Zechnophobe
Strategy Lich
Curious to see if there is any kind of trend here amongst Civ fanatickers. Bonus points if you respond saying if you play Civ 5 on a harder difficulty or not.
What civ 4 Difficulty did you play on, do you like civ 5 more?
- Thread starter Zechnophobe
- Start date
Öjevind Lång
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,371
I generally played Civ IV on Noble; playing on the harder levels felt too much like work, and it also restricted your strategy options. I think that when Civ V has been properly patched, it will be a more enjoyable game than Civ IV. That is to say, I and many others will feel that way. Others, of course, will continue to prefer Civ IV. Even as it is, Civ V is great fun to play. The "one more turn" syndrome is still alive and kicking in Civ V. For me and for many others.
Iron Weasel
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2007
- Messages
- 48
I played on Warlord in IV and won about 40% - 50% of the time.
Now, in V, I play on Prince and win about 90% of the time and I've even managed a few King wins.
Can't say I really prefer one version over the other as a whole - each version has some things I like and don't like. They're both fun to play, IMO.
Now, in V, I play on Prince and win about 90% of the time and I've even managed a few King wins.
Can't say I really prefer one version over the other as a whole - each version has some things I like and don't like. They're both fun to play, IMO.
winthrowe
Warlord
I didn't play Vanilla/BTS much, fell in love with RoM/AND weeks after I joined, on Monarch, usually. I've picked my victory for the achievements all the way to diety, with some horserush/naval AI abuse, but I prefer on Prince or king for civ 5 and don't try hard because it seems much more fun, the diplomacy ai seems more broken on the higher levels IMO, among other things.
Really, I'm unimpressed playing the base game, but see lots of potential once we get some real mods. the current balance mods do much to make it more interesting, but there's not a whole lot of difference between vanilla civ 4 and vanilla civ 5 compared to BTS and RoM+AND.
even when I played 'vanilla' it was always with BUG mod minimum, usually RevDCM; once there are civ 5 BUG and HOF and BetterAI mods, people will have fewer complaints.
Really, I'm unimpressed playing the base game, but see lots of potential once we get some real mods. the current balance mods do much to make it more interesting, but there's not a whole lot of difference between vanilla civ 4 and vanilla civ 5 compared to BTS and RoM+AND.
even when I played 'vanilla' it was always with BUG mod minimum, usually RevDCM; once there are civ 5 BUG and HOF and BetterAI mods, people will have fewer complaints.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,993
I was immortal/deity in 4 but more so immortal (I won every deity VC on a standard map/speed with random opposition except time however). I'm still torn between the two games somewhat, but have overall moved on more to V.
As a high level player, I can tell you specifically that civ IV was never finished as a game. Vassal state mechanics screwed, luck-based spawn outcomes, "role play" AI that basically meant that some of them didn't try and could feed other AI into monsters, control glitches, hammer overflow problems, imbalanced and ill-conceived events, and much more all existed in the final 3.19 BTS patch. 3.19 AI only knew how to actively pursue one VC strategically.
People think V's AI is bad, but that's because this game has more war tactical control to it...IV's AI was worse but simply brute-forced you with overwhelming stacks...at least until you abused collateral (especially the ultimate, deity SoD crushing nuke). Outcomes were heavily luck-based on a lot of scripts. Some scripts were unwinnable on deity standard settings + huge maps unless you cooked the game or went for AP wins.
You can make a case for features in either game, but ultimately each has had serious bugs and as you go up in difficulty, a strategy-funnel. Right now, the strategy funnel is a bit worse in civ V, but not too much (immortal and especially deity IV forced you into pretty specific looks sometimes, too).
I voted V but very narrow. It needs so much work, but unlike IV it still has hope.
As a high level player, I can tell you specifically that civ IV was never finished as a game. Vassal state mechanics screwed, luck-based spawn outcomes, "role play" AI that basically meant that some of them didn't try and could feed other AI into monsters, control glitches, hammer overflow problems, imbalanced and ill-conceived events, and much more all existed in the final 3.19 BTS patch. 3.19 AI only knew how to actively pursue one VC strategically.
People think V's AI is bad, but that's because this game has more war tactical control to it...IV's AI was worse but simply brute-forced you with overwhelming stacks...at least until you abused collateral (especially the ultimate, deity SoD crushing nuke). Outcomes were heavily luck-based on a lot of scripts. Some scripts were unwinnable on deity standard settings + huge maps unless you cooked the game or went for AP wins.
You can make a case for features in either game, but ultimately each has had serious bugs and as you go up in difficulty, a strategy-funnel. Right now, the strategy funnel is a bit worse in civ V, but not too much (immortal and especially deity IV forced you into pretty specific looks sometimes, too).
I voted V but very narrow. It needs so much work, but unlike IV it still has hope.
Consistent Immortal player.
TMIT I have to say one of the nicest things that I see from V is that the luck side of the strategy has been downgraded quite a bit from IV. Even if they weaken horse rushing or the like you can pretty much depend on finding those resources within or close to your boarders. I could never depend on anything like that in any Diety game for IV which is why I rarely ever played them.
TMIT I have to say one of the nicest things that I see from V is that the luck side of the strategy has been downgraded quite a bit from IV. Even if they weaken horse rushing or the like you can pretty much depend on finding those resources within or close to your boarders. I could never depend on anything like that in any Diety game for IV which is why I rarely ever played them.
I agree with TheMeInTeam about the fact that Civ4 was weak.
Yet, Civ0.V seems to be much weaker. Of course it has more *potential*, since Civ4 seems not to be supported anymore.
OTOH I don't expect the Firaxians to be able to make considerable improvements in the area of combat AI.
Other areas are quite limited by design, as far as I see it.
So, until the game might see an almost complete overhaul (and most probably, only one expansion will not be enough to do so), it will stay weak in comparison.
Yet, Civ0.V seems to be much weaker. Of course it has more *potential*, since Civ4 seems not to be supported anymore.
OTOH I don't expect the Firaxians to be able to make considerable improvements in the area of combat AI.
Other areas are quite limited by design, as far as I see it.
So, until the game might see an almost complete overhaul (and most probably, only one expansion will not be enough to do so), it will stay weak in comparison.
eireksten
Protective/Organized
I've moved on to Civ5 now, but until some more patches are released I have to say I still prefer Civ4 BtS (where I was/am at Emperor level).
I do think Civ5 does have potential, though, and that it can come up to, or surpass, the quality of Civ4 BtS in time.
I do think Civ5 does have potential, though, and that it can come up to, or surpass, the quality of Civ4 BtS in time.
Monarch on 4, Immortal on 5.
I won my first Immortal only less than two weeks playing Civ5.
Never have tried new patches yet, maybe it is more difficult now.
Did won some games on Emperor also in Civ4, but those were pretty well set up, and I used reloading sometimes.
I won my first Immortal only less than two weeks playing Civ5.
Never have tried new patches yet, maybe it is more difficult now.
Did won some games on Emperor also in Civ4, but those were pretty well set up, and I used reloading sometimes.
WadeRetroSatana
Chieftain
Used to play the all earlier Civilizations mostly on Warlord. I could/should've played on harder difficulty levels more, I suppose. As for Civ5, I did first couple of games with Warlord to get used to the new gameplay mechanics and I'm currently playing on King - which doesn't seem to be very difficult yet.
I like the changes in Civ5 in general, but the combat AI need definitely some more work. I don't like it either when I'm sweeping the floor with a civ and they still refuse to pay 1 gold for peace that they want. Also, I'd like to see info such as global politics and my luxyry resources when negotiating with another civ.
I like the changes in Civ5 in general, but the combat AI need definitely some more work. I don't like it either when I'm sweeping the floor with a civ and they still refuse to pay 1 gold for peace that they want. Also, I'd like to see info such as global politics and my luxyry resources when negotiating with another civ.
DarkTempla
Chieftain
I generally really like CiV - Yes, it does need a lot of combat AI improvement and yes we are all beta testers but I do not mind 
I also noticed that it is about 1 level easier up to maybe Emperor/Immortal but Deity surely still feels like Deity, especially if you have a tough starting location! (I do not do restarts and like a challenge!)
So casual CIV deity --> CiV deity player
I also noticed that it is about 1 level easier up to maybe Emperor/Immortal but Deity surely still feels like Deity, especially if you have a tough starting location! (I do not do restarts and like a challenge!)
So casual CIV deity --> CiV deity player
I played on prince and monarch. It's hard for me to say which game I prefer. I think I prefer V in theory, assuming a lot of fixes take place, but if I had to choose right now between V in its current incarnation and Civ IV BTS fully patched, I'd choose IV.
That's kind of a silly hypothetical, though.
That's kind of a silly hypothetical, though.
Dark_Jedi06
"Deus ex Machina."
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,399
Well it doesn't give me the option, but I played Civ4 on Monarch and have been playing Civ5 on King and don't prefer one game over the other.
gingerbill
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2005
- Messages
- 335
good post themeinteam
Okay, You win... My nine option poll is childsplay campared to yours. 
I would like to coin Zechnophobe's Law: Those who prefer to lose, prefer Civ 4 over civ 5. I make that claim inspite of the fact that you never find a higher difficulty player admitting to ever losing on these boards.
Combine that with ShuShu62's Law: Those who dislike civ 5 prefer civ 4 over all others.
And we can form Zechnophobe's postulate (implied): Those who prefer to lose are more likely to dislike civ 5
I would like to coin Zechnophobe's Law: Those who prefer to lose, prefer Civ 4 over civ 5. I make that claim inspite of the fact that you never find a higher difficulty player admitting to ever losing on these boards.
Combine that with ShuShu62's Law: Those who dislike civ 5 prefer civ 4 over all others.
And we can form Zechnophobe's postulate (implied): Those who prefer to lose are more likely to dislike civ 5
I was a pretty casual Civ4 players, mostly Prince or Noble games. My feelings toward Civ 5 are too nuanced to be expressed in a simple "like or dislike" poll, but pre-patch I wasn't finding 5 engaging enough to play regularly. I haven't had time to try it after the 0.62 patch yet, but I'm hoping that will make it more fun for me.
DavidPBacon
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2007
- Messages
- 97
Wrong, I 'm an exception to this law, since I really dislike 5 and I prefer II.
AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
I picked Noble prefer 4.
I've picked up a win or two above it but I play Noble probably 99% of the time in Civ4 for the simple reason that I find it more fun. Call me a girly man if you like but playing a lazy game of Noble Civ4 is one of the nicest forms of pure entertainment yet invented by man
. I may get any number of forum wedgies and wet willies for saying so, but there you have it.
The strategy funnel the TheMeInTeam mentions is one of the main things that makes the upper difficulties less appealing to me. (This criticism will probably apply to 5 as well) I suppose I should stop being lazy and try to climb a little higher in Civ4 as I'm winning *way* too often on Noble and probably becoming ridiculously lazy because of it, but meh...
Still, I prefer Civilization 4 at the moment. I hold out immense hope for 5, but the diplomacy is too damned aggravating in its current state. If it had no other problems this would still keep me playing 4 for a good while.
DISCLAIMER: My simple preference for Civ4 cannot be distorted in any way to represent a wailing, vitriolic aversion to Civ5. Civ5 is undercooked but it is not a betrayal of the series, a console game, or anything else. It is the undercooked vanilla portion of the next game in the series and failed to clear the bar set by its fully laden predecessor.
I've picked up a win or two above it but I play Noble probably 99% of the time in Civ4 for the simple reason that I find it more fun. Call me a girly man if you like but playing a lazy game of Noble Civ4 is one of the nicest forms of pure entertainment yet invented by man
. I may get any number of forum wedgies and wet willies for saying so, but there you have it. The strategy funnel the TheMeInTeam mentions is one of the main things that makes the upper difficulties less appealing to me. (This criticism will probably apply to 5 as well) I suppose I should stop being lazy and try to climb a little higher in Civ4 as I'm winning *way* too often on Noble and probably becoming ridiculously lazy because of it, but meh...
Still, I prefer Civilization 4 at the moment. I hold out immense hope for 5, but the diplomacy is too damned aggravating in its current state. If it had no other problems this would still keep me playing 4 for a good while.
DISCLAIMER: My simple preference for Civ4 cannot be distorted in any way to represent a wailing, vitriolic aversion to Civ5. Civ5 is undercooked but it is not a betrayal of the series, a console game, or anything else. It is the undercooked vanilla portion of the next game in the series and failed to clear the bar set by its fully laden predecessor.
