civ 6 vs old world vs humankind

[heime2003]

which one reigns supreme?

[MrSogard]

Please do not feed the trolls. This is designed to spark controversy, disagreement and fighting on the forums.

If you have an opinion, go ahead and state it; but do not set land mines to create chaos for your pleasure. Not permitted by the forum's rules.

[SLG]

Civ 6

If you really want to know, you need to watch videos on Youtube about each game.

[grognardgary]

Apples and oranges. Different games different mechanics one person's preference may be different than another's. That makes neither of them wrong it just different.

[Aachen]

Both are enjoyable.

Humankind seems the simpler, more direct, but shallower, of the two.

[🅺🅴🆁🅸🆅🅴🅽]

Originally posted by Aachen:

Humankind seems the simpler, more direct, but shallower, of the two.

Looking at the negative reviews is it really that bad? Visually it looks really good to me.

[Aachen]

I’m still engaged with it (though it’s been a few weeks since my last session). I also ought note I have not yet picked up the expansion, so the effect of its mechanics is beyond me.

Regardless, many of the cultures simply don’t seem worth the choice, so I find myself sticking with those who avail me well. May simply be a personal peccadillo, I suppose.

IDK what you’re reading in reviews, though.

[jonnin]

Originally posted by Keriven:

Originally posted by Aachen:

Humankind seems the simpler, more direct, but shallower, of the two.

Looking at the negative reviews is it really that bad? Visually it looks really good to me.

Its pretty, yes.
it has things that civ has badly needed and refuses to fix, like stacks of mixed units and coordination. It also is more of a civ game than civ, as you need to focus on building an actual civilization with investment in all aspects of the game to get more points (the real winning condition) than concentration on a single thing and near ignoring the rest (eg science or culture or religion) to win in a way that may be realistic (there are still cultures still in the bronze age active today) but isn't terribly successful in terms of world domination or global presence. The handling of neutral city states seems a little better, but that is preference maybe. HK lets you pick from tons of opponents without mods, so you can pick aggressive or passive or whatever mix and challenge yourself with some of the really beefed up ones.

Where humankind struggles is the rush to get the culture you want each era ... some eras only have 1 choice you want, and if its gone, you play on disgruntled or restart. Its religion and culture are passive things that bleed over to opponent areas in a weird way. Like all these games it tends to degenerate into either a total war game (domination victory of sorts) or a passive click fest (next turn, next turn, next turn.... oh, I won..).

After its all said and done, my opinion only... humankind is much more fun if you like to make war and about equal if you want to do a science type victory. Civ has the better religion, culture, and pacifist playstyle approaches. Both have equally bad diplomatic options, but HK is a little better as the opponents can be tailored to be less insane (or moreso, if you like that).

[🅺🅴🆁🅸🆅🅴🅽]

Originally posted by Aachen:

I’m still engaged with it (though it’s been a few weeks since my last session). I also ought note I have not yet picked up the expansion, so the effect of its mechanics is beyond me.

Regardless, many of the cultures simply don’t seem worth the choice, so I find myself sticking with those who avail me well. May simply be a personal peccadillo, I suppose.

IDK what you’re reading in reviews, though.

Ohh nothing really concrete just saw that the score is mixed and I tend skip games with predominantly mixed or negative reviews.

Will copy/paste couple of the last I checked-

"Simultaneous turns make you feel bullied by AI reflexes and alpha strike mechanics

1) Sieges:
If you start besieging an AI city, the AI immediately initiates combat and gets the alpha strike.
If the AI starts besieging your city, it immediately initiates the assault and gets the alpha strike.

2) Field combat:
Even if you see it coming, in the beginning of the next turn, the game will show you useless pop-ups to dig through while the AI initiates combat and gets the alpha strike. This is especially ridiculous with hit-and-run units like the Hunnic horde.

Mechanics like pollution, faith, and civics aren't integrated into the game loop. They don't really matter, though you can choose to care about them for minmaxing. You can play a winning game without missing any of them"

[🅺🅴🆁🅸🆅🅴🅽]

Originally posted by jonnin:

Originally posted by Keriven:

Looking at the negative reviews is it really that bad? Visually it looks really good to me.

After its all said and done, my opinion only... humankind is much more fun if you like to make war and about equal if you want to do a science type victory. Civ has the better religion, culture, and pacifist playstyle approaches. Both have equally bad diplomatic options, but HK is a little better as the opponents can be tailored to be less insane (or moreso, if you like that).

Tbh these two are exactly my fav victories. I hate diplo cos its basically like a dice and some times you even win without even going for it. Well, I could give it a try given it's on sale right now)

[jonnin]

Mechanics like pollution, faith, and civics aren't integrated into the game loop. They don't really matter, though you can choose to care about them for minmaxing. You can play a winning game without missing any of them"

this is mostly rubbish.
faith unlocks buffs for your 'civ', civics unlock major buffs for your civ ... things like extra strong military units give you a big advantage. pollution is of low importance and felt like a placeholder for an idea that isn't done yet. This comment is on par with saying that in civ 6 you can play any victory condition and any style with any civs and their flavor buffs don't matter. This is a little true, esp on easy difficulty, but its not true enough to make such a bold statement for people trying to win on harder modes or to win efficiently. So yes, you can do a religious victory with columbia or aztec or try to go butt-kicking with peter, but its just not as effective or efficient, even from a non max-min standpoint. Same for HK stuff... these things matter, at least some of them do -- they help you get the highest possible score, they help you win, they make it more efficient. No one of them is all that, but you take a slice of 10 civics and 4 religious buffs vs an unmodified civ, and its a big gap.

[fsupple1]

I prefer Civ6 over Humankind primarily for one reason. I can play hot seat mode in Civ6 and I cannot in Humankind. I enjoy playing against my family member(s) once each week in hot seat mode. Have not spent much time with Humankind to date other than going through tutorials over and over with very few hours of actual play. Would really get into Humankind right away if it had a hot seat mode.

[Templeshot]

Humankind with all DLCs has some interesting diplomatic options that CIV doesn't have, like forcing decisions with leverage. Trading requires less-micromanagement, you buy shared access to a resource and that's it. Being able to create cities with regular units instead of micromanaging an additional unit type (settlers) is also a very welcome change, not to mention the ability to build megacities through merging. IMO there are quite a few things Humankind does better than CIV. Also, AI actually builds anti-air and nukes feel actually destructive (you can wipe cities off the map lol).

However, simultaneous turns are indeed a bad mechanic because you can never react as quickly as AI and end up having to quick save and quick load ALL THE TIME (extremely annoying), no idea what Humankind devs were thinking. A lot of essential diplomatic stuff from CIV is missing missing, e.g. ability to invite someone to join a war (staging proxy wars is one of the most fun CIV activities IMO). And the war score system is an annoying gimmick more often than not.

[pete0714]

Civ 5, of course.

[Aachen]

Originally posted by pete0714:

Civ 5, of course.

Ah the classic response, “yellow,” in response to the question “shall I choose ‘blue’ or ‘red?’”

[🅺🅴🆁🅸🆅🅴🅽]

Tbh Old World looks pretty much like Civ 5 visually so..:) I mean the game was great but the graphics is so outdated that it's a tedious thing to look at it for hours to say the least lol