Which Civ?

[Dindog]

Hello everyone!
About ten years ago, I played CIV III and I had been excited about the complexity of relationships that were created between the different "peoples".
Now, I want start again with Civ. I've not decided whether to play Civ IV with all the expansions (Complete Version) or Civ V (GOTY + new expansion).
I've read some posts that were not very excited about CIV V compared to the IV, and even praised the complexity of the IV than the V (for me, graphics is not very important).
So I come here to ask you an opinion about it!

Thank you!
Ale

 

[The_Quasar]

I'd recommend Civ V... it's a better game.

Civ IV had Stacks of Doom, which let it down (imho)... Civ V has 1 unit per tile, and that makes it a better game.

 

[cain3456]

Civ5 has finally leashed REX with the culture game, where having a big empire makes picking up social policies harder. The addition of city-states also makes Civ5 a better game.
I was one of those who swallowed the "hurr durr, civ5 is dumbed down" propaganda for awhile. Nothing like trying it for yourself to see the truth.

 

[binhthuy71]

Pre-expansion, I would have given the edge to Civ4. Post-expansion, Civ5 by a hair.

Civ4 has lots of depth and complexity, as well as some amazing mods, that's good. It also has the Stack of Doom, some nearly game breaking Random Events (Vedic Aryans, anyone?) and the Apostolic Palace, any of which can spoil a game for me.

Civ5 gained substantial depth and complexity with the expansion. I'm confident that amazing mods will be forthcoming. One Unit Per Tile. All good. Although I have my criticisms of some aspects of Civ5, none of them will spoil a game for me.

 

[Andulias]

Hello everyone!
About ten years ago, I played CIV III and I had been excited about the complexity of relationships that were created between the different "peoples".
Now, I want start again with Civ. I've not decided whether to play Civ IV with all the expansions (Complete Version) or Civ V (GOTY + new expansion).
I've read some posts that were not very excited about CIV V compared to the IV, and even praised the complexity of the IV than the V (for me, graphics is not very important).
So I come here to ask you an opinion about it!

Thank you!
Ale

Honestly, you are on the wrong forum, but then again, there isn't rally a "right" one. Of course if you ask here, you will mostly get answers that go along the lines of "CiV all the way!" Basically you need to answer these questions:

Do you prefer to have gigantic empires with dozens of cities and hundreds of units, or smaller, tighter and more specialized empires with a high tech army you've been saving up for hundreds of years?

How do you feel about not having stacks of doom, consequently, how do you feel about battles being played out not between huge stacks of doom, but fewer units, each on its own tile, where tactics have a bigger influence than before?

Do you like being able to change your government, and the bonuses associated with them, at a whim, or would you prefer the much longer and branching out Policy Trees, which however can NOT be changed once taken?

Do you like an AI that's somewhat predictable, but also reliable, or do you like one that 's more likely to go behind your back? A small hint - when a leader in CIV is Friendly toward you, he actually is Friendly. In CiV though friendly leaders just appear to be Friendly, and might in fact be plotting against you.

Do you prefer a religious system that easily creates religious blocks which last until the end of the game, but beyond getting access to two happiness/culture and one OK-ish science building, doesn't do much else, or would you rather have a do-it-yourself system with bonuses you can pick, but one that would rarely start wars (although it's still possible)?

Do you like spamming roads?

How do you feel about Global Happiness? Are you a big fan of tech trading? What is your preferred Victory path? How much do you like role-playing your civ? Do you like the idea of cities flipping sides because of culture?

In other words, tell us what appeals to you as a player in Civ, answer at least some of these questions, and you will get a definitive answer. I personally like and play both games precisely because they are actually very different. Before the expansion CiV was definitely an underwhelming experience, but in my opinion right now after G+K it all comes down to taste.

Civ5 gained substantial depth and complexity with the expansion. I'm confident that amazing mods will be forthcoming. One Unit Per Tile. All good. Although I have my criticisms of some aspects of Civ5, none of them will spoil a game for me.

Doubtful. It was a huge fight just to get the whole code released for CIV, in CiV modders don't have the same amount of access they used to. G+K changes nothing in that regard, so the CiV modder scene won't explode out of nowhere because of it.

EDIT: CiV is Civilization V. CIV is Civilization IV. Sorry if it makes it harder for you to understand the post

 

[binhthuy71]

...Doubtful. It was a huge fight just to get the whole code released for CIV, in CiV modders don't have the same amount of access they used to. G+K changes nothing in that regard, so the CiV modder scene won't explode out of nowhere because of it.

The limited access to the code in Civ5 along with the changes wrought by the expansion are in part why I chose the word "forthcoming." 2K Games is not going to encourage modding in Civ5 at the level that it was encouraged in Civ4 because the company has identified DLCs as a revenue stream. Nonetheless, our modders are both capable and tenacious so I expect to see some mods that will compare favorably with those created for previous versions of Civ.

 

[black_kitten]

A few more big changes between the editions to consider for your choice:

Spies were by far more complex in civ IV, with lots of different actions like stealing tech, sabotage, influencing civics, ... CiV reintroduced them in the expansion, but they essentially act on their own, you cannot give orders to them except of 'move to a different city'. On the other hand, they could be annoying late in the game, when there were dozens of them with every civ, and the AI spies often doing stupid/senseless things, like destroying the same farm over and over, while 6 workers were waiting nearby, re-building it in one turn.

Colonies with zero production (remote flat island with spices and some fish) used to be helpful for gathering resources and did not hinder any building plans in your main production cities. In CiV, many national wonders require the same building to be present in all of your cities - more forethought needed, but also a new tactical dimension.

Do you want health to be an aspect of the game experience? It's not in CiV, food (bonus resources) makes the tiles better, and that's it. But: a lot of people don't seem to miss the concept as a whole.

 

[binhthuy71]

A few more big changes between the editions to consider for your choice:

Spies were by far more complex in civ IV, with lots of different actions like stealing tech, sabotage, influencing civics, ... CiV reintroduced them in the expansion, but they essentially act on their own, you cannot give orders to them except of 'move to a different city'. On the other hand, they could be annoying late in the game, when there were dozens of them with every civ, and the AI spies often doing stupid/senseless things, like destroying the same farm over and over, while 6 workers were waiting nearby, re-building it in one turn.

Colonies with zero production (remote flat island with spices and some fish) used to be helpful for gathering resources and did not hinder any building plans in your main production cities. In CiV, many national wonders require the same building to be present in all of your cities - more forethought needed, but also a new tactical dimension.

Do you want health to be an aspect of the game experience? It's not in CiV, food (bonus resources) makes the tiles better, and that's it. But: a lot of people don't seem to miss the concept as a whole.

Congratulations on your first post! Although health, or more specifically the lack of it, played a large part in world history, I don't miss it in Civ5. To me, it wasn't that well modeled the last time they tried it.

 

[Andulias]

Congratulations on your first post! Although health, or more specifically the lack of it, played a large part in world history, I don't miss it in Civ5. To me, it wasn't that well modeled the last time they tried it.

Neither did I, however I still think the game desperately needs another growth impediment system. The problem with health in IV was that there already was one system for vertical growth (happiness) and one for horizontal (maintenance). Health hurt both your production and your growth by rendering citizens unusable, while maintenance was a hit on your economy, so health just sat there looking awkward because there was nothing left to do. CiV though only has a global health system that prevents growth, it's just a glaring hole in its design that there isn't a localized system that hurts your production, say a health one? Really, it would take a long time to implement it, but this is still one of the things that really bug me about CiV and I can't believe 2 years after launch it's not in the game.

But all of this is all kind of

 

[Randall_Flagg]

Well as it stands right now, get both!!! You can never go wrong with any CiV game!! I still have civ 1 loaded up!! Out of the box, CiV IV was hawt!! CiV V took some patches, and right now feels better. The expansion G&K is so damn addictive, one more frigging turn my ass, more like let me finish this tech!!

 

[Dindog]

Honestly, you are on the wrong forum, but then again, there isn't rally a "right" one. Of course if you ask here, you will mostly get answers that go along the lines of "CiV all the way!"

Ok, I'll try to explain you what I prefer.

Do you prefer to have gigantic empires with dozens of cities and hundreds of units, or smaller, tighter and more specialized empires with a high tech army you've been saving up for hundreds of years?

I prefer a middle way between this positions. However, I prefer smaller and more specialized empires.

How do you feel about not having stacks of doom, consequently, how do you feel about battles being played out not between huge stacks of doom, but fewer units, each on its own tile, where tactics have a bigger influence than before?

Mmmhh....I prefer fewer unit, but I don't hate Stacks of doom...so, also in this case, I prefer a middle way.

Do you like being able to change your government, and the bonuses associated with them, at a whim, or would you prefer the much longer and branching out Policy Trees, which however can NOT be changed once taken?

I think I don't understand...However, I like being able to change the government.

Do you prefer a religious system that easily creates religious blocks which last until the end of the game, but beyond getting access to two happiness/culture and one OK-ish science building, doesn't do much else, or would you rather have a do-it-yourself system with bonuses you can pick, but one that would rarely start wars (although it's still possible)?

I prefer a more complex religious system, so I think the second one.

Do you like spamming roads?

What's spamming roads?!?

How do you feel about Global Happiness? Are you a big fan of tech trading? What is your preferred Victory path? How much do you like role-playing your civ? Do you like the idea of cities flipping sides because of culture?

I like tech trading, and the cultural growth. I like more cultural or economical or social or relationship aspects than military aspects.

In other words, tell us what appeals to you as a player in Civ, answer at least some of these questions, and you will get a definitive answer. I personally like and play both games precisely because they are actually very different. Before the expansion CiV was definitely an underwhelming experience, but in my opinion right now after G+K it all comes down to taste.

So, which do you think I could prefer? CIV or CiV?
Thank you,
Ale

 

[kingrich10]

Sounds like you might prefer Civ IV then.

'Spamming roads' is laying down roads for the sake of it, even when not necessary, CiV imposes a financial penalty for each tile with a road on it.

 

[Andulias]

I actually think there is something in both you could like. The reasons why I asked those questions are as follows:
1. CiV is tailored towards smaller, more specialized empires, although big ones are certainly possible. CiV also allows for those, but technically there is no trade-off to having a gigantic empire on the long run, whereas in CiV every new city ups your cultural costs (more on that in a bit). That's apparent even in the way National Wonders work. These are buildings that every civ can build only once, however they have certain requirements. In CIV to build the Oxford University for instance you need 8 universities in your empire. In CiV you need one in every city you have. Which also makes One-City-Challenges a lot easier.

2. In CiV you can have a relatively small, tight army that you consistently upgrade over the ages. It's very rare that a civ has more than 20 units at once until the late game, while in CIV that would just be a moderately sized stack. Luck has also been taken out of the equation - just like in III, in IV whenever one unit attacks another, someone dies, and even though there are calculated odds every now and then we all know what happens. . That's gone in V. Every unit has 100hp and it takes around 3-4 attacks to kill. Luck has essentially been taken out of the equation. This doesn't happen. Ever.

The flipside of 1UPT though is, well, in later stages when you have dozens of units it all might turn into a bit of a clusterf*ck, pardon my French.

3. CIV has civics. They essentially govern different aspects of your empire (religion, government and so on). 25 in total, 5 in 5 categories, 23 of them bring only benefits, and 2 have some sort of a trade-off. Each requires a certain upkeep to be paid, but that doesn't really matter unless you are playing on Emperor or above. Techs unlock them, they can be switched when you feel like it which causes Anarchy, just like old times.

In V there are no civics. Instead you get Social Policies, although the name is misleading, they are more like the traditions and culture of your empire. There are 50 in total and they all bring benefits only. As you can see, there are different branches that lead to different parts of each tree, which brings some strategy into the mix. And do note, it is absolutely impossible to get all of them. They are acquired by generating culture, which comes from buildings just like III. However the cost of each increases gradually, every additional city increases the cost further, meaning that the bigger your empire - the fewer SPs you will get. They are also tied up with the Cultural Victory - while in IV all you have to do is raise you culture to 50 000 (standard speed) in 3 of your cities, here you have to finish off 5 of the trees, which unlocks the Utopia project. In IV bordering territories could flip in favour of the city that generates more culture. Even a whole city could change sides, a peaceful conquest, which unfortunately also meant that conquering a city in the late game was a really bad idea, as it would quickly flip back to its owner or another neighbour. Nothing of the sort in V.

4. In CIV you unlock religion by researching a tech. Your holy city gets picked at random when you found one, and they are all interchangeable, it doesn't matter if you are a Buddhist or a Christian. Adopting one gives gives you +1 in cities that have adopted it, and you can build 3 religious buildings - Temples that boost your happiness and culture, Monasteries that give science and culture, and if you have enough temples, cathedras, those increase your culture output significantly. If you have found a religion, you can use a Great Prophet to build a special building in the holy city that gives you 1 gold for every city that follows the religion. Religion itself spreads automatically, or you can use missionaries. One missionary converts one city. You can found all religions in the game, however only one can be your state religion.

Religion in CIV has a gigantic influence on diplomacy until you adopt the Free Religion civic. Most, although not all civs, will love you or hate you based entirely on your religion and nothing else. On one hand it makes it easier to form diplomatic blocks early on, on the other, well, it's kind of stupid really. In my last CIV game I converted a neighbouring Caesar to my Confucianism and we were friends for thousands of years. Then he found Taoism, converted to it, and attacked me just because I was following a different religion. 2000 years of cooperation and trading down the drain.

In V religion is modular and you can found only one. To do that you need faith, which is generated by buildings, just like culture. When you have generated enough, you can found a Pantheon, a sort of a proto-religion, and can choose between 23 pantheon beliefs, which mostly are tied to different terrain types. Do you have a lot of stone near your capital? Get Stone Circles, it gives +2 faith from quarries. You want to turtle up? Get Goddess of Protection, which gives +30% range combat strength to cities. After generating even more faith, you get a Great Prophet and can found a religion. You get to pick a Founder belief (a bonus you get out of the religion, 13 in all) and a Follower Belief (a bonus that everyone that follows your religion gets, 16 I think?). With a second prophet you can buy an Enhancer belief, which speeds up the way your religion spreads (9 in total) You can create a religion that boosts your research or generates gold every time you convert a city. Some religions benefit from being spread, some don't at all. With the faith you generate you can buy missionaries to spread it further, inquisitors to exterminate a foreign religion, and different buildings and even military units, if you chose the necessary beliefs. Religion is spread in a linear fashion - each city "pressures" other cities within a radius of 10 tiles, converting one citizen at a time.

Religion has a very limited influence on Diplomacy. Following the same religion does give a boost, having a different one doesn't make a civ hate you unless you spread yours aggressively with missionaries or Great Prophets, who can also be used as a sort of a super-missionary.

5. In IV roads cost nothing, just like in III. In V they cost maintenance. Some love it, some hate it. In IV cities cost maintenance. in V some buildings do.

6. Tech trading is gone, now you can get Research Agreements. They cost money and boost your research. The bonus is calculated as 50% of the median Science value for all of the technologies the you can currently research, which means that it's in fact a bad idea to have RAs with the tech leader, because he benefits more than you, so that brings some strategy into the mix. The only way to actually get a tech out of another civ is to steal it with a spy.

There are many other details that you might like or hate. Diplomacy for in CIV is centered more around religion and trading, while in V you can make promises, and if you break those, you get a diplo hit with all civs. Warring a lot also gets you a diplo hit. Generally the diplomacy in V was dreadful, but has been much improved in the expansion, I think I like it more than IV. City states have a singificant influence on the game - tiny one-city civs that give quests. If you complete those or if you give them money, you can become Friends and even Allies with them, and they give you some kind of a bonus, whether it's extra food, culture, faith, military units or happiness. They also go to war for you and have a vote in the UN, so they are essential to the diplo victory. You can pledge to protect them or bully them, but beware! If a civ bullies a city you promised to protect, or if you bully one, it might lead to some trouble.

Overall, seeing as you are mostly on the fence about many aspects, try out the demos of both games. I think you will like something about both, so just try them out. However, do NOT try the CiV vanilla demo, there is a Gods and Kings demo, get that. If you had asked me only a couple of months ago which one to get, I would have said IV without even thinking about it. After the expansion though... It's a much better game now.

 

[Dindog]

Hi! Some time ago I asked which Civ (IV vs V) was better. You can read the answers above. Now, few months have passed after the new expansion. What do you think about Civ? Is Civ V now better than Civ IV?

Ale

 

[Enonwnn]

Hi! Some time ago I asked which Civ (IV vs V) was better. You can read the answers above. Now, few months have passed after the new expansion. What do you think about Civ? Is Civ V now better than Civ IV?

Ale

As a player who has owned and played all Civs (excluding Revolutions), Civ5 has always been better than Civ4. Civ4 was highly disappointing after Civ3, and was certainly nowhere near as good as Civ2.

Civ5 offers a different style of gameplay from the other versions. If you want something different, go for 5. If you want to stick to the old style, stick with 2/3. Civ4, imho, is the one in the series to skip.

 

[Fried Egg]

As a player who has owned and played all Civs (excluding Revolutions), Civ5 has always been better than Civ4. Civ4 was highly disappointing after Civ3, and was certainly nowhere near as good as Civ2.

Civ5 offers a different style of gameplay from the other versions. If you want something different, go for 5. If you want to stick to the old style, stick with 2/3. Civ4, imho, is the one in the series to skip.

I completely agree with the above assessment.

 

[whyidie]

Since you haven't played it, buy 4. Its cheaper and its new to you. Once you find yourself getting tired of 4, you can then move up to what should by then be a complete and cheap 5. By the time you've had it with 5, the next version should be right around the corner.