binhthuy71
Emperor
Neither is better. I play both for their own virtues.
Is Civ V or Civ IV better?
- Thread starter TheAtlantian
- Start date
- Status
FlorbFnarb
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2015
- Messages
- 104
I'm liking Civ V better, myself.
Delnar_Ersike
Prince
Though both games have their ups and downs, I prefer Civ4, even if you disregard Civ5's AI, simply because it does a lot more with a lot less than Civ5. Civ5 is filled to the brim with systems that give bonuses and seem to interact in some way, shape or form, but a lot of it boils down to simple calculations of what do you want to do within how many turns. Civ4, on the other hand, is filled with elegant design, from the way democratic civics interplay with the fact that they give large bonuses to improvements that are very vulnerable to pillaging to result in "democratic" players preferring peaceful solutions out of gameplay as well as out of flavor, to the way that espionage and counterespionage work and force you to decide whether you want to be 100% spy-proof and tank your economy or give yourself some economic leeway and hope you opponents don't notice the cracks in your espionage defenses.
I posted a bit of lengthy post in another thread on the matter. I'm linking to it because it will keep this post suitably short.
Suffice to say that Civ4 does the same amount as, and possible more than, Civ5 with a lot less because its designers saw how everything fit together instead of haphazardly throwing modifiers on everything to try to steer the game towards a fuzzy vision. Looking at how the designers of Civ5 continued to regress with CivBE, I'm quite worried about a possible Civ6 and hope Firaxis' design teams have a good look at the designs of their older games (Civ4's Colonization spin-off is another example of a game filled with elegant design, and I'm not even going to bother bringing up Alpha Centauri's elegance).
I posted a bit of lengthy post in another thread on the matter. I'm linking to it because it will keep this post suitably short.
Suffice to say that Civ4 does the same amount as, and possible more than, Civ5 with a lot less because its designers saw how everything fit together instead of haphazardly throwing modifiers on everything to try to steer the game towards a fuzzy vision. Looking at how the designers of Civ5 continued to regress with CivBE, I'm quite worried about a possible Civ6 and hope Firaxis' design teams have a good look at the designs of their older games (Civ4's Colonization spin-off is another example of a game filled with elegant design, and I'm not even going to bother bringing up Alpha Centauri's elegance).
Delnar_Ersike
Prince
1UPT has its own problems (makes production spent on units a lot more valuable than production spent on buildings, reduced maneuverability), as does the fact that archers are never attacked back (this was imbalanced even in Fall from Heaven 2 modmods, where archers could never make units go under 50% health), but yeah, Civ4 definitely did not give enough units collateral damage to really thwart stacks of doom.
So where do we go with Civ VI then?
1. I think we keep 1UPT. However, add supply, and retreat rules. As well as other options that can be turned off and on, depending on individual play style.
2. Better AI of course.
3. Battle map should be added for combat. Added for terrain and villages, roads etc. It would make battles more tactical and interesting. Re-playability should be something that designers should try to achieve here.
4. Espionage should be expanded on. Use you imagination. Sabotage, double agents, etc.
5. Religion should be expanded upon so one religion may want to destroy another. We need crusades and jihads. Of course it could go the other way where different religions get along and work together for the common good. Or stand together against a more violent religion. Maybe religions can sprout certain cults that add to the flavor of the religion as a whole.
6. I think there should be a techtree in each era, but use a more tech web based format like in Beyond Earth. With this you can research to customize your units, buildings, etc. For instance, say I am playing as the Huns. I can research options to make my army more horse orientated. My cavalry and horse archers, can be upgraded so they that move at speed and surprise enemies. On the defensive side I can research, say wagon trains, which help me encircle my forces for defense against attack. Going further into wagon trains, I could research defensive archery which gives me a combat bonus when defending as well. Every army can be tweaked depending on the player's choices. This should go for customizing cities as well. If you want a science city you can research options to make learning more of a priority. Buildings can be upgraded, governments can be researched and tweaked. There are just all kinds of things designers could do to create the best civ game ever.
Also, I'd like to point out that I like Civ V better than IV. I tried to play IV again and couldn't get into it. I still think that some things like corporations could be added to Civ VI, especially when upgrading cities and your economy within your empire. A lot of choices should be available to do this.
One more thing make modding easier and have alliances that can be turned on in worldbuilder.
1. I think we keep 1UPT. However, add supply, and retreat rules. As well as other options that can be turned off and on, depending on individual play style.
2. Better AI of course.
3. Battle map should be added for combat. Added for terrain and villages, roads etc. It would make battles more tactical and interesting. Re-playability should be something that designers should try to achieve here.
4. Espionage should be expanded on. Use you imagination. Sabotage, double agents, etc.
5. Religion should be expanded upon so one religion may want to destroy another. We need crusades and jihads. Of course it could go the other way where different religions get along and work together for the common good. Or stand together against a more violent religion. Maybe religions can sprout certain cults that add to the flavor of the religion as a whole.
6. I think there should be a techtree in each era, but use a more tech web based format like in Beyond Earth. With this you can research to customize your units, buildings, etc. For instance, say I am playing as the Huns. I can research options to make my army more horse orientated. My cavalry and horse archers, can be upgraded so they that move at speed and surprise enemies. On the defensive side I can research, say wagon trains, which help me encircle my forces for defense against attack. Going further into wagon trains, I could research defensive archery which gives me a combat bonus when defending as well. Every army can be tweaked depending on the player's choices. This should go for customizing cities as well. If you want a science city you can research options to make learning more of a priority. Buildings can be upgraded, governments can be researched and tweaked. There are just all kinds of things designers could do to create the best civ game ever.
Also, I'd like to point out that I like Civ V better than IV. I tried to play IV again and couldn't get into it. I still think that some things like corporations could be added to Civ VI, especially when upgrading cities and your economy within your empire. A lot of choices should be available to do this.
One more thing make modding easier and have alliances that can be turned on in worldbuilder.
ThunderLizard2
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 269
After playing several recent BNW games on Emperor level and with some AI mods to improve the AIs combat management I concluded that the 1 UPT is a fatal flaw for Civ 5. John Shafer (the Civ 5 architect) disavowed the Civ 5 1 UPT and diplomacy system in an article a few years back. After not playing Civ 5 for years and just recently tying BNW, with amd without AI mods, I still agree with him.
Civ 4 is just more fun to play than Civ 5. It's not a challenge when you know the AI will continue to do stupid stuff like: fail to adequately balance unit types (range, air, etc.), not array units in reasonable fashion, move unescorted units, stupidly attack with units and get utterly smashed, give away cities in peace deals, etc. And, the AI had a ton more units because of the AI higher-level resource cheats.
With Civ 4, there was always some suspense because the AI could mount a serious challenge and take out one or more cities.
Wouldn't it be great if Civ 6 was actually fun to play like Civ 4 but incorporated some of the good features of Civ 5?
Civ 4 is just more fun to play than Civ 5. It's not a challenge when you know the AI will continue to do stupid stuff like: fail to adequately balance unit types (range, air, etc.), not array units in reasonable fashion, move unescorted units, stupidly attack with units and get utterly smashed, give away cities in peace deals, etc. And, the AI had a ton more units because of the AI higher-level resource cheats.
With Civ 4, there was always some suspense because the AI could mount a serious challenge and take out one or more cities.
Wouldn't it be great if Civ 6 was actually fun to play like Civ 4 but incorporated some of the good features of Civ 5?
This is a hard question.
I would say civ5 is better, but it has the advantage of beeing the modern one. I think civ4 would be a better game, but it's older and that small edge makes finally civ5 the game to play. Im not claiming modern games are always better, but it gives advantage over graphics, and even quality of live features.
Still, I miss many civ4 features on civ5.
I would say civ5 is better, but it has the advantage of beeing the modern one. I think civ4 would be a better game, but it's older and that small edge makes finally civ5 the game to play. Im not claiming modern games are always better, but it gives advantage over graphics, and even quality of live features.
Still, I miss many civ4 features on civ5.
twilson1972
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2015
- Messages
- 164
Disclaimer i have only got the DLC and G&K for civ v
I have put in hundreds of hours on just about every civ version going, its the only game i play- ive played civ I, II, III, IV, V, CTP 1 and CTP 2 and SMAC
When i first tried civ v a few years ago i was massively disappointed to be honest, but ive given it another go the last few days.
Anyway which is best? This is my opinion and i dare say i may have missed some nuances of either game.
1) Looks
No contest for me, civ v is much better looking, it is also pretty slow though and ive gone from playing huge maps to standard now
But WINNER : CIV V
2) Resources
Theres more resources on Civ V it seems and there are building modifiers (granaries, mints etc) i have to admit the majority of them seem very much the same
in their effects though, and the improvement bonus was disappointing. Civ iv and v take opposite approaches to resources (limited vs just find a source)
I like the idea of limited but it seems too low numbers for me... grab a piece of land miles away to get.....3 ships with the iron?...meh i want a fleet and
a lot seems geared to discourage large armed forces (presumably because of 1UPT). Im sure some like the extreme rarity of resources though.
WINNER: TIE
3) Religion
There is a fair bit going on with religion and choices to make in civ v. On the surface it is more complex than Civ iv... however on civ iv religion really mattered too... got a powerful isabella on your borders?. Make her a religious buddy- countless times ive avoided taking a religion to avoid a diplo hit, or taken a religion that is not well spread in my empire to keep a neighbor happy. The Civ v system as of G&K is more complex for sure, but it lacks soul for me, its a bit like a power up on an RPG
Winner: Tie
4) Civics vs Social Policies.
This is a winner for me for civ iv, the social policies have zero flavor for me, its just like an RPG game where your powering up with no flavor at all. Communism, nationhood, slavery, democracy etc give me a feel of how my empire runs. Civ iv civics had some issues (slavery was very powerful) but ive used almost all the civics at some point and it is also fluid and changes as your situation changes. Civics also affected diplomacy. With civ v its linear and unchangeable.
WINNER CIV IV
5) Health and Happiness
Another Civ iv winner for me, managing health and happiness was a balancing act on civ iv, and it made sense that improvements in a city improve happiness/health in that city. The increased maintenance made sense too (when you think about colonies in the imperialistic age on earth)
In civ v, buildings in the capital affect a little colony a thousand miles away? It seems dumb, global happiness seems a huge simplification
WINNER CIV IV
6) Combat
Firstly there are problems with 1upt, in that the AI doesnt use its units well, and i think compromises in gameplay are a direct result of 1upt (production etc).
But ranged units protected by melee etc is more realistic.
On the downside on standard levels the AI is much less of a threat now, we have all been there on civ iv ...peacefully building an economic powerhouse when monty turns up with 60 jaguars that power through your 5 defenders. Basically bad ai was hidden by the SOD. However i do prefer proper ranged combat etc.
Winner Civ v (just about)
7) Trading and diplomacy
Maybee it is different in BNW, but i am not a fan of diplomacy in Civ V- and research agreements are just 'bleh' to me.
WINNER: CIV IV
7) Flavour and polish... to be honest i miss the touches like proper wonder movies, a throne room, video clips of my citizens rioting through the streets, and lovely city views from older games, the leaders clothes changing as the ages pass etc. The leaders speaking in their own language is a nice touch, but constant 'i noticed your friends with....' are annoying. Victory animations seem minimal nowadays to be honest, such an anti climax!. Its all about making me feel like im building a civilization and that im competing against opponents with personalities.
WINNER: TIE
Overall, i would say CIV V is a decent game, but it doesnt feel like civ to me? it feels more like a board game, i dont feel like im building an empire but playing a board game.
I have put in hundreds of hours on just about every civ version going, its the only game i play- ive played civ I, II, III, IV, V, CTP 1 and CTP 2 and SMAC
When i first tried civ v a few years ago i was massively disappointed to be honest, but ive given it another go the last few days.
Anyway which is best? This is my opinion and i dare say i may have missed some nuances of either game.
1) Looks
No contest for me, civ v is much better looking, it is also pretty slow though and ive gone from playing huge maps to standard now
But WINNER : CIV V
2) Resources
Theres more resources on Civ V it seems and there are building modifiers (granaries, mints etc) i have to admit the majority of them seem very much the same
in their effects though, and the improvement bonus was disappointing. Civ iv and v take opposite approaches to resources (limited vs just find a source)
I like the idea of limited but it seems too low numbers for me... grab a piece of land miles away to get.....3 ships with the iron?...meh i want a fleet and
a lot seems geared to discourage large armed forces (presumably because of 1UPT). Im sure some like the extreme rarity of resources though.
WINNER: TIE
3) Religion
There is a fair bit going on with religion and choices to make in civ v. On the surface it is more complex than Civ iv... however on civ iv religion really mattered too... got a powerful isabella on your borders?. Make her a religious buddy- countless times ive avoided taking a religion to avoid a diplo hit, or taken a religion that is not well spread in my empire to keep a neighbor happy. The Civ v system as of G&K is more complex for sure, but it lacks soul for me, its a bit like a power up on an RPG
Winner: Tie
4) Civics vs Social Policies.
This is a winner for me for civ iv, the social policies have zero flavor for me, its just like an RPG game where your powering up with no flavor at all. Communism, nationhood, slavery, democracy etc give me a feel of how my empire runs. Civ iv civics had some issues (slavery was very powerful) but ive used almost all the civics at some point and it is also fluid and changes as your situation changes. Civics also affected diplomacy. With civ v its linear and unchangeable.
WINNER CIV IV
5) Health and Happiness
Another Civ iv winner for me, managing health and happiness was a balancing act on civ iv, and it made sense that improvements in a city improve happiness/health in that city. The increased maintenance made sense too (when you think about colonies in the imperialistic age on earth)
In civ v, buildings in the capital affect a little colony a thousand miles away? It seems dumb, global happiness seems a huge simplification
WINNER CIV IV
6) Combat
Firstly there are problems with 1upt, in that the AI doesnt use its units well, and i think compromises in gameplay are a direct result of 1upt (production etc).
But ranged units protected by melee etc is more realistic.
On the downside on standard levels the AI is much less of a threat now, we have all been there on civ iv ...peacefully building an economic powerhouse when monty turns up with 60 jaguars that power through your 5 defenders. Basically bad ai was hidden by the SOD. However i do prefer proper ranged combat etc.
Winner Civ v (just about)
7) Trading and diplomacy
Maybee it is different in BNW, but i am not a fan of diplomacy in Civ V- and research agreements are just 'bleh' to me.
WINNER: CIV IV
7) Flavour and polish... to be honest i miss the touches like proper wonder movies, a throne room, video clips of my citizens rioting through the streets, and lovely city views from older games, the leaders clothes changing as the ages pass etc. The leaders speaking in their own language is a nice touch, but constant 'i noticed your friends with....' are annoying. Victory animations seem minimal nowadays to be honest, such an anti climax!. Its all about making me feel like im building a civilization and that im competing against opponents with personalities.
WINNER: TIE
Overall, i would say CIV V is a decent game, but it doesnt feel like civ to me? it feels more like a board game, i dont feel like im building an empire but playing a board game.
rschissler
King
twilson1972: Nice review!
twilson1972
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2015
- Messages
- 164
There were other things i have issues with, the espionage feels bolted on, ive actually dropped from marathon game speed to epic/normal now as well due to production speed.
But i still think it is a decent game, i was reluctant to be critical, because i know people get quite defensive about their fave game and i love the series. It does look gorgeous too.
Civ in its many iterations has sadly given me FAR more sleepless nights than is healthy, ive lost count of the number of times ive gone 'bugger its 2.30am and i have work in 4 hours'
binhthuy71
Emperor
To compare the games I played two games each of Civ IV and Civ V. The games were setup Monarch/King, Standard size Pangaea map, Epic speed, one game each as Gandhi and one each as Montezuma. I played each game back-to-back: Civ IV then Civ V.
I decided that, for me, the answer to the question "Is Civ V or Civ IV better?" is:
"Yes."
I decided that, for me, the answer to the question "Is Civ V or Civ IV better?" is:
"Yes."
Civ4 is the game I'd want to play more, but I played it so much.
Civ5 has some nice features but also has severe liabilities in its' game design.
I actually prefer social policies to civics, but there need to be more tradeoffs and there ought to be actual options in the SP tree. Civ5's problem is that there is really only one way through the tech tree and one way through the SP tree to optimize your outputs.
Get rid of 1UPT and idiotic ranged units, and most of Civ5's problems are less of a problem.
I'd rather the game move away from individual military units, and instead work with full armies. A stack of doom would fight together in one battle vs. another stack of doom, rather than each unit fighting single-file. It could definitely use some refinement.
Civ is not a very good wargame and really shouldn't try to be, so combat should be kept reasonably simple.
I'd rather have Civ6 move forward, rather than try to imitate earlier entries in the series. There are, however, a lot of lessons to learn from Civ5's failures, and Civ4's bad aspects.
Civ5 has some nice features but also has severe liabilities in its' game design.
I actually prefer social policies to civics, but there need to be more tradeoffs and there ought to be actual options in the SP tree. Civ5's problem is that there is really only one way through the tech tree and one way through the SP tree to optimize your outputs.
Get rid of 1UPT and idiotic ranged units, and most of Civ5's problems are less of a problem.
I'd rather the game move away from individual military units, and instead work with full armies. A stack of doom would fight together in one battle vs. another stack of doom, rather than each unit fighting single-file. It could definitely use some refinement.
Civ is not a very good wargame and really shouldn't try to be, so combat should be kept reasonably simple.
I'd rather have Civ6 move forward, rather than try to imitate earlier entries in the series. There are, however, a lot of lessons to learn from Civ5's failures, and Civ4's bad aspects.
Hex combat should be improved for Civ VI. They should take steps to make combat more interesting. It doesn't have to be complicated. However, the AI should be able to grasp basic concepts of 1UPT much better than Civ V's AI. I'll be happy with that. Espionage and diplomacy also need improvement.
twilson1972
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2015
- Messages
- 164
Well ive experienced the traffic jams for myself now, it was quite funny watching napoleon congo his troops towards me as i killed them one at a time
The easy answer would be to split the hex into 4 for units, but keep it as single tiles for the city view / resources.
You wont get stacks (each of those 4 mini tiles would still be seperate so an archer on one mini tile would be unprotected), but you would have far more room for maneuvering etc.
Because for me, not enough tiles is an issue.
twilson1972
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2015
- Messages
- 164
I tried a warmongering game for my 3rd game, archipelago
Some things were very annoying to be honest
I am on standard speed since production is so slow on epic / marathon, but by the time ive built my invasion fleet....its obsolete!!! science seems very quick (less techs?)
Also, through bribing city states i had a fleet of 9 ships of the line, 6 privateers and a number of land units to hold taken cities.
Trying to maneuver them was a complete nightmare to be honest, it isnt about skill- its just a matter of traffic jams...also there no longer seems a way to set waypoints.
Also city states, seemed a great addition, but after 3 games it all seems quite simple?
Bribe/rig= get food/resources etc
Still enjoying it, but it all feels a little shallow - maybee it will be different on emperor when the AI is challenging (i dont know tech tree so have played first 3 games on king)
Some things were very annoying to be honest
I am on standard speed since production is so slow on epic / marathon, but by the time ive built my invasion fleet....its obsolete!!! science seems very quick (less techs?)
Also, through bribing city states i had a fleet of 9 ships of the line, 6 privateers and a number of land units to hold taken cities.
Trying to maneuver them was a complete nightmare to be honest, it isnt about skill- its just a matter of traffic jams...also there no longer seems a way to set waypoints.
Also city states, seemed a great addition, but after 3 games it all seems quite simple?
Bribe/rig= get food/resources etc
Still enjoying it, but it all feels a little shallow - maybee it will be different on emperor when the AI is challenging (i dont know tech tree so have played first 3 games on king)
reddishrecue
Some dude on civfans
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,213
In an archipelago map, I would prefer civilization 5 because of ranged. You can't do much with archipelago in civilization 4 with no ranged damage except but landing and attacking melee ships with your own melee unit ships. If you want to attack cities you need to rely on amphibious promotion a lot particularly if you want go capture cities. In civilization v you don't have to rely on amphibiousthat much bbecause there's ranged units and melee ships that can capture cities too unlike in iv which only allows land units to capture cities.
Definitely agree with the sentiment that Civilization Five feels like a board game.
I certainly like board games and they have their good points but when it comes to grand, epic Civ experiences, they fall flat for me. I like Euro games mainly and realize that they aren't meant to be epic.
For me (and I'm sure others will disagree which is their right) Civilization Five just doesn't feel epic. cIV had that epic feeling and something was lost there in the transition.
I am still optimistic for Civ VI, however.
I certainly like board games and they have their good points but when it comes to grand, epic Civ experiences, they fall flat for me. I like Euro games mainly and realize that they aren't meant to be epic.
For me (and I'm sure others will disagree which is their right) Civilization Five just doesn't feel epic. cIV had that epic feeling and something was lost there in the transition.
I am still optimistic for Civ VI, however.
Delnar_Ersike
Prince
Ho boy, Archipelago is the worst map for AIs. A lot of players here can confirm this from experience, and I can confirm it from the fact that the AI algorithms I know of in unmodded BNW start failing heavily on naval maps.
Science can definitely be very quick: it's not due to less techs, it's because of two things: 1) the ideal path(s) through the tech tree are both very clear-cut and accelerate science production to levels that the game's designers (seemingly) did not anticipate, and 2) you actually get a beaker boost on science overflow now, and though the latest patch capped it so you can no longer exploit it to ridiculous levels, it still means that beelining a tech and then researching earlier techs gets you to the same tech level faster than if you researched the earlier techs first before beelining.
It's one of the reasons I will play Standard map size on Epic speed and Small map size on either Standard speed or Quick speed, depending on the mapscript (land-dominated = Quick, otherwise Standard).
It's very simple in singleplayer, aye, but things are a lot more interesting in multiplayer. However, it cannot be said how important those random, earlygame city-state quests can be: if you're lucky, you don't even need to bribe a city-state to get influence with them.
Thing is, as the AI gets more challenging, your viable options get restricted. They'll still make the same, stupid decisions as before, but they'll be getting so many bonuses on the side that the game becomes more about exploiting holes in the AI's logic and getting lucky with starts than anything else.
I'd really recommend you give multiplayer BNW a try if you're finding the AI boring to play against: human players are a lot better at exploiting the options given to them by BNW than even the Deity-level AI.
Naval units couldn't capture cities in vanilla Civ5, either, mind you. But yeah, having to constantly embark and disembark melee units in Civ4 was a bit of chore and the only time stacks of doom flatout made the game experience better (you could just pile all of your land units onto a single tile instead of having to play traffic cop with embarked melee units).
It feels like a board game because it was designed by people with boardgaming backgrounds, specifically the American type (as opposed to Japanese or Euro games): they said so at Firaxicon when the designers were talking about XCOM board game.
I can definitely think of a few epic-feeling boardgames (eg. Twilight Imperium, maybe some of the larger-scale WH40K stuff), maybe even a few that fall on the Euro game side of things (Archipelago). However, all epic-feeling boardgames have a sense of escalation to them, the sense that small, petty skirmishes evolve into bombastic, drawn-out assaults as the game progresses. Civ5 is probably the Civ game that has this the least, most likely because of the way that tall play has been made so powerful compared to wide play: rarely do you see yourself really spreading out into a sprawling empire, and even then you're usually hit with an unhappiness so huge that half your cities rebel and convert to another civ. Sure, you can make a huge army of 50+ units like in Civ4, but you'll be spending more time micromanaging them due to 1UPT than actually fighting with them; plus, why build 50 units when 16 can perform just as well?
I wish I could share your optimism, but after CivBE and Starships, I honestly can't.I am still optimistic for Civ VI, however.
- Status
