Compared to Civ 5 should I buy Civ 6?

[Squiggles]

Since it's on a good sale should I get this? I love Civ 5 and still play it from time to time and just wondering if this is worth buying. Is it a upgrade or downgrade? What features is missing or added from Civ 5?

[grognardgary]

It all depends on your view point I have both I spend more time with civV vox populi Than VI Other than the map and one upt there are no similarities.

[Squiggles]

Been looking at comparison vids and they all say that civ 6 is the more casual version of the series, seems like I will be sticking to civ 5 lol.

[Snokrep]

Been looking at comparison vids and they all say that civ 6 is the more casual version of the series, seems like I will be sticking to civ 5 lol.
Personally from my experience civ 6 is a lot more complex and strategic with how you play, as in you have different policys and government types with set slots of where to focus.
You also have districts making you need to put more thought into where your cities are compared to just having luxuries nearby.

[Lynn]

Originally posted by Squiggles:

Been looking at comparison vids and they all say that civ 6 is the more casual version of the series, seems like I will be sticking to civ 5 lol.

I have 800+ hours in Civ 5 Complete. I just started this one--about 11 or so hours into it--and that sounds...a little off to me. I'm no master at Civ5, but in my experience, it doesn't have close to the depth of this game. I decided to play (and start) with the whole shebang, and it is quite a learning curve. Plus, wow, so much new life breathed into the game. But you can stick with that if you want, it's your life.

[SkyG0d]

having the weather effects is pretty cool.

[Expedite]

No, Civ 5 is stable and doesnt have the continual crash issues that 6 has.

[bgw622]

Originally posted by Squiggles:

Since it's on a good sale should I get this? I love Civ 5 and still play it from time to time and just wondering if this is worth buying. Is it a upgrade or downgrade? What features is missing or added from Civ 5?

[SLG]

Originally posted by Expedite:

No, Civ 5 is stable and doesnt have the continual crash issues that 6 has.

But this is not everyone. I do not have crashes,

[DANTON[***]LULU]

Originally posted by Expedite:

No, Civ 5 is stable and doesnt have the continual crash issues that 6 has.

here's no crash too.

[grognardgary]

There are no crashes for the vast majority of players. that being said if your current computer has 8 or more cores you may have to change the multithread setting.

[Peter34]

There's a lot to like about Civ 6, and generally the games keep getting better, Civ 1, Civ 2, 3, 4, 5 and now 6.

However, there is one thing I dislike about Civ 6, and that is the extremely elaborate Adjacency thing with Districts. It requires a degree of long-term planning and spatial thinking that I just don't consider fun, and for this reason I've played relatively little Civ 6 since I purchased the game, maybe 2 years ago, although I have all the DLC. I also have a very strong tendency to create one 4000 BC save and then play and replay and replay it, starting over 100-250 turns in, trying to get ideal city placements. I don't think I've ever been more than 350-400 turns into the game, without starting over again and again.

Civ 5 or 4 (and I played a *lot* of Civ 4, and Civ 2 too) never encouraged that kind of obsessiveness. Instead, the play experience was much more fluid and intuitive. You just did the things you wanted, built the stuff you wanted. Now, when you want to build a thing, you first have to build the District that you can build that thing *IN*, and you have to have a hex that has a fairly good adjacency bonus for that particular District type, and you might not have that in the city you want to build the thing in, which means your desire to build the thing is effectively thwarted.

I've played a *lot* of Stellaris since it came out in 2016, and it's interesting to note that it got rid of its adjacency crap with the 2.2 update in late 2018, about 2.5 years after release.

Adjacency crap simply isn't fun!

[Evrach]

Originally posted by Peter34:

There's a lot to like about Civ 6, and generally the games keep getting better, Civ 1, Civ 2, 3, 4, 5 and now 6.

However, there is one thing I dislike about Civ 6, and that is the extremely elaborate Adjacency thing with Districts. It requires a degree of long-term planning and spatial thinking that I just don't consider fun, and for this reason I've played relatively little Civ 6 since I purchased the game, maybe 2 years ago, although I have all the DLC. I also have a very strong tendency to create one 4000 BC save and then play and replay and replay it, starting over 100-250 turns in, trying to get ideal city placements. I don't think I've ever been more than 350-400 turns into the game, without starting over again and again.

Civ 5 or 4 (and I played a *lot* of Civ 4, and Civ 2 too) never encouraged that kind of obsessiveness. Instead, the play experience was much more fluid and intuitive. You just did the things you wanted, built the stuff you wanted. Now, when you want to build a thing, you first have to build the District that you can build that thing *IN*, and you have to have a hex that has a fairly good adjacency bonus for that particular District type, and you might not have that in the city you want to build the thing in, which means your desire to build the thing is effectively thwarted.

I've played a *lot* of Stellaris since it came out in 2016, and it's interesting to note that it got rid of its adjacency crap with the 2.2 update in late 2018, about 2.5 years after release.

Adjacency crap simply isn't fun!

I love districts and adjacency features XD
That's one of the game mecanic I prefer in the game ^^;
Different people, different tastes I guess :D

[grognardgary]

Originally posted by Evrach:

Originally posted by Peter34:

There's a lot to like about Civ 6, and generally the games keep getting better, Civ 1, Civ 2, 3, 4, 5 and now 6.

However, there is one thing I dislike about Civ 6, and that is the extremely elaborate Adjacency thing with Districts. It requires a degree of long-term planning and spatial thinking that I just don't consider fun, and for this reason I've played relatively little Civ 6 since I purchased the game, maybe 2 years ago, although I have all the DLC. I also have a very strong tendency to create one 4000 BC save and then play and replay and replay it, starting over 100-250 turns in, trying to get ideal city placements. I don't think I've ever been more than 350-400 turns into the game, without starting over again and again.

Civ 5 or 4 (and I played a *lot* of Civ 4, and Civ 2 too) never encouraged that kind of obsessiveness. Instead, the play experience was much more fluid and intuitive. You just did the things you wanted, built the stuff you wanted. Now, when you want to build a thing, you first have to build the District that you can build that thing *IN*, and you have to have a hex that has a fairly good adjacency bonus for that particular District type, and you might not have that in the city you want to build the thing in, which means your desire to build the thing is effectively thwarted.

I've played a *lot* of Stellaris since it came out in 2016, and it's interesting to note that it got rid of its adjacency crap with the 2.2 update in late 2018, about 2.5 years after release.

Adjacency crap simply isn't fun!

I love districts and adjacency features XD
That's one of the game mecanic I prefer in the game ^^;
Different people, different tastes I guess :D

Districts are okay but the notion that it takes longer to clear the ground than to build the buildings on it and that empty ground by it self provides any sort of bonus to anything strikes me as absurd.

[Dexter]

I preferred Civ 5 a lot more than Civ 6, that's just my opinion as a long time Civ player (been playing since Civ 3).

[Evrach]

Originally posted by grognardgary:

Originally posted by Evrach:

I love districts and adjacency features XD
That's one of the game mecanic I prefer in the game ^^;
Different people, different tastes I guess :D

Districts are okay but the notion that it takes longer to clear the ground than to build the buildings on it and that empty ground by it self provides any sort of bonus to anything strikes me as absurd.

More absurd than Theodore Roosevelt leading America from 4000BC to 2000AD ? XD
More absurd than a bowman taking the same hex than the pyramids ?
More absurd than a nuclear war in 1200AD ? ^^;
More absurd than a museum when you can put only 3 painting ? o_O
More absurd than a buddhist religion with crusades and mosquees ? >_>
Civilization games ares absurdity by essence. They always were.
If you look for an historical accuracy game, try the paradox games. Both Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis are very good games with mecanics and gameplay that emulates history at its best level.
I love Civiliation games, all 6, but clearly not for their realism. Civilization is gameplay above all.

Originally posted by Dexter:

I preferred Civ 5 a lot more than Civ 6, that's just my opinion as a long time Civ player (been playing since Civ 3).

I play since Civilization 1 on atari ST in 1992 ^^ and spent hundreds of hours on each (thousands for the 4) and I prefer a lot more Civ 6 than Civ 5. It's all a matter of tastes. And I really really liked Civ 5. But I find the 6 so more rich and complex... Still, I miss some of Civ 5 features. Like Venise "tall" gameplay. I hope to see it again in Civ 7.