Why Is Civ 5 Still More Popular Than Civ 6
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 06. 2024
- Civilization 6 vs Civilization 5. How do they compare and why are so many players still playing civ 5 while civ 6 has been out for years. We discuss the differences between civ 6 and civ 5 and which civilization game is superior.
00:00 Intro
01:41 Tone
06:00 Leaders
08:25 Civ Depth
12:30 Combat
16:30 Civics And Cultural Choices
23:16 AI
25:56 Community
27:32 So Which Game Is Better? - Hry
Civ 6 AI: “I have something I want you to do to avoid pissing me off, but I’m not gonna tell you what it is until you fuck up and piss me off”
That is not high on my list.
CIV 5 14,742.4 avg players
CIV 6 41,158.0 avg players
Your title of the video: Why Is Civ 5 Still More Popular Then Civ 6?
90% of CZcams nowadays seems to be clickbait titles. But I guess it's working since I clicked on this video because I had the same thought as you.
Dude is nothing but click bait, with the ability to speak so many words yet say so little for 8-16 minutes each day.
I view popularity as interchangeable with favorability
Its actually a good video.
Civ VI is available on a lot more platforms as well, that's even more players not yet covered by Steam numbers!
Diplomacy in civ 6 is like negotiating with a toddler. Civ 5 was top tier!
id agree with this tbh
"You must do as I say, or I will destroy you!"
"Hammurabi, would you like some olives and a nap?"
Always wondered actually why? Cuz the diplo ai in civ 6 is basically non existent
wait there was ever good diplomacy in civ? am i the only one that has bipolar npcs in every round?
I wish they had made agendas a feature for players too.
Basically every Civ has a civ agenda, then a leader has a leader agenda, and finally every player (PC or not) gets a random secret agenda (if we want it to be really fun, change it every era).
All agendas are requirements on other players, it may be relative to you, or absolute.
First every agenda has a strength. Basically if the agenda requirements are met in your continent, you get the basic strength (local power), if you are able to keep it worldwide you get a stronger version (world power).
Next every agenda has two levels, which increases the bonus. If all your allies and players you've recently done friendly actions with (generous trades, gifts, etc.) fulfill the requirement you get the first level. If all players you are not at war with fulfill the requirements, then you get the second bonus.
The idea is that the agendas represent ideals, culture, beliefs, etc. of a civilization, and ultimately when a player is aligned with the desires of their civilization and leader, they word better.
The benefit is that now agendas are an interesting tradeoff. Yes, you could get a powerful ally with Seondeok by focusing on science, but this will give her a bonus on science that would give her an edge on science victory against you. But by strategic use of spies and intrigue you could keep stealing tech from her and sabotaging her own progress to science victory to make up for it. Or maybe you aren't going for science victory, but want close allies for your own agenda, and the extra science frees your resources to focus on something else, like domination.
For being easier to pick, it sure is hellish to plan districts on Civ6, and after letting all your pins down for your perfect triple aqueduct factory setup, a horse appears in the middle out of nowhere destroying your entire plan
I really like the district system tbh
"Watch this. [Surprising but reasonable silence.] Now watch this. [Annoying logo noises.]"
lmao
This could've been entire video. But no, author had to dig deeper.
I loved 5's "Art Deco" theme way more than 6's "Age of Discovery" theme. It managed to make the granary icon look like an epic monument.
yeah, in every single icon they had a ray of sunshine, seemed like everything was going to be epic and you will start an actual empire
The loyalty mechanism is what keeps me playing Civ 6 rather that 5. It was really annoying in 5 where a rival Civ would settle a city randomly next to your Civ, you had to fill every space of land unless you wanted some random neighbor popping up. 6 adds a layer of risk and danger that a city to far from your capital can be flipped though loyalty, then this ties in with the Era scores, dark age can be disastrous. Great addition.
I love that each CIV game is different
I would hope so.
The main thing about civ 6 that I dislike, is the fact that for every victory type it's always optimal to spam more cities. Due to how they have implemented districts, having a big population gives diminished returns after like pop 10-12 or so. Combined with the removal of the extra tech cost from total cities, means that its always the best choice to spam settlers. After you just place the district that correlates with your preferred victory type and boom you win the game. After I realized that, it made the strategy of vanilla kind of boring.
This is why I like playing on smaller maps.
There's a shit ton and I mean a shit ton of mods to fix your problem. Try the wide and tall mod
@@Brandon-eb6gx Mods like that make the AI play worse, which is the last thing this game needs.
Yeah it seems like an extreme overcorrection to how poorly wide empires were done in Civ V with how hard happiness is to come by, you're practically forced to go tradition or only have tiny population cities in Civ V. To be fair to Civ VI having more cities should always be the optimal play going into a new game, as long as there is fertile land you should settle it, the costs of the city will always pay itself off in the long run. However, they should have kept the mechanics like increasing the total science and culture costs when you have more cities. More people means you need more science to educate and culture to influence them.
Then again having 11 ecstatic cities with 280 population before turn 200 is just broken.
In Civ IV you were more punished by quickly planting many cities, rising upkeep costs do really cut the research funding, so tech progress is getting slower. When population grows and tiles get worked, cottages become bigger etc. it all starts to pay off but it's still an early game investment.
Civ V was indeed more about playing tall, while CIv VI kinda went in the other direction, where planting more cities is preferable, especially for civs like Germany. Every settler and worker become more expensive to produce, and amenities are starting to be spread thin, but if you pick good spots with resources or got some entertainment then it shouldn't be an issue.
according to Steam DB, Civ 6 is more Popular than 5, since it has more active players.
its still impressive how long Civ 5 managed to stay alive though.
Yeah, it's just a clickbait title.
Back before Civ6 was released, everyone was clowning on Civ5 and saying Civ4 is better.
I distinctly remember this and being pissed that after the industrial era workers stopped "working" and the bug fix was hidden behind Gods and Kings.
Plot twist - Civ IV is still better than Civ V
@@ReclusiarchBraumBTthey fixed it??? Yeah that bug was so annoying I stopped playing.
Never had the worker bug?
@@AceyAce859 yeah, and I stopped playing after that because it became so annoying and distracted from the rest of the game
I love Civ 5 because of Venice. I can play in a unique way buy buying enemy cities instead of building my own. Finally all that trading is actually useful
Austria can do the same through "Diplomatic Marriage", their unique ability. Same thing though, you have to pay money to acquire city states.
As somebody that has played all civs, except 1, a lot. I can say that I found Civ 5 forcing the player to play tall to be inferior to Civ 4 in every way. With the expansions I really like 6 and I still play it.
I personally prefer it to spamming cities to win, but to each their own.
I think civ 6 looks good, personally like the more vibrant colors. I understand that the cartoony artstyle turns people off, but a decent unrealistic art style will look good in 10 years where a realistic looking game will probably look dated in 10 years.
thats a good point
That's one of the many reasons why TF2 is still alive and popular to this day
Civ 5 is so homely though
Not untrue, and Civ 6 didn't do it bad either, it's special and lively, but Civ5's realism and technology of the time (2010 was of course already a very advanced stage) brought the perfect type of it.
Looking at Augustus years and titles before compared to the one in Civ 5 is a whole other experience and impact for a person. Ramses, Washington and other leaders too.
@@infinitedonuts Atmosphere was also key for that
I still play Alpha Centauri, the best Sid Meier game :)
It really is. I'd love to see it updated with a hex mesh - one that actually wraps a globe and isn't a flat map - and AI that's actually good.
Civ feel like different flavors of skittles. Just depends what you’re feeling that day
Civ 6 is one of those games that I quickly grew attached to after civ 5 solely because of another game making me realize what I didn't like about it, happiness. For the unfortunate souls that played beyond earth the health system was iirc basically happiness in a fresh coat of paint. And I only remember this because 10 turns in my cities were unhealthy and I could do nothing. After that, going back to civ 5 was permanently soured from that and civ 6 became my favorite afterwards.
happiness is the worst mechanic conjured by man in any game.
The thing I like most about civ6 is the improved happiness system. It allows for a wider range of opportunities to do with your empire as you want. It definitely falls prey to meta play styles, which is certainly a negative aspect of civ6. But it also allows the player to have more fun throughout the game because they have more options. To me this characterizes the difference between civ5 and civ6, though civ6 is more flawed strategically, it is more versatile and for me personally more fun to play.
That and artillery having 3 range (ai sucks vs and with ranged units) is about all i can remember from Civ6
@@TheCivLifeRthis is why I will never play Civ 5 ever again
Come to the Civ IV side, we have local happiness and local health which are both actually manageable.
It’s good but I’m not good at it therefore it’s bad 😎
Love your candor. Well placed.
based
Coming from civ5 were I repeatedly got destroyed trying to beat diety and then playing deity on civ6 for the first time and winning easily made me think the game is too easy.
Yeah coming from Civ 5 deity difficulty, Civ 6 feels like a dip in the kiddie pool.
I do appreciate that the early game is less formulaic in 6 on higher difficulties, though. I got sick of tradition openers after a while in 5.
Me playing Civ 6 on my own:
Man this game is pretty complicated it'll take forever to learn all the nuances.
This guy:
Civ 6 is over simplistic baby trash.
lmao thats strategy games for you
I grew up on Civ 5, but stopped playing it for a few years and then came back to the genre with Civ 6. I sunk a few hundred hours into Civ 6 over the span of about a year, without playing Civ 5 at all. Then, I went back to Civ 5, and I was blown away!
I was always someone who didn't like Civ 6's cartoony tone. It feels like a board game, rather than a gritty "rise of civilization" simulator. On top of that, I don't like how they introduced multiple personalities for some of the leaders like Theodore Roosevelt and Cleopatra. I'd have much preferred the devs to add completely new leaders or new civs, instead of reusing old leaders. Adding Washington instead of a second Teddy, or Napoleon instead of a second Catherine, would have been much more enticing to me.
For a long time I thought that was the only thing Civ 5 did better than Civ 6, but then I went back and actually played Civ 5 again and realized how wrong I was. For starters, the AI was actually competent! They posed a serious challenge and were much more engaging to play with. The extra diplomatic flair that the AI has in Civ 5 also makes the experience much more dynamic and interesting. I felt that the combat was also better, and not just because there were actual armies on the field instead of just 3 mega-warriors.
I remember my first game back being extremely fun in the late game because it was so dramatic due to the ideologies! New friendships formed, new enemies formed, and a world war broke out! It was nothing like Civ 6, and it was a blast. The whole experience made me realize that I didn't truly appreciate how good Civ 5 was until I spent some time away playing what I didn't realize was an inferior game.
Civ6 is two leagues below 5.
Holy shit Andrew chicken plays CIV?
that said I prefer 6.
@@Thenarratorofsecrets Dang it, I've been exposed as a jacked and girthy CivLifeR subscriber! 💀
And yes, I was raised on the Civ franchise! I discovered Civ 2 on my mom's old computer when I was young and got addicted, then spent hundreds of hours in Civ 3, then skipped 4 and spent hundreds of hours on 5. Fun fact: Civ 5 is the reason I created a Steam account! Even funner fact: Civ 3 is 34 days older than me!
@@AndrewChicken
2 got me as well, specifically Test of time, it had a fantasy mode which was sweet. I skipped 3, but played about 1000 hrs on 4,
damn you're just a kid, i was pretty much an adult when 3 came out.
I’m new to the civ series I had the games on my steam library collecting dust, I really like the feel of Civ 3 for what you described a gritty rise of civilization and it won’t be pretty, I feel like older games get overlooked because ‘newer = better’ but Civ 3 is serious and it’s definitely not nostalgia.
Definitely agree with a lot of this. I replay civ 5 a lot more but there are a ton of things that I prefer in civ 6 ESPECIALLY the city planning thanks to the district mechanic. It does come with the curse of missing the small things like being able to build a damn canal when my city is ONE TILE away from sea when I play civ 5
Civ 5 is superior because mods are far more stable and you can use multiple playstyles either playing long or tall. Civ 6 on the other hand you just settle 10 cities and hope you win, also every Civ 6 multiplayer we have to disable diplomatic victory so nobody just cheeses the game
Looks like you are just bad.
There is no reason to "hope" to win. Also you can play easily with less than 10 cities or with way more, all depending on yourself and oyur plan for the game.
Diplomatic Victory in Multiplayer? Well, if you are to dumb to solve the problem ingame, than its your own fault the person wins it. There is actually no way to win multiplayer with diplomatic victoy, if your enemies dont let you do it.
Civ 6 has completly stable mods as well, you can play with like 40 and the game will still be completly fine. Youre talking shit dude.
I disagree to an extent about leader ability variety/depth as i do honestly feel having played 1000 hrs of civ 6 with about 500 being spent playing deity exclusively that there are plenty of leaders who completely change the way you play your game much to the same degree that those in civ 5 do occasionally even more I'd say. One thing about civ 6 leaders ESPECIALLY after the leader pass is that there's certainly a big amount of leader redundancy but tbf the game has tons of leaders! So there's room for some junk although it is a shame the way some of them were handled. Where i totally agree is tone, and it legit put me off of playing civ 6 until gathering storm came out and i decided to give it another chance. I'll also add that on top of the art i actually do personally find a tonal difference in the music which i enjoy more in civ 5. Also agree the AI in these games (particularly noticable in 6 as i believe it's mechanics are slightly more complicated especially in the way they interlink) need improvement bug time. It's a little embarrassing that we're 10 years from the launch of civ 5 and the AI has not made big improvements. Last thing I'll say is that given the way expansions changed both civ 5 and 6 drastically for the better i would say that unfortunately it's almost an expectation now that on release civ games are just not a fully fleshed out/finished product and waiting it out with the previous gen games while you wait for major expansions is sometimes the better strategy (at least for me personally).
I think Civ 6 is good for the average game player. More freedom, but not super accurate to history. If you want historical accuracy, Civ 5 is for you.
Overcomplicated mess without rhyme or reason.
If you want historical accuracy, you shouldn't be playing a Civ game to begin with. I find it laughable anyone would think Civ 5 is in any way more historical than other entries in the franchise. lmao
@@gianni.sacciloto Someone once said Civ is Smash bros for History and it's always stuck with me lol
i generally prefer paradox games for this reason, but civ 5 is still far more realistic than 6, and more realistic than 4. So his point still stands.
As someone new to Civilization, first game being 6, I really like the way 6 is played. I can’t speak on how Civ 5 was but watching the video it doesn’t look anymore fun or better than what Civ 6 is for me so I guess the changed that happened did invite newer players
Civ V 2024: Discovering farming
Civ VI 2024: Reaching another galaxy
Good point: both games were made for different target audiences thus are different games, even though belong to the same family.
Rather than 6 being a "better game" than 5 because of update-progression. I still play 5 maybe because I think it's better thought out and more mature as I am an older player. Old World is where I scratch the itch though, only wish OW was in future space.
you plan on playing manor lords?
Very good video came away with interesting perspective.
one thing I LOVE in civ 6 that isnt executed as well in civ 5 is that in the late game you can look at your empire with many of the wonders you havespent a lot of production building all thoose districts roads neigborhoods etc it looks awsome like a lively city but in civ its just a giant skyscraper city surrounded by mines and farms
6 is honestly the best game they've created.
Any thoughts about what you think we should see in Civ 7?
Might try Civ 5 now, (will tell you later if I thank you or hate you for it)
lmk
Give it a good run
Any update? Xd
I love slow games, even so much as to purposefully decrease the game pace sometimes, but the decision paralysis is always crippling. I know with time and practice I can reduce how long it takes for me to make each decision, and eventually beat diety, but I'm just not there yet. Civ 6 allowed me to cross that invisible hurdle much more easily as a new player such that I can actually enjoy the depth of certain mechanics, and the weight of my choices.
What if you think civ2 gold edition is the best civ?
Whats your current favorite civtype game?
I've played 1k hours of 5 and 500 hours of 6 before burning out on both of them. 5 has meatier decisions, and 6 has smaller but more frequent decisions (little optimizations with the card game for example). One major advantage 6 has is the unstacking of cities, with districts and wonders taking their own tiles. Some may find it tedious or goofy, but I can't go back to one tile cities after this and I hope they keep it for 7.
Districts are a puzzle game for micromanaging autists.
It unrealistic however. In reality, compared to the scale of the planet, a city really just covers one tile. So it is completely reasonable for a strategy game that features troop movements and placement, to make cities also one tile. Otherwise the scale would become off or they would have to make the maps very much bigger to compensate, for which there are not enough computing resources for this type of game.
This is a very good analysis of the differences between the two games tho
My biggest problem with civ 6 is that fog of war and terra incognita look identical. Civ 5 has more clear graphics, much easier on the eyes
I moved, changed jobs, and got married during civ 5 - after I had a pc that could run it. Basically missed it and spent more time in 6. I need to go back. Thanks!
I will never go back to civ five simply because of the district system in civ six.
I still like Civ 3 the best. Been with the series since one. For some reason I could never get into 5, but according to Steam I have played Civ 6 almost 2,000 hours. To me, Civ 6 is like a city builder but on an empire wide scale. It makes the early game scouting, with or without scouts, absolutely crucial. Those first hundred or so turns I think are the best in the whole series, but after that…
Civ V? I definitely prefer the art style, the look of the map, and the World Congress feature. That’s really about it though. To each his own, of course. I know lots of veterans who don’t consider 5 or 6 proper Civ games at all.
Civ 3's tone was so on point. Sadly it's age is starting to show quite a bit now.
Imo civ 4 + the realism invictus mod is still my favorite civ game, I only play the newer civ games because civ 4 doesn't work on linux
The newer civ games just feel more boardgame-ified then the previous entries imo
also civ 6 slandered my favorite historical ruler: Cyrus the Great (Kurus Shah #1) and portrayed him as a ruthless backstabber when he was one of the most humanist rulers of his day
What I hate most in Civ 6 is that I always feel like I have to play to min-max (like getting points for golden age or choosing district locations based purely on points) instead of playing according to my heart's desire.
6 was my first, but maybe I'll check this out. I'll miss Sean Bean.
3:23 what game ?
Great video
civ 5 mods are fantastic as well, playing with really small unit models, but increasing the number of models per squad, actually makes armies clashing look way better
Wait, Civ 5 gets an update next month?
I played a lot of Civ 5, and play Civ 6 in every expansion... the 2 thing that inovate in Civ 6 Distrits and Card Policies, kill the game, u always pick the meta thing for policies and destroy the map removing every tile resorce to put some distritcs.,
There’s a lot of aspects from Civ 6 that I feel is good, but just not finely tuned. Having eurekas/inspirations, energy consumption (and emissions), district limitations, loyalty pressures, etc. kinda forces you to explore and interact with the world more (and conquer them, occasionally) rather than in Civ V. The district adjacency and wonder requirements also make geography matter in the way that it didn’t in Civ V. But sometimes the numbers are not so balanced (like loyalty of captured cities and how people go through the tech & cultural tree too fast), and the AIs definitely suck in juggling these elements.
The wide bias in Civ VI, along with other mechanics, also makes the end-game (post-industrial) felt flat. There’s a lot more to do: more infrastructure to build, more support units to build, but they are meaningless because by the way the game is constructed, your win/loss is already locked by settling a lot of cities at the start. Wars to conquer them are notoriously hard, so there’s no more room to expand. And without the tensions from differing ideologies (ffs, sometimes the civs chose tier-1 governments in modern era?!), there is no “iron curtain” to demolish (despite the many cold-war cards). At this stage, you’re just going through the processions to make you win faster
thats really interesting I played civ 5 a lot, 1000+ hour plus. but i have not really touched it all after civ 6 came out. I did not like civ 6 at first the art style and new mecs felt bad(builder charges and loyalty), but after playing it really grew on me. alought this video is making me want to try civ5 agian.
civ6 has plenty of fun features and mechanics... and modders have put many of them into civ5
if civ 7 combines the strategic depth of 5, and the look of 6, I will be sold.
hope it improves performance, turn times should be shorter
I feel silly having to use an argument like "But with mods Civ 5 is better!" because LEKMOD overhauls a lot of the Civ 5 vanilla base game, but to me it makes it close to perfect. If you play your hand right you can play incredibly wide and not be forced to play tall.
What I hate about Civ 6 is how the terrain slows you down a lot more, the removal of the worker "mini game"/micro management, and the introduction of having to sim city districts and wonders. I really like being able to choose when and where to build roads and capturing workers from city states or other civs.
I agree with most of these points tbh. I started on civ 6, but have since found civ 5 more interesting to play. Havent went back to civ 6 ever since 😅
Most things lacking with Civ 5 can be fixed through vox populi, adding two more UB or UU along with not restricting the player through the happiness mechanic and making the ai competent instead of giving them ridiculous yield boosts and whatnot.
I like 5 but I like the district system and making you plan out wonders adds a lot of layers instead of just clicking build
I think something that goes under discussed when comparing Civ5 and 6 is how the district system allowed the devs to get lazy when designing new civs. In civ4/5 the civs were largely custom with the devs hand making each one to reflect its historical strengths/strategies. In civ6 the civs feel like they are made from a template with one district being given a new name and a slight buff to one resource or another but is otherwise the same as it’s generic counterpart available to everyone else.
The devs can say that it is technically unique, it has its own code, it’s own name, and does something slightly different. But from a player standpoint it never feels unique, it always feels very negligible.
I enjoy the the art style of Civ 6 .
I’d like to see in Civ 7 similar art style and mechanics but also more
I still play Pac Man
Old schoolers rock!
Civilization Revolution on Xbox was my intro to the series. That is Civ for me, but it seems to be an outlier from the rest of the series style.
from what I can tell the revolution series is looked on fondly
Don't know if they have removed or changed it with Civ 6 (only played it after release and never got any DLC) but at times opponents would kinda gang up and chain war on me. It would cause a happiness penalty which would not go away and lead to loss. It happened more often than not and made it kind of impossible for me to try and win via war. Because as soon as I was about to win a war and do my final push (or even if it was defensive and i'm fighting off the last volley) my happiness would take a huge hit. Then With it being low everyone else in the game would start going to war against me. I'd find myself with no economy, science or troops as any and every war I was in would leave me in this state within a matter of a few turns.
I felt punished for playing and eventually quit playing civ 6 completely.
I like both games. But i like the idea of building your cities with need of space on the map, unlike in Civ5 where you can build everything (including every wonder) in the (one) city. I like playing on real world maps with real starting city locations (civ6), but there is a problem with loyality pressure from other civs in higher difficulties. My wish is smarter AI so then they can remove the unfair advantages it gets from the start.
Brave new world intro is top 5 best intro to ANY video game.
And C5 has had time to mature out
How the hell do you say that a game of Civ VI takes only an hour and a half? Managing late game with 10+ cities is such a time sink.
Use auto que saves a lot of time lmao
@@MysticEdge97 An hour and a half for a game is still unrealistic
@@WallsTCAP for an average player no but there are ways to sped up games naturally buy using que and turning in auto movement and battles
Why dont you make more Civ V videos
6 simply bored me, I still put in over a hundred hours, but compared to the several thousand hours I have into 5.. well yeah, I just enjoy it more and challenge myself early to victory conditions and change up my leader and I can put in another thousand. Hopefully Civ 7 holds me for longer!
Civ 6's music is reason enough to buy the game.
I wonder why Humankind is so unpopular. It has such a great combat mechanics, for people who enjoy domination victory I think this game is way more fun purely because of this aspect. But the game becomes quite repetitive.. the more you play it. Not a lot of variance, I pick pretty much same races all the time (cuz others are quite useless for warmongering) and the AI is just weak.. even with mods. I think ideal Civ would have combat like in Humankind + policy thing from civ6 and the rest of the stuff is like civ5 more or less.
Are y'all not playing Civ 5 on marathon?
Civ 5 feels like an actual Civilization game, Civ 6 doesn't.
one situation where i did not like civ 6 is the wonder situation. AT first I kind of liked the idea but as i played the game I found it annoying. The rest of the game might be simple and allow for accessibility but the wonder needing to be on a specific spot with specific other buildings and geographic features nearby made city placement and construction extremely important for play. Meaning you either had to do tons of research and take notes or have played the game for hundreds of hours to get right. Thus, i found myself often avoiding wonders completely. Found it easier to take wonder cities from other players than to remember the conditions for making all of them. It was a very un fun system.
I'm hardly hardcore, but I think a big part of why I prefer Civ V is the aesthetic, Civ VI ends up looking so cluttered, particularly with the districts. Also, Civ V is closer in essence to the game that introduced me to these kinds of games, FreeCiv. The sole reason I play Civ VI is that it has Hungary
One thing I don't like about Civ VI is the districts system. I feel like it overcomplicates city and empire management. I could never get used to not being able to build any kind of building in a city and the fact that these districts *and* wonders force you to waste a tile that could be exploiting stuff.
The funny thing is this was sold as "letting your cities spread across the map" but what it really does is hamper how powerful any individual city can be.
Hopefully Civ 7 goes for better graphics, as opposed to the cartoony looks of Civ 6. And the AI needs to grow a brain as well.
AI is definitely something that needs to be fixed. Hopefully with this AI revolution thing going on civ vi will have great ai
@@TheCivLifeR Yeah reading it made me think about that too. It should be way different from the games of the late 2000s and 2010s, with that type of impact
Realistic leaders with the insane technology of the theoretic Civ7 could be a sight to behold. They need to be accurate though, like Civ5's all around precision on the leader side of presentation for their game (so leader and also what's around him and what he represents)
@@akivaabraham7739 They could've done it bad, to be fair. Instead they didn't.
But one time is enough.
@@TheCivLifeR don’t bet on that. AI only recently learned to beat chess and go. Civ games are galactically more complex and varied than those games.
The units animations in 5 are actually more realistic.
The happiness mechanic it's flawed no debate on that, but its flaw is that going into (-1~ -9) instilled a 75% Food penalty. Just way to harsh.
A balanced penalty would have been (Unhappiness * 12.5% = Food penalty (max 75% penalty).
I like both but I think that civ6 is 'easier' to get in (haven't played civ 5 in a while but if I remember it was quite 'hard' compared to civ6).
One thing that always was a pain in the ass in civ5 for me was happiness when you had it it was great but the moment you were in the red the game started getting annoying and wonders were op if I remember correctly, that's one thing that I like about civ6 that there are some great wonders like coliseum, mausoleum, eiffel tower but most of them are just ok/good-ish (or broken in some maps but well you can't balance all of them for every map).
Thing that i love about civ6 are city states and their bonuses and putting national parks everywhere when going for a culture victory (just feels good)
strange as civ 5 was my least favorite one
what i would like is an espionage system i dont immediately mod away, and larger maps that dont crash so much
The “extra hour” is very expensive for me in both games.
The early game is uncertain and exciting, but once I know I already won and need at least another 30m to 1h30m to finish I just quit.
Soviet Union fell in 1991, dude
I still like both games. They're both enjoyable for me.
I don’t care how dead civ 6 may be compared to civ 5…. Civ 6 to me is a master piece
I think it's a lot harder to just chill and play civ 6. There's a lot of management from district planning, worker improvements and the culture + tech tree planning especially when it comes to the boosts and stuff.
Whereas CIV5 is significantly easier, less punishing in the early game since taking cities is harder, and you can automate workers and just get through the turns quickly.
Overall, CIV 6 is way better imo but civ5 is the better chill experience.
It’s so sad because my civ 5 keep crashing since i change my pc so now i can’t play it
Ive been trying for a long time now to get into civ 6 and put a couple hundred ours into but i simple cant play the game for hours like i can with civ 5. Many things about civ 6 is good but i just cant "grind" it and enjoy it. I rarily finish a game of civ 6 no matter how well or bad its going.
Civ Revolution gang where you at?
I got a Switch soley for Civ 6.. Was announced for PSX literally the next day lol Yup I’m not really a pc guy.. Civ 4 & 5 are in what i could probably count on both hands of what i have on the platform.. I still think 4 is the best one.. But 5 & 6 are probably right behind
i love both games :D
CIV5 was easier to master for me since it has less mechanics, it doesnt feel overwhelming and have relevant graphics
CIV6 have amazing new stuff like natural disasters, districts (im still 50/50 on those),builders, more diverse tourism stuff and imo better Diplo victory. I absolutely hate the spyes in CIV6 though
As a mindless dirty proletarian, for me it’s simply the art on why I miss civ 5. And thank you for the proper definition of graphics!
Civ 6 is a good game and makes big improvements over civ 5, but i just hate the districts so much, having to build so many cities and districts drives me insane. Civ 5 is better just because for me.
I remember thinking this exactly when Civ 6 came out. I still loved Civ 4 more than 5, but Civ 6 makes Civ 5 look like Civ 4 😭
I don't want to have to tac and map out my city and minmax shit with building placement..... I dunno. Just never got into it.
With regards to mods, civ 6 is better. In 5 playing with mods disables achievements, where in six they don’t. There are so many great quality of life mods for 6 that I can use and still get my achievements, but they weren’t even a consideration in 5.
I played civ5 for 2 years while I’ve been playing civ 6 since day one despite its repetitive nature and the incompetency of deity ai. Like in one of my games, Gilgamesh had 2 biplanes by turn 120 and i was still able to conquer him with musket men… I don’t know but i find civ6 more fun
Yeah, this is where I stand. Five does some things better but overall I find Six more fun.
In Civ6 AI doesn't seem to use air units, only anti-air units. Heck in Civ6, AI was so dumb it wouldn't even upgrade his units as it goes through tech, so they would have bunch of starting spearman units run around in Atomic era.
In Civ5, AI would sometimes use bombers\jets, but they nerfed it because let's be honest, Deity AI would just obliterate PC because AI cheats in these games. They either get free units at will or get massive, like 90% discount, which is why AI is always able to spam religious units for example.
@@njmfff This is something Firaxis broke during the patch cycle. Before the expansion packs, the AI used planes fairly well. I remember abandoning a war because Arabia's planes were shredding me to pieces.
Im impressed. You said all the reasons why i hate civ VI xD. Great video
I disagree with your assessment that remaining Civ 5 players play diety, as going beyond Emperor makes the game actively less fun, since it forces you to conform to the meta way of advancing the tech tree and pretty much kills the players ability to do anything, but turtle and play passively until you reach the break even point.
----------
Man how to blow a like into a dislike in the last 2 minutes of a video.
You can play tall. Which is more chill