Lazarus_Cato
Chieftain
I'm new to the series, but from all I've read, Civ4 is considered the best.
Give me your 5 reasons that you choose to play Civ5 over Civ4.
Give me your 5 reasons that you choose to play Civ5 over Civ4.
Give me 5 reasons you are playing Civ5 and not Civ4.
- Thread starter Lazarus_Cato
- Start date
Asterix Rage
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,585
Only one. Because of that :
https://forums.civfanatics.com/forums/community-patch-project.497/
https://forums.civfanatics.com/forums/community-patch-project.497/
vyyt
Deity
1) Yes, this mod brings the ultimate civ experience. I seriously doubt that there will ever be a better civ game in the near future than Civ5 with the Vox Populi mod.
2) The other reason is the one unit per tile combat system which makes war more tactical and fun in contrary to the utterly boring endless stacks of units in one tile in Civ4. Probably the main reason why I never really got into Civ4. The previous civs had at least ranged units (Civ3) or rules that made the whole stack die if the unit on the top lost the battle (Civ1 and Civ2), which was kind of gamey, but at least forced some tactical decision making and need to spread your armies a bit.
However, truth be told, the one unit per tile exposes the flaws in combat AI after you play a little (surprisingly, they kept the same silly AI in Civ6). Luckily we have the glorious Community Patch (part of the linked mod Vox Populi) which teaches the AI to play almost like human.
3) Another reason is subjective, I hated the looks of Civ4. The smug look can be improved by mods, but still once you started to improve the terrain around your cities it looked kind of ugly and very difficult to read, especially when things were moving at least for me, or maybe I am just getting old
I don't like the cartoonish looks of Civ6 too much either. I like the natural and realistic looks of the map of Civ5 the best. Sometimes I like to hover above my empire and enjoy the beauty of it.
4) The hex tiles instead of the square grid. It makes the movement and combat more realistic and the land masses are also taking more natural shapes.
5) Religion: It is much more fun and better thought through in Civ5 (even more so with the Vox Populi mod) than the arbitrary system in Civ4
Been playing since Civ1 and Civ4 has been my least favorite of the franchise. I even prefered the little bugged and imbalanced Civ5 right after the release before the patches and DLCs.
Last edited:
phillipwyllie
Wannabe Deity
I don't own civ4
Shawnees
Chieftain
Currently playing Civ V because I've played a lot of Civ IV and want to play something different for a time. They're both good games.
MantaRevan
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2011
- Messages
- 1,537
Why do people like Vox Populi so much, out of curiosity? A cursory look at the mod suggests that the modders' idea of balance is to buff every civ in the game to high heaven with a hodgepodge of abilities, not all of which are thematically similar.
ashendashin
King
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2016
- Messages
- 989
You'd have better luck asking in the CPP subforum. I'd recommend running the installer and starting up a game to see how much was changed and added. It goes well beyond civ changes.
Anyways you'd be surprised how well balanced it is with all the new concepts in VP. I'd say a few select civs that focus entirely on war are a bit too easy to spiral out of control with (Rome, Aztecs, Mongolia), but in general the buffs to civs were created with the mindset of giving the AI things to work with, increasing how unique each civ plays, and to balance the game along the concept of empires (well, that's the impression it gives me. Does a pretty good job at toning down the city management feel vanilla has). The strengths of each civ balances things out pretty well for the most part. You do get a few getting up top consistently, but they're all capable of winning both on the player and AI side. There's definitely a few that stand out, but VP is still being updated and discussed. The most important part is that it makes playing each civ a fun experience, but it was definitely built with balance in mind, I assure you. Vanilla has nothing on VP's balance, at least. And you certainly won't find anything with a more efficient AI in CiV.
Edit:
Also what exactly stands out as thematically unfit to you? Some concessions were made for balancing purposes, but they generally work well enough for me on the feel of each civ.
Oh and you can always run just the Community Patch, which focuses entirely on fixing bugs and improving the AI (though some mechanics were simply too broken and changed/dropped accordingly)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2012
- Messages
- 952
1) unique abilities. Wherever I am in history, I feel like my civilization is powerful and has a certain destiny that it's following. The leader traits in Civ 4 didn't really do anything impressive for me, and are just a bunch of modifiers.
2) hex grid. More natural-looking world. Bays, island chains, isthmuses, etc. all look more believable. The world in 4 is a bunch of blocks.
3) music and sound. Civ 5 "regional" music is more atmospheric. But the medieval, renaissance, and industrial "era" music in particular in Civ 4 just puts me to sleep, or feels out of place. Civ 5 also has very simple tones when trying to convey some update or other warning: e.g. a snare drum indicating an enemy in your territory, versus the quite annoying "MARCH! MARCH! MARCH! MARCH! MARCH!" in 4.
4) hit points-based combat. For all the grief "one unit per tile" gets, outmaneuvering and carefully-planned sieges are what win in that game, and it was possible to beat back large invaders, or for that matter destroy a large number of defenders. While I can appreciate stacks in Civ 4, I don't appreciate the dice-roll combat where victory odds were more of an extension of the size of your economy that your ability to plan more tactically and outflank your opponent.
5) intuitive user interface. Maybe it's just a personal preference, but I just find things very difficult to read in Civ 4 in comparison. Everything seems more hidden. What is also particularly grating is the forced popups for choosing buildings and research that you cannot exit and check up on something else first.
There are alot of things I like about Civ 4. There are many things I think it does better than 5. But it's very telling that I only completed a handful of games of 4 and have completed dozens and dozens in 5.
2) hex grid. More natural-looking world. Bays, island chains, isthmuses, etc. all look more believable. The world in 4 is a bunch of blocks.
3) music and sound. Civ 5 "regional" music is more atmospheric. But the medieval, renaissance, and industrial "era" music in particular in Civ 4 just puts me to sleep, or feels out of place. Civ 5 also has very simple tones when trying to convey some update or other warning: e.g. a snare drum indicating an enemy in your territory, versus the quite annoying "MARCH! MARCH! MARCH! MARCH! MARCH!" in 4.
4) hit points-based combat. For all the grief "one unit per tile" gets, outmaneuvering and carefully-planned sieges are what win in that game, and it was possible to beat back large invaders, or for that matter destroy a large number of defenders. While I can appreciate stacks in Civ 4, I don't appreciate the dice-roll combat where victory odds were more of an extension of the size of your economy that your ability to plan more tactically and outflank your opponent.
5) intuitive user interface. Maybe it's just a personal preference, but I just find things very difficult to read in Civ 4 in comparison. Everything seems more hidden. What is also particularly grating is the forced popups for choosing buildings and research that you cannot exit and check up on something else first.
There are alot of things I like about Civ 4. There are many things I think it does better than 5. But it's very telling that I only completed a handful of games of 4 and have completed dozens and dozens in 5.
Last edited:
General Tso
Panzer General
This isn't five reasons. Just some rambling thoughts but...
In my opinion one unit per tile blows away boring stacks of units. So Civ 5 is better than Civ 4.
And since much of Civ 6 is boring and the graphics are lousy I think Civ 5 is still the reigning champ in the Civ world.
In my opinion one unit per tile blows away boring stacks of units. So Civ 5 is better than Civ 4.
And since much of Civ 6 is boring and the graphics are lousy I think Civ 5 is still the reigning champ in the Civ world.
demiurgenext
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 15, 2017
- Messages
- 49
Agree with the looks, stacks of doom in Civ IV, and religion.
Then the mods, mods and more mods!
There's nearly 100 playable Civs, and buffs to make the underpowered ones competitive. So the ability to tune the experience and get near infinite replay value.
Then the mods, mods and more mods!
There's nearly 100 playable Civs, and buffs to make the underpowered ones competitive. So the ability to tune the experience and get near infinite replay value.
Randy Random
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2011
- Messages
- 56
I still like civ iv better. 1UPT makes moving units tedious and puts enough strain on the processor that it significantly slows down mid game. I like hexes, but I feel like city management is exponentially more complicated because of them. I like the graphics of 4, 5, and 6 in their own rights and aren't a factor for me, although I like Leonard Nimoy announcing the tech quotes better than Sean Bean, and I like Sean Bean better than W. Morgan Sheppard.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2012
- Messages
- 952
With one-unit-per-tile, it always feels like I have too many units.
With stacks, it never feels like I have enough.
With stacks, it never feels like I have enough.
The main thing that did it for me was that I was in a rut with IV. One difficulty level was much too easy, the next one up was much too hard. With V, I was able to progress to Deity pretty much on my own.
Sliders were cheesy. The need to pop-rush and Slavery being an OP civic is terrible. They should have patched that away.
I didn't think I cared about graphics, but once I got used to V going back to IV felt like 8bit.
With IV, every civ felt the same. The UA were limited and hardly noticeable and the UU weak. With V, I really enjoy playing to exploit the UA/UU.
I miss corporations, but with Religion and Ideologies, just about every V games feels like three.
For my own part, even though a few people have tried to explain it, I don’t understand why people go back to IV. Pre-BNW that made some sense. I am pretty sure I could not come up with five things IV does better than V.
@Lazarus_Cato — Sporting of you to ask this on the V board!
Sliders were cheesy. The need to pop-rush and Slavery being an OP civic is terrible. They should have patched that away.
I didn't think I cared about graphics, but once I got used to V going back to IV felt like 8bit.
With IV, every civ felt the same. The UA were limited and hardly noticeable and the UU weak. With V, I really enjoy playing to exploit the UA/UU.
I miss corporations, but with Religion and Ideologies, just about every V games feels like three.
For my own part, even though a few people have tried to explain it, I don’t understand why people go back to IV. Pre-BNW that made some sense. I am pretty sure I could not come up with five things IV does better than V.
@Lazarus_Cato — Sporting of you to ask this on the V board!
lordofthemark
Chieftain
My daughter bought me a copy of Civ5, how could I not play it? 
(BTW, I enjoyed Civ4 quite a lot, and Civ2 - never played Civ3)
(BTW, I enjoyed Civ4 quite a lot, and Civ2 - never played Civ3)
learner gamer
King
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2009
- Messages
- 657
Funnily enough I’ve been playing a bit of Civ 4 recently after a long hiatus – but while Civ 4 is undoubtedly my favourite game of all time, I think I’ve found that I simply need something fresh. New mechanics, new concepts, less reliance on the RNG (see Civ 4’s combat system and great people generation) – and more modern graphics too.
The issue I’ve always had with Civ 5 meanwhile is that I think it’s the greatest game never made. Conceptually, I think it’s brilliant. When 1UPT works, for instance, it’s beautiful. However, I ‘ve always found vanilla Civ 5 (and its expansions) to be lacking in execution. Sometimes, for instance, 1UPT can be a disaster, especially in the hands of the Civ 5 AI. In addition, I’ve always found Civ 5’s global happiness system encourages a one size fits all approach to what is supposed to be a strategy game: settle a few cities, take tradition and then turtle to victory…aided by the inept Civ 5 AI. In my view though, a good strategy game should be about choices, not straight jacketing the gamer.
This is all why I was intrigued by Marbozir’s current LP, in which he’s playing Civ 5 using the Vox Populi mod. Now, to be fair, I’ve only watched to part way through episode 4 – but I love what I’ve seen so far. Rebalanced Civs, new buildings, rebalanced social policies, more luxuries…and the list goes on. My favourite playstyle – going wide (which Civ 4 encourages in my view) – now finally at least looks more like a real option. It’s early days, but my initial impression is that Vox Populi may make Civ 5 the game I always hoped it would be.
The result? I’ve just downloaded the mod (with enhanced UI) and rolled up a game of Civ 5 – my first in ages. And I’m looking forward to seeing how it plays out.
The issue I’ve always had with Civ 5 meanwhile is that I think it’s the greatest game never made. Conceptually, I think it’s brilliant. When 1UPT works, for instance, it’s beautiful. However, I ‘ve always found vanilla Civ 5 (and its expansions) to be lacking in execution. Sometimes, for instance, 1UPT can be a disaster, especially in the hands of the Civ 5 AI. In addition, I’ve always found Civ 5’s global happiness system encourages a one size fits all approach to what is supposed to be a strategy game: settle a few cities, take tradition and then turtle to victory…aided by the inept Civ 5 AI. In my view though, a good strategy game should be about choices, not straight jacketing the gamer.
This is all why I was intrigued by Marbozir’s current LP, in which he’s playing Civ 5 using the Vox Populi mod. Now, to be fair, I’ve only watched to part way through episode 4 – but I love what I’ve seen so far. Rebalanced Civs, new buildings, rebalanced social policies, more luxuries…and the list goes on. My favourite playstyle – going wide (which Civ 4 encourages in my view) – now finally at least looks more like a real option. It’s early days, but my initial impression is that Vox Populi may make Civ 5 the game I always hoped it would be.
The result? I’ve just downloaded the mod (with enhanced UI) and rolled up a game of Civ 5 – my first in ages. And I’m looking forward to seeing how it plays out.
Well, prepare to be disappointed. I've seen the first 10 episodes and nothing happened. The Vox Populi mod adds nothing but useless crap to a very bad game and all because of the stupid 1 upt concept and its awful turn times.
I see way too many (small) numbers on the screen. Get rid of all those decimal numbers, use only integers. The AI still can't play the civ 5 game.
The game was bad, is bad and it will never be a good or decent game. It's a waste of time. Period.
(Btw, Marbozir has a monotonic voice which starts to irritate at some point, so watch those let's play vids at 1.5 or 2 speed, not normal. It saves time too.)
I see way too many (small) numbers on the screen. Get rid of all those decimal numbers, use only integers. The AI still can't play the civ 5 game.
The game was bad, is bad and it will never be a good or decent game. It's a waste of time. Period.
(Btw, Marbozir has a monotonic voice which starts to irritate at some point, so watch those let's play vids at 1.5 or 2 speed, not normal. It saves time too.)
Similar threads
