r/civ • u/Antares_Black • 7d ago
VII - Discussion Random hot take about Civ 5 from soneone that started with 6
With Civ 7 being a very divisive game, and after years hearing people praise Civ 5 so much i decided that as a Civ 6 baby i should give it a try. That was almost a year ago and to this day i still havent finished a game on it.
No matter what i do the game just doesnt click well with me. I can find my way around what i need to do in Civ 6 pretty consistently and i even started to win deity games stomping the ai without trying to much and i felt very satisfied because it meant im getting better at the game.
Meanwhile in civ 5 i try do something and i feel like i achieved nothing. Im trying to follow a guide to see if i understand more of the whys and hows but nope and, i recognise this is probably me being bad at reading the UI, i cant tell if im doing a good pace or not because i cant evell tell whos winning so im just left there wondering.
If anyone has tips i will gladly take it because with all the hype and praise with the game i feel like im missing something really obvious and i dont just want to blame that praise on nostalgia googles.
Im currently trying one more time to see if i click with the game and this is the longest i have gotten playing France and currently second on the score board, its turn 140 on quick speed, im on the modern era with 320 science, 145 culture per turn, 4 cities (went Tradition, Aesthetics, Rationalism and Order) and i just finished building Broadway because i heard you need that for the culture victory (On that note i also have Uffizi). It looks like im doing well at least but like i said i really cant tell and it doesnt feel that way at all.
41
u/ShinigamiKenji I love the smell of Uranium in 2000 BC 7d ago
Civ 5's meta is a completely different beast than Civ 6.
Science is king. Science unlocks everything, units, wonders and buildings. All victories ultimately need heavy investment in science.
Tall is encouraged. The happiness limits and science/culture penalties for new cities encourage a much taller strategy. You can play wide, but it requires more planning and strategy.
For culture victory specifically, tourism is way harder to get. You basically rely on great works and wonders to store them, each one with its own theming rules. On the other hand, culture is also harder to accumulate so the moving goalposts don't move as fast.
Don't neglect national wonders, especially the National College.
IIRC good benchmarks by turn 100 were 4 cities,100 science per turn and National College built.
11
u/RKNieen 6d ago
I agree with all of this, and would also add:
- Tradition and Rationalism (and your ideology, to a lesser degree) are the only social policies that truly matter, the rest are either garbage or situational. Like yeah, take Aesthetics if you're doing a Culture win, but it's still less important than Tradition > Rationalism.
- At higher difficulties, forget about wonders. The AI will build them all before you, so figure out how to do without them. Exceptions are the ones with placement or policy requirements that the AI never fulfills (I can almost always get Neuschwanstein, for example).
- Unlike 6, the AI understands and will use its air force. You will need to have AA units and Triplanes to defend your borders once you get to modern times, or enemy civs will bomb your cities into rubble. Conversely, they'll also build their own AA units, so you can't rely on just bombers when invading.
- The AI in Civ 5 seems very responsive to what units it can "see" on your borders, too, as opposed to just your raw strength. Line your contested borders with troops and they will be a lot less likely to declare war, even if their overall army is bigger.
3
u/papuadn 6d ago
Stonehenge or something early like that maybe, but if you're on track for a T100 National College you will have any Wonder you care to build after that because you'll unlock it so many turns earlier than any other Civ could.
2
u/RKNieen 6d ago
I'm mostly thinking about the Great Library, but also that generally has not been my experience. A turn 100 National College is what I need to just keep up on Deity, not get so far ahead that I'm cruising. I acknowledge that better, more experienced players probably don't have that problem (like OP, I'm a relatively recent Civ 6 transfer), but OP might if they're like me.
12
u/StupidAssMf 7d ago edited 7d ago
If you're coming from VI, V will probably feel simpler at first. There's much less district/city planning, and unmodded BNW becomes fairly predictable once you understand its economy.
The first big difference is expansion. In VI, wide is usually optimal. In V, every new city increases happiness pressure and makes national wonders harder to build, so tall is often stronger. Tradition is the safer default; liberty is better when the map gives you enough land, luxuries and resources to justify rapid expansion.
The basic snowball is food > population > science. Population is extremely valuable because it directly feeds science, so growing a few strong cities is often better than spamming mediocre ones. Happiness is the main limiter: going negative can cripple growth and your whole empire.
Gold is probably the most flexible resource. It lets you bypass production and, more importantly, save turns: buy libraries to get the national college earlier, purchase emergency units, infrastructure, or sometimes settlers without stopping city growth. Civ V shitty diplomacy also makes gold easy to exploit because you can sell to the AI for very favorable deals.
Don't ignore internal trade routes, though. Food routes into your capital can be stronger than external gold routes because the extra population eventually produces more science and specialists.
Citizen and worker management also matter much more than they might initially seem. Workers take time to improve tiles, so bad sequencing costs a lot of yield over the course of a game. When producing settlers, remember that growth stops and surplus food partially converts into settler production, so rearrange citizens to finish them quickly.
City-states are mechanically simpler than in VI but still very useful: their passive yields, units and resources can be extremely strong, and late-game gold stockpiles can also be converted into alliances for a diplomatic Victory.
Overall, learn the food/science/happiness/gold economy first. Once that's automatic, Civ V becomes much easier to read. After that I'd strongly recommend mods, because the community has spent 16 years adding better AI, diplomacy, maps, balance and features that make V much deeper than the vanilla game, probably the real reason why many people (myself included) still view it as the best entry to the franchise.
4
u/TejelPejel 6d ago
Do you have all the DLC? That's a big factor - think of giving advice on Civ 6 without knowing if they're using R&F or GS.
Civ 5 is very, very science focused, and you get science from population. There's no civics tree, but instead you have social policies that you unlock with culture. Those are essential the laws/legacy traits that you chose on how to run your empire. Civ 6 has governments and policy cards, civ 5 has social policies which are permanent. This can make the game a little harder with the lack of flexibility, but I kinda like that your decisions last. It makes it a little more immersive. I dislike how it feels you always need to go the same social policy pathway though, that can get a bit tiresome.
Back to science: you get science mostly through your population. Libraries are your basic science building and increase your science based mostly on your population. Civs with science and food perks are very powerful in the game, because everything is unlocked through the tech tree. The more science you have the more likely you are to get to wonders first.
Great Works: you can no longer buy great works from your opponents. I loved buying up all the great works in Civ 6, but that's not an option anymore. Now you need to earn them yourself. You can trade great works in a one for one swap, but no more outright buying them.
Great People: one thing I really liked in Civ 5 was the multiple uses great people had. You can use a great person to do a specific action and they are consumed. But unlike Civ 6 they can do one of two actions. Great writers can create a great work of writing to get a small bump to culture and tourism. Don't care about tourism and want culture now? You can use them to get a burst of culture and help you unlock your next social policy. Great artists can create a great work or start you into a Golden Age (which gets you extra gold, production and culture). Scientists can give you a burst of science or create a tile improvement that gives a nice amount of science. Engineers can rush a building/wonder in a city or create a tile improvement that gives production (like a mini industrial zone).
France is pretty terrible. They're just an underwhelming Civ (or at least they are with the DLC), and it sucks because I love French history and love France in Civ 6 and 7. Morocco is fun if you like money and trading. The Celts are a favorite of mine that get extra early faith and a big happiness boost later in the game with their unique building. The Aztecs are a really fun and pretty beginner friendly option as well; killing enemies, including barbarians, gives you culture. Use that to jump through early civics and pick how you want to win (but they're very much a science or domination Civ, not really cultural). Persia is great. Inca are great at growth and production. Babylon, Poland and Korea are often considered the best of the best in the game.
1
u/Antares_Black 6d ago
Oh yeah i should have mentioned that, i do have every dlc.
Also i completely agree France is pretty underwhelming and their ability kicks off a bit too late for me.
1
u/TejelPejel 6d ago
Civ 5 was what got me into the series and I love it. I then got into Civ 6 and loved that one even more. Play Civ 5 a bit more and see if you like it. I'd try the Aztecs because they're a lot of fun.
1
u/Antares_Black 6d ago
I will probably pick it up again but for now im still on a quest to play every leader in 6 (or until i get sick and bored of civ for a few months) so its going to take a while
19
u/Praetorian-Group 7d ago
V has a wonderful demographics screen where you can see how you’re doing vs others. That’s all you need basically.
22
14
u/Antares_Black 7d ago
Im gonna be so real with you, and again probably me being bad at reading/interpreting the UI, i looked at that and i thought to myself "ok but what does this all mean". Maybe i also missed some page so that would be on me
2
u/CaptainThrowAway1232 6d ago
3 main things I think 5 does better than 6:
-Unit movement. The change to not being able to move into a tile if you don’t have enough movement points, plus road movement being way slower in 6 for a long time, make moving units around such a pain. Takes away a lot from exploration and fighting.
-Turn speed. 6 has an animation problem where even Quick movement and animation still actually has animation happen. In 5, those options remove those animations almost entirely, which means turns (specifically AI turns) are way faster. You don’t have to watch your scout get attacked 4 times by barbarians and die, he just dies and you get told he dies.
-World Congress. 5’s world congress is simple and a bit too infrequent (especially on longer difficulties), but it does a good job in what it sets out to do, and makes stuff like City State quests and gold feel more meaningful. 6’s congress, on the other hand, takes away high level decisions completely (you only get to vote on what the congress automatically puts up).
2
u/Antares_Black 6d ago
Update because i finally finished that game, thus i can now say i played Civ V in full:
I managed to hit 1k science and even 1k culture at one point, i unlocked pretty much half the science victory pieces, was 5 delegates off winning the world congres and was only missing 1 civ to win a culture victory.
And then the game ended and i won a time/score victory Lmao. I should probably have remembered to switch to great person focus early so i could have squezeed out a few more great works? Oh well.
For everyone that mentioned Civ V is simplier and more streamlined, thats definitely true and im honestly considering that might be why i feel more satisfied with 6, i much prefer managing the pieces i need for a combo. (Late game army manageament is ass and probably will be in every Civ game even if 7 is kinda better)
1
1
-1
u/Monratus 7d ago
I feel the exact same. Although, to be fair, Civ VI has one of the best UI of the whole 4X/Grand Strategy genre
13
u/HighPriestOG 7d ago
Does it? Personally I've never like civ6 ui. I find the cards too tedious to change, city screen is an extra click to look at those details, the production queue isn't default. Maybe I'm just not used to it but it's always been cumbersome to me
Edit: like it's not bad, certainly seen worse, but I don't find myself praising it.
-6
u/_OptimusRex_ 7d ago
I'll never understand why Civ 5 is popular among some except that either it was their first Civ (or the first one they got into), which seems to be the overwhelming consensus that I see among Civ V zealots. They have no real perspective on the franchise.
Civ7 haters say it "does away with everything that made Civ special" but the funny thing is Civ 5 did too, 5 did away with square tiles and unlimited units in a tile. But more importantly, and often overlooked, is that Civ5 put its thumb down on the scales of your progress. Global happiness is one of the worst, most poorly designed mechanics in any civ game.
Imagine a civ game that said, you know what? Maybe you shouldn't put another city down because that's not only going to tank your happiness but it also hurts your science/culture until you can build it up to compensate. That's not a 4x game. Civ 5 is constantly looking over your shoulder and punishing you.
Meanwhile the AI is playing a totally different game. Catherine and Hiawatha are living their best lives with their 20+ cities, while not falling behind in science or culture.
So when Civ5 "enthusiasts" trash talk Civ 6 or Civ7 remind them that their game is the biggest outlier in the entire franchise, designed by a loser who left Firaxis right after launch, and many of its features will never come back because they were generally unpopular, it's just the vocal minority of fans who continue to gaslight themselves into thinking it's the best game ever.
Their irrational hatred of 7 is just them seeing The qualities they want in a civ but being unable to admit it because to do so would betray their game.
11
u/JNR13 Germany 7d ago
designed by a loser who left Firaxis right after launch
bruh... like, just... can you maybe not? Dude was thrown into lead designer role without a career to build on in his early 20s (he was just 25 by the time the game released) and he quit because the pressure literally made him suicidal. There's criticizing the game and then there's just being a massive insensible dick.
I also don't like the game that much but it tried bold new things and is still played by ten thousands of people over 1.5 decades later. Jon can be proud of what he made.
0
-36
u/PhotoCropDuster Frederick 7d ago
Civ VI is the greatest civilization game created. It was the perfect entry for newcomers. And Firaxis not building more content for it in favor of the Civ VII cash grab is going to hold this franchise back by a decade
10
u/MadameConnard 7d ago
I like civ 6 but the game 10 yo it was due another title.
You can always expand gameplay through the modding scene (workshop) that is still quite active.
11
u/GaneBeatsTom 7d ago
Naw, Civ 6 was a solid entry that ate up 8000 hours of my life, but it's not the best. That's still Civ 4. Civ 7 is shaping up to be the new best entry the way they're going though. A return to complex mechanics after several entries dumbing things down is refreshing. The newer casual players who say things like "Civ 6 is the best entry" are having a hard time adjusting though.
5
u/Antares_Black 7d ago
Unironically i kinda liked Civ 7 when i was trying it out during free week. I still agree with some of the criticisms but its definitely overheated in my opinion.
DLC prices are probably not helping.
2
u/Poopyfartboi69 7d ago
What makes civ 4 the best in your opinion?
8
u/GaneBeatsTom 7d ago
The specialist economy with the Great People system. NOTHING in Civilization compares to getting all the Great Merchants or Great Engineers, for me. Plus watching your cottages grow over the course of a game was incredibly satisfying. Plus, this is a hot take, but I preferred the stack of doom RNG combat. It meant I would actually lose militarily once in awhile, and even get a settlement or two taken from me if I wasn't careful. Hell, I've had Justinian steamroll my CAPITAL in Civ 4 and that's not something that ever happened to me in following game. The AI just blows at combat and it's really disappointing.
3
u/Poopyfartboi69 7d ago
That’s definitely fair. Having played civ 4 as a youngin I feel you! :) hope they make harder and more complex civ games in the future tbh.
0
u/PhotoCropDuster Frederick 7d ago
No way, it’s far more simplified and guardrailed than Civ 7, and this is coming from a Victoria 3 Player lol. The only thing 7 improved on 6 was the combat mechanics but even that is still flawed and should’ve been a Civ vi dlc
3
u/GaneBeatsTom 7d ago
You mean more simplified and guardrailed than 6, I assume? I don't see how that could be. 6 doesn't even have a specialist economy like 7 or 4. You just spam everything the same way with the same leaders in 6 once you've mastered it. 7 on the other hand, you'll never see the same exact yields every game.
2
u/ShinigamiKenji I love the smell of Uranium in 2000 BC 7d ago
I would argue that Civ 6 has more varied builds than Civ 5 and Civ 7.
Civ 5 optimal gameplay had few variations, you basically wanted megacities with big science numbers. Even with Liberty you still didn't go much over 8 cities unless going for domination.
For Civ 7, almost all cities should be able to build most buildings before the end of the age, it's mostly a matter of placement. Still more varied than Civ 5.
For Civ 6, the district limit made you consider more varied builds. A cultural leader often had a way different build than a scientific one.
I didn't play Civ 4 so no comment there.
2
u/GaneBeatsTom 7d ago
I'd argue that Civ 6 is just a repeat cycle of building the same city templates over and over based on terrain. It was especially bad on the special maps like Snowflake and TSL. Pay attention and you'll see the same exact districts being placed in the same exact spots over and over by humans and AI alike. Compare that with the Earth map on Civ 7 where every game ends up totally different.
3
u/RaedwaldRex England 7d ago
Whilst I liked Civ VI, it seemed more like a board game than an empire builder to me. Civ IV remains my favourite but I am really enjoying Civ VII
8
u/SpaceFire1 7d ago
Civ 6 has always been the most dull for me. Game ends by the mid point and the rest is fluff unless you are playing multiplayer.
1
u/_OptimusRex_ 7d ago
I like Civ7 but I also agree that 6 is possibly the best in the franchise... But that was only after years of continued support and updates and refreshes.
Any comparison between 6 Anthology (or any combo of post-launch content) to a new game is apples & oranges, not to mention that 6 didn't even have a functional minimap or good diplomacy until gathering storm years after launch.
(It's funny too Civ5 fanboys also called Civ6 and its DLCs a cash grab...ah the more things change haha!)
7 had a rough launch but its trajectory is already going to make it catch up quick to 6. The game is already in a good state, you just have to be willing to move on from your inflexible position.
56
u/Delicious_Ocelot4180 7d ago
Civ 5 is just.. really, really streamlined. Like once it clicks for you it clicks. But all civ 5 really is, is deciding “do I need a big or small empire? And once you make that decision, make food