Civ IV worth now?

I agree with Seraiel. One of the main problems of Civ V is that the AI is completely unable to play 1upt properly. The game is way too easy for me.
 
Civ IV is still worth it however, imho, if you have never played Civ IV then give some serious thought to passing it up. Civ 6 will most likely be more like Civ 5 so........

If I had never played Civ IV then Civ 5 would be a very fine and enjoyable game. One of my other favorite and mind you, extremely "current" (release date) games to play is SC2 LoTV. Blizzard and David Kim have done an amazing job making new releases better than their predecessors.

It's a shame more companies don't have these same priorities. Starcraft (and other games) have shown you can continually improve a games quality and content and make it more popular and profitable then ever.
 
I've played Civ 2, SMAC, Civ III, Civ IV, Civ V, and (briefly, on a Steam "play free for a weekend) Beyond Earth.

Civ IV is my favourite version, and I still play it regularly (more than V).

Civ IV is like Civ 2 with a whole load of extra features (e.g. strategic resources, better/more interesting "government" options, more interesting unit abilities, more wonders, etc). In fact, it was only when I got Civ IV that I stopped playing 2, because it was the first sequal I thought did everything better.

I don't think Civ V is "stupid", but its got a lots of differences to the previous games that a) make it play very differently, and b) many people find annoying. Most notably only letting you put one unit on each tile, and having a completely different approach to combat, "government", commerce, etc.

So I reckon that if you liked Civ 2, you'll like Civ IV, and will be worth getting. (You may well also like Civ V, but its sufficiently different that that doesn't follow).
 
To put this another way, Civ V limited the scope of your civilization. 4 cities (basically, the state of Ohio in the USA) was considered a good empire, no independent sliders to set your spending, and global happiness limits kept things localized, neat and tall. 1UPT meant that the AI had huge problems in plotting its troop movements, and many humans struggled, too. Social policies are a ratchet; once adopted, never abandoned. A conquest victory means taking just the original capital cities.

Civ IV opens up all of those avenues. Empires with 20 cities are common, spanning huge tracts of land. Separate science, culture, and espionage sliders let you tune your economy as you wish. Stackable units make it straightforward for armies to find their way into battle. Civics are changeable, depending on the stage of the game and the needs of your empire. A conquest victory means you must conquer all your opponents, and a domination victory means controlling a majority of the land and population.
 
we need and civ iv hd remake
i try the civ v and also the first expansion.... but it was meh... 1upt kills all the experience and moving and army was to boring.
i play on normal dificult noble i think, with napoleon, (really op), i manage to get musketers while the ia get iron units like swordsmans
 
Civ IV HDR with memory & multi-click bugs sorted out, and AI that understands super healers & Woodsman II threat ranges (seriously, you need never build a Worker for yourself and can often dispense with Catapults if you have Copper), and tablet versions that can both play LAN and PBEM multiplayer with desktop versions and also piggyback onto a Desktop version's Steam connection (like when two players are on Mario Kart 8 online via the same Wii U)
 
You know, it just occurred to me that Civ5's design philosophy can accurately be summed up as: If it ain't broke, we're gonna fix it until it is!
 
You know, it just occurred to me that Civ5's design philosophy can accurately be summed up as: If it ain't broke, we're gonna fix it until it is!

Okay, where's the upvote button so I can indicate my agreement?
 
I wonder if we can make one.. A heartfelt +1 to IK's insight.
 
That's actually a small empire as far as I'm concerned. My record so far is 70.

Agree; I have often managed empires of 40-50, since I rarely raze the cities I capture.
But 20 >> 4, and that was my main point.
 
This pretty much hits the nail on the head, re: epic feel. Ever since Civ2, I’ve gone out of my way to play larger and larger maps, with bigger and bigger empires (and enemies) being the result. Large maps prolong the exploration period, they keep surprises coming for longer in the game, and they make trade/diplo a bit more complex. 4 cities would feel like a demo version of the game.
 
Clearly this is a matter of opinion and not really fair to tell the OP that it is 'stupid'. Civ 4 and Civ 5 are very different games and not liking the mechanics of Civ 5 is no reason to call it stupid when the game is clearly very popular with others. You don't even explain to the OP why you think it is stupid either.

Civ4 with all its add-ons is for serious game players. Civ5 is for kids, trying to learn how to play a PC game.

They may find Civ4 to difficult. :) I bought Civ5 and then gave it to a charity shop.
 
Civ 6 will most likely be more like Civ 5 so........

It will be completely pointless, not fun to play - and unless you are still at school and learning how to play serious games -useless. Try Civ4 with some mods. :)
 
I love IV. To me, it is the greatest CPU/video game ever made.

Whoever said that Civ progressed from I - IV... was right. V had/has a completely different feel for me, and too many aspects introduced that I do not care for. Things were removed and streamlined that I did not want removed and streamlined. I played one game on Prince on V and I was cleaning up pretty easily. On IV I still struggle in the middle difficulties.

I dont want to dwell too much on V




Civ IV to me is very deep. It feels like I can play 1,000 games and each one will be very different. 10 years later, I still go back to it.
 
Top Bottom