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

[Drakarska]

Hi RE, nice to see you peek in from the Civ IV forums were we usually Hide

I'll try to answer you from my perspective, as I only have limited amount of Civ V game time;

1) Yes, unfortunately it still does.

2) Hmnn. Tough call on this one, as an individual's preference may vary. IMO, no it isn't. I still have issues occasionally with MP play, and I don't feel that having limited options in order to play isn't conducive to a fun environment.

3) I'm not a modder, but I do make custom scenarios for my boys and I. I would have to say no to this as well IMO, as it just doesn't have the ease of accessibility that Civ IV has.

4) Hmnn. Tough question as I'm still play testing Civ V.. I play king on vanilla (no G&K yet) and haven't really had any issues about mid-game changes.

Wish I could give better detailed answers RE, but as I said, I'm still in the exploration phase of Civ V, and even that is just vanilla. I'm sure others in this thread could give you more detailed info.

 

[Vohbo]

Just as a sidenote for everyone in this thread: Civ 5 Vanilla is NOT a good reference for anything. It's boring, the tech tree is a mess, and you are pigeonholed into going for a victory condition from relatively early on.
Even though the 1upt is a massive upgrade from the stacks of doom in previous civ games, I don't think very highly of vanilla at all and played maybe 8-9 games in it.

Gods and Kings is an enormous improvement on it, and if you want to judge civ 5 and are the least bit serious about playing it, then you need to have this expansion. Not so much for the religion and espionage additions, but for the reworking of tech trees, ranged units and the combat system.

Brave New World is a lot better still. I have had no major issues other than the way ideology pressure works (in tiers rather than gradual, it's a little annoying), and it made the game a lot more interesting and addictive.

 

[Civking5]

Hi RE, nice to see you peek in from the Civ IV forums were we usually Hide

I'll try to answer you from my perspective, as I only have limited amount of Civ V game time;

1) Yes, unfortunately it still does.

2) Hmnn. Tough call on this one, as an individual's preference may vary. IMO, no it isn't. I still have issues occasionally with MP play, and I don't feel that having limited options in order to play isn't conducive to a fun environment.

3) I'm not a modder, but I do make custom scenarios for my boys and I. I would have to say no to this as well IMO, as it just doesn't have the ease of accessibility that Civ IV has.

4) Hmnn. Tough question as I'm still play testing Civ V.. I play king on vanilla (no G&K yet) and haven't really had any issues about mid-game changes.

Wish I could give better detailed answers RE, but as I said, I'm still in the exploration phase of Civ V, and even that is just vanilla. I'm sure others in this thread could give you more detailed info.

Why still playing vanilla? Civ5 is incomplete without its expansions. I could say the same for civ4 and civ3 at their time. Would you play civ4 without its expansions?

 

[Civking5]

About steam, it is here and will never go. Almost all new games are being released through steam or similar platforms. Are some people here actually expect to have none steam version of civ5 one day?

 

[Drakarska]

Why still playing vanilla? Civ5 is incomplete without its expansions. I could say the same for civ4 and civ3 at their time. Would you play civ4 without its expansions?

Yes, actually, I still do occasionally. There are a few specific mods that are vanilla only that my boys and I like to play from time to time.

 

[Drakarska]

About steam, it is here and will never go. Almost all new games are being released through steam or similar platforms. Are some people here actually expect to have none steam version of civ5 one day?

I can't really answer that question about what other people are expecting. My preference would be to have a no steam version, however unlikely that would be. Look, it's real simple (and I'm not going to start another troll fest about the pro's and cons of steam), I don't like steam for a whole variety of reason I've listed a long time ago. It's my choice about it, and having someone tell me I'm wrong, or other rather patronizing statements concerning this issue doesn't really change my mind.
The only reason steam is even on my kids lappy's is because he plays games with his friends online that are steam only. And even that was after making sure the youngest understood the potential of what could happen again after the last fiasco of when we had steam on a system.

 

[eternalblue]

I'm asking ( not debating or bashing ) here to see what has changed in V with patches and expansions.

If the game has changed along with the lead designers, it could be time to change my sigline and try it again.

1) Does V still require STEAM?

2) Is it the best version for multiplayer?

3) Is it the most moddable Civ ever?

4) Are you able to change the type of victory condition you are pursuing mid game and still win?

I think all that questions that you have are working much better with civ4... I'm not very experienced to make such a big difference but are a lot of people that can explain to you this things.. and If you interested in the differences you can read these thread all 10 pages and you will see some debating and what is different in both games, some good stuff... In conclusion the both are great so.. play both

 

[eternalblue]

not a problem drakarska ... and thanx for the information...

 

[Rusty Edge]

About steam, it is here and will never go. Almost all new games are being released through steam or similar platforms. Are some people here actually expect to have none steam version of civ5 one day?

Well, I'm one of those fanatics that started with Civ I.

I never owned II because of hardware limitations at the time. I got back on board with III. When they come out with Gold edition, Civ IV Complete edition, Civ V Collector's edition, I end up getting it, simply because I don't have it.

From my perspective Steam could be like Gamespy, something that was temporarily a part of the series. I am happier without Steam. I was waiting for Civ V Complete with no DRM check.

So, yes, I can envision V without STEAM, particularly if it still doesn't provide the multi-player solution promised before original release.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Hi RE, nice to see you peek in from the Civ IV forums were we usually Hide

I'll try to answer you from my perspective, as I only have limited amount of Civ V game time;

1) Yes, unfortunately it still does.

2) Hmnn. Tough call on this one, as an individual's preference may vary. IMO, no it isn't. I still have issues occasionally with MP play, and I don't feel that having limited options in order to play isn't conducive to a fun environment.

3) I'm not a modder, but I do make custom scenarios for my boys and I. I would have to say no to this as well IMO, as it just doesn't have the ease of accessibility that Civ IV has.

4) Hmnn. Tough question as I'm still play testing Civ V.. I play king on vanilla (no G&K yet) and haven't really had any issues about mid-game changes.

Wish I could give better detailed answers RE, but as I said, I'm still in the exploration phase of Civ V, and even that is just vanilla. I'm sure others in this thread could give you more detailed info.

Hi,Drakarska and thank you.

1 and 4 were personal preferences. 2&3 were about whether they had delivered on failed promises, a way of gauging present trust-worthiness of 2K. Ultimately, I won't play much multiplayer. I won't mod either. The high point of my modding was to cut and paste some code to limit the number of special forces units in a mod, so that they would actually be special.

 

[Danielion]

I started with preferring Civ 4 for a long time, but now I prefer Civ 5 (thanks to the expansions, mind you). Some old school fans even prefer Civ 3 above 4 and 5.
Well, I am a fan of Alpha Centauri and used to play it back in 1999, and as Civ 3 is more modern I guess it's a great game indeed.

What Civ 5 does have above all other civs, though, is the higher rate of diversification of how different civs play like. This is also a big reason why I prefer Civ 5 over Civ 4 now, despite my initial disappointment.

What I do like in Civ 4 is how culture borders clash aggressively against one another. What I like in Alpha Centauri is the vast amount of bases you tend to have in a standard game (Civ 3 also has that, the expansion is fast-paced). However, as we have to move along, I'd buy Civ 5: Gold Edition and if you like that one definitely buy Brave New World.

 

[PhilBowles]

I'm asking ( not debating or bashing ) here to see what has changed in V with patches and expansions.

If the game has changed along with the lead designers, it could be time to change my sigline and try it again.

1) Does V still require STEAM?

Yes, and as others as noted it's nonsensical to expect otherwise. It's not GameSpy, an obscure client exclusive to multiplayer that even as someone who owned Civ IV from its inception I'd never even heard of until recently. Steam functionality is intrinsically built into modern games, from such trivia as the achievement system to a DLC model that requires a game client which also acts as a retailer, and I'm not aware of any games that have removed or relaxed the Steam requirement having been released as mandatory Steam games.

2) Is it the best version for multiplayer?

In terms of features, possibly it has the potential to be as Civ V is in a number of ways a more interactive game than its predecessors. But the game's heavy system requirements (which mean you'll often be linking to people with less than optimal equipment even if you have it yourself), possibly related frequent disconnects and sync issues, and numerous reported bugs that have apparently received little attention mean that the game still runs poorly as a multiplayer platform.

3) Is it the most moddable Civ ever?

I've only used mods in Civ V so don't have a basis for comparison, but I'm not sure how relevant the comparison is. Certainly as an end-user of mods I can confirm that it has the ability to support mods that allow fairly substantial changes to gameplay, and this was prior to the release of the DLL. The bottom line is that if you want a modded game with Civ V's features, it will plainly be better in that regard than a modded Civ IV, but equally evidently the reverse will be true if you're after modded Civ IV, making any comparison moot.

4) Are you able to change the type of victory condition you are pursuing mid game and still win?

As long as the victory condition you want is science, domination or diplomacy, certainly. This was always true in Civ V, but moreso with BNW because rigid tech paths are less important to the end game and you can realistically transition to, say, a Combustion tech path (favouring Domination) without harming your chances.

Culture victory is, if anything, now more reliant on early-game Wonders than it was in vanilla and G&K, and the timing of the new diplomacy victory also places a stricter 'time limit' on games - by a certain stage, if you aren't in a position to either win diplo victory or prevent someone else winning it, the other victories won't happen because they almost invariably take longer to complete.

 

[rschissler]

Originally posted by Rusty Edge
So, yes, I can envision V without STEAM

Dream on...

 

[civvver]

It will always require steam because that's the distribution method of the software. It doesn't come on disk anymore. By having it on steam 2k games doesn't have to host patches etc.

I'd say for mods 4 and 5 are equally modable once you understand what folders to put stuff in. It took me a while to figure out 4 mods on windows 7 too. The cool thing with 5 is a lot of mods are posted in the steam community.

I don't play multiplayer and won't ever. Civ has always been a single player experience to me.

With the expansions you have a ton of options for victory. Late game can change a lot.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Well, thank you all for your thorough replies.

I think I'll try V again once the new expansion has been released and patched.

 

[Chiatroll]

Yes, actually, I still do occasionally. There are a few specific mods that are vanilla only that my boys and I like to play from time to time.

Civ 4 stood better without it's expansions. (even though beyond the sword was great).

When Civ 5 came out even though I liked the end to the stack of doom I also didn't like it but I thought gods and kings was alright and with BNW prefer it to civ 4. So it's hard to compare civ 5 to civ 4 without the expansions since civ 5 really needs it's expansions for all that they brought and fixed.

Try out the expansions and compare them. You might be surprised.

You might still prefer 4 over 5 but at least 5 becomes a reasonable game on it's own with it's expansions and the comparison seems more fair.

 

[Legator]

shouldn't have read this thread before really trying CIV5.

I only have the vanilla one and just started it....after playing 1203131021013 CIV4 games

 

[Vohbo]

Also: there are very few bugs and real issues in Brave New World. A few civs are obviously a little under or overpowered, but well within limits (even Poland, yes).
The unwarranted need in "I really want to wait for a patch" is unjustified, as the fall patch for Gods and Kings did more harm than good in my opinion, changing the game back into a wargame because of user complaints.

About culture in BNW: This is most definitely NOT reliant on early game wonders, in fact the opposite is true. As long as you build guilds early, you can completely ignore culture buildings and wonders until the late renaissance (at which point you will want the louvre and/or uffizi) and use your tech buildup to go for Eiffel Tower/Broadway/Cristo Redentor/Sydney Opera House/Hotels/Internet.

 

[paulcarri]

Coming from the opposite end here, ive played I II III and IV (and CTP, CTP 2, SMAC) and im just downloading V now

As far as 4 is concerned, for me it was an excellent game, it has a lot of replay value too because of all the mods/maps/scenarios and a lot of depth.

When you have played a lot though and get to say imm difficulty.. then it starts to feel more 'gamey' as it becomes about early war etc

Still its a fantastic game, and runs well on lowish machines too!

 

[paulcarri]

Ummm... Civ 3?
Actually, I hated hated HATED Civ 4 It always felt graphically incomplete, and really, really confusing. The religion system was almost totally incomprehensible, and the resource and stack system meant SoD's were not only possible, but quantity trumped quality in all aspects. Civ 5's limiting of Strategics and removal of stacking made the combat system much better IMO.
There is one flaw with Civ 5 though:
Every defeat screen for every defeat is:
"A marble statue of a woman being excavated in the desert"

Not sure how you worked that out?

In civ iv bts, monty was often backwards, i can remember laughing as he attacked my city defended by 6 infantry with jaguar warriors.

He hit with nearly 50 units, i lost one infantry i believe.