Civ 4 vs. Civ 5?

[WackenOpenAir]

And i also think it is about time for civ to move away from the utterly terribly AI that can only represent any form of competition by having huge bonusses.

I dont believe in the argument that it makes the turns take too long if AI is better. Of other games can make AI work real time, how frickin easy must it be for turn based. The amount of stuff a computer can do in a second is pretty astounding really. I think its laziness/cheapness not to make a decent AI and inefficient programming if turns take long.

AI is being developed in many fields at an unbelievable level. Yet the civ AI still keeps sending out a unit to recapture a worker every turn till it runs out of units.
When do we start seeing game AI that learns from the games it plays ? With this obligatory steam stuff and everyone connected, it can learn from every game played by all the civ players in the world. Such marvelous opportunities.

 

[Drakarska]

Agreed. TT's is insanely ridiculous ( especially on epic and mara spds).
I believe TMIT and a couple of other vets did a TT calc on how long your waiting in between turns, and its insane. Even modded with the Quick Turns mod, the wait between turns is idiotic. BTS is also notoriously bad at this as well ( just to be fair here ).

 

[Lawn_Donuts]

Civ IV because Montezuma smiles when he is mad. And has no late music cause he can never make it that far down the technology tree

Civ IV cause the gameplay is better.

 

[heinous_hat]

Ease of Mods between the two has been a big difference for me. I'm not tech savvy, other than to run some games and do my online stuff. My learning curve on getting Civ IV Mods to work was steep. Don't get me wrong, all of the info and needed stuff is readily available, but some of it can require alot of work.

Yet, civ4 supported mod foldering, which is substantially faster and more reliable as far as loading a game and keeping things tidy and compatible. You simply construct a modified setup folder and assign a shortcut to launch. There's no waiting for the game to first load the default database, then load the modified database, then do that all over again when you realize something isn't working properly or you've forgotten some element. It also encourages the user to understand their setup and not just blindly pile on mods which will cause trouble sooner or later (especially for poor mod authors trying to lend support). If you want to "mod-mod", you have to take the time to understand what you want to add or change and how that affects the base components. Lacking that, one must learn to ask nicely

Civ5's approach is rooted in Steam Workshop, which is more about ease of distribution (which it achieves). But the system practically encourages user error and "mod hoarding". It throws all good sense out the window in exchange for perceived convenience. And the number of steps to get into a game or troubleshoot is painful.

Civ5 has a number of nice technical improvements, but mod logistics isn't one of them.

 

[mzprox]

Civ4 is a better 4x strategy game. More balanced, more logical. In singleplayer the AI is more competitive, in multiplayer ..well still better. For me 1 upt on world layer is a mess, embarking stupid.. etc. I was still playing civ3 when 4 came out, after the first hour of civ4 i uninstalled civ3 and never looked back.
For civ5 I gave the chance, but it was horrible.. recently however i got it again with all the expansions, and now I enjoy it. lots of flavor has been added (ideologies, religion etc) and a bit more balanced than it was at release.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I don't know if 4 months counts as thread resurrection, but after playing several dozen rounds of Civ5 moving from King to Immortal rather quickly, I felt I should provide my input on the comparisons.

Civ4 is harder... period. I'm not sure how anyone could possibly argue against this. Moving between levels in Civ4 required a lot of adjustment and (often) changing your entire play style. I still can't beat Deity regularly (maybe 15% of the time) and I've been playing Civ4 on and off for ten years. Granted I only really tried to increase my level for the last 5 (but still!).

Civ4 puts a lot more emphasis on weighing pros/cons, ROIs, and risk/benefit analysis. On higher levels, you kinda need to truly dedicate to a victory condition or you will likely not win. On the highest levels, without a focused victory condition strategy, you will lose barring extremely lucky conditions. Each decision you make has a much heavier consequence in Civ4 than 5 IMO.

Civ4 has a higher level of micromanagement needed since almost everything is city-specific (versus empire-wide management in Civ5). Each turn can take a high level of concentration and planning.

These are the things I prefer about Civ4. That being said, I feel like the more I played at higher levels, the more limited the game felt. The beginning was always dynamic and varied heavily from game-to-game, but the mid and end games were all basically the same. One of three strategies. Do I go culture and basically hammer the Enter key? Do I go space and basically mash the Enter key? Or do I go domination which usually means Cuir rush, Cannon/musket rush, Cavalry rush, or a combo of these and finish with tanks. That's almost every single game. Granted, it's no easy task to actually pull off these victories on Deity.

Also, the late game in Civ4 (I'm talking Late Industrial Era+) is rather bland. They tried to spice it up in BTS, but it really isn't much to talk about.

When it comes to Civ5, it's clearly easier. You can actually go for a number of different victory conditions even on Deity and you don't need to tunnel vision and laser focus your empire on any one victory. You can seek culture while also building a military. You can go for space while waging war. You can seek to dominate the globe while still crushing people under the weight of your culture. Of course, you can get that laser precision and get a win much much faster so that's yet another option open to you.

Civ5, the early game strategies are basically one of 3. (a) Am I going to go for an early archer -> composite bow -> xbow rush (b) Am I going Tradition / tall (c) Am I going Liberty / wide. That's your 3 early choices so the early game is a little limited in high level strategy but it makes up for it with MUCH better barbarians (fun instead of a nuisance to be fog-busted away) and unique land for different Pantheon paths etc. And the mid/late game is always fun for me in Civ5. That's a big sell. Getting to the late game isn't a bother, it's actually fun.

Those are the goodies for Civ5 for me. I would like there to be more severe consequences for your actions, though. The attractive thing about Civ4 was that everything down to your economy had severe repercussions for bad decisions. I just don't think you get punished that badly in Civ5 for those same bad decisions. Sure you can still lose but Immortal on Civ5 is clearly easier than immortal on Civ4.

At first, I hated 1UPT but it's really grown on me and makes wars a bit more fun. It's almost like Firaxis shifted micromanagement from cities to the battlefield. Speaking of which, battlefields are actually important in Civ5! Much of the wars take place in the fields on the way to the cities... you know... like in real history. It also brings a tactical element to the game that was lacking with huge stacks.

This is, of course, all opinion. I loved Civ4 and hated 5 when it first came out but I think BNW really hit a high note in Civ history. I'm hoping that Civ6 incorporates the more challenging elements of Civ4 with respect to higher risk/reward tradeoffs but keeps the appeal that Civ5 has with respect to... well... ALL of its features. I'm not sure how Firaxis will respond to the mixed feelings that fans have of 1UPT but I'm hoping they can find a hybrid where you get to more easily move your armies across the map but maintain the tactical appeal of 1UPT.

 

[MightySpice]

I don't get why people are so happy about BNW. I think ideologies is badly worked out. On higher levels (king +) pretty much the only thing you can do is 'folow the leader'. I tried a number of times to get that influencial to pretty much dictate ideologie. This is impossible.
I think an experienced player should be able to be the leader on that aspect of the game if he sets his mind to it. This is not possible. The AI gets ahead to quickly. If science was that hard to compete the game would be worthless.

 

[beetle]

I don't get why people are so happy about BNW. I think ideologies is badly worked out.

I was late to pick up BNW because I like GnK well enough, but I am so very happy with ideologies! It basically resets all your relationships. But it is not an instant effect, so every game seems to have interesting dynamics in that regard. In hindsight, it makes Civ3 and Civ4 seem kind of boring.

On higher levels (king +) pretty much the only thing you can do is 'folow the leader'.

That is not at an accurate characterization. Yes, “follow the leader” can be an efficient play -- and goodness knows -- it is the only available play for some games. But that is minority of games. So not “pretty much the only thing you can do”, not by a long shot.

I tried a number of times to get that influencial to pretty much dictate ideologie. This is impossible.

I am a mediocre Deity player, so I am usually challenged by rival Ideologies. But some games I am crushing the AI (at least as far as Tourism pressure goes). So no, it is not impossible.

But dictating ideology is not necessary. It is a balancing act, and there are multiple tactics. If you are doing well in the tech race, you get to ideologies first, so you don’t to give up free picks. And you do not have to -- just prioritize the happiness tenets so you can get by. There are several many threads about dealing with ideology pressure. If you work to figure things out a bit more, you should be fine.

Ideologies add a great deal of interesting dynamics to the game.

I think an experienced player should be able to be the leader on that aspect of the game if he sets his mind to it. This is not possible.

An experienced player absolutely can do that. Get to ideologies first, while having control the World Congress. Pass your Ideology as World Ideology and rival AIs flip to you. It is great fun.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I was late to pick up BNW because I like GnK well enough, but I am so very happy with ideologies! It basically resets all your relationships. But it is not an instant effect, so every game seems to have interesting dynamics in that regard. In hindsight, it makes Civ3 and Civ4 seem kind of boring.


That is not at an accurate characterization. Yes, “follow the leader” can be an efficient play -- and goodness knows -- it is the only available play for some games. But that is minority of games. So not “pretty much the only thing you can do”, not by a long ....

I agree completely. As a decent Immortal player, I find that sometimes I'm setting the bar for ideology pressure and some games, I have to balance it out and work to combat the happiness penalty. I actually think ideologies are awesome in Civ5. It's one of the few features with a strong tradeoff and risk/benefit choices in the game. Some of the tenets cross all 3 ideologies which means you can allow ideologies to be used to just to define modern global relations. Ideological blocks start to form and relations slowly change to mirror the shifts in attitude.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[MightySpice]

Do you guys set the bar on science in 'some' games as well? That would mean you would win 'some' games. In my opinion a good player should be able to set the bar on any aspect of the game if he sets his mind to it.

If you have to be the first to pick an ideology AND have a majority vote in the world congress, one can wonder if the level you are playing is competitive.
It is pretty easy to beat ai to ideology, but once an influential ai chooses something different (or worse 2 influential ai's choose both different ideologies competing for your attention) you're in trouble. The hard part is to be influential enough and/or have enough culture.

 

[Acken]

I don't know if 4 months counts as thread resurrection, but after playing several dozen rounds of Civ5 moving from King to Immortal rather quickly, I felt I should provide my input on the comparisons.

Civ4 is harder... period. I'm not sure how anyone could possibly argue against this. Moving between levels in Civ4 required a lot of adjustment and (often) changing your entire play style. I still can't beat Deity regularly (maybe 15% of the time) and I've been playing Civ4 on and off for ten years. Granted I only really tried to increase my level for the last 5 (but still!).

Civ4 puts a lot more emphasis on weighing pros/cons, ROIs, and risk/benefit analysis. On higher levels, you kinda need to truly dedicate to a victory condition or you will likely not win. On the highest levels, without a focused victory condition strategy, you will lose barring extremely lucky conditions. Each decision you make has a much heavier consequence in Civ4 than 5 IMO.

Civ4 has a higher level of micromanagement needed since almost everything is city-specific (versus empire-wide management in Civ5). Each turn can take a high level of concentration and planning.

These are the things I prefer about Civ4. That being said, I feel like the more I played at higher levels, the more limited the game felt. The beginning was always dynamic and varied heavily from game-to-game, but the mid and end games were all basically the same. One of three strategies. Do I go culture and basically hammer the Enter key? Do I go space and basically mash the Enter key? Or do I go domination which usually means Cuir rush, Cannon/musket rush, Cavalry rush, or a combo of these and finish with tanks. That's almost every single game. Granted, it's no easy task to actually pull off these victories on Deity.

Also, the late game in Civ4 (I'm talking Late Industrial Era+) is rather bland. They tried to spice it up in BTS, but it really isn't much to talk about.

When it comes to Civ5, it's clearly easier. You can actually go for a number of different victory conditions even on Deity and you don't need to tunnel vision and laser focus your empire on any one victory. You can seek culture while also building a military. You can go for space while waging war. You can seek to dominate the globe while still crushing people under the weight of your culture. Of course, you can get that laser precision and get a win much much faster so that's yet another option open to you.

The attractive thing about Civ4 was that everything down to your economy had severe repercussions for bad decisions. I just don't think you get punished that badly in Civ5 for those same bad decisions. Sure you can still lose but Immortal on Civ5 is clearly easier than immortal on Civ4.

Give my mod a try as it tries exactly to being back a sense of challenge and pressure to the player. Its not perfect nor finished but the challenge on standard settings is definetly there. The lack of options is also something i work on.

Its also clise enough to the base game that you wont feel lost at all.

Pc only.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Do you guys set the bar on science in 'some' games as well? That would mean you would win 'some' games. In my opinion a good player should be able to set the bar on any aspect of the game if he sets his mind to it.

If you have to be the first to pick an ideology AND have a majority vote in the world congress, one can wonder if the level you are playing is competitive.
It is pretty easy to beat ai to ideology, but once an influential ai chooses something different (or worse 2 influential ai's choose both different ideologies competing for your attention) you're in trouble. The hard part is to be influential enough and/or have enough culture.

For one thing, you don't have to be the first to pick an ideology, nor do you have to have a majority vote in the world congress. Second, I must question if the level that you are playing at is competitive if you expect to set the bar on 'all' games and win 'all' games. What kind of attitude is that to expect to be able to be the leader in all areas and win every game? The beauty of civ games, in general, is that they are fluid enough and challenging enough that you should be able to fail.

You don't need to have enough culture to combat ideology happiness penalties. You can use all the other sources of happiness to overcome that and it is quite possible in almost every immortal game I've played. I've also watched enough Marbozir and Acken to know that this is possible in most deity games, too. Additionally, a 'good' player should know to work on at least some aspects of the culture game so as to not be totally eclipsed by a cultural AI.

If you think a good player should be able 'to set the bar' in every game, you should give Civ4 deity a try. What you are suggesting is that Civ5 should be even easier than it already is... which, as I've posted previously, it is quite easy compared to previous iterations of Civ.

@Acken
Thanks man. I've heard about your mod, I'll give it a spin once I'm winning deity. Until then, I'm still learning a bit on the base game.

 

[MightySpice]

blitz
Where did i say i expect to win all games? The opposite of 'some' is not 'all'.
I never stated that i should be the first te pick an ideology. Beetle did. I just responded to him.

Sure i can overcome the happiness penalties, but in my opinion it should be able to avoid them. I want other players to have those penalties. There should be a gameplay to inflict that. There is not. It has mostly to do with luck.
If i would spend all my resources on culture/tourism, i should be able to compete on those aspects of the game. Just like i can with science or military. I can not. I don't like that about BNW.

So i turned back to vanilla/g&k.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

blitz
Where did i say i expect to win all games? The opposite of 'some' is not 'all'.
I never stated that i should be the first te pick an ideology. Beetle did. I just responded to him.

Sure i can overcome the happiness penalties, but in my opinion it should be able to avoid them. I want other players to have those penalties. There should be a gameplay to inflict that. There is not. It has mostly to do with luck.
If i would spend all my resources on culture/tourism, i should be able to compete on those aspects of the game. Just like i can with science or military. I can not. I don't like that about BNW.

So i turned back to vanilla/g&k.

You didn't directly say you should be able to win all games... You inferred it I mean just go back and read your first couple sentences. But that aside:

You definitely said that you cannot compete in the tourism and culture aspect of the game. Well that's just not true for good high level players. If you focus on tourism and culture, even on deity, you can compete and actually apply pressure to the AI and you can do that in most games because it's not necessarily land dependent. Because all you really need is to focus some of your production on those things to avoid massive penalties and you can heavily focus on it if you want to dominate. It's a trade-off. And one of the few ones that we have in Civ 5. If you want to dominate in the spheres of culture and tourism, then you have to focus your Empire on that front and that's the victory you're going to go for. You can still maintain the standing army to repel Invaders... And even if you devote one city to military production you can actually have an invading force even on high levels while going for culture.

I won't argue that you don't like Brave New World and that you prefer Gods and Kings. That's your opinion and of course that's not being argued. What I'm saying is that the premise for which you state that Brave New World is not good, specifically the ideologies, is flawed. It just sounds like you never learned how to play the high-level late-game well.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Acken]

If you put all your ressources in culture and tourism aka gunning for a culture victory then you should not have any pressure issues...

Finally the freebies for reaching an ideology are exactly there to allow you some room to switch if required later on. If you re late youll have to pick the ideology of someone influencing you. Tourism is agressive culture. It works.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

IV has much better UI (sadly) and runs better. Its expansion tuning/reward/penalty is better. It's a lot less of a hassle to move units (ironically due to 1UPT vs stacking it takes less clicks to move more than a couple units via transport in IV than it does to embark in V).

V is better on religion, some aspects of trade, marginally better in combat tactics, much better for culture.

I give IV the nod for two reasons:

- BTS 3.19 is much, much better for MP than BNW. You don't de-sync to hell with more than 4-5 people and you're not facing a good chance of being unable to continue such games without losing people or people losing turns.

- A significantly smaller percentage of the player's time is spent waiting for the interface, incapable of making meaningful choices because the game is still chugging to roll over a turn or even to unit cycle. Civ IV had this issue too, but not to the same glaring extent on a given map size.

 

[beetle]

Do you guys set the bar on science in 'some' games as well?

You raise a fair criticism that the game mechanics are such that science is always important.

In my opinion a good player should be able to set the bar on any aspect of the game if he sets his mind to it.

Good players absolutely can do that. Great players might be able to dominate every aspect of the game, most every game. In my opinion it is good game design that a good players does need to choose which aspect of the game his is setting his mind to.

If you have to be the first to pick an ideology AND have a majority vote in the world congress, one can wonder if the level you are playing is competitive.

Um, blitzkrieg mentioned Immortal and I mentioned Deity. No, I cannot do both every game. Nowadays I am first to Ideologies in about a third of my games. I can get two free picks in the majority of my games.

Having control of the WC is one way to manage Ideology pressure. If I am first, but do not control the WC, the I will probably open Order. Knowing and respecting the AI preference for Order is another way to manage Ideology pressure. The other thing I might do is beeline Statue of Liberty or Prora before planning to switch to Order. So that is three workable strategies for managing ideology pressure.

It is pretty easy to beat ai to ideology, but once an influential ai chooses something different (or worse 2 influential ai's choose both different ideologies competing for your attention) you're in trouble. The hard part is to be influential enough and/or have enough culture.

I really appreciate that it is not easy. You either need tourism or culture (sure those are related, but one or the other will do), or lots of happiness -- so that is a forth strategy.

If you put all your ressources in culture and tourism aka gunning for a culture victory then you should not have any pressure issues...
Finally the freebies for reaching an ideology are exactly there to allow you some room to switch if required later on. If you re late you'll have to pick the ideology of someone influencing you. Tourism is aggressive culture. It works.

As usual, Acken sums it up so nicely!