ the game up. I do not think I will be getting this game. Guess I'll just stick with Civilization 6 for now.

[Richard I]

Originally posted by Omega Sirius:

Originally posted by Ramesses XII:

Precisely it’s insane, horrendous for me, but, unfortunately, it’s true.

And yes, there will be an abrupt shake-up from one era to another, civs will lose their architectural and cultural heritage from one turn to another and cities, buildings, people and armies will acquire new looks...

And yes, we won’t be able to build a civilization that will stand the test of time, because when the new era arrives, that civ will be gone forever...

This alone really ♥♥♥♥♥ the game up. I do not think I will be getting this game. Guess I'll just stick with Civilization 6 for now.

Hope a mod or something gets released that allows you to keep your original civilization

[jariel]

6 and 7 are totaly 2 different games, 6 is cute sandboxy allmost sim city style of game where you can send your vampire overlords to fight zombies, a bit silly but still enjoyable game, when 7 is a real strategy game where you have to use your brain and still dont allways get what you want, where you have to consider every decision and plan ahead.. Both have their uses and can be highly entertaining but to me as a life long turn based strategy game player 7 is a clear winner.

[cheetah1546]

Just wait on 7 to improve