Board 8 > So what's the consensus on Civ 6?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I saw the Platinum Edition on humble monthly and remembered I never got it even though I used to like Civ V quite a bit, if casually

I know it started out rough but did the new expansions improve it?

---

I liked it better than 5

---

I know it started out rough but did the new expansions improve it?

pretty sure this happens with every civ game

from what i've heard, 6 is definitely another civ game

---

It's not my favorite. I think the district mechanic was a mistake, and the only reason I can see for its inclusion is that it's a new mechanic. It can really only trip you until you learn it, and then it isn't something that adds real variety to your gameplay. I also feel this game more than any other in the series seems to lock you into one strategy.

---

As someone whos played every game in the series, its my favorite and Ive been playing it quite a lot lately. As I recall, the AI was pretty poor in the base game, and not perfect even with the expansions, but other than that, I have no complaints.

Personally, I think Civ 6 made the mistake by giving you too many mechanics to play with and micromanage that (depending on the player) it effects the enjoyment of the game, especially with the additions that the Rise and Fall Expansion added. On paper I liked most of the features they implemeneted (additional civic tree alongside the tech tree to advance through by accumulating culture, Governers that provide specific bonuses in whichever cities they're placed in, the expanded espionage system, declaring specific types of war to lower the associated warmonger penalty), but in execution it was apparent once I played first played with the Rise and Fall expansion that dealing with all these features at once becomes more of a hassle and often I find that I would be better off without them.

The combination of housing/districts, era score, constantly switching policy cards, the loyalty system, emmergencies (such as having half the world declare war on you because you've declared a formal war on someone you made a Declaration of Friendship with in the early game despite having denounced that same civ for like 50 turns prior) and so on ultimately bloats the gameplay aspect to borderline overwhelming amounts. They tried to add a bunch of realism to the "build/manage your own civilization" narrative, but in doing so it left things feeling too restrictive.

The Gathering Storm expansion definitely improved the game (and despite my issues Civ 6 was always good even when it first came out), but I felt less interested in playing after several games and went back to Civ V.

---

I have explicitly avoided getting the expansions because I don't want their mechanics in the game.

Districts are an interesting idea but I don't love their implementation. Overall, 5 was probably a better game, but 6 is the newer one, so it's what I play if I decide to boot up Civ.

---

I thought rise and fall is great, but never been interested in the other expansion. I agree that there is a bit much in terms of micromanaging but I didn't think districts were a problem once you understood them

---

I only play Civ 4 and nothing else.

---

I have a somewhat different perspective, but one that I believe is popular among the Civ fanbase. Civ 6 released as a much fuller game than Civ 5, but the latter's expansions really completed it, whereas the former's were more just standard, middling new content.

Personally, while I do like both games quite a bit, I'd much rather return to Civ 5 at this point - not that I've played much of either in the past couple years.

---

I've still not acclimated to the system of Civ 6

still love Civ 5 (which also took forever to learn, but I watched streamers play it >_>)

---

I stopped at 5. Not that it is the pinnacle or anything, I just kinda got my fill of what the Civ experience was like. That, and the new features touted at the time didn't really wow me into wanting to purchase it.

Right now, my desires are space-bound with Stellaris.

---

6 is fine and has more decision making regarding city development, but 5 has more satisfying decisions outside of that scope. Both are good

---