It's been a while....

HughFran

Prince
Joined
Jul 24, 2015
Messages
348
Okay, so I haven't played Civ 4 once since Civ 5 came out (then BE followed this) but after reading through some of the posts here I got a bit nostalgic about the game and was thinking of giving it a try for old times sake.

How many people on the Civ 4 forum regularly play Civ 5? Are there people here who have never made the jump to Civ 5? Are there people who play both regularly? Does it feel weird going back to the fourth game after such a long time?

Interested in people's thoughts!
 
I play both. I like Civ V better but the AI is so much better in Civ IV. 1 unit per tile is the best thing about Civ V and the worst thing about Civ V all at once.
 
Uhh, I haven't switched in a while but as I remember it is pretty weird. Remember you need units to defend your cities against barbarians, and stack your workers to finish key improvements faster.
In Civ IV you need to actually think about declaring war and fighting. You can't just waltz through the carpet of doom with 7 units and capture the enemy capital, you need to have at least one of technological superiority or numerical parity.
 
Hugh, I'm in the same boat. I've been playing Civ5 exclusively since it came out and have just went back to 4. It is an odd feeling and requires a "refresher" period when you play one exclusively for a long time and then switch to the other. However, it's not that confusing or detracting to play both simultaneously.

The big adjustments, for me, in going back to civ4 after an extended period of civ 5 were:

-CITIES: lots more. A civ5 "tall" empire has 3 or 4, maybe 1. A civ 5 "wide" empire can be 6 cities. Keep in mind that some NW's in civ4 require 6 buildings, so 6, which was wide in civ5, can almost be considered the absolute minimum in Civ4. Yes, you can do OCC's in Civ4, but OCC in civ5 is a strategy, whereas OCC in civ4 is a self-imposed challenge.
-stacks: obviously a key issue. And build lots and lots of catapults.
-improvements: stack those workers because improvements can add 3 or more to the value of a tile, whereas with civ5 they generally add 1.
-PACING: in Civ5, particularly deity, it's a rush to education, a rush to sci theory, a beeline to plastics, then find a victory condition. In civ 4, the early game in particular seems to go on and on. It "feels" like there's more time to do stuff.
 
I got civ5 and played for 30something hours, but decided civ4 was just better. Almost all of my IRL civ playing friends play 5 though, so sometimes I am tempted to go back. Then, when I hear them talking about civ5, I realize how much more sophisticated 4 is. I never liked 1 unit per tile, it feels silly and unhistorical.
 
I've played Civ 2, 3, and 4. But I've never made the jump to 5.

The first reason is that my computer just isn't fast enough. (10 years old)

The second reason is that although I have played civ 4 for years on and off. I'm still learning more about it.

I'm actually more interested in trying out Civ 3 again. Because I didn't play that as much as Civ 2.
 
There is some great mods over in the Civ 3 mod forums.

I play Civ 5 rarely ( my youngest got it for my B-Day), as I find it incredibly boring unless a decent set of mods is active.
 
I find it incredibly boring unless a decent set of mods is active.

This is an interesting statement! Why do you find Civ 5 boring? I LOVED Civ 4 back in the day but when Civ 5 came out I just stopped playing 4 altogether. But I actually miss the days of stacking units and barbarian cities lol.
 
It's basically the same thing over and over. Choose either tall/wide, tradition and occasionally liberty. Spam 4-5 cities, then go for your VC of choice. Granted, there are a couple of stellar mods that make BNW more interesting to play, but base game to me is rather dry and lackluster.

I don't get the enjoyment of building a grand empire to stand the test of time with Civ V as I do with Civ IV. To me, IMO, Civ V is basically a point and click game that you rinse and repeat. What's really telly to me, is that I've never been able to beat diety on Civ IV, but I have no problem defeating diety on Civ V.
 
Some very interesting points here and I actually agree with you to an extent - I do find myself following the same steps each time in Civ 5 (four city - tradition). I rarely go to war in Civ 5 unless attacked but in Civ 4 I went to war all the time because I loved the stacks of doom and the fact that you could create armies! That's it, you've convinced me lol - I'm going to try Civ 4 again sometime this week!
 
This is an interesting statement! Why do you find Civ 5 boring? I LOVED Civ 4 back in the day but when Civ 5 came out I just stopped playing 4 altogether. But I actually miss the days of stacking units and barbarian cities lol.

Possibly because it's crap.

Thank goodness 4 still works, and I hope somebody beats some sense into the right people so that Civ 6 won't suck arse too.

Hey, a man can hope! :D
 
So I downloaded and started three different games of Civ 4 yesterday and boy, am I rusty lol! I completely forgot a lot of the mechanics and that cities cannot defend themselves! In my first game I got a really crap start and was boxed in on all four corners by other Civs so I restarted. In my second game, I only had two warriors defending my capital and a hoarde of barb spearmen arrived on my border and took the capital within three turns of their appearence lol.

I've started a third game and I've been a little careful this time but I'm already behind the other Civs and I'm only playing at Prince level haha. I know it's all down to me being rusty and I'll pick it up again but after being so used to Civ 5 and following a certain format, it's like playing a new game.

The nostalgic memories started flooding back though and I am really happy to be playing Civ 4 again so I'll play a few games to get used to it and then I should get back into the swing of it soon
 
In my second game, I only had two warriors defending my capital and a hoarde of barb spearmen arrived on my border and took the capital within three turns of their appearence lol.

Getting that event is bad luck, and so early there is basically nothing you can do to defend yourself against it. You can try to play without events, though. It's easier to focus on the core gameplay that way, and most events are "meh" anyway.
 
If I play Civ5 in singleplayer I only do so with mods because the base game sucks, but unfortunately my real life friends haven't seen the light yet and insist on playing Civ5 when we play together.
 
Some events are meh but I actually enjoy playing with barbs. It was just a silly mistake of mine for not defending better. You have to focus on city defence a lot earlier in Civ 4 due to them not having any defence of their own. I am basically relearning this game after not playing it in half a decade so it's actually exciting to be playing as a noob again haha
 
I played Civ5 for a while but I never really got into it. So I went back to CivIV. Right now I'm alternating games between Rise of Mankind-A New Dawn and Fall from Heaven II. Switching back and forth is fun, although sometimes I wish I could get a spy in FfH or that I had an adept to change desert into plains in RoM.
 
After several months of reading, commenting, and finding out about the game (pre release) I finally tried Civ V with a friend, a long time civer like me. Coming to understand the starting mechanics and having played for a couple of hours we decided to attack a neighbour with horsemen (i believe it was horsemen or some), to find out that we were unable to occupy the target city with them. So, after looking to each other in awe, we gently took the time to carry a slow warrior to take it, while we continued to keep the city clean with the horsemen, for the taking. Once the warrior takes the city we can´t raze it (which was our idea from the begining). Googled the situation to learn capitals cannot be razed in 5. This were my only 2 hs with this game.

The fact is I respect people who like Civ V, but it truly lacks in depth when compared with 104 (less systems, less variety in the worlds and posibilities you can enjoy). It was a piety due to several nice additions civ V did include.

HughFran, if you insist on your ludic endavour with 104 you should leave vanilla BTS just now and try BAT 4.1, it is a major art and inteface improvement, plus it has the terrifying better AI mod included!
 
So I've been playing Civ 4 in tandem with Civ 5 and I'm reliving old memories of 4 and how different it is. Having Leonard Nemoy narrating is a nice little bonus and overall I am enjoying replaying 4. It is definitely taking a lot of time to get used to though - I am still struggling to remember the mechanics of Diplomacy, Culture, Religion, etc in Civ 4 and having to do a bit of reading online. I got a little carried away with nostalgia and loaded up Civ 3 as well. I can see why people still prefer Civ 4 to Civ 5 but sometimes the stacks of doom can be annoying and I realised that Cities being able to defend themselves and have hitpoints is an improvement on Civ 4.

I don't think I will ever stop playing Civ 4 but with Civ 6 coming out and BERT still on my play list, finding the time for them all is tough!!
 
Top Bottom