I'm new to the ''Civ'' series. What is the best in all the aspects? Civ4 or Civ5?

@Eternalblue
In civ4 there are only 2 type of range units, planes and missiles.
All other units will fight a 1 versus 1 melee combat and only 1 unit survives.
If the attacker has a withdraw chance (promotion) it can survive despite losing the battle.
So, the big difference is the risk of losing your unit when fighting an enemy unit.

I prefer the stack of doom mechanic over the 1 upt. It saves time (grouping units) and most of all the AI knows how to play with it.
Further, civ4 diplomacy is dynamic just like its trading system. Improving relations with the AI actually means something.
A friendly civ4 leader won't attack you, with the exception of having vassals or an ally or both or triggering one of the war events.

Tatran said:

@Eternalblue
In civ4 there are only 2 type of range units, planes and missiles.
All other units will fight a 1 versus 1 melee combat and only 1 unit survives.
If the attacker has a withdraw chance (promotion) it can survive despite losing the battle.
So, the big difference is the risk of losing your unit when fighting an enemy unit.

I prefer the stack of doom mechanic over the 1 upt. It saves time (grouping units) and most of all the AI knows how to play with it.
Further, civ4 diplomacy is dynamic just like its trading system. Improving relations with the AI actually means something.
A friendly civ4 leader won't attack you, with the exception of having vassals or an ally or both or triggering one of the war events.

Click to expand...

Ok, thank you very much for answer... so, the big point is that civ4 is more realistic in diplomacy, growth, happines and health of the cities individualy no? and the relationship with the leaders... the happiness is not like in civ5 in common for all the civilization and the social policies and culture... I understand that civ4 contain much micro-management... ok, I understand , thanx... so if u need to create tomorow a civ game and you need to chose a combat... from your heart what tipe of combat will be: the SOD one or the 1UPT? square or hexagonal movement? I just want to know your oppinion ... all that you told me with diplomacy, growth, health and happiness is a good thing but I don't used with combat and the graphics and I dont know the logic of SOD thing.... I don't know what is the tactical and strategic combat thow, moving big stacks of units and what is the big unit of the most growth city wins without nothing tactical and strategic way of war... and other question please: what is the best and more likely: '' the civics '' or '' the social policies ''? because I don't know the civics what they mean with ''anarchy'' and ''revolution thing''... or the tech tree that is different in other way that is in civ5 gods and kings... what is more realistic,,, and what is more realistic in historical eventes and all that stuff.. if u can answer me that difference I'll be very greatfull... thanx...

If I were you I'd just get the game and try it out. Civ 4 Ultimate (that's with both expansions, and Civ 4: Colonization as a bonus) costs 9,99 on amazon.de. It's difficult to answer all your questions if you don't know anything about how the different features work in the game.

In short, Civ 4 is widely considered to be the master piece of civ games. It is the much more realistic game than Civ 5 and closer to an empire building simulation. That doesn't necessarily mean more micro-managing, at least on the lower difficulties you can automate most things. Civ 5 doesn't care about history and realism at all, as I explained in my previous post. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, maybe it does.

The other questions you ask largely depend on personal opinion. I can only give you mine.

SOD one or the 1UPT?

Click to expand...

Even without the problems of 1UPT (bad AI, having to move every unit seperately every turn, having armies stretch for 1000s of kilometers, archers shooting hundreds of miles etc), stacks are much more suitable for Civ, because the focus lies more on strategical (empire building) aspects, like how fast you can produce new and better units in war. You still have to use clever tactics though (combat is actually much harder in Civ 4 because of the better AI).

square or hexagonal movement?

Click to expand...

Since we are on a world, and not a tactical map, we should be able to move in the eight directions of the compass. Being able to move only in six directions doesn't make any sense. Why six?

'' the civics '' or '' the social policies ''?

Click to expand...

Civics show how empires were organized at different times. They allow for a wide variety of combinations of political, economical, religious, and social organization. The civics can be changed with the appropriate techs, which usually involves a short period of anarchy. Think of the Romans changing from a republic to a monarchy, the French Revolution, or the Nazi time in Germany as historical examples of countries "changing their civics". Social policies, again, make no sense historically.

the tech tree

Click to expand...

The tech tree requires more thought in Civ 4 because it is branched out wider and offers more variety. It is also historically more accurate and doesn't involve major absurdities.

But as I said, get the game and try it for yourself. There's a high chance that you will prefer it. And if you don't, then at least you will know it. The Civ 4 forum is full of helpful people if you need any advice.

Civ4 combat is not hard or complex at all, but then again, neither is civ5. Civ5 is literally the same thing over and over- get your range in position, use siege weapons on cities, move in for kill with one melee/mounted.

Civ4 uses a rock, paper, scissors mechanic of units and counter units. For example, although some units like pikemen have a bonus in civ5 you generally don't counter unit types that way. Instead you use range wisely and flank attacks and open/rough terrain promotions. In civ4 you would counter a bunch of axemen coming to attack you with chariots because they get 100% attack vs axes. The attacker would want to stack some spearmen with his axes to counter your chariots. So the stacks are like a little chess game.

Neither way is really superior but when you consider the failings of 1upt I think civ4's system is much better. People complain stack of doom and collateral damage is exploitative but so is range and flanking in civ5 if you do it right. Thus I prefer the system that takes less management. Civ to me is primarily an empire building strategic game, not a tactical combat game. Thus the less time I can devote to moving units the more time I can spend building my empire which is better.

As far as civics vs policies, both are cool in their own way, and I feel like at times civ4 needs more civic options because you generally get pigeonholed into the best ones for what you're doing. Usually I use one set for peacetime and one for war. But the flexibility is awesome. Policies is just another research mechanic. It would be best to me if you had both and it looks like the next civ5 expansion will. For example your empire should be able to evolve over time. The "traditions" you had in 3000 BC might not apply to your people in the industrial era. And you might want to go to war and be autocratic but become more free in peacetime.

The tech tree is probably my biggest gripe with civ5, along with no tech trades. If you examine the tree there's really no variety because nearly all techs are tied together with prereqs. In 4 this is not the case at all. You can go all the way to say medicine without any military techs like steel for cannons. It's your choice. Much more strategy involved in tech choices. And trading techs brings a whole new layer of strategy as well.

I think the majority of players who take the time to learn civ4 will admit it is a superior game, but that doesn't necessarily mean they like it better. Some prefer the graphical layout and flavor of civ5 over 4 even if 4 might be deeper. And some don't want to learn a more complex game. A lot of new players will prefer 5 for that reason.

Civ 4 is the best Civ game, but that doesn't mean 5 isn't good.

ok... thanx very much funky, civvver, for explaining to me in a very good way all of these things... so the civ ''hardcore'' game and more complex final is civ4... I just think I will like very much something complex and with a lot of options than a game ''light'' of civ like 5... because will offer to me a lot of more satisfaction... I will buy a civ4 game complete with all of expansions thanx to the information of both of you and despite the graphics and the old dated fonts I will intent to understand a civ4 game... I like civ5 G&K so much but if civ4 is more historical and more challenging and realism I will play civ4 complete and I will intend to acomodate with SOD and squares. Now I understand why the great civ players and the veterans of civ like u dont like civ5 very much: very good graphical , commercial, for everyone without a complex good system like in ''old good days...'' with not a realistic AI and no historical points... thow I like very much how its expanding the lands in civ5 with indefinited forms... but its not a great deal to consider... and the last question for the both of u... in civIV is more variated in the resourses aspects? the lands have more resourses and bonus resourses and special units for every civ than civ5G&K? u know ( the terrain diversity, bonuses like whales, oil, aluminium, stuff like that? more wonders, special ships, or units special variated like the hoplite units of the greeks... ) or the things like the city states? and if I will play civ4 I think I will miss the deffensive city thing with range attacks from civ5... but it's allright...

eternalblue said:

ok... thanx very much funky, civvver, for explaining to me in a very good way all of these things... so the civ ''hardcore'' game and more complex final is civ4... I just think I will like very much something complex and with a lot of options than a game ''light'' of civ like 5... because will offer to me a lot of more satisfaction... I will buy a civ4 game complete with all of expansions thanx to the information of both of you and despite the graphics and the old dated fonts I will intent to understand a civ4 game... I like civ5 G&K so much but if civ4 is more historical and more challenging and realism I will play civ4 complete and I will intend to acomodate with SOD and squares. Now I understand why the great civ players and the veterans of civ like u dont like civ5 very much: very good graphical , commercial, for everyone without a complex good system like in ''old good days...'' with not a realistic AI and no historical points... thow I like very much how its expanding the lands in civ5 with indefinited forms... but its not a great deal to consider... and the last question for the both of u... in civIV is more variated in the resourses aspects? the lands have more resourses and bonus resourses and special units for every civ than civ5G&K? u know ( the terrain diversity, bonuses like whales, oil, aluminium, stuff like that? more wonders, special ships, or units special variated like the hoplite units of the greeks... ) or the things like the city states? and if I will play civ4 I think I will miss the deffensive city thing with range attacks from civ5... but it's allright...

Click to expand...

I find it quite curious that you completely accept the opinion of Civ4 adherents even in a thread where more people expressed opinions favoring Civ5 as opposed to Civ4.

Where do you possibly get the idea that most veterans of Civ (and the great civ players???) prefer Civ4? Certainly not from this thread!

Most of the statements in this thread are pure opinion, and there's much disagreement on both sides.

I believe:
1. Combat in Civ5 is more complicated than Civ4 (both sides agree that it is much harder for the AI); I find that more interesting, others may want an easier game.

2. Diplomacy in Civ5 is more realistic than Civ4 (both have problems). Diplomacy (especially if you include espionage options) is richer in Civ4, but that doesn't make it more realistic. I find it amusing that Civ4 adherents complain about the fact that you can't count on your ally being faithful to you in Civ5 - can they name a friendship between world powers that lasted 500 years in real life, much less the 2000 year friendships that are typical in Civ4?

3. The religious aspects are much better developed with much more complexity in Civ5. Civ4 is very simplistic, with very little differences between the religions. Civ5 is more realistic.

4. Civ5 civs are much different from each other than in Civ4. You have all the different propensities of the civs in both, but the unique attributes and unique buildings/units in Civ5 make a big difference in play. That is both realistic (sometimes!) and fun (and offers much more variety for you, the player, as you take advantage of your civ's attributes.)

5. Too much in Civ4 is financial centered. Everything is more easily converted to and from gold, so for example, you need a religion because its financial benefits, not because of other reasons. The convertibility of production and money is overdone in Civ4 - not realistic.

6. Social policies are much more complex and developed in Civ5.

I entirely agree there are aspects of Civ4 that are more realistic than Civ5, and the rich mod world makes playing realistic even easier. If that's why you play, then Civ4 should definitely be looked at. But in my opinion, Civ4 became somewhat boring long before Civ5 has. I've played over a thousand hours of each, and I'm still trying new things in Civ5 (in Civ4, I would have had to go into the world of mods for freshness, and I didn't want to do that, so gave up on it.)

I strongly prefer Civ5.

CrispyCritter said:

I find it quite curious that you completely accept the opinion of Civ4 adherents even in a thread where more people expressed opinions favoring Civ5 as opposed to Civ4.

Click to expand...

Truly an amazing turn around.

Whats even more amazing is the periodic threads from either a new user or a returning vet checking in to see if Civ5 is worthy.

And magically all of the Civ4 users who absolutely abhor Civ5 are aware of the thread and posting in it.

Shenanigans.

CrispyCritter said:

I find it quite curious that you completely accept the opinion of Civ4 adherents even in a thread where more people expressed opinions favoring Civ5 as opposed to Civ4.

Click to expand...

ok thanx for your point of view... I'm not favouring CIV4 because I didn't played yet just I want to ask all the users wich will be good what is the best because I have seen in civ forums that civ's old players likes civ4 much more, because civ5 suffer lack of complexity and problems with the AI. The fact is I was starting with CIV5 G&K and I like it very very much.. I'm enjoing this game with expansion and I want to see the second expansion what is up to... so... I'm not giving to civ4 a medal just I need to see the truth, and if CIV4 is that good I will play it , why not? just because u don't know to answer me with nonsense?... and the truth is that a lot of players complain of civ5... and I don't know why because I was playing and is very good... so a lot of users in this tread told me in a very rational way why civ4 is superior... and you just told me that u like more civ5, but you didn't argue why civ4 is boring, and why social policies and other things are best in civ5... so I will not listen to you I think both are great games but u don't know the differences in the both games to just tell me your oppinion... you just said like: ok civ5 is your choice, civ4 is boring, and thats it... thanx for that answer but is not an answer...

whyidie said:

Truly an amazing turn around.

Whats even more amazing is the periodic threads from either a new user or a returning vet checking in to see if Civ5 is worthy.

And magically all of the Civ4 users who absolutely abhor Civ5 are aware of the thread and posting in it.

Shenanigans.

Click to expand...

and WHYIDIE .. there are not civ4 users and civ5 users... there are civ users... old or new... and I am listening to anyone who can answer me to the questions.. not to people like u who are just spending time just writing... they just posted I think because they are not aware and just told points of view that reflects somethin.... aware from what?

Realism isn't something your going to find in abundance in a series where you play as a leader who leads for 6000 years, in a game having well thought out rules and mechanics is far more important.

eternalblue said:

and WHYIDIE .. there are not civ4 users and civ5 users... there are civ users... old or new... and I am listening to anyone who can answer me to the questions.. not to people like u who are just spending time just writing... they just posted I think because they are not aware and just told points of view that reflects somethin.... aware from what?

Click to expand...

So true! I will be helpful. Try Civ 4 forum here :

http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=144

I play both Civ4 BTS and Civ5 G&K, both games are good. I play one for a while, then get bored for a couple of months and switch to he other ... i cant reaally say either is bad.

There are features in each game that i like -
(1) I like the combat system in civ5 its more fun.
(2) I liked the variety of resources and their bonusses in civ4, and how happiness and health worked.
(3) I liked diplomacy in civ4 much more, i want to be able to have long term allies, and i personally prefer AI's that role play like in civ4 (i wish that were an option you could select in civ5)
(4) I like the City States in civ5
(5) Diplomatic victory in civ5 is much better than it was in civ4
(6) Religion is much better in civ5
(7) The organic growth of cities in civ5 is brilliant
(8) I like how strategic resources are limited in civ5

But somehow Civ4 was more challenging for me to master than civ4, civ5 i just found to be a lot less difficult. (this might have to do with the fact that civ4 was my first civ game)

I guess in summary civ5 has a lot of things i like. The one big negative for me is diplomacy, i really wish for a diplomacy system more like civ4, not exactly the same but not the psychotic AI of civ5.

Shafi-is-back said:

(5) Diplomatic victory in civ5 is much better than it was in civ4

The one big negative for me is diplomacy, i really wish for a diplomacy system more like civ4, not exactly the same but not the psychotic AI of civ5.

Click to expand...

If diplo victories in Civ 5 are much better than they were in 4, then they truly must have been godawful in 4 It's my absolute least favorite VC in the game, I always just turn it off so smart-Alex doesn't just go nuts all the time and screw up my games.

Agree wholeheartedly on your final point, that remains my biggest disappointment with Civ 5. All the AI's are just pure snakes, and due to the underlying fact they're all trying to beat you and 'win' as if they were all human gameplayers hiding and smirking behind a curtain or something, I never have the feeling I'm playing a real civilization game, just an (admittedly fun) turn-based war strategy game, from beginning to end. While I enjoy that sort of thing too, obviously (3000+ hours and adding up daily), I often feel there could and should be so much more to the interactions and abilities in a civilization game, then just fight or don't fight or don't fight just yet, but backstab you later...

Bad diplomacy and ridiculously broken multiplayer is what Civ 5 has against it right now, but maybe that will finally get fixed with the new expansion?

I think Civ4 is slightly deeper than Civ5 and in a way a more complete simulation.
However, in Civ5 there is a lot more variation in terms of playing different Civs. The unique abilities can have a huge influence on how you play and I really like that.

ok thank you very much to all for your oppinions are very great... I understand civ4 BTS and civ5 G&K are both great games and depends for every person what game they prefer... I can see a lot of fans from civ4 and of course a lot civ5 fans...the score will be a draw for me... so every game is beautifull in different aspects civ4 for a lot of variation in city growth and health and the diplomacy system , and civ5 have the great tactical combat with hex grid which is great to more positioning and to offer more variations in war with special civs abbilities that is greatm, and city states, a game with much flow more faster in a sort of things a game for everyone and that is not a bad thing is very good I think. and there are exagerated too, complaining the AI in CIV5 games... yes I think the AI not offer you a compete variation or something,,, but neither is bad... the AI is very good I was playing civ5 G&K a lot and I think the AI is great just someting a little annoying for time to time but is not a big deal is just unpredictible somethimes... but is not to complain... I will play both and thanx very much to everyone...

whyidie said:

Truly an amazing turn around.

Whats even more amazing is the periodic threads from either a new user or a returning vet checking in to see if Civ5 is worthy.

And magically all of the Civ4 users who absolutely abhor Civ5 are aware of the thread and posting in it.

Shenanigans.

Click to expand...

That's because we're Neo-Luddites and we seek out threads like this to protest anything new.

In reality, I think the reason that some of us look at these threads is to find out if Civ5 really has improved over our past experience. Not every Civ4 veteran who doesn't like Civ5 for what ever reason, hates it. Some of us would dearly love the game to mature with expansions and mods so that it has the depth and complexity of Civ4.

So is it any wonder that we "haters" (as we're often unjustly called) check in on a thread like this? I lurk in the Civ5 forum periodically to see what's going on. I have some reasons for disliking Civ5 and I have reasons for liking it. I'm one of the people that wishes it to improve (for myself, I'm not saying the game is terrible. It just isn't that great for me yet) and mature, but if someone asks whether Civ4 might be worth playing, I'm going to say yes, as I feel that it's the superior game. If that makes me "magically appear", then so be it.

Who cares?

Lemon Merchant said:

That's because we're Neo-Luddites and we seek out threads like this to protest anything new.

In reality, I think the reason that some of us look at these threads is to find out if Civ5 really has improved over our past experience. Not every Civ4 veteran who doesn't like Civ5 for what ever reason, hates it. Some of us would dearly love the game to mature with expansions and mods so that it has the depth and complexity of Civ4.

So is it any wonder that we "haters" (as we're often unjustly called) check in on a thread like this? I lurk in the Civ5 forum periodically to see what's going on. I have some reasons for disliking Civ5 and I have reasons for liking it. I'm one of the people that wishes it to improve (for myself, I'm not saying the game is terrible. It just isn't that great for me yet) and mature, but if someone asks whether Civ4 might be worth playing, I'm going to say yes, as I feel that it's the superior game. If that makes me "magically appear", then so be it.

Who cares?

Click to expand...

Ok thanx, lemon merchant... civ4 and civ5 have both nice stuff... Now I'm start playing civ4 for a while , but I am playing both now from time to time ... so one question... can we...... i just don't know ...there is a mode like this? to change leaderes otto bismark with adolf hitler, ecatherine with stalin and al rashid with osama? and a great church war in charge with martin luther? or saddam and gadaffi will be great adition... I just want to see how they will expand the lands and who with who will be allies to make a new mod for civ games ... and bonuses when they discovering natural wonders like ''road to hell'' and ''satan's cave'' ? good stuff good stuff... with a mod like this all the people will be happy !!!

I started out with Civ III and loved it. When Civ IV came out, I found it more challenging, entertaining, and loved it even more. When Civ V came out, I was so excited and couldn't wait, but I ended up being disappointed by it. Found it somewhat simplified and definitely not as fun. I keep checking back here, hoping to hear something about Civ 6.