So after two expansions which is better? Civ4 or Civ5?

Early in Civ5's life much fuss was made about how Civ4 was better, but after balancing patches and two expansions in G&K and BNW, now is probably a fairer time to compare the two.

So which do you think is the better game?

It's a mix-up in my opinion really. Civ IV did some things right, Civ V other. I play both about the same for different purposes, I hope Civ VI is a mix of the two

Though if you do force my hand... Civ IV

This poll will never yield fair results, the people in the Civ 5 forums will be more likely to vote for Civ V. The sample size is naturally skewed.

But to answer the poll, I think Civ 5 is a better game, but I have more fun when playing Civ 4.

At the moment I prefer Civ V, but I haven't played enough of Civ IV recently to be able to comment on which is "better". To me, Civ V has some glaring issues with implementation that Civ IV doesn't, mostly resulting from adding radically different features in the second expansion whose implementation is now unlikely to be 'tidied up' sufficiently prior to Civ VI. Ideology, World Congress and tourism all have issues in need of resolution.

PhilBowles said:

At the moment I prefer Civ V, but I haven't played enough of Civ IV recently to be able to comment on which is "better". To me, Civ V has some glaring issues with implementation that Civ IV doesn't, mostly resulting from adding radically different features in the second expansion whose implementation is now unlikely to be 'tidied up' sufficiently prior to Civ VI. Ideology, World Congress and tourism all have issues in need of resolution.

Click to expand...

I agree that Brave New World has opened more problems and loose ends than it has solved, but I also think that these issues will be worked out. Ed Beach has hinted at more expansions in the future for Civilization V, which has picked up a lot of new players since July. It would seem counter-intuitive for Firaxis to go out and release a new game when Civ V is still making plenty of money.

I don't know if there has been some sort of Civ 6 announcement that I missed or something, but as far as I can tell, we shouldn't be expecting that game for a while, seeing as it would cost tons of time and resources to develop, when Firaxis will make more money by simply making DLCs and expansions for Civ V.

Eh, I prefer Civ5... without BNW.

V still isn't polished nearly enough to be a better game than IV. There actually are still lots of bugs in V which is pretty incredible for a three year old game having sold millions of copies. Also, the AI simply still can't play the game.

I think v has more potential, i dont have bnw

At the moment though, i find V much easier to walk away from (the 3am sneaking to bed i had with bts has ended)

MantaRevan said:

I agree that Brave New World has opened more problems and loose ends than it has solved, but I also think that these issues will be worked out. Ed Beach has hinted at more expansions in the future for Civilization V, which has picked up a lot of new players since July. It would seem counter-intuitive for Firaxis to go out and release a new game when Civ V is still making plenty of money.

I don't know if there has been some sort of Civ 6 announcement that I missed or something, but as far as I can tell, we shouldn't be expecting that game for a while, seeing as it would cost tons of time and resources to develop, when Firaxis will make more money by simply making DLCs and expansions for Civ V.

Click to expand...

Also remember that it was 5 years between the release of Civ IV and Civ V. Even with 2 expansions Civ V is only 3 years old. Civ VI likely won't come for another 2-3 years.

Civ V for me. I was never able to enjoy the SOD concept. Although Civ V definitely still has issues, I mostly categorize them as things that would be nice, more than must-haves. For Civ IV, I consider SOD to be something that must go away before I consider the game finished.

iamdanno said:

Civ V for me. I was never able to enjoy the SOD concept. Although Civ V definitely still has issues, I mostly categorize them as things that would be nice, more than must-haves. For Civ IV, I consider SOD to be something that must go away before I consider the game finished.

Click to expand...

Do you think 1UPT is the answer though?

I agree SOD was not ideal, but it allowed the AI to be a real threat at reasonable levels, i can remember THINKING i was winning an island game, then 24 galleons full of troops appeared from nowhere, and i was fighting to survive.

1UPT obviously causes problems for the AI, plus am i the only person who finds the map can be clogged with units?

Both are great, but got to give it to CIV5. I hate the stacks of doom, and sacrifice siege weapons from 4.

Civ5 has made a lot of progress and I think it's a great game, but when I play it I still find myself missing the empire building style of Civ4. Decisions about tech paths, building priorities, worker management and tile improvements all feel more interesting in 4.

On the other hand, there are many things that I definitely don't miss from Civ4, like the extreme randomness of combat outcomes, square tiles, the Apostolic Palace, culture pressure mechanics, spies poisoning wells and sabotaging buildings...

It isn't only about 1UPT causing problems for the AI, it's not as simple as that. Yes, programming an AI that can play well in a 1UPT environment is far more challenging than one that only has to deal with hexes, but the sad truth about Civ V in general and its AI in particular is that it is simply a half-assed effort. That really is the underlying theme with V: it's sloppily done. Firaxis has never treated it as a game they were genuinely enthusiastic about and interested in perfecting - it just had to be good enough that it would sell, and then sell some more with pricey expansion packs. I'm not saying V is a bad game by any means - if I thought so, I certainly wouldn't have spent so many hours playing it - but I can still tell perfectly well that it it remains a game of half solutions and just doesn't reach the heights of refinement that IV set out for. V works because the base premise of the game is so enticing - because a turn-based 4X is fun. It works because of that, not because V is a strong, well-built game in itself.

It's not that IV was perfect - it certainly had its kinks, as well - but the difference is very noticeable. IV feels polished, and you can tell there was much developer love cast unto that project. It carried more than the purely commercial interest V does. IV is like chess: a classic, timeless game. V is a game to be sold to the masses, then discarded when something better comes along.

Strategist83 said:

It isn't only about 1UPT causing problems for the AI, it's not as simple as that. Yes, programming an AI that can play well in a 1UPT environment is far more challenging than one that only has to deal with hexes, but the sad truth about Civ V in general and its AI in particular is that it is simply a half-assed effort. That really is the underlying theme with V: it's sloppily done. Firaxis has never treated it as a game they were genuinely enthusiastic about and interested in perfecting - it just had to be good enough that it would sell, and then sell some more with pricey expansion packs. I'm not saying V is a bad game by any means - if I thought so, I certainly wouldn't have spent so many hours playing it - but I can still tell perfectly well that it it remains a game of half solutions and just doesn't reach the heights of refinement that IV set out for. V works because the base premise of the game is so enticing - because a turn-based 4X is fun. It works because of that, not because V is a strong, well-built game in itself.

It's not that IV was perfect - it certainly had its kinks, as well - but the difference is very noticeable. IV feels polished, and you can tell there was much developer love cast unto that project. It carried more than the purely commercial interest V does. IV is like chess: a classic, timeless game. V is a game to be sold to the masses, then discarded when something better comes along.

Click to expand...

I think that may be a tiny bit harsh?

Theres a lot of nice touches in v, i think religion is better than in IV (although i dont know why it doesnt affect diplomacy as far as i can see?)

And i think the foreign language for foreign leaders is a really nice touch.

I dont think the AI is more competent in IV, i just think SOD are easier for the AI to program, so it is easier for it to appear to be competent.

I am disappointed with some aspects of V (the ai being the big issue)- but tellingly i havent played IV since i got V

paulcarri said:

Do you think 1UPT is the answer though?

1UPT obviously causes problems for the AI, plus am i the only person who finds the map can be clogged with units?

Click to expand...

Yeah the AI can't really handle it. The only way the AI ever wins a war against a player is completely overpowering you.

That said, concept is much better than sods, so it needs AI work. Works fine when I play multiplay with my friends.

I didn't play Civ IV, so I voted to Civ V.
But otherwise, I think that game x II 90% will be better than his previous game (x I)

1upt is the most fun and awesome change from 4 to 5, and I absolutely love it.

Religion does affect diplomacy, if you adopt someone's, or a willing party receives it you get a bonus, but it fades over time. If you convert an unwilling party they will get angry. Unfortunately you can't ask for a religion you want.
(Though I'm not the biggest fan of the religion system).

Comparing Civ IV to Chess is way over the edge. Chess will persist, probably for as long as our civilization lasts, while Civ IV will be played for a few more years by less and less people, and it's not nearly in the same category.

There is a very obvious problem with the AI that they try to fix by number-changes, but the core issue is that the numbers are not the problem, the decision processes are. Artificial Intelligence is a costly endeavour. It's difficult, hogs resources and the amount of testing requires is enormous.

I also think that a lot of care has gone into creating Civ 5, and people don't give the devs enough credit for that. For example:
- The way Autocracy works now, based on the Strength through Joy principle is great. The way social policies work is excellent even if they aren't all well-balanced.
- City states. Such a great addition, with varied quests and all, just unfortunate about the bribes (should probably have diminishing returns)
- 1upt. As I said before, this changes the game from something hideous into a true gem. It allows for so much tactical decisions that this alone is why I still play after all this time.

There are some horrible flaws that could be easily fixed such as:
- More diplomacy options like telling the AI they should not convert you BEFORE they start doing so instead of after the damage is already done.
- The way global happiness works

Also: what bugs are people talking about, because there are really few.

Part of the reason the AI seems loopy is that it doesn't just have to be able to play the core rules, it has to understand the rules can be changed with mods. Under the circumstances I think the game has about the best possible AI it could for computers used today. And don't forget that Civ 4's finalized AI actually partly came from a player mod that significantly altered how the AI evaluated its turn. Prior to BTS Civ 4 AIs didn't even attempt to chase Culture victories at all.

As for Civ 4 vs 5, for me, 5 is way better. BNW needs some tweaks to make it less punishing in some ways but has nothing close to the wackiness of corporations or tedium of spies. The way religion was handled in G&K to me was also masterful, so much better than Civ 4's awkward first-to-tech implementation that it makes that aspect of Civ 4 look primitive.