First of all let me say that Ive only been playing the Civ games for a few months and have only played 4 and 5. Im not the best Civ player by any means so I may not know all the complexities of these games and may get some of these things wrong but Im going to explain why I think that both games are very good and then conclude my opinion as best as I can.
1UPT vs. SoD
The first glaring difference is 1UPT vs. the SoD. I believe that both of these are fun, but I favor the 1UPT. Some people on the forums are saying that the SoD was just gathering as many units as possible and steamrolling. There was a lot more strategy than that however. You could split the stack and target multiple cities so that you can take both instead of the opponent amassing enough defensive troops to save one of the cities. However if the stack is large enough there is no stopping that. There are also many units that have counters that when fortified in a city can really help to even the odds. So I think it was more than just as one person on the forums puts it, Build some melee or gunpowder units, a bunch of siege, group together, and click go-to button next to enemy capital. The 1UPT fighting system is more complicated than some people give it credit for. This makes positioning of units very important. There were a few times while playing Civ 5 for the first time that I was frustrated of how I moved a unit because it screwed up what I was trying to do or messed up getting more troops into the area. I also absolutely love the implementation of ranged attacking. This actually makes archers useful on the offensive. The tactics that one can employ with the ranged units are full of potential and while they may not do a ton of damage, they can even the odds for your swordsman against their long swordsman. Im not going to get into more tactics of this as this would make this already long post exorbitantly long.
Other fighting related intricacies
Now I was very intrigued when one person posted on the slow production for creating a defense against an incoming army, One army will be completely destroyed. Given the production costs and times, there is no way that any civ can recover after the first wave of battles. Movement of troops will always be much faster than the best production city. While I agree with this, I also think that making gold in Civ 5 has become easier than in Civ 4 (I may be wrong about this, but from every game Ive played in each Civ has pointed me to this outcome.) Because of this, buying units is very much so encouraged in Civ 5 and can really offset the lack of production speed. In Civ 4 if you choose to make money, your science took a tremendous hit which for the most part was not worth it except in the dire times of needing to upgrade units on the defense. Producing a great economy in Civ 5 has huge benefits and can net crazy amounts of gold per turn. Even one unit can make a fairly large difference in a battle in Civ 5 so I believe that this really evens out the slow production speed.
The other fighting change that I really enjoy in Civ 5 is the defense of cities. They can bombard without needing a protecting unit around and are actually quite difficult to take over sometimes. Im not saying that it was easy to do so in Civ 4, but rather that I enjoy Civ 5s defense much more. It is no longer about rushing as many units as possible into a city to protect it, but it is more so about attaining a high defense score and most importantly not letting the enemy get close to the city. This is one change that I favor strongly.
Social Policies vs. Civics
Ive found that this has become a most heated debate among Civ players. In Civ 4 you have much more on the fly approach. I loved having the choice to switch to Police State or Vassalage when a war would draw near. The amount of freedom in the civics was great and a highlight of Civ 4. Civ 5s Social Policies cannot be changed after being selected and this leads to more strategic selecting in my opinion. When selecting a new policy, you must weigh its useful for now vs. later. Honor is a great option for someone that wants to war, but perhaps you want a scientific win and choose another branch like Liberty which may not make an immediate impact like Honor would. War then breaks out and your choice may not be considered so wise now. You cannot switch your policy now to compensate. You could however have taken the immediate impact policy or even saved up the policy for a later use, but then that is just delving deeper into the strategy of the policies. On a side note, I love the use of eras for Social Policies in Civ 5. If Im not mistaken, eras really did not make much difference in Civ 4, but shooting to break into a certain era for a policy to unlock is very nice and can lead to some interesting strategies.
Wonders
Wonders in Civ 4 were quite wondrous. For the most part in Civ 5 however, wonders are nice to have but not essential. From playing Civ 5, I have not found a certain wonder that is so beneficial that I shoot for it every game. Some are very beneficial to have like the Chichen Itza, but they are not game changers. When I play Civ 4, if I do not get the Pyramids, then my entire game changes and I have to rethink everything Im about to do.
Special Abilities
The introduction of each civilization having a special ability is one of my favorite new aspects of the game. This makes playing as each civilization a much different game. In Civ 4, the leader perks were nice to have but did not alter my style of play very much. Playing as Songhai makes me a little more inclined to go barbarian hunting and warmongering, and playing as France makes me strive for a more cultured people. Knowing your enemies and their special ability makes a larger difference in Civ 5 in my opinion. When playing Civ 4, it did not matter who the enemy was for it wouldnt change my strategy (except if I knew they had a very good special unit coming up). In Civ 5, most civilizations have a certain way to handle them. For example, if I know Japan is an enemy, I will be much more cautious in a war against him due to his Bushido, or if playing against England, I know not to try for a naval war.
Other odds and ends
Religion. So many people argue how leaving it out of Civ 5 hurt the game so much. It was a neat idea, but does it really deserve such an outcry for it? Really what giant effect did it have in Civ 4? I know it increased happiness which was amazing at the right time and may alter diplomacy a bit, but was it really that essential to have? I could play a game of Civ 4 without religion and not even notice that it was missing. Some people have also complained about not having espionage. Do not forget that this is vanilla Civ 5. Also, espionage was more so a handicap for the AI to me. I wouldnt play with it on because then the AI would actually put points into espionage (lessening its science) and it was just an edge that the AI gave me since I would not put anything into it. The benefits did not even come close to outweighing the loss of science or gold in my opinion. Finally, golden ages. I think having a meter for achieving a golden age in Civ 5 was a great new addition. This almost guarantees each civilization two golden ages and it only takes one great person to trigger a golden age no matter how many have been used already. Decreasing the golden age length for each additional great person is far better than increasing the number of great people needed for a golden age in my opinion.
Verdict
I know this is a very long post and I thank you for reading it if you've made it this far. In my opinion, both games are great to play and enormously fun. They are both on an even playing field. If a friend asked me to play Civ 4, I would not argue to play 5 and if he asked to play 5, I would not argue to play 4. Civ 5 certainly has its hindrances with the terribly unintelligent AI, but I cannot stress enough that this is vanilla Civ 5 and has only been out for about a month. If Civ 5 can live up to some of the potential that it possesses, I can see it far outshining its younger sibling.
1UPT vs. SoD
The first glaring difference is 1UPT vs. the SoD. I believe that both of these are fun, but I favor the 1UPT. Some people on the forums are saying that the SoD was just gathering as many units as possible and steamrolling. There was a lot more strategy than that however. You could split the stack and target multiple cities so that you can take both instead of the opponent amassing enough defensive troops to save one of the cities. However if the stack is large enough there is no stopping that. There are also many units that have counters that when fortified in a city can really help to even the odds. So I think it was more than just as one person on the forums puts it, Build some melee or gunpowder units, a bunch of siege, group together, and click go-to button next to enemy capital. The 1UPT fighting system is more complicated than some people give it credit for. This makes positioning of units very important. There were a few times while playing Civ 5 for the first time that I was frustrated of how I moved a unit because it screwed up what I was trying to do or messed up getting more troops into the area. I also absolutely love the implementation of ranged attacking. This actually makes archers useful on the offensive. The tactics that one can employ with the ranged units are full of potential and while they may not do a ton of damage, they can even the odds for your swordsman against their long swordsman. Im not going to get into more tactics of this as this would make this already long post exorbitantly long.
Other fighting related intricacies
Now I was very intrigued when one person posted on the slow production for creating a defense against an incoming army, One army will be completely destroyed. Given the production costs and times, there is no way that any civ can recover after the first wave of battles. Movement of troops will always be much faster than the best production city. While I agree with this, I also think that making gold in Civ 5 has become easier than in Civ 4 (I may be wrong about this, but from every game Ive played in each Civ has pointed me to this outcome.) Because of this, buying units is very much so encouraged in Civ 5 and can really offset the lack of production speed. In Civ 4 if you choose to make money, your science took a tremendous hit which for the most part was not worth it except in the dire times of needing to upgrade units on the defense. Producing a great economy in Civ 5 has huge benefits and can net crazy amounts of gold per turn. Even one unit can make a fairly large difference in a battle in Civ 5 so I believe that this really evens out the slow production speed.
The other fighting change that I really enjoy in Civ 5 is the defense of cities. They can bombard without needing a protecting unit around and are actually quite difficult to take over sometimes. Im not saying that it was easy to do so in Civ 4, but rather that I enjoy Civ 5s defense much more. It is no longer about rushing as many units as possible into a city to protect it, but it is more so about attaining a high defense score and most importantly not letting the enemy get close to the city. This is one change that I favor strongly.
Social Policies vs. Civics
Ive found that this has become a most heated debate among Civ players. In Civ 4 you have much more on the fly approach. I loved having the choice to switch to Police State or Vassalage when a war would draw near. The amount of freedom in the civics was great and a highlight of Civ 4. Civ 5s Social Policies cannot be changed after being selected and this leads to more strategic selecting in my opinion. When selecting a new policy, you must weigh its useful for now vs. later. Honor is a great option for someone that wants to war, but perhaps you want a scientific win and choose another branch like Liberty which may not make an immediate impact like Honor would. War then breaks out and your choice may not be considered so wise now. You cannot switch your policy now to compensate. You could however have taken the immediate impact policy or even saved up the policy for a later use, but then that is just delving deeper into the strategy of the policies. On a side note, I love the use of eras for Social Policies in Civ 5. If Im not mistaken, eras really did not make much difference in Civ 4, but shooting to break into a certain era for a policy to unlock is very nice and can lead to some interesting strategies.
Wonders
Wonders in Civ 4 were quite wondrous. For the most part in Civ 5 however, wonders are nice to have but not essential. From playing Civ 5, I have not found a certain wonder that is so beneficial that I shoot for it every game. Some are very beneficial to have like the Chichen Itza, but they are not game changers. When I play Civ 4, if I do not get the Pyramids, then my entire game changes and I have to rethink everything Im about to do.
Special Abilities
The introduction of each civilization having a special ability is one of my favorite new aspects of the game. This makes playing as each civilization a much different game. In Civ 4, the leader perks were nice to have but did not alter my style of play very much. Playing as Songhai makes me a little more inclined to go barbarian hunting and warmongering, and playing as France makes me strive for a more cultured people. Knowing your enemies and their special ability makes a larger difference in Civ 5 in my opinion. When playing Civ 4, it did not matter who the enemy was for it wouldnt change my strategy (except if I knew they had a very good special unit coming up). In Civ 5, most civilizations have a certain way to handle them. For example, if I know Japan is an enemy, I will be much more cautious in a war against him due to his Bushido, or if playing against England, I know not to try for a naval war.
Other odds and ends
Religion. So many people argue how leaving it out of Civ 5 hurt the game so much. It was a neat idea, but does it really deserve such an outcry for it? Really what giant effect did it have in Civ 4? I know it increased happiness which was amazing at the right time and may alter diplomacy a bit, but was it really that essential to have? I could play a game of Civ 4 without religion and not even notice that it was missing. Some people have also complained about not having espionage. Do not forget that this is vanilla Civ 5. Also, espionage was more so a handicap for the AI to me. I wouldnt play with it on because then the AI would actually put points into espionage (lessening its science) and it was just an edge that the AI gave me since I would not put anything into it. The benefits did not even come close to outweighing the loss of science or gold in my opinion. Finally, golden ages. I think having a meter for achieving a golden age in Civ 5 was a great new addition. This almost guarantees each civilization two golden ages and it only takes one great person to trigger a golden age no matter how many have been used already. Decreasing the golden age length for each additional great person is far better than increasing the number of great people needed for a golden age in my opinion.
Verdict
I know this is a very long post and I thank you for reading it if you've made it this far. In my opinion, both games are great to play and enormously fun. They are both on an even playing field. If a friend asked me to play Civ 4, I would not argue to play 5 and if he asked to play 5, I would not argue to play 4. Civ 5 certainly has its hindrances with the terribly unintelligent AI, but I cannot stress enough that this is vanilla Civ 5 and has only been out for about a month. If Civ 5 can live up to some of the potential that it possesses, I can see it far outshining its younger sibling.
