I like it too. And I like Civ 5 as well. A year ago I played both games to compare and summed it up like this

Civ 6 is the better game. It's more robust, fleshed out, looks better, has much more depth in layers, and has a number of QoL improvements that enhance the experience. But it is let down by the AI. The AI in Civ 6 does a good job for the most part with city building and empire expansion, and it is very competitive on things like suzerainty, religion and wonders. But, at least at King and Emperor, it fails to present a reasonable challenge in terms of hostile aggression and warfare.

It was strikingly obvious while playing Civ 5, how the AI went to war, and took cities, killed other civs, maintained a standing army (and navy). I get very little of this in Civ 6. I still have yet to have war declared on me by anyone. And that's no good.


So that was how I assessed it. Civ 6 is better in most every way, except for how the AI conducts itself in regards to military and aggressive expansion. Civ 6 is in a great place for peaceful or isolationist runs. But if you want the AI to present a reasonable challenge from a military point of view it's disappointing.


I put my thoughts about Civ 6 in to a thread over at SimHQ


https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.p...-6#Post4562655

I certainly do not miss the Stacks of Doom from 5. :nope:


I do wish they would incorporate colonies (from 4, I think) Those were a nice tough and could lead to some nice battles.


I wish someone would make a mod to allow both an art museum and an Archeologist museum in the same city.



Currently Sweden is my favorite Civ to play. But then I always try for Cultural or Diplomatic victories.

That was Civ IV but I think that's what you meant. Civ V is 1UPT.

I do tend on getting my Civ versions confused as I played each of them a lot.

I should have watched this more often


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7GkX4h-TP8