5 is simpler, but still with a lot of depth and a high skill ceiling. 6 just added more systems without much rhyme or reason. That’s what I felt anyway, I also massively preferred 5’s art style.

IMO 5 > 6 > 4

But it’s been ages since I played 4. I remember it being pretty good. Maybe if I played both 6 and 4 again I would come out with a different ranking. But 5 reigns supreme. The mechanics are just so much tighter and more interesting.

I’ve been playing Civ 6, with and without the mods. Custom Leaders and many combinations of mods tend to make the game desync after 100 turns on quick speed, but I enjoy it.

I’ve enjoyed civ 5 too but just haven’t played as much I guess. The DLC being so numerous, my rating of Civ 6 against 5 would depend on which “edition” you have. It bugs me that it doesn’t show which civs you didn’t own don’t appear until after you select them in the menu.

Honestly, after playing some of Paradox’s Grand Strategy games I prefer those. It’s not a fair comparison since they’re so wildly different though. I love Crusader Kings 3. The way you’re playing a very specific person as opposed to your empire in an abstract sense is very fascinating to me.

Civ IV is the GOAT.

Civ V was the first one I played. I could not get into 6

Honestly, the only Civ I’ve ever played was Civilization Revolution 2. I enjoyed that one quite a bit. Figured for 3 smackaroons, I’ll get at least that much enjoyment out of Civ 6.

For what? IV and VI have a lot going for them. V is total trash.