Civ IV anyone?

[Abaxial]

I've seen a number of posts here making comparisons with Civ IV. I played Civ I and II, but skipped III and IV. Anyone else interested in what Civ IV was like, it is currently down to £3.45 on Steam this weekend for the complete package. At that price if you play it only once you'll have had your money's worth.

 

[JosephC]

I put a lot of hours into civ 4, but honestly the only things I really remember about it was vassals, colonies, and Baba Yetu... which I just had to go listen to again. If you've never heard it before here, enjoy.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

There's an active Civ 4 community on here - Nobles Club, Game of the Month, Hall of Fame etc etc.

Well worth buying it at that price!

 

[rschissler]

I've seen a number of posts here making comparisons with Civ IV. I played Civ I and II, but skipped III and IV. Anyone else interested in what Civ IV was like, it is currently down to £3.45 on Steam this weekend for the complete package. At that price if you play it only once you'll have had your money's worth.

So, what are you waiting for, go for it? Civ IV is still the best in the series.

 

[DWilson]

I think it's a worthwhile buy at that price, but I would disagree that it's the best in the series. The graphics and UI are, expectedly, severely outdated. This notably holds it back compared to V, and in particular VI graphically, if you hadn't played games a lot from a similar video game generation.

 

[isau]

Civ IV is a good game but it is also not similar at all to either 5 or 6 in a lot of ways. It can be crushingly hard compared to 5 and 6 (perhaps in a good way) but that's mainly due to the big change in how combat works. The actual systems in Civ 4 were good for their time but also feel somewhat primitive to me in retrospect. Religion unlocking on the tech tree instead of the mechanics that came later for example (Religion was actually not present in Civ 5 Vanilla in order to facilitate a better overall design, that eventually appeared in Civ 6.)

The best thing about Civ 4 is the constant feeling of threat. It's a game where your empire really can completely unravel due to a surprise war declaration, or ignoring other player's activities for too long.

The second best thing about Civ 4 is the nostalgia.

The worst thing about Civ 4 is reopening it based on nostalgia and realizing how primitive some of the original concepts were in comparison to what came later. Rose colored glasses and all that.

Though I do sort of miss Corporations from the second expansion pack, which never returned (so far).

 

[Noble Zarkon]

The worst thing about Civ 4 is reopening it based on nostalgia and realizing how primitive some of the original concepts were in comparison to what came later. Rose colored glasses and all that.

Many of the later concepts were retrograde though, lots of waiting for buckets to fill, compare that with the elegance of the Civ IV Great People system where you actually had active choices to make. (Not all of course - Religion is more advanced in later versions as you say).

The other thing it's fair to note is that a couple of good mods make all the difference - I prefer Buffy and Blue Marble as this lets you play competitively.

 

[Duuk]

Civ5 was a step back from Civ4, but Civ6 is an improvement. Civ4 is well worth the money if you never got to play it though.

 

[bonafide11]

I easily spent at least 2000 hours playing Civ IV, which is over twice as much as Civ V and Civ VI combined. Civ IV was a great, great game, and I loved the complex strategy of it. I loved having to choose between cottages and farms, I loved the city specialization of it, it was just incredible. It'd be tough for me to go back to it now though, unfortunately. The square tiles and the stacks of doom seem too dated for me now.

 

[Tomice]

I played it a lot years ago and loved it back then. I bought civ5 on release day and was sorely disappointed. Strangely, I didn't return to civ4 for long, but instead discovered modding. I followed the creation of the first community mod by Thallassicus from the baby steps onwards (I believe he simply called it "community balance patch").

Looking back to civ4 nowadays, the archaic graphics are a massive deterrent. The jump between 4 and 5 in terms of visuals was enormous.

But it's more than that. I wouldn't have any problem returning to unit stacks, I might even prefer them for civ7. However, hex tiles are a huge improvement I wouldn't wanna miss ever again. I also hated the "fatcross" concept (cities had fixed borders that always resembled a cross, often leaving a ton of tiles forever unused in the middle of your empire). The dinamic, organic borders of civ5&6 are so much better. I also believe I'd miss districts.

Overall, I often dream of a refined civ6 with troop stacks these days... Note that Jon Shafer, lead designer for civ5, considered 1upt a mistake in retrospective!

 

[bonafide11]

Note that Jon Shafer, lead designer for civ5, considered 1upt a mistake in retrospective!

Just out of curiosity, where did he say that?

I certainly wouldn't want to return to the stacks of doom, but I enjoy the small stacks, like combining the battering ram and swordsmen type. I wouldn't be opposed to more stacks like that.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Just out of curiosity, where did he say that?

https://www.pcgamer.com/jon-shafer-...-civ-v-explains-how-at-the-gates-will-differ/

 

[heinous_hat]

Civ IV BTS, as well as Colonization, rarely leave my hard drive. Like any game in the series, they need attention via modding. But the catalogue is also the most dense.

Personally, I like the commerce based economy better than the separate yield system in 5 and 6. Between budget allocation and city yield management, it's like tuning a machine for a specific purpose. Much fun, and creates opportunity to change directions throughout the game.

Likewise, the government/civics system has more nuance that Civ5, with less irritating, continuous micromanagement than the Civ6 card system. You have to take the bad with the good and maximize gains by tuning your economy to match the policies.

Stacked combat is actually quite fun if the rosters are balanced, and you have a grip on the math. Given that, I find PieceOfMind's "Advanced Combat Odds" essential to being able to employ a proper "cracking of the nut".

Obviously, hexes are better than squares. But don't blame squares for being square... blame Firaxis for not blocking that stupid diagonal move between unit stacks.

UI is dated (e.g. tiny at modern resolutions; requires modding), but it does the best job in the series at providing relevant information where you require it. Unlike VI, it consistently updates yield output or costs throughout the UI when you change something. This is almost a fatal flaw for me with Civ VI . Also, BULL mod (in some form) is essential for making city development decisions, but at least that's easy to deploy.

Still waiting for a Civ game with adequate diplomacy. IV is probably the least disagreeable, by virtue of being mostly transparent.

Colonization is by far the best take on running a specialist economy, and managing resources. I really like the Great People implementation here too, which VI partially emulates... just not enough. The impact made by the artwork (big, beautiful portraits) is something they should have kept after in later games. Also really like the improved map rendering, shadows and lighting etc which unfortunately they didn't back-port to the parent game.

Last but not least, I vastly prefer Civ IV's approach to modding. Individual mod folders create way less hassle for mod authors than the à la carte system employed since the creation of Steam Workshop. I can't see how anyone manages to support their projects in an environment that implicitly encourages people to randomly smash things together, without having to know a thing about how they're constructed. SQL implementation, and the LUA console were huge gifts, however.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I also hated the "fatcross" concept (cities had fixed borders that always resembled a cross, often leaving a ton of tiles forever unused in the middle of your empire).

I don't understand your point here, cities can (and indeed should) overlap so that no decent tile goes unused.

Looking back to civ4 nowadays, the archaic graphics are a massive deterrent. The jump between 4 and 5 in terms of visuals was enormous.

Aesthetics are a personal choice I guess but with good Mods like Blue Marble I prefer Civ 4's graphics - to these old eyes much easier to see what is going on, Civ 5 and 6 are a bit cartoony for my tastes.

 

[MarigoldRan]

Always buy the even number Civs and avoid the odd numbers.

 

[rschissler]

I wouldn't wanna miss ever again. I also hated the "fatcross" concept (cities had fixed borders that always resembled a cross, often leaving a ton of tiles forever unused in the middle of your empire). The dynamic, organic borders of civ5&6 are so much better.

I find that odd, as I think the borders of Civ VI are much weaker in comparison to Civ IV. The borders of Civ IV are certainly not "fixed", where Civ VI borders seem to take forever to expand and are a major reason why combat is much easier.

 

[Disgustipated]

Played many hours. I did play a little bit a couple months ago after watching one of the Youtubers I like play Civ4 a bit. I still like some things about the game, but it's hard to go back to after Civ6. I can't say the same about Civ5, I was still playing Civ4 even while Civ5 was out. Civ5 just rubbed me the wrong way, while Civ6 rubs me the right way. Honestly, I think I'm done with Civ4. Rise of Mankind mod is pretty cool to check out though.

 

[Arent11]

The best were the quests. I got once an upheaval in coop multiplayer that destroyed several cottages. After the game, a friend told me he got a pop-up that asked him whether he wanted to secretly fund the rebels for 60 gold. Which he promptly did & resulted in the rebels going on a rampage and destroying my valuable cottages! That was soo mean

 

[Morningcalm]

Civ IV is more challenging than V and VI, has interesting and functional diplomacy, a wealth of fascinating scenarios, the best main menu theme in Civ ever, the best narration (Leonard Nimoy), and an excellent peacetime challenge level, with lots to manage beyond just "skill trees". It's not the best graphically, possessed of the most generous learning curve or the cool war/peace music of V or the through-the-ages unique Civ themes of VI, but gameplay wise it's the best of the Civs so far IMO.

Well worth a try if you haven't already (if you find the main game too challenging, play the weird tactical shooter or space scenario from BtS instead)

 

[bonafide11]

https://www.pcgamer.com/jon-shafer-...-civ-v-explains-how-at-the-gates-will-differ/

Interesting. Yeah, I think Civ VI handles the 1UPT better than Civ V did, but it isn’t perfect yet. It also might be too complicated for the AI as they always struggle with it. They just don’t create enough units to defend properly, and I’m never scared of them surprise attacking one of my cities past the ancient era. I miss having that fear in Civ IV where I actually had to defend my cities.