I like both games, not hating or preferring either to the other. Here's some of the things I like about one over the other; Civ 4 - Peaceful Play is much easier. Stacked Troops. This seems to make more sense on a smaller scale. I wouldn't push through a mountain pass one archer at a time, it would be entire platoons at once. (see Civ 5 note about 1UPT) SPP system is better IMO. City Flipping (and border pushes) through Culture I like the way you mix and match the Civics to create your own government specialized to how you wanted to run your empire Water Transports Civ 5 - AI civs won't just let you get away with winning without putting up a fight (aka Peaceful Play is nearly impossible) 1UPT This adds a level of strategy to war that is lacking from previous versions OMG STACK OF DOOM COMING OUR WAY. Each leader is unique, in Civ 4 leaders seemed to blend together and didn't really alter the way you played the game. Far fewer military Units. Do I really need 6 different Melee units before I hit the 3rd era? The way Religions work. However; I don't like that GP purchasing in later era's is based off of faith. It seems like the devs said, how do we make Religion important throughout the entire game? Oh, we'll tie a really important feature to Faith even though it's only loosely related in the best of cases historically.