Is Civ 5 or Civ 6 the better game and why? Bonus points if you can do it without mentioning the art style or other superficial nonsense like that.
>>1912278Artstyle aside, imo both are good games in their own way, but I played 5 way more than 6 because the mods available are better and have more variety. 6 limited some modding stuff pretty hard iirc
>>19122785 = tall6 = wideplay whichever you prefer
>>1912278Civ III is the better game.
District system makes 6 feel too cramped and I couldn't actually get the feeling I was actually building a civilization even once with 6.5 has those same problems if you're coming from the earlier games but still comparatively less so than 6, 6 basically doubles down on what I'd consider a downgrade for the series.
Like every civ game, you look at mod support. And 5 actually has interesting mods while civ 6 only has one mod worth playing, the better AI mod.
>>19122786 feels way too "gamey". You can replace all the pretty models and graphics with plain text and numbers and the game doesn't really change the feeling it evokes. All the systems and mechanics interact in an almost too coherent and straightforward way.5 is more immersive and almost esoteric. It makes you way more appreciative of the small details and the stories you make up along each playthrough.I know this makes no sense at all but I can't really describe it. In Civ 6 I always do the most optimal path and almost never deviate from that linearity. While in 5 I'm prone to making more emotional decisions and doing random strats even though I know they're suboptimal. It just makes me feel happy.>>1912308Also this.
the answer to 'which is the best civilization'the answer would always be 'eu3'though i do remember johan coming out to exclaim that civilization were a good game i wonder if he wasn't making a swedish attempt at reverse psychology
>>1912278your pic shows why civ 5 is the better game
>>1912278I would say that 6 is a much better and more strategically deep game but it really suffers from almost all of that strategy being based around city and district placements which makes the game's decision making very frontloaded. After the initial exploration period you'll spend 30 minutes on turn 20 deliberating on where you put your district pins for the most optimal setup and sometimes I just don't feel like doing that. Civ 5 is comparatively casual and winning on Deity is basically just following a flow chart but I do find it much more relaxing to play.
>>1912278They play slightly differently so it's going to come down to whatever you prefer in a civ game. For example, I loathe how civ6 feels railroaded with its >expand til feudalism, then spam builders and blitz to whichever victory you choose. With civ5 (modded) I feel like I can do whatever I want, choose whichever playstyle and not feel railroaded into any formulaic patterns at all. But that's just like my subjective opinion
>>1912500I remember when 5 first came out people complained about it feeling too much like a board game whereas 4 was more immersive or roleplay oriented.
>>1912500>6 feels way too "gamey".A game is "gamey"Really Anon?
>>1912278two words>global happiness
>>1912515Yeah, I can imagine people saying that. Shame it seems the trend continues.>>1912528If you know, you know.
>>1912278I genuinely can't think of a single mechanic that 6 doesn't do better than 5. The only reason to prefer 5 is the artstyle difference and while I do think 6's aesthetic is pretty ugly (at least for the leader models, the map itself looks nice) it's still far superior as an actual game.
>>1912537>If you know, you know.Yeah, I know you are bullshitting.
>>1912278Civ 4 and fuck youat least, it doesnt crash without reason>muh 1 unit per tile
>>1912607that other anon is talking about immersiongames are games but they can also be immersive. They, depending how they are designed, can feel "real"
>>1912626>Literally cannot stop talking about civ 4Shoo this isnt the thread for you
>>1912659THIS IS NOW A CIV 4 THREAD
>>1912278Civ V is okCiv VI is pure garbage
>>1912278I started with V and I prefer VI in every way. Mainly though I like that early wars are actually doable, I always felt like I had to wait until the renaissance to start my conquest in V, religion is just better, and amenities are far superior to the retarded happiness system.
>>1912278>Civ5>bad graphics>bad AI>removed slavery from the series>Civ6>uses feminist propaganda throughout>did you know sewers/urban development is related to a woman?>did you know computers are because of a woman who never did anything with computers?>we like Greta Thunberg but what if she was brown?>did you know this woman, who never ruled a country, ruled this country?>behind every miner is a wife who bore all the burdens of the deathly unpaid slavish trade of mining, and women are the only victims of war>future government types imply dystopia but nothing bad happens>china has the most leaders>... made the science victory type not the default victory type anyone can do>... made conquest the default victory type (versus AI)I'm surprised they didn't make every European leader a woman. I'm not surprised that most African countries are ones that didn't exist and are led by women. I'm not surprised that a lot of countries that didn't exist have been given fictional music. I'm not surprised England's music is intentionally bad and that most of the music just isn't very good.
I played 6 for a bit and it seemed unplayably broken to methe issue i encountered was that enemy civs just kind of did not produce much if any militairy units at all and I was basically steam rolling over everyone with little or in many cases literally no resistance because they have like 3 military units so you might say "turn the difficulty up", and thats obviously what I did, but all the difficulty seemed to do is give them 6 gorillion science a turn and make the game no fun allowed to the point where its impossible to do stuff like form a religion if you dont want to fall 2 ages behind the AI going back to civ v and having AIs that actually built standing armies even on lower difficulty and could at least put up a fight was amazing. seeing them even building big navies with aircraft carriers and shit. unf. and I dont think I could go back to vi ever for this specific reason aside from it just being unplayably broken, the style is notably worse obviously, and I felt like it really railroaded you into picking a victory type and only building towards that, and as a /lit/ autist I absolutely HATED how you had to compete for great writers/artists/musicians etc. and how limited your opportunity to produce them was. also the sound track in V blows VI out the water. it is insane how good the sound track for that game is one thing that was cool about it was the city walls mechanic I guess. that was pretty cool
>>1912278Both are shite and completely missing the memo what made 1-4 great and 2 timeless. That they've listened to Jon with 5 is weird already. That they've sticked to his idiotic ideas in 6 is beyond me
>>1912308Or just play Civ 5 with mods so both tall and wide are viable. Civ 6 mods will always be limited by the lack of dll access
>>1912626>>1912671Civ 4 is the best because Civ 4 has the best mod created for any game, ever.I'd give my left nut for a Civ 6 port of FFH2.
>>1912308going wide is king in all civ games just because of the sort of game it is. different civs try to limit your rate of expansion in different ways but there's never a civ where you'd rather have fewer cities than more
>>1912731>I'm not surprised that most African countries are ones that didn't exist and are led by women.Kongo, Mali, Nubia, and Ethiopia all absolutely exist and only one of them even has a female leader. The only one that arguably shouldn't be included is Zulu since they never really had a state, but they've also been in the series since the very first game so they're grandfathered in.
>>1912801wide is heavily punished in 5. 5 is the most punishing of wide, all other civs have much smaller 'punishes'.
>>1912278none of them are good. you will eventually realize the ai is just dumb as fuck even with the top hyped overhaul mods installed, they just suck and you'll either crank it up to deity or rage quit or just play the mp
>>1912837>none of them are good. you will eventually realize the ai is just dumb as fuck even with the top hyped overhaul mods installed, they just suck and you'll either crank it up to deity or rage quit or just play the mpthat's literally every strategy video game thou'
>>1912278Civ5 is trash, but it has VP so it's playable Civ6 is absolute trash So civ5 wins
>>1912840yeah thats the thing skirmish fags will never admit. they'd rather cope with vox populi lmao
>>1912500absolutely since 4 civ games are getting more and more abstract and less nuanced and more streamlined and they rely more on simplified mechanics and systems that prioritize gameplay balance and accessibility for normies over historical larping or a somewhat historically accurate pseudo simulation
>>1912799Civ 6's engine and gameplay simply will not accept a mod like that.
>>1912849>over historical larping or a somewhat historically accurate pseudo simulationThose literally never were part of the series at any point.But I agree on everything else.
>>1912278Civ 6 felt too passive, they nerfed wars way too hard, you NEED siege units to take over cities now (walls provide a special type of a health bar that takes far less damage from regular units) and when you conquer someone's capital every nearby civ gets the opportunity to immediately declare war on you with no diplomatic penalty until the capital is returned to its owner. The whole mechanic is far too skewed towards the defender.The outputs are also ridiculously small, you need to do some real minmaxing shit by mostly exploiting adjacency mechanics to get some good outputs, all the industrial district buildings need dozens and dozens of turns before they start paying back their own cost in production.
>>1913888You NEED siege units to take over cities in IV, too, unless you're stomping someone two tech eras behind you or it's the early game. Once you start hitting the late Classical/early Medieval, stacks get too big to take without catapults/trebuchets.
>>1912815>they never really had a stateYeah and neither did the Gauls so it's not like being a 'legitimate' state has ever been a hard requirement
>>1912731Every single point is just superficial nonsense and incel mumbo jumbo. Besides the bad AI which every game in the series suffers from to some degree.
>>1913888I'd have actually liked that coalition mechanic if the AI was even slightly a threat, the AI seems to barely if ever build an army in 6.
>>1913099they were, in my headcanon tho
>>1912815>Kongo>Nzinga Mbande>was a southwest African ruler who ruled as queen of the Ambundu Kingdoms of Ndongo located in present-day northern Angola.>Nzinga worked extensively to expand the slave trade>using the profits from slave trading to finance her wars>the Dutch, who purchased as many as 13,000 slaves per year from Nzinga's kingdom.>Nzingha was able to collect more tribute (in the form of slaves) which she in turn sold to the Dutch in exchange for firearms>her control over the slave trade increased the economic power of Matamba.>ordered that her male concubines wear women's clothing and address her as king.Yaaaaas Qweeeeen slaaaaaayShe's remembered by African noble women who pretend that there were successful female African leaders, because she fought off the two most fearsome military powers of Europe, the Portuguese and the Dutch, by gifting them slaves and waiting patiently as European powers fought amongst themselves.This is amplified by white media for two reasons, women are in charge right now, and African noble women are now embedded in the American and European media, like colonists if you will.>yes but what about Amanitore, y'know of NubiaThe fat black woman? Queen of a region better known as Southern Egypt?You know that she's worthless and should be kicked off the roster because not only has the only person in the room heard of Nubia because "That's where the black Egyptians are from", it was actually called the Kingdom of Kush, which is a cringe inducing black name, and furthermore when you read her article>AD is offensive, I hate European heritage, let's write years in CE>all historic material says she was a queen... not a queen regnant... and someone else was king... which means she ruled the country with the king, don't question this doublethink or you're sexist>because you see, the king, who was ruling, was never written down as ruling on his own, which means she ruled too>nothing else is known about the rulers of Kush
>>1914643Meds.
>>1914331>Gauls have always been in CivAnon?
>>1914644>no argumentWhy did you even bother giving me a you?
>>1914647You didn't say anything meaningful to begin with. What is the purpose of pointing out that the Kongolese queen participated in the slave trade? Am I supposed to be angry about that? Should I be upset that they included Phillip and Joao in the game too?
>>1914643Nobody fucking cares dude. Every playable ruler in Civ has done something horribly fucked up. Julius Caesar is in the game and he led a war against the Gauls which killed 3 million of them and led to the eventual death of their culture. Just admit your racist and move onto the actual problems with Civ 6 like the nerfed warfare.
>>1912799Too bad Kael stoppe working on it the moment he got hired by Stardocks.Also surprisingly similar parallels with Game of Thrones.
>>1912801As it should be. Expanding should always be better than choosing not to expand. Civ 5 with its national college managed to convince people that 'tall' should be a viable playstyle, and for that alone it is the worst civ (including BE)
>>1914643Cant wait to play as Harriette Tubman in civ7.
>>1912841civ 5 wins but VP makes it autistic trash
>>1912835but you can still build a fairly big empire in civ 5 and do fine.
>>1912278The CEO killer worked on Civ6 so that's the one I am playing
>>1915585why didnt he kill the ceo
>>1912278Outside of art style and things you label as 'superficial' (the way the game looks is massively important, that is far from superficial.)Ultimately it comes down to which mechanics you prefer. Do you like the policy trees of 5 or the micro-heavy, but vastly more dynamic policy cards of 6? Do you like having your armies be able to move through any terrain with their last movement point, which is more strategic, or do you want to wait an extra turn, which may be more fair?Do you like builders or workers more?Do you like having great people be specific, with their own requirements and bonuses unique to each great person, or would you rather generalize them as a mechanic, making them more strategic and versatile?Do you like a game built around playing tall (5) or wide (six)?Do you like the districts system of 6 or does it bug you?Ultimately both these games, especially with all dlc, are great. It comes down to a matter of preference for mechanics, tone, and art style.I love 5, that's my favorite.
>>1915584To play wide in civ 5 you need a start which can work for it, and also know how to manage global happiness.If you know what you're doing, and are able to do it (sometimes on the highest difficulties you can't get a religion, or the good happiness-providing religious bonuses, which makes early wide play a very bad idea.) you can play wide in civ 5.Though the standards of wide are different in 5, in 5 wide may be 6 or more cities, where that may be more tall in other civ games.
Vanilla civ is always practically unplayable because firaxis can't design a game whatsoever.5 has mods that tweak balance and make it playable while 6 has none of that, and therefore is unplayable.6 is a mixer of random systems that don't work well together.>>1915584Yes, if the luxury rng and religion rng are favorable. That is the problem,you are reliant on rng, while every other civ doesn't have that problem.
>>1912278Civ VI is for fags an tr00nsCiv V is for real men
>>1916607I didn't even use religion in the netherlands game
>>1916734Press next turn to doubt.
>>1916860you retarded? you know religion shows up on the city banner right?
>>1912278650 hours in civ 6, 30 hours in civ 5, i would only play civ 5 if i tried civ 6 and didn't like it, the artstyle is so depressingly ugly and the UI looks like browser game UI are major reasons for me, so i sort of feel it when people say they don't like civ 6 artstyle, because to me civ 5 looks unplayable.
>>1916989Gee, i wonder why i see a pantheon and religion icon in your cities? Must be imagining Nijmegen,Hague existing?
>>1920380pantheon is max +1 happiness per city and hague and nijmegen are clearly getting spread from an AIbut you just keep making up those excuses.
>>1920354Most people would say you just transposed the numbers
>>1921055no he's right.
>>1921075I was agreeing with his ultimate point.To me civ 6 echoes all his complaints about 5.
>>1913099>[r historical larping or a somewhat historically accurate pseudo simulation] literally never were part of the series at any point.I would argue that is great selling point of the serie. I know that's what attracted me to it in he first place.Also, if it wasn't for the historical theme, why make the game inspired by real history, instead of setting it in fantasy realm #8135187268541?
>>1921176Civilization has really always been a fate holy grail war tier 4x battle royale where the spirits of historical figures and nations are teleported to a fictional anachronistic battlefield and compete for dominance over millennia.
>>1912278the best part about CIV 6 is deleting it
>>1921030>but you just keep making up those excuses.You moved the goalposts from "no religion" to "okey, there is religion but it doesn't matter. And the religion is from the AI, trust me bro!".Pathetic. You probably also played that game on settler difficulty just to try to prove your point.
>>1915584I could never stomach the empty spaces, really immersion breaking. What a shit game
>>1915584>turn 400+>half the map unexploredcant believe this thread tried to seriously shill civ 5 over 6, what a shit game.
>>1921191nice autism. keep coping, loser.
>>1921733you can explore everything much earlier if you care, just requires more fiddling with scouts, horsemen and caravels>>1921266at least that's a complaint that is legit, it would be nice if border expansion was faster
>>1921753Ad hominem is the tool of the looser.
>>1921976megacope
Civ VI looks like ass
>>1912278Absolutely civ6Going back to civ5 was horrible6 has the best musical theme as well, truly evocative
>>1912528You wouldn't get it
I've got maybe 5k hours in Civ 6 and have recently decided to try Civ 5 winning a science and a culture game and here is my take aways for both>Civ 5Pros: easy to learn,end game doesn't drag onquicker game on averageif you want to just play civ this is a great game to do it inworkers never going away after a few builds is greati really like that some wonders require you to build a certain building in all your cities to be able to unlock itCons:lack of depthless options for tile upgrades where you basically have farms, mines and trading postsno real synergiesleaders bonuses too basicmost wonders not really being that strong makes most not worth thinking about>Civ 6Pros: heroes being a cool feature,multiple game modes,good amount of complexity,multiple systems that work together to bring out conventional and unconventional win conditions,city states being better,suzerain bonuses being a great addition,map and terrain having a lot of options for alteration based on your needs, happiness system being more thought out,more victory conditions,districting is incredible and can be really powerful making the placement of cities, wonders and buildings even more strategic and worthwhile,dark, normal, golden and heroic ages adding a fun twist to the game.map feels alive with disasters and flooding etcCons:end game is a repetitive bore of mindless spamming of units no matter what victory you are going for,constant need of using production and turns for workers,deity is just broken,enemy civs being able to place units on tiles which you want to go to essentially locking you out of your own citiesleaders lacking variety with multiple civilizations having the same leader multiple times,unbalanced leaders in regards to specializing in culture, faith, military, engineering and science with despite having over 60 leaders only a couple of them are science based, barbarians being stupidly overpowered and being able to spawn endless units,
>>1928930tl dr?
>>1928116Civ 5 too, the map looks like it's smeared in vaseline. The only good looking Civs are 2 and CivCol
