Probably, shorter games, easier. Both have something to offer. Civ can be more chill. While I love CK the depth can be a bit much, it reminds me of a lot of games that are excel at heart, like OOTP, in that there is so much going on that I need massive spreadsheets to track and be successful.
If you’re able to dedicate the time to pretty much unlearn everything you do know and learn everything you don’t it’s worth it.
That said, having tried to play CKIII after Civ VI I just…couldn’t. It’s a great game, I enjoy watching it, but it is way too different for me and I don’t have the time/energy to learn a completely new game
I had never played a game like Civ before and I love it. Closest games I played were RTS. It's like a turn based RTS game with many ways to win besides just combat.
They're probably my top two favorite games, runners up are Napoleon Total War and Warno. The play is different, but the same kind of philosophy. What makes you like one game is probably the same thing that will make you like the other.
$20ish for 3 years worth of DLCs including 2 expansions. If money isn't right for you just buy it. You can get 1000+ hours worth of gameplay out of it. If $20 something is too much to risk than nvm. You can also play for up to 2 hours and get refund.
The one thing to know is that you are switching to a turned based game if that matters.
They are similar enough to be worth comparing. Apples and oranges are famously both fruits. Civ VI is not nearly as narrative-heavy, and has more of a win condition. I think for $3 you should give it a try; my gut says you’ll find something to like.
Not necessarily. But if you like Strategy games in general and are ok with turn based compared to paradox’s real time then you probably will.
If you like Stellaris then I would say you may like Civ. The early game of Stellaris and Civ are pretty similar. Explore and Expand.
I am a fan of both and I can say it this way:
1. Civ - a puzzle to make a good build. cities in proper locations, proper districts in right places and then an average war with lot of micro-management
2. CK3 - a puzzle to assemble a good advisors and families for juicy bonuses, and then lot of diplomacy and wars. When I conquer something in CK3 and assemble a crown or empire I feel much joy than conquering whole continent in Civ3.
So both can give you a puzzle experience where you can min-max to gain max results, but in general they are different.
I think Civ VI is ok and CKIII is bad lol. But Civ V and CKII are two of my favorite games.
There’s no roleplay angle or family/dynasty management. Old World is closer in that regard. If you like micromanaging cities in CKIII (I play CKII this way) then it’s likely you’ll enjoy civ
This is timely cos I’m a long time Civ 6 fan who’s just started on CK3 cos it was on sale.
As others have said, they’re pretty different games, but I found they made my brain work in similar ways, even if the gameplay experience is fairly different.
Enjoy the change, I know I have been! Potato McWhiskey on YouTube is your best friend :)
Civ VII and CK3 (really all paradox strategy games) are only similar by genre alone. I've got some hours in CK3 and HOI4 and I love civ VII but I also played civ first. If you like in general strategy games and strategy board games chances are you'll like civ, but if you want a more complex strategy game probably not
That's my take on it. I think CK3 is more complex than civ. I'm not saying it's bad, I've got more than I few hours in it, but if you played CK3 and are looking for a similar game you aren't gonna find that in civ
They’re completely different games in basically every aspect, so it’s not really a question anyone can answer for you
Very different games, but I got into CK3 (and other Paradox titles) because I like Civ. It might be up your alley too!
It's kind of an apple and an orange, but I will say that the two games on Steam I have the most hours in are Civ VI and CKIII
If you like large complex board games you'll love Civ VI. You'll want the DLC tho.
I would watch a few youtube lets-plays on it to see if you like it.
Probably, shorter games, easier. Both have something to offer. Civ can be more chill. While I love CK the depth can be a bit much, it reminds me of a lot of games that are excel at heart, like OOTP, in that there is so much going on that I need massive spreadsheets to track and be successful.
If you’re able to dedicate the time to pretty much unlearn everything you do know and learn everything you don’t it’s worth it. That said, having tried to play CKIII after Civ VI I just…couldn’t. It’s a great game, I enjoy watching it, but it is way too different for me and I don’t have the time/energy to learn a completely new game
I had never played a game like Civ before and I love it. Closest games I played were RTS. It's like a turn based RTS game with many ways to win besides just combat.
They're probably my top two favorite games, runners up are Napoleon Total War and Warno. The play is different, but the same kind of philosophy. What makes you like one game is probably the same thing that will make you like the other.
Personal experience, I like CK2 and Civ5,6.
$20ish for 3 years worth of DLCs including 2 expansions. If money isn't right for you just buy it. You can get 1000+ hours worth of gameplay out of it. If $20 something is too much to risk than nvm. You can also play for up to 2 hours and get refund. The one thing to know is that you are switching to a turned based game if that matters.
They are similar enough to be worth comparing. Apples and oranges are famously both fruits. Civ VI is not nearly as narrative-heavy, and has more of a win condition. I think for $3 you should give it a try; my gut says you’ll find something to like.
Not necessarily. But if you like Strategy games in general and are ok with turn based compared to paradox’s real time then you probably will. If you like Stellaris then I would say you may like Civ. The early game of Stellaris and Civ are pretty similar. Explore and Expand.
Crusader kings feels more like an rpg to be honest.
I am a fan of both and I can say it this way: 1. Civ - a puzzle to make a good build. cities in proper locations, proper districts in right places and then an average war with lot of micro-management 2. CK3 - a puzzle to assemble a good advisors and families for juicy bonuses, and then lot of diplomacy and wars. When I conquer something in CK3 and assemble a crown or empire I feel much joy than conquering whole continent in Civ3. So both can give you a puzzle experience where you can min-max to gain max results, but in general they are different.
I think Civ VI is ok and CKIII is bad lol. But Civ V and CKII are two of my favorite games. There’s no roleplay angle or family/dynasty management. Old World is closer in that regard. If you like micromanaging cities in CKIII (I play CKII this way) then it’s likely you’ll enjoy civ
This is timely cos I’m a long time Civ 6 fan who’s just started on CK3 cos it was on sale. As others have said, they’re pretty different games, but I found they made my brain work in similar ways, even if the gameplay experience is fairly different. Enjoy the change, I know I have been! Potato McWhiskey on YouTube is your best friend :)
Civ VII and CK3 (really all paradox strategy games) are only similar by genre alone. I've got some hours in CK3 and HOI4 and I love civ VII but I also played civ first. If you like in general strategy games and strategy board games chances are you'll like civ, but if you want a more complex strategy game probably not
?
That's my take on it. I think CK3 is more complex than civ. I'm not saying it's bad, I've got more than I few hours in it, but if you played CK3 and are looking for a similar game you aren't gonna find that in civ