Civ 4 or Civ 5?

[rschissler]

I know there are plenty of people who love Civ 5 and have spent 300+ hours playing it, but when I see those posts I can't help thinking "doing what??"

You mean, like hitting the next turn button?

 

[SuperJay]

You mean, like hitting the next turn button?

Yeah, just thinking 300 hours of "Next Turn" clicks makes me want to gouge my eyes out with a spoon.

 

[Thorite]

Civ4 is the way better game; provided you have the time to learn to play it well. What Civ4 offers is so many choices in terms of strategy, victory types. Even the combat, which is the single biggest complaint (SOD) is pretty exciting althought it does get less interesting once you've mastered it but that takes some time.

Relatively, Civ5 is pretty boring.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=394243

Do yourself a favour. Buy Civ4, play it, but don't rush to the Civ4 strategy forums. Learn it the hard/slow way. You could easily play years discovering the new strategies and tactics for yourself. The combination of very good immersion + evolving strategy (or even completely new strategies) could keep this game fresh for years.

Also, after an initial go through, try Marathon or Epic speed. Time moves much more slowly and I personally feel much more immersed in the time-period.

Since I personally have very little hope that Civ5 will ever make it to great game status and consequently I'll probably have to wait 5 years for a decent new Civ game, I'd further recommend reliving the expansion pack releases. Try Civ4 Vanilla then move onto the Warlords expansion for a while and only then play Beyond the Sword. (The BTS allows you to play any version).

Come back later to post your opinion on Civ4 vs Civ5 preference. Its been very interesting to see the dichotomy of Civ4 vs Civ5 opinions and I personally like to see fresh opinions and even the evolution of opinions (although others won't be so tolerant). I'm in SuperJay's camp where I struggle to understand what people are seeing in Civ5. But hey, I played countless hours of mine-sweeper due to a combination of procrastination and some form of obsessive-compulsive disorder back in university so there's that.

 

[attackfighter]

civ 4 is a bore

civ 5 is alive

much rather buy civ 5 imo, although honestly civ 3 would be an even better choice

 

[Isikien]

At the moment? Civ iv is superior. The core game has been rounded off, there is a ton of variety in each game you start, not to mention the xboxhueg amount of mods

For the moment, V is in a purgutorial situation, and I can't recommend something that's incomplete. If you're willing to play around with mods then stick around. Otherwise, wait a couple of months to see what direction it takes

 

[Bad Brett]

Yes there were. Taking away ranged attacks, smaller maps/world, much smaller empire, game was faster even on marathon... Those are just off the top of my head, and I seem to remember complaints about zone of control and many other things being changed for the worse. There were a lot of people who stuck with Civ III for a long, long time and vehement opposition to the game out of the gate didn't really quiet down for months after release. The reality is buzz words like "consolized" weren't as known at the time, whereas now they're common vernacular in gaming forums across the net.

Smaller maps, different game speed and zone of control...? It's actually a good sign if people complain about small details such as these.

The ranged attack was not in Civ, Civ II, AC or Colonization, so they did not change the direction of the series by removing it. Compare it with the removal of religions... A nice addition to Civ IV in my opinion, but they are not THAT important.

However, removing war weariness, different cultures and sliders, and instead replace everything with global happiness number, affects the core game (in a bad way). Making a combat system that the AI can't handle affects the core game. The list goes on.

The result is a game with very little flavour. It doesn't matter if a city is located near the borders of a sworn enemy or in the middle of your empire, filled with coliseums and temples. It doesn't matter if you fight six enemies at once. You people will love you as long as you don't accidently capture a city instead of razing it.

 

[Kerosene31]

Every Civ fan should own Civ 4 (and I'm not a Civ V hater).

Get the version with all the expansions cheap off Steam and kiss a few hundred hours of your life goodbye.

 

[AfterShafter]

Smaller maps, different game speed and zone of control...? It's actually a good sign if people complain about small details such as these.

The ranged attack was not in Civ, Civ II, AC or Colonization, so they did not change the direction of the series by removing it. Compare it with the removal of religions... A nice addition to Civ IV in my opinion, but they are not THAT important.

However, removing war weariness, different cultures and sliders, and instead replace everything with global happiness number, affects the core game (in a bad way). Making a combat system that the AI can't handle affects the core game. The list goes on.

The result is a game with very little flavour. It doesn't matter if a city is located near the borders of a sworn enemy or in the middle of your empire, filled with coliseums and temples. It doesn't matter if you fight six enemies at once. You people will love you as long as you don't accidently capture a city instead of razing it.

"Small details"? In a game that's supposed to span ages and the globe, significantly decreasing the size of the game world, the number of cities that compose an empire, and how long the game lasts are *HUGE* factors. You've been here a long time - frankly, I'm shocked you're downplaying the initial reaction to Civ IV by many. That reaction being, that it was a downsized, "streamlined," arcadey mess and was betraying the core audience that wanted 100+ hour games, 100 city empires, and an epicness that befitted a game of empires and ages. For many of us it completely exonerated itself of these initial claims, but frankly, they were there and there in force. Small details? Trying to downplay the impact such a significant reduction in scope from III to IV is just disingenuous.

Ranged combat is a *tremendous* factor in how one goes about battle in a tactical sense. Including or not including them is a massive spectrum shift in how one goes about war. Again, this is far from a small issue - and a lot of people noticed it.

I'm not interested in arguing whether you think Civ V is a good game or not, whether you enjoy playing it, or whether you think it's a big step back. I'm just pointing out, there were SIGNIFICANT complaints about very major changes from III to IV, and in time, IV more or less completely exonerated itself of those complaints. I'll also make a prediction - a year from now, the complaints in this forum concerning the game being unfixable will have died down to virtually nil, and the game will have taken drastic enough steps forward that a lot of people who hate it now will actually enjoy it. I don't think the game is perfect, and I have my doubts I'll ever like it as much as Civ IV, but there's a lot of wiggle room in the current systems to improve it. And heck, I'm even still enjoying the game as is...

 

[attackfighter]

"Small details"? In a game that's supposed to span ages and the globe, significantly decreasing the size of the game world, the number of cities that compose an empire, and how long the game lasts are *HUGE* factors. You've been here a long time - frankly, I'm shocked you're downplaying the initial reaction to Civ IV by many. That reaction being, that it was a downsized, "streamlined," arcadey mess and was betraying the core audience that wanted 100+ hour games, 100 city empires, and an epicness that befitted a game of empires and ages. For many of us it completely exonerated itself of these initial claims, but frankly, they were there and there in force. Small details? Trying to downplay the impact such a significant reduction in scope from III to IV is just disingenuous.

Ranged combat is a *tremendous* factor in how one goes about battle in a tactical sense. Including or not including them is a massive spectrum shift in how one goes about war. Again, this is far from a small issue - and a lot of people noticed it.

I'm not interested in arguing whether you think Civ V is a good game or not, whether you enjoy playing it, or whether you think it's a big step back. I'm just pointing out, there were SIGNIFICANT complaints about very major changes from III to IV, and in time, IV more or less completely exonerated itself of those complaints. I'll also make a prediction - a year from now, the complaints in this forum concerning the game being unfixable will have died down to virtually nil, and the game will have taken drastic enough steps forward that a lot of people who hate it now will actually enjoy it. I don't think the game is perfect, and I have my doubts I'll ever like it as much as Civ IV, but there's a lot of wiggle room in the current systems to improve it. And heck, I'm even still enjoying the game as is...

Yes I agree with this, Civ 4 definately took many large steps in a different direction from Civ 3. I personally hate all of them, and in fact I think Civ 4 is the most dumbed down in the series. At the moment Civ 5 merely needs balancing and AI tweaks, which it will most likely recieve, where as Civ 4 with it's Sim City Cottage Edition gameplay and cartoony graphics will never, ever change again.

 

[Medopu]

Sometimes, I wonder where do people get so big differences out of very simillar games??

I Don't really love Civ V and I really didn't love Civ IV. I played Civ4 rarely and now I play Civ5 rarely. To me those two games just feel almost the same. I still can't decide which one I like more, because it seems like I am the only one that actually plays to have fun.


And I really hate a few members here on Civfanatic. Thinking they represent some kind of universal idea, followed by millions of people. Seriously. On both sides of supporters.

Civfanatic held 100 fierce Civ 4 haters at most, and it now holds 200 fierce Civ V haters atmost.

I'm not saying you shouldn't express your own opinions I'm just saying don't pretend like you speak on behalf all the CIV gamers just because there are/were plenty threads complaining about ciV/cIV

 

[lschnarch]

The question is which is better: Civ 4 or Civ 5?

Civ4.

 

[markantony]

Not trying to argue here (since this is all opinion anyway), but I'm not a "hardcore" Civ player, and I still prefer Civ 4 by far. I rarely venture above Prince or King, and I'm not an advanced strategy guru by any means. I'm effectively a casual player, just one that happens to be passionate about his favorite strategy game franchise.

So, by your description, I should be the target audience for Civ 5. But it's not fun, engaging, immersive, or replayable to me at all. Three weeks and I was bored to tears. I know there are plenty of people who love Civ 5 and have spent 300+ hours playing it, but when I see those posts I can't help thinking "doing what??"

I honestly don`t get what they were trying to achieve. Civ Panzer General is still too much of a strategy game to appeal to the majority of casual gamers. Plus the "Civilization" name would have put off anyone tempted to dip their toes into strategy gaming.

 

[Yngvi]

However much I love the richness of Civ IV, I hated the SoD's. Until I played Civ V, I did not comprehend how much Civ IV warfare was a blight on the whole game. Call it Civ Panzer General if you like, I prefer it.

The "streamlining" did remove too much; I would love to see some expansions to restore espionage, religion, and health in Civ V. But now that V is finally becoming finished, I must say I enjoy playing it more than Civ IV.

 

[markantony]

However much I love the richness of Civ IV, I hated the SoD's. Until I played Civ V, I did not comprehend how much Civ IV warfare was a blight on the whole game. Call it Civ Panzer General if you like, I prefer it.

The "streamlining" did remove too much; I would love to see some expansions to restore espionage, religion, and health in Civ V. But now that V is finally becoming finished, I must say I enjoy playing it more than Civ IV.

Having tactical combat on a strategic map is ********. Having to move your army unit by unit is ridiculous. Reworking the SoD into 1upt without bothering to check whether the AI could actually do it is criminal.

The idea was decent, the execution is shocking.

 

[Solipsism]

Spent hundreds of hours on Civ IV MP and it is by far the best multiplayer game I have ever played. Be sure to add several AIs at prince/monarch, check no tech trading + perfect world or tectonics map script and enjoy.

1 vs 1 is great, tends to end in early wars but can definately last into modern times if players are separated. Add more players and the diplomacy starts to get really really interesting..

Even as a long time and cynical strategy gamer I, depending on the circumstances, have played succesfully as warlike conquering empires, trading nations, religious feudal states, communist industrial powerhouses, manipulating spy masters (works great MP), non-combustion based modern economies, peace keepers, isolationists. One of the more fun ones was a mad max post-apocalyptic coastal empire. Reminds me, once I hid a secret 500 rp research base in a pop 4 city and won by having the seemingly unimportant hamlet survive the following total nuclear showdown untouched. I love that game

Civ 5? The only thing of value that it adds is the tactical warfare and it just slows down the game.. If I had wanted that kind of game, I'd go HOI3 (which is much more enjoyable).

No, I am very happily going back to Civ 4 and don't think I will return until Civ 6 or 7!

 

[Yngvi]

@markantony
1. Why is it "********"? Does than mean unrealistic? It is a video game, and having played Civ since Civ II, I can say it has never been realistic. Other than that, I have no idea what you mean.
2. Is moving 50 units at once, all on the same square, that much better? It is easier, but it strikes me as lacking in fun. The biggest problem with Civ combat has always been that it is shallow: having to care for a smaller number of higher quality units is a big step in the right direction.
3. "The idea was decent, the execution is shocking." Here I agree totally. This game was released inexcusably unfinished, and my first experiences with combat left me angry. The AI has since improved, enough to give me some challenge, and I am enjoying myself, having scaled back to prince from emperor post-patch. Hopefully the AI will continue to improve with at least one more patch. It can be done, I hope Firaxis finishes the job.

 

[markantony]

@markantony
1. Why is it "********"? Does than mean unrealistic? It is a video game, and having played Civ since Civ II, I can say it has never been realistic. Other than that, I have no idea what you mean.
2. Is moving 50 units at once, all on the same square, that much better? It is easier, but it strikes me as lacking in fun. The biggest problem with Civ combat has always been that it is shallow: having to care for a smaller number of higher quality units is a big step in the right direction.
3. "The idea was decent, the execution is shocking." Here I agree totally. This game was released inexcusably unfinished, and my first experiences with combat left me angry. The AI has since improved, enough to give me some challenge, and I am enjoying myself, having scaled back to prince from emperor post-patch. Hopefully the AI will continue to improve with at least one more patch. It can be done, I hope Firaxis finishes the job.

1) Because it removes all strategic movement from the game. Wars are not fought as a single tactical engament, spread out over a whole continent.

2) And micromangaing 50 units from your country to another improves this how?

3) Battles should have been fought on a seperate tactical map like the Total War series.

 

[attackfighter]

1) Because it removes all strategic movement from the game. Wars are not fought as a single tactical engament, spread out over a whole continent.

2) And micromangaing 50 units from your country to another improves this how?

3) Battles should have been fought on a seperate tactical map like the Total War series.

1. Nor are they fought in a rock-paper-scissors manner between infantry, cavalry and infantry with spears. But I don't see you complaining about that. It is abstract, every aspect of Civ is abstract no point bringing this well-known fact up.

2. Yes this sucks horribly, although it is a late game problem and I haven't engaged in late game war since Civ 3 (all later iterations have boring wars)

3. I agree with this too, combat needs a huge revamp if they want to make it "tactical" even Civ 4 took it too far with the tactical bs, having to choose promotions and make contrived composition of spearmen/archers/cavalry is just a chore and a stupid one that doesn't add depth but simply "content" in the way of arbitrary hoops you have to jump throu- oh god, the Civ 4 flashbacks are coming back I have to stop before I get nightmares....

 

[markantony]

1. Nor are they fought in a rock-paper-scissors manner between infantry, cavalry and infantry with spears. But I don't see you complaining about that. It is abstract, every aspect of Civ is abstract no point bringing this well-known fact up.

2. Yes this sucks horribly, although it is a late game problem and I haven't engaged in late game war since Civ 3 (all later iterations have boring wars)

3. I agree with this too, combat needs a huge revamp if they want to make it "tactical" even Civ 4 took it too far with the tactical bs, having to choose promotions and make contrived composition of spearmen/archers/cavalry is just a chore and a stupid one that doesn't add depth but simply "content" in the way of arbitrary hoops you have to jump throu- oh god, the Civ 4 flashbacks are coming back I have to stop before I get nightmares....

1) No, you don`t see me complaining about that, because as poor as it is, it is better than the alledged solution. There are many ways to improve the SoD. Civ 5 did none of them.
Nor does a complaint about previous combat mechanics have any bearing on the removal of strategy from a strategy game.

 

[CaptTightpants]

I would say try Civ 4, because of the great work the fan community has done in creating amazing Mods. Fall from Heaven, Rise of Mankind, Revolution...