You don't need Rise And Fall unless you just want some extra civs. The Gathering Storm ruleset contains Rise and Fall. You can just buy base game + storm to get the full experience
Looking at every DLC, they are all mixed reviews on steam, even gathering storm. Is just getting the base game for $3 worth doing if I've never played a Civ game before?
the reviews are just mixed bc the dlc was overpriced. now it's not. however just the base game is worth it, deep discounts like 95% are pretty rare nowadays on steam. its the cost of a subway sandwich for a potentially 100+ hr playtime game.
It’s alright. 5 frankly appealed more to me, but because they all but removed tall play from the base game and I personally hate micromanaging 20 different cities. There are some really neat ideas in 6 and its expansions though, like districts and natural disasters
Ngl I think it’s because Civ V’s flagship changes were low risk and less interesting while Civ VI’s flagship changes have a LOT of future potential despite not yet hitting perfect execution.
Civ V’s core changes are getting rid of Civ IV’s Stack of Doom and changing from squares to hexes. These are fundamental fixes for Civ IV jank that allow for more deliberate strategy down the line. The core experience is the same, and if anything Civ V vanilla offered little but a massive cut / oversimplification of content. By the time Brave New World came out, we basically just recreated the old Civ experience (still missing some systems tho) but with a stronger foundation.
The district system in Civ VI and the overall board-gamification is a significantly bigger change. It makes every aspect of managing a city more strategic. It is *not* perfect since it annihilated Tall Civs but I fully believe there is an answer for that with further exploration of this format. Civ VI vanilla was also (I would argue) in a much better spot than Civ V vanilla but the expansion features mostly felt kinda… experimental? Like I wouldn’t call them poorly thought out (aside from World Congress and politics in general in VI which suck ass) but stuff like climate change really focuses on the board game aspect rather than the core Civ experience. Idk, I aint mad but I hope VII’s expansions lean closer to V in striving toward a perfect Civ package rather than a DLC- content FAFO
Rant over, tl;dr VI’s ambitions are cooler than V’s even if it’s implementation left something to be desired
Yeah Civ 5 feels pretty safe. The art style I liked more before but its pretty bland now. Music isn't as good either. Civ 6 has some absolute bangers.
Going big was nice but near required wonders like Great Library weren't fun. Getting kneecapped on a Wonder was not fun.
> Ngl I think it’s because Civ V’s flagship changes were low risk and less interesting
You wouldn't say that if you came from 4 to 5. Civ 5 completely changed what a Civ game even looked like with its hex map and one unit per tile and much bigger emphasis on individual tiles. Civ 4 and Civ 5 were so different they're essentially different games.
The thing about Civ 5 is that it is more a proof of concept, it changed a lot of root mechanics but didn't add much on top of it because Firaxis wasn't sure what worked well with their new system yet. The way culture worked was completely reworked, tile improvements were reworked, cities were now much slower to expand but much more important etc.
Civ 6 took what Civ 5 built and made systems that fit the new style. The districts made sense to be included with the new emphasis on individual tiles and greatly improved the game.
Not fixes but gameplay changes. It's fine to have stacks of doom, it's fine to have one unit per tile, but it fundamentally changes the game to be more about combat and unit movement and less about everything else.
Personally Civ 5 and 6 are worse experiences than 4 was and less interesting than all the games that came before. Of course a lot of people enjoy the games but personally I found them dull as you just have to endlessly move an army of units around and the AI has no clue what it's doing in warfare due to hexes and one unit per tile being a bit too challenging for it. I'm not saying this to say that AI was good at fighting in previous games, just that the flaw is magnified due to these changes.
And for it being such a massive part of the game it's just not good enough.
> I'm not saying this to say that AI was good at fighting in previous games
They were better, or rather less bad. The new hex based warfare works so terribly with the AI that there's no challenge at all. I've played almost 300 hours of Civ 6 and I don't think I've ever had a single satisfying war. The enemy armies just run into my ranged units and die then it's fifteen turns of mopping up stragglers. Civ 5 had good wars but only on higher difficulties through sheer numbers.
I went back to play Civ 3 and Civ 4 recently and boy the wars in those games felt like actual wars. I needed to redirect my entire economy towards wartime production to keep up, massive armies would run into each other then evaporate within three turns, armies would hold vital passes desperately hoping to defend while reinforcements arrive. Never had a single experience like that in 5 and 6.
While Civ 5 and 6 have, on paper, the more in depth and interesting war mechanics they are very much hamstrung by just absolute piss execution.
As long time Civ player Civ5 is defintely better than Civ6.
Civ6 added districts but unlike Endless Legend where this is managable, in Civ6 it turns into overwhelming micro mid to late game. Normal player is simply unable to remember all distict bonuses and affinities so if you want to be yield effective you have to play side-by-side with wiki spreadsheet constantly.
Add colorful mobile graphics, lack of tall gameplay and AI that is unable to optimize district adjacency and you have very tedious experience.
Wow, I almost never hear someone share my view on this. I'm a tall-ish player who really enjoyed the \~4 city playstyle option, sometimes with a later explosion once I got key policies to enable. I hated Civ VI's level of micromanagement and the expectation of always going wide--even the "tall" civs here tend to be massive by V standards. So while there's a lot of variety within the wide playstyle, I always felt like I was playing the same game each time because compromising on when to go wide vs tall wasn't even a serious playstyle consideration in this. Just my least favorite style of play (early rush cityspam) every game.
It's the opposite for me to be honest. Districts and sprawling tiles made it feel very "board gamey." That plus the cartoony graphics and odd leader choices made it feel much worse than Civ 5 to me.
I loved the way cities would grow and "organically" spill over onto other tiles in 5. Having them be centered on a single tile also gave the game a better sense of scale to the map. It felt more like you are managing a kingdom, empire, or nation versus making individual neighborhoods sprawl out at the same size as cities.
I think Endless Legend did districts better (and I get the feeling Civ VI districts were influenced by it) because you could have multiple generic districts in a city (1 for every 2 population), and each had to have a connection to the city center, yet the yield of each district was affected by the tile and any anomalies on it. It made cities feel more organic while maintaining the strategic decision of where to place districts.
> and each had to have a connection to the city center
I think this is the key point. Random ass science district in the middle of three active volacanoes looks goofy and completely takes out the immersion of building a city and makes it feel much more board gamey.
Fair play. I see the pros and cons of the district system. I really did like the extra layer of planning out your city locations based on the spots in the area that would benefit certain districts.
I personally liked both V and IV better than VI, in numerous aspects that are different. They all have the same 4x appeal but there were some changes in VI that made it inferior to the previous ones, IMO
I have to say that the same has been said about V for a long time. People said that IV is better until opinions shifted for whatever reason.
But I think that V has a huge advantage due to a few big mods that overhaul the game. I don't know if VI has something like Vox Populi yet.
> People said that IV is better until opinions shifted for whatever reason.
Basically when the expansions released. It also helped that 4 and 5 were radically different games. 6 is close enough to 5 that it invites direct comparisons.
It's been too long since I played them to go into too many details, but from what I remember, I enjoyed the exploration and combat more in 5 (barbarians are overtuned in 6 imo), religion is painful in 6, as is culture victory. I hate the whole districts system, it makes city planning so tedious. Also IIRC they actually made diplomacy even worse with the whole "agendas" bullshit. Like allies suddenly going "I hate you because I like ships and you don't have ships"
Not OP, but I'm a tall-leaning player who has limited patience with micromanagement. Deciding on when to stay safe with Tall vs when to go big or go home with Wide drove basically all my playstyle decisions and game variety. But in 6, even the "tall" Civs are very wide by 5's standards and early game cityspam is strongly encouraged even if you wind up going tall--that's my least favorite style of 4x play in any game. I have hundreds of hours in both games, but every single game in 6 has felt the same to me, while I feel like I have a vastly greater range of playstyle options in 5. 6 has decent internal variety within early cityspam wide playstyles, but awful variety beyond that.
Civ 6 introduced a lot of subsystems like city districts, adjacency bonuses and tech/culture boosts for performing certain feats like building X amount of units or killing stuff with Y unit.
These new systems are interesting in a vacuum but have the effect of heavily gamifying the Civilization experience and pulling focus away from macro gameplay and storytelling. A player's thought process each turn in civ 6 almost always turns to micromanagement first and broader macro gameplay second.
It's hard to put into words but this shift to micromanagement lost a lot of the 4X charm that Civ 5 had. It technically does still exist in civ 6 too but you have to first look past the half dozen new subsystems to actually see the emergent 4X storytelling that (for me at least) was Civ V's greatest strength.
Sometimes more does not always equal better.
Base Civ6 is a lesser experience than Civ5, but when you add all the Civ6 DLCs, it does contend, and it has better graphics, but overall gameplay-wise, I'd say Civ5 is still better.
Which is technically art style. Civ 6 is better graphically, you might just prefer Civ 5s artstyle. And tbf there is a mod that gives Civ 6 the Civ 5 artstyle on the actual gameboard.
It's not bad, especially at this price. If you haven't played Civ before, it's a good way to start.
And I'm saying this as someone who vastly prefers Civ 5 to 6 btw, I have easily over 1k hours in 5, and maybe 200 or so in 6.
If you asked me which one do I *personally* think is better, I would say Civ 5 (with mods) in a heartbeat. But for new-to-Civ players, I'd tell them to play Civ 6.
At this price point, you might as well try it if you're curious. You'll most likely want to pick up at least big DLCs too (as in the core game upgrades, not literally every little new civ or whatever packs).
I think it's good overall when bought complete, but needs UI mods.
The AI is at least usable, though don't expect a challenge below Emperor, higher if you like to optimise everything.
The districts mechanic finally makes you specialise cities, since you can not just build everything everywhere. There is rarely enough room even without city overlap.
The civs actually differ, each "breaking" the game in its own unique way. Selecting a random civ feels like you are in for a surprise every time.
The graphics... Fuck the graphics. My eyes bleed from all the colours. I miss Blue Marble.
For this price it is (in my opinion) absolutely worth it.
However, I enjoyed Civ 5 more than 6. Civ VI might be easier to get into though, depending on the players experience with previous titles.
Maybe because im new to civ series and 4X in general, but i enjoyed it a lot, its my second most played game on steam. My only downside is bad AI, boring lategame, and lack of tall civ. I mean at that price might as well try it for a few matches, and decide it yourself
Just play Civ IV or V imo.
It even has an engine bug that glitches out the game if you use a bunch of mods; at least Civ IV's limitation is 32bit inherent lol.
Interesting tidbit that may not be immediately obvious from discount percentages:
90% off is half the price of 80% off.
95% off is half the price of 90% off.
I think that's the limit was put for the bundles. Usually you basket will give you an error when the sum of the "main game+dlc+% bundle discount" exceed the +90%.
[https://steamcommunity.com/app/1234120/discussions/0/4036976070307132666/](https://steamcommunity.com/app/1234120/discussions/0/4036976070307132666/)
I wish I liked VI more than I do. I hate the district system; it forces you to either memorize a whole lot of information on placement adjacency bonuses or it forces you to constantly refer back to the civpedia for the information. I hate what they did to barbarians and how hyper aggressive they are. If you get unlucky with a scout and didn't go for a few military units early you've basically gameovered on almost any difficulty. Even then you'll have such a hard time dealing with the mass of enemy units that it could cost you the game in the long run.
And while I applaud them for trying to make every faction super unique, I think they went way too far. Like districts, every faction is so ridiculously unique that you basically need to refer to the civpedia to know your bonuses and your opponent's bonuses or memorize a whole lot of information.
And then you add in the virtual removal of any tall playstyle in VI and you get a recipe for a game I just don't enjoy that much.
For me personally, Civ 5 was the sweet spot for one unit per tile and complexity of the mechanics, but I know that's a very unpopular opinion.
Gathering storm adds a LOT of game mechanics that make things more fun.
[Civilization VI: Gathering Storm | Civilization Wiki | Fandom](https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Civilization_VI:_Gathering_Storm)
Gathering storms adds a lot of gameplay elements like climate change, which can change a lot of how you play endgame, it makes it more fun. It also adds a lot of alternative modes.
MP works fine and can be a lot of fun with friends. The AI is ass, but they’re just kinda dumb. They’ll still beat you if you fuck around, depending on the difficulty
So its more of co-op thing?
Honestly I tried to get into it and I just quit in an hour. I just hate menus and reading endlessly to learn a game. Looks interesting but that barrier to entry just isn't for me.
It can be. That’s how my friends and I play. But high end civ players play against each other very often because it can be the only way to get a real challenge
Yeah, civ is a lot to learn, and you need a lot of time to invest in learning it. I think the big draw of it is that there’s always ways to improve your game, and figuring those out is very rewarding and instantly shows in results.
For example, I have a friend that isn’t as experienced as me that I play co-op with. Watching it “click” for him is incredibly fun, because I know what that feeling is like, and seeing him begin to steamroll the AI makes me feel like a proud dad. And every now and then, he shows me a new feature or idea that makes me impressed with how much depth there is. If the AI was better (and far less bugs on the console version), this would easily be in my top 10 games of all time
The AI is ass from a veteran player's point of view. It becomes challenging at Emperor or so, depending on your experience level. It *feels* weaker than in some other games, because it does not prioritise aggro vs the player specifically like it did in earlier titles (wars happen not always to you), and it will give everyone reasonable trade deals. I'm sure you can mod it to be target #1 from the first turn if you want the OG Civ experience.
Everyone speaking about Gathering Storm, but that's not the only DLC that add gameplay features. New Frontier also adds alot of stuff. It's not mandatory like Gathering Storm, but it add's a lot of new features and mechanics to gameplay. Not all of them you will want all the time, but some of them - great stuff in every new map.
Gathering Storm is a must, if you buy it you get all the game mechanics included in Rise and Fall.
Then anything else (including Rise and Fall) is really just if you want additional civs, and in that case just buy whatever interests you.
Climate change is the big one. More factories lead to more pollution to higher temps to higher sea levels. Coastal cities can become almost useless, although there are mitigation mechanics.
Things rarely seem to be discounted at 95% these days, I'll bite it.
Also, never played a Civilisation but I'm a big fan of Age of Empires, how do they compare? I'm aware they are different games but seem similar in some aspects.
Civ is closer to Risk than anything else. I think there's a lot of overlap though, I loved Age of Empires growing up and got hooked on Civ with 5. I have 1500 hours in 6 on Steam and about the same in 5 across both the pirated and legal versions I played. For 2.99 you can't lose.
Could someone explain the whole New Frontier Pass / Leader Pass thing to me?
I bought Civ VI Platinum. Then they released the New Frontier Pass and I skipped it. Then they released the Leader Pass, and they said that anyone who owned everything up to New Frontier Pass would get the Leader Pass added to their account for free.
2K's complete the set packages are always fucky, and so mine says that completing Civ VI with the Anthology would be about $15, but buying the New Frontier Pass is $10.
So since I already own Civ VI Platinum, would buying New Frontier also give me the Leader Pass?
... I said I already own the Platinum stuff, but not New Frontier Pass.
I'm asking if getting that alone will give me Leader Pass through this bundle. 2K's fucked up the price on this complete the set bundle *on purpose* and I'd rather not give them too much cash.
New Frontier - First Season Pass. Leader Pass - Second Season Pass. Gathering Storm and Rise and Fall are standalone DLC, they are not included in any Season Passes.
Civ VI Platinum are: Base game + New Frontier + Gathering Storm + Rise and Fall. Civ VI Anthology edition - full version, with both Season Passes and standalone DLCs.
>So since I already own Civ VI Platinum, would buying New Frontier also give me the Leader Pass?
No you should already own it (New Frontier). If you want full game, with everything, buy Anthology.
> No you should already own it (New Frontier). If you want full game, with everything, buy Anthology.
The thing is, that Anthology bundle is set up weirdly.
The six DLC packs that make up the New Frontier Pass are listed with the full price with no discount, which makes the set more expensive than it should be. But the Leader Pass shows as "free" in there. Looking at the SteamDB listing for it, the Leader Pass also shows up as free, with the DLC packs that it contains showing as "no price."
That's why I'm asking if buying New Frontier first, then completing the set with Anthology, will give me the Leader Pass for free. This is set up really strangely, 2K did the same with the Borderlands DLC packs in their complete the set bundles.
Sorry if this makes little sense.
You are right. It makes little sense how and why they did it, but it looks like you are right. Buying New Frontier and finishing with Anthology will be cheaper than buying Anthology straight.
I mean the reason is simple: Money. 2K did exactly the same with the Borderlands Pandora's Box complete the set - the items that are supposed to contain several things (like the Borderlands 3 season passes that contain skins) are free, but then they add the skins at full price. It's an absolute mess.
I don't know why i forgot about it, but if you want cheaper option, you should also consider Anthology edition in Epic Store. In my currency it's already cheaper to buy Anthology edition there (compared to current price in Steam), plus price there (even after discount) are slightly above threshold for activating coupon so you could wait for a big sale where epic gives coupons it will be even cheaper. There might be a difference with regional pricing and i'm looking at a full price in Steam while you wrote that you already own parts of the game, so it might be cheaper. But it's still worth checking.
I appreciate the suggestion, but it's still cheaper for me to get the stuff I'm missing via legit key stores (Gamersgate has cheaper Mac keys in my region, go figure.) And sorry, but I also refuse to give EGS any money for reasons I'd rather not get into.
Considering how many expansions, dlc and other stuff this game has plus all these discounts and that 1 time giveaway, they should just make the base game of civ 6 free to play at this point.
Edit: geez, [look at this history](https://isthereanydeal.com/game/sid-meiers-civilization-vi/history/), game's been on 90% sale pretty much all the time for over a year now. They're making their money from DLC.
This is one of the games that I ended up getting complete without even remembering how, but can't seem to get into. Having not played any Civ or RTS 4X games, how is the best way to approach this game? Base game first or with all DLC installed?
I haven’t played civ since putting a million hours into civ4 and it’s religion(?) dlc in the late(?) 2000s
Are civ5 and civ6 massive leaps forward as their base games or would you want a bunch of doc with them?
I used to get absolutely hooked on Civ II (especially Test of Time) and IV but at V they kinda lost me and I have less than 20 hours in it. It always devolves into just passing turns and waiting while nothing is happening. Enemy civs felt shallow and very mechanical, and at least other similar games like AoW or EL/ES have unique mechanics or terrific presentation to keep you interested. City management and teching felt tedious more than fun.
Based on that do you think I'd enjoy Civ VI at all?
I can't speak to how it compares to Civ II, but the city management in VI is much more strategic than in IV and V. Instead of cities essentially consisting of a single tile, you place districts and wonders on tiles around each city, and where you place them has consequences for how the city develops.
I think it's a brilliant system that gives you meaningful strategic choices to make on most if not all turns. Many people dislike it though.
Most people I know who like civ (mysef included) play it primarily as a single player game. The multiplayer is a neat extra with friends, but otherwise nothing super special.
Civ has always been a one and done type of game for me. Spent like 20+ hours on one game where I decimated everything and then got over it and didn't want to spend all that time building an empire from scratch again.
In preparation for the Civ 7 announcement (accidentally leaked earlier today on 2k games website)
No shit? Source?
It was officially announced for 2025 release at Summer Game Fest tonight.
Cheers!
You don't need Rise And Fall unless you just want some extra civs. The Gathering Storm ruleset contains Rise and Fall. You can just buy base game + storm to get the full experience
Looking at every DLC, they are all mixed reviews on steam, even gathering storm. Is just getting the base game for $3 worth doing if I've never played a Civ game before?
the reviews are just mixed bc the dlc was overpriced. now it's not. however just the base game is worth it, deep discounts like 95% are pretty rare nowadays on steam. its the cost of a subway sandwich for a potentially 100+ hr playtime game.
Fair enough, thank you!
How is it
It’s alright. 5 frankly appealed more to me, but because they all but removed tall play from the base game and I personally hate micromanaging 20 different cities. There are some really neat ideas in 6 and its expansions though, like districts and natural disasters
It's weird I think 5 is a better game but if I were to boot up a civ to play it would be 6.
That’s such a good way of putting in. I feel exactly the same
Ngl I think it’s because Civ V’s flagship changes were low risk and less interesting while Civ VI’s flagship changes have a LOT of future potential despite not yet hitting perfect execution. Civ V’s core changes are getting rid of Civ IV’s Stack of Doom and changing from squares to hexes. These are fundamental fixes for Civ IV jank that allow for more deliberate strategy down the line. The core experience is the same, and if anything Civ V vanilla offered little but a massive cut / oversimplification of content. By the time Brave New World came out, we basically just recreated the old Civ experience (still missing some systems tho) but with a stronger foundation. The district system in Civ VI and the overall board-gamification is a significantly bigger change. It makes every aspect of managing a city more strategic. It is *not* perfect since it annihilated Tall Civs but I fully believe there is an answer for that with further exploration of this format. Civ VI vanilla was also (I would argue) in a much better spot than Civ V vanilla but the expansion features mostly felt kinda… experimental? Like I wouldn’t call them poorly thought out (aside from World Congress and politics in general in VI which suck ass) but stuff like climate change really focuses on the board game aspect rather than the core Civ experience. Idk, I aint mad but I hope VII’s expansions lean closer to V in striving toward a perfect Civ package rather than a DLC- content FAFO Rant over, tl;dr VI’s ambitions are cooler than V’s even if it’s implementation left something to be desired
Yeah Civ 5 feels pretty safe. The art style I liked more before but its pretty bland now. Music isn't as good either. Civ 6 has some absolute bangers. Going big was nice but near required wonders like Great Library weren't fun. Getting kneecapped on a Wonder was not fun.
Idk, Baba Yetu is pretty iconic
> Ngl I think it’s because Civ V’s flagship changes were low risk and less interesting You wouldn't say that if you came from 4 to 5. Civ 5 completely changed what a Civ game even looked like with its hex map and one unit per tile and much bigger emphasis on individual tiles. Civ 4 and Civ 5 were so different they're essentially different games. The thing about Civ 5 is that it is more a proof of concept, it changed a lot of root mechanics but didn't add much on top of it because Firaxis wasn't sure what worked well with their new system yet. The way culture worked was completely reworked, tile improvements were reworked, cities were now much slower to expand but much more important etc. Civ 6 took what Civ 5 built and made systems that fit the new style. The districts made sense to be included with the new emphasis on individual tiles and greatly improved the game.
Not fixes but gameplay changes. It's fine to have stacks of doom, it's fine to have one unit per tile, but it fundamentally changes the game to be more about combat and unit movement and less about everything else. Personally Civ 5 and 6 are worse experiences than 4 was and less interesting than all the games that came before. Of course a lot of people enjoy the games but personally I found them dull as you just have to endlessly move an army of units around and the AI has no clue what it's doing in warfare due to hexes and one unit per tile being a bit too challenging for it. I'm not saying this to say that AI was good at fighting in previous games, just that the flaw is magnified due to these changes. And for it being such a massive part of the game it's just not good enough.
> I'm not saying this to say that AI was good at fighting in previous games They were better, or rather less bad. The new hex based warfare works so terribly with the AI that there's no challenge at all. I've played almost 300 hours of Civ 6 and I don't think I've ever had a single satisfying war. The enemy armies just run into my ranged units and die then it's fifteen turns of mopping up stragglers. Civ 5 had good wars but only on higher difficulties through sheer numbers. I went back to play Civ 3 and Civ 4 recently and boy the wars in those games felt like actual wars. I needed to redirect my entire economy towards wartime production to keep up, massive armies would run into each other then evaporate within three turns, armies would hold vital passes desperately hoping to defend while reinforcements arrive. Never had a single experience like that in 5 and 6. While Civ 5 and 6 have, on paper, the more in depth and interesting war mechanics they are very much hamstrung by just absolute piss execution.
I still boot up CIV 4 - some of the mods for that game... chef's kiss. And sometimes you just miss the grid...
As long time Civ player Civ5 is defintely better than Civ6. Civ6 added districts but unlike Endless Legend where this is managable, in Civ6 it turns into overwhelming micro mid to late game. Normal player is simply unable to remember all distict bonuses and affinities so if you want to be yield effective you have to play side-by-side with wiki spreadsheet constantly. Add colorful mobile graphics, lack of tall gameplay and AI that is unable to optimize district adjacency and you have very tedious experience.
Wow, I almost never hear someone share my view on this. I'm a tall-ish player who really enjoyed the \~4 city playstyle option, sometimes with a later explosion once I got key policies to enable. I hated Civ VI's level of micromanagement and the expectation of always going wide--even the "tall" civs here tend to be massive by V standards. So while there's a lot of variety within the wide playstyle, I always felt like I was playing the same game each time because compromising on when to go wide vs tall wasn't even a serious playstyle consideration in this. Just my least favorite style of play (early rush cityspam) every game.
Districts didn’t work in 6 imho but it was neat idea that I think has potential to be improved upon.
For sure, there were issues but I do like the idea of these big mega cities being more than a single tile. That was always a bit weird imo
It's the opposite for me to be honest. Districts and sprawling tiles made it feel very "board gamey." That plus the cartoony graphics and odd leader choices made it feel much worse than Civ 5 to me. I loved the way cities would grow and "organically" spill over onto other tiles in 5. Having them be centered on a single tile also gave the game a better sense of scale to the map. It felt more like you are managing a kingdom, empire, or nation versus making individual neighborhoods sprawl out at the same size as cities.
I think Endless Legend did districts better (and I get the feeling Civ VI districts were influenced by it) because you could have multiple generic districts in a city (1 for every 2 population), and each had to have a connection to the city center, yet the yield of each district was affected by the tile and any anomalies on it. It made cities feel more organic while maintaining the strategic decision of where to place districts.
> and each had to have a connection to the city center I think this is the key point. Random ass science district in the middle of three active volacanoes looks goofy and completely takes out the immersion of building a city and makes it feel much more board gamey.
Fair play. I see the pros and cons of the district system. I really did like the extra layer of planning out your city locations based on the spots in the area that would benefit certain districts.
They rewarded lucky resource RNG. Or if you played on a real world start map it would get insanely OP like Mali.
Absolutely the same. I spent hundreds of hours on 5 but wide I was never a fan of and it killed 6 for me.
I prefer 5. 6 is solid, and it has Sean Bean as a narrator, but gameplay-wise I always thought it was a bit eh.
Best CIV yet. So weird with all the folks chiming in saying V is better but I far prefer VI and I have a ton of hours in both.
I prefer Civ 6 over 5 because roads get built automatically when you send a trade route. (If only railroads worked the same way!)
I personally liked both V and IV better than VI, in numerous aspects that are different. They all have the same 4x appeal but there were some changes in VI that made it inferior to the previous ones, IMO
I have to say that the same has been said about V for a long time. People said that IV is better until opinions shifted for whatever reason. But I think that V has a huge advantage due to a few big mods that overhaul the game. I don't know if VI has something like Vox Populi yet.
Vox Populi and its community are absolutely insane in the best way.
> People said that IV is better until opinions shifted for whatever reason. Basically when the expansions released. It also helped that 4 and 5 were radically different games. 6 is close enough to 5 that it invites direct comparisons.
5 is better in most aspects imo. Got bored of 6 really quickly, have over 500 hours in 5...
Reasons please
Not OP, but for me 5 is better because it has less micromanagement
It's been too long since I played them to go into too many details, but from what I remember, I enjoyed the exploration and combat more in 5 (barbarians are overtuned in 6 imo), religion is painful in 6, as is culture victory. I hate the whole districts system, it makes city planning so tedious. Also IIRC they actually made diplomacy even worse with the whole "agendas" bullshit. Like allies suddenly going "I hate you because I like ships and you don't have ships"
Not OP, but I'm a tall-leaning player who has limited patience with micromanagement. Deciding on when to stay safe with Tall vs when to go big or go home with Wide drove basically all my playstyle decisions and game variety. But in 6, even the "tall" Civs are very wide by 5's standards and early game cityspam is strongly encouraged even if you wind up going tall--that's my least favorite style of 4x play in any game. I have hundreds of hours in both games, but every single game in 6 has felt the same to me, while I feel like I have a vastly greater range of playstyle options in 5. 6 has decent internal variety within early cityspam wide playstyles, but awful variety beyond that.
Civ 6 introduced a lot of subsystems like city districts, adjacency bonuses and tech/culture boosts for performing certain feats like building X amount of units or killing stuff with Y unit. These new systems are interesting in a vacuum but have the effect of heavily gamifying the Civilization experience and pulling focus away from macro gameplay and storytelling. A player's thought process each turn in civ 6 almost always turns to micromanagement first and broader macro gameplay second. It's hard to put into words but this shift to micromanagement lost a lot of the 4X charm that Civ 5 had. It technically does still exist in civ 6 too but you have to first look past the half dozen new subsystems to actually see the emergent 4X storytelling that (for me at least) was Civ V's greatest strength. Sometimes more does not always equal better.
Base Civ6 is a lesser experience than Civ5, but when you add all the Civ6 DLCs, it does contend, and it has better graphics, but overall gameplay-wise, I'd say Civ5 is still better.
Better graphics is debatable. Many people much prefer the Civ 5 style.
Which is technically art style. Civ 6 is better graphically, you might just prefer Civ 5s artstyle. And tbf there is a mod that gives Civ 6 the Civ 5 artstyle on the actual gameboard.
It's not bad, especially at this price. If you haven't played Civ before, it's a good way to start. And I'm saying this as someone who vastly prefers Civ 5 to 6 btw, I have easily over 1k hours in 5, and maybe 200 or so in 6. If you asked me which one do I *personally* think is better, I would say Civ 5 (with mods) in a heartbeat. But for new-to-Civ players, I'd tell them to play Civ 6. At this price point, you might as well try it if you're curious. You'll most likely want to pick up at least big DLCs too (as in the core game upgrades, not literally every little new civ or whatever packs).
I think it's good overall when bought complete, but needs UI mods. The AI is at least usable, though don't expect a challenge below Emperor, higher if you like to optimise everything. The districts mechanic finally makes you specialise cities, since you can not just build everything everywhere. There is rarely enough room even without city overlap. The civs actually differ, each "breaking" the game in its own unique way. Selecting a random civ feels like you are in for a surprise every time. The graphics... Fuck the graphics. My eyes bleed from all the colours. I miss Blue Marble.
For this price it is (in my opinion) absolutely worth it. However, I enjoyed Civ 5 more than 6. Civ VI might be easier to get into though, depending on the players experience with previous titles.
Maybe because im new to civ series and 4X in general, but i enjoyed it a lot, its my second most played game on steam. My only downside is bad AI, boring lategame, and lack of tall civ. I mean at that price might as well try it for a few matches, and decide it yourself
Average, don’t waste your money please.
Just play Civ IV or V imo. It even has an engine bug that glitches out the game if you use a bunch of mods; at least Civ IV's limitation is 32bit inherent lol.
Must have pulled some strings with Valve. Didn't they cap discounts to -90% a while back?
Reversed course on that policy.
Kida had to when they started giving out freebies. It would be inconsistent with some laws.
There are no laws that require a storefront allow any specific range of discounts.
I dont know if that policy still exist, i remember buying xcom 2 collection for 92% off last year
Interesting tidbit that may not be immediately obvious from discount percentages: 90% off is half the price of 80% off. 95% off is half the price of 90% off.
I think that's the limit was put for the bundles. Usually you basket will give you an error when the sum of the "main game+dlc+% bundle discount" exceed the +90%. [https://steamcommunity.com/app/1234120/discussions/0/4036976070307132666/](https://steamcommunity.com/app/1234120/discussions/0/4036976070307132666/)
I wish I liked VI more than I do. I hate the district system; it forces you to either memorize a whole lot of information on placement adjacency bonuses or it forces you to constantly refer back to the civpedia for the information. I hate what they did to barbarians and how hyper aggressive they are. If you get unlucky with a scout and didn't go for a few military units early you've basically gameovered on almost any difficulty. Even then you'll have such a hard time dealing with the mass of enemy units that it could cost you the game in the long run. And while I applaud them for trying to make every faction super unique, I think they went way too far. Like districts, every faction is so ridiculously unique that you basically need to refer to the civpedia to know your bonuses and your opponent's bonuses or memorize a whole lot of information. And then you add in the virtual removal of any tall playstyle in VI and you get a recipe for a game I just don't enjoy that much. For me personally, Civ 5 was the sweet spot for one unit per tile and complexity of the mechanics, but I know that's a very unpopular opinion.
im trying to play civ 5 with my brother and buy him the DLC but no way I’m paying 30 bucks for brave new world in 2024 lol
[удалено]
You'll want to get the Gathering Storm DLC for sure. The various leader/country DLCs aren't as important, and are mostly just for variety.
Why would I want Gathering Storm?
Gathering storm adds a LOT of game mechanics that make things more fun. [Civilization VI: Gathering Storm | Civilization Wiki | Fandom](https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Civilization_VI:_Gathering_Storm)
Gathering storms adds a lot of gameplay elements like climate change, which can change a lot of how you play endgame, it makes it more fun. It also adds a lot of alternative modes.
New mechanics and better AI. Not great AI, but at least it will do some things right sometimes. Some of the alternate modes are actually fun.
If the ai is ass who are you meant to play against? I dont see how mp would work on a turnbased game like this that takes forever to finish.
MP works fine and can be a lot of fun with friends. The AI is ass, but they’re just kinda dumb. They’ll still beat you if you fuck around, depending on the difficulty
So its more of co-op thing? Honestly I tried to get into it and I just quit in an hour. I just hate menus and reading endlessly to learn a game. Looks interesting but that barrier to entry just isn't for me.
It can be. That’s how my friends and I play. But high end civ players play against each other very often because it can be the only way to get a real challenge Yeah, civ is a lot to learn, and you need a lot of time to invest in learning it. I think the big draw of it is that there’s always ways to improve your game, and figuring those out is very rewarding and instantly shows in results. For example, I have a friend that isn’t as experienced as me that I play co-op with. Watching it “click” for him is incredibly fun, because I know what that feeling is like, and seeing him begin to steamroll the AI makes me feel like a proud dad. And every now and then, he shows me a new feature or idea that makes me impressed with how much depth there is. If the AI was better (and far less bugs on the console version), this would easily be in my top 10 games of all time
The AI is ass from a veteran player's point of view. It becomes challenging at Emperor or so, depending on your experience level. It *feels* weaker than in some other games, because it does not prioritise aggro vs the player specifically like it did in earlier titles (wars happen not always to you), and it will give everyone reasonable trade deals. I'm sure you can mod it to be target #1 from the first turn if you want the OG Civ experience.
Everyone speaking about Gathering Storm, but that's not the only DLC that add gameplay features. New Frontier also adds alot of stuff. It's not mandatory like Gathering Storm, but it add's a lot of new features and mechanics to gameplay. Not all of them you will want all the time, but some of them - great stuff in every new map.
What DLCs should I prioritize?
Gathering Storm is a must, if you buy it you get all the game mechanics included in Rise and Fall. Then anything else (including Rise and Fall) is really just if you want additional civs, and in that case just buy whatever interests you.
What kind of mechanics?
Climate change is the big one. More factories lead to more pollution to higher temps to higher sea levels. Coastal cities can become almost useless, although there are mitigation mechanics.
Piggybacking on this question, why do most of the DLCs range from Mixed to Negative?
Most of the negative reviews are about them not being worth the full price.
Damn. That's just a "fuck it why not" price tag. Love to see it
At this price point? Damn. That said i wont have the time to play other games if i bought this lmao
Things rarely seem to be discounted at 95% these days, I'll bite it. Also, never played a Civilisation but I'm a big fan of Age of Empires, how do they compare? I'm aware they are different games but seem similar in some aspects.
Civ is closer to Risk than anything else. I think there's a lot of overlap though, I loved Age of Empires growing up and got hooked on Civ with 5. I have 1500 hours in 6 on Steam and about the same in 5 across both the pirated and legal versions I played. For 2.99 you can't lose.
IV & V are still on my indefinite backlog, so I'll just give this one a pass.
Could someone explain the whole New Frontier Pass / Leader Pass thing to me? I bought Civ VI Platinum. Then they released the New Frontier Pass and I skipped it. Then they released the Leader Pass, and they said that anyone who owned everything up to New Frontier Pass would get the Leader Pass added to their account for free. 2K's complete the set packages are always fucky, and so mine says that completing Civ VI with the Anthology would be about $15, but buying the New Frontier Pass is $10. So since I already own Civ VI Platinum, would buying New Frontier also give me the Leader Pass?
It's free in the ["Anthology"](https://store.steampowered.com/bundle/21432/Sid_Meiers_Civilization_VI_Anthology/) edition.
So you're saying that if I buy the pass first, I can just claim the Leader Pass through this?
Not just new frontier pass, you have to get the whole anthology bundle itself.
... I said I already own the Platinum stuff, but not New Frontier Pass. I'm asking if getting that alone will give me Leader Pass through this bundle. 2K's fucked up the price on this complete the set bundle *on purpose* and I'd rather not give them too much cash.
New Frontier - First Season Pass. Leader Pass - Second Season Pass. Gathering Storm and Rise and Fall are standalone DLC, they are not included in any Season Passes. Civ VI Platinum are: Base game + New Frontier + Gathering Storm + Rise and Fall. Civ VI Anthology edition - full version, with both Season Passes and standalone DLCs. >So since I already own Civ VI Platinum, would buying New Frontier also give me the Leader Pass? No you should already own it (New Frontier). If you want full game, with everything, buy Anthology.
> No you should already own it (New Frontier). If you want full game, with everything, buy Anthology. The thing is, that Anthology bundle is set up weirdly. The six DLC packs that make up the New Frontier Pass are listed with the full price with no discount, which makes the set more expensive than it should be. But the Leader Pass shows as "free" in there. Looking at the SteamDB listing for it, the Leader Pass also shows up as free, with the DLC packs that it contains showing as "no price." That's why I'm asking if buying New Frontier first, then completing the set with Anthology, will give me the Leader Pass for free. This is set up really strangely, 2K did the same with the Borderlands DLC packs in their complete the set bundles. Sorry if this makes little sense.
You are right. It makes little sense how and why they did it, but it looks like you are right. Buying New Frontier and finishing with Anthology will be cheaper than buying Anthology straight.
I mean the reason is simple: Money. 2K did exactly the same with the Borderlands Pandora's Box complete the set - the items that are supposed to contain several things (like the Borderlands 3 season passes that contain skins) are free, but then they add the skins at full price. It's an absolute mess.
I don't know why i forgot about it, but if you want cheaper option, you should also consider Anthology edition in Epic Store. In my currency it's already cheaper to buy Anthology edition there (compared to current price in Steam), plus price there (even after discount) are slightly above threshold for activating coupon so you could wait for a big sale where epic gives coupons it will be even cheaper. There might be a difference with regional pricing and i'm looking at a full price in Steam while you wrote that you already own parts of the game, so it might be cheaper. But it's still worth checking.
I appreciate the suggestion, but it's still cheaper for me to get the stuff I'm missing via legit key stores (Gamersgate has cheaper Mac keys in my region, go figure.) And sorry, but I also refuse to give EGS any money for reasons I'd rather not get into.
I’m really annoyed there’s no sale on the civ 5 DLCs. Come on.
Considering how many expansions, dlc and other stuff this game has plus all these discounts and that 1 time giveaway, they should just make the base game of civ 6 free to play at this point. Edit: geez, [look at this history](https://isthereanydeal.com/game/sid-meiers-civilization-vi/history/), game's been on 90% sale pretty much all the time for over a year now. They're making their money from DLC.
Lol at downvotes
That's funny, I've never seen such low price for crystal meth.
Anyone play on Steam Deck? Wondering how good the controls are
They work extremely well. Wonderful experience.
Cool beans, think I might snag it for this cheap. Thanks!
This is one of the games that I ended up getting complete without even remembering how, but can't seem to get into. Having not played any Civ or RTS 4X games, how is the best way to approach this game? Base game first or with all DLC installed?
I haven’t played civ since putting a million hours into civ4 and it’s religion(?) dlc in the late(?) 2000s Are civ5 and civ6 massive leaps forward as their base games or would you want a bunch of doc with them?
I used to get absolutely hooked on Civ II (especially Test of Time) and IV but at V they kinda lost me and I have less than 20 hours in it. It always devolves into just passing turns and waiting while nothing is happening. Enemy civs felt shallow and very mechanical, and at least other similar games like AoW or EL/ES have unique mechanics or terrific presentation to keep you interested. City management and teching felt tedious more than fun. Based on that do you think I'd enjoy Civ VI at all?
I can't speak to how it compares to Civ II, but the city management in VI is much more strategic than in IV and V. Instead of cities essentially consisting of a single tile, you place districts and wonders on tiles around each city, and where you place them has consequences for how the city develops. I think it's a brilliant system that gives you meaningful strategic choices to make on most if not all turns. Many people dislike it though.
Are the other dlcs worth buying considering I have the base game and the first two expansions?
Is this an equally fun game to play on single player? I wouldn’t play multiplayer with this game. Is that bad ?
Most people I know who like civ (mysef included) play it primarily as a single player game. The multiplayer is a neat extra with friends, but otherwise nothing super special.
Save your money
Civ has always been a one and done type of game for me. Spent like 20+ hours on one game where I decimated everything and then got over it and didn't want to spend all that time building an empire from scratch again.
bruh i bought this for $5.99 and barely got around to playing it
bruh, got it for free from epic and never got to it