You thought 6 was good? Play 5.

[Steve]

You don't even need the Vox Populi mod to adjust the AI if you don't want. Everything -- EVERYTHING -- about V is superior to VI in personal experience.

Better graphics? Check.
Better mechanics? Check.
Better gameplay? Check.
Better civ balance? Check.

How TF does that happen?! I mean, I can kinda get it on a mechanical level because God knows VII is going to be even worse in the gameplay department than even VI is, but how TF does V have better graphics and balance?!

Anyway, play 5, and I'd even recommend it at full price.

[Wormerine]

Played both. I did like launch of Civ6 far, far more than Civ5. Overall, I like a lot of ideas of Civ6.

But yeah, fully formed Civ5 just felt tighter to me than fully formed Civ6. I didn't love either of Civ6 expansions, and while they had interesting ideas, I didn't feel Civ6 came togeher as nicely as Civ5 did.

Also everyone knows Civ2 is the best Civ

[Steve]

Originally posted by Wormerine:

Played both. I did like launch of Civ6 far, far more than Civ5. Overall, I like a lot of ideas of Civ6.

But yeah, fully formed Civ5 just felt tighter to me than fully formed Civ6. I didn't love either of Civ6 expansions, and while they had interesting ideas, I didn't feel Civ6 came togeher as nicely as Civ5 did.

Also everyone knows Civ2 is the best Civ :praisesun:

I do love Civ 2: Test of Time. Aptly named installment.

[Copernicus]

In my view, VI just got better and better with each major rules release; but worse and worse with each new DLC and game mode.

Want a good VI experience? Go with the Gathering Storm ruleset, but switch off all the game modes and optional DLC. The AI is most capable when using the unmodified ruleset, and while admittedly weak in military matters, can otherwise provide a good game (especially at higher difficulty levels).

[Varanus]

Played both. Prefer 6.

[Evrach]

Played all the 6 and prefere 6 by far. How delusional can one be to think than V have better gameplay or mechanics

[Sstavix]

I am planning on giving V a go, now that I have all the achievements in VI. But if V doesn't have Elvis, then the last great Civ game was IV.

[Steve]

Originally posted by Evrach:

Played all the 6 and prefere 6 by far. How delusional can one be to think than V have better gameplay or mechanics

Not a matter of delusion, but one of preference, I wager. How many of the titles in the series have you played?

Serious question. I have a hypothesis that VI and VII are marketed at a newer entrant to the series.

[tulle040657]

Originally posted by Steve:

Originally posted by Evrach:

Played all the 6 and prefere 6 by far. How delusional can one be to think than V have better gameplay or mechanics

Not a matter of delusion, but one of preference, I wager. How many of the titles in the series have you played?

Serious question. I have a hypothesis that VI and VII are marketed at a newer entrant to the series.

I've played them all from 1 to 6. I like 6 the best. Mainly because of the districts. The biggest change in the series was when 5 went to hexes and 1 unit per tile. I believe the 6 handles the 1 unit per tile much better then 5.

Don't get me wrong 5 is a good game, I just like 6 better

[SlasH]

I like 6 better

[Steve]

Originally posted by tulle040657:

Originally posted by Steve:

Not a matter of delusion, but one of preference, I wager. How many of the titles in the series have you played?

Serious question. I have a hypothesis that VI and VII are marketed at a newer entrant to the series.

I've played them all from 1 to 6. I like 6 the best. Mainly because of the districts. The biggest change in the series was when 5 went to hexes and 1 unit per tile. I believe the 6 handles the 1 unit per tile much better then 5.

Don't get me wrong 5 is a good game, I just like 6 better

Fair, the Vox Populi mod adds a lot, but 6 just seems undercooked compared to 5 for me.

Like, take the city-states for example. 6 just kinda has the system as an afterthought -- most envoys wins control, adds a little bit of bonus but not much, and that's about it. 5's city-states seem a little more autonomous and living, esp. with offering the random quests. 6's city-states just give you the bonus envoy quest and that's it, you don't deal with them again unless you're whipping up a quick cheap army, or someone steals control from you.

[Sticky Wicket]

Civ IV is even better. Civ V was garbage,

[SlasH]

Originally posted by Sticky Wicket:

Civ IV is even better. Civ V was garbage,

That isn't the topic, I liked Civ II best.

[Evrach]

Originally posted by Steve:

Originally posted by Evrach:

Played all the 6 and prefere 6 by far. How delusional can one be to think than V have better gameplay or mechanics

Not a matter of delusion, but one of preference, I wager. How many of the titles in the series have you played?

Serious question. I have a hypothesis that VI and VII are marketed at a newer entrant to the series.

All of them.
I started on my father’s atari ST back in 1993... ^^;
I don’t really fit into the new entrant kind, sorry.

I enjoyed V in its time. It added so much in the formula and I spent thousands of hours on ot. Hexagons, 1 upt, city states... but VI really put all these concepts at their best. Everything is just the same but better. Kinda like V was a draft now. The game aged poorly compared to IV for exemple.

[grognardgary]

Originally posted by Copernicus:

In my view, VI just got better and better with each major rules release; but worse and worse with each new DLC and game mode.

Want a good VI experience? Go with the Gathering Storm ruleset, but switch off all the game modes and optional DLC. The AI is most capable when using the unmodified ruleset, and while admittedly weak in military matters, can otherwise provide a good game (especially at higher difficulty levels).

Yep.

[DESLAND]

Played both, 6 is much better, especially in terms of visuals, stylized graphics just fit so much, 5 looks cheap and old by now, 6 will look good decade later because of the style