Civ IV or Civ V?

[Joecoolyo]

Curious to know how many of the 10% voting Civ V have actually played both games. Be surprised if it was a large percentage.

I have.

Around 2 years on each.

 

[History_Buff]

Curious to know how many of the 10% voting Civ V have actually played both games. Be surprised if it was a large percentage.

I've played about the same amount of both. Somewhat less of Civ IV BTS (I played mostly right after release, before getting bored), but I've definitely played both.

They've held my interest for less time than Civ II, III, or SMAC/X.

 

[Takhisis]

Civ3 is better than either, so why bother?

 

[History_Buff]

Because SMAC/X is best. Apologies for sounding like a broken record.

 

[Takhisis]

By 'either' I meant civ IV and V, do you think I even read the thread OP before answering the thread title?

 

[History_Buff]

Yes, but my reply has exact same relevance to the OP as yours.

 

[Takhisis]

yay for OP relevance!

 

[Camikaze]

Curious to know how many of the 10% voting Civ V have actually played both games. Be surprised if it was a large percentage.

Likewise for the first option, I'd hazard.

 

[Disgustipated]

Because SMAC/X is best. Apologies for sounding like a broken record.

SMAC, not SMAX. I felt like the expansion broke a good balance and perfect story of the original game.

 

[Kyriakos]

CivIII

 

[LegionSteve]

Am I the only one who finds the AIs in Civ V a little too trigger-happy compared to IV? Im just curious as to whether I screwed up somewhere.

Yes, they tend to be more hostile in 5. You can usually get some (but not all) to be friendly though. This post from the Civ 5 GD forum describes how I normally approach diplomacy in 5: link Or failing that just play on archipelago, they will still all declare war on you but they won't be able to actually do anything about it

Actually, I really like the Civ 5 diplomacy. Yeah, controversial I know
But it's one of the things I prefer in 5 over 4. That and the hexes. What I don't like so much about 5 are the pathetic combat AI, horrible interface and crap performance even on a decent pc.

I do like 5 and I do play it sometimes but overall I still think BtS is better.

Now to really get myself flamed and branded a heretic I'm going to admit that I never actually liked Civ 3 at all

I loved SMAC though, that's what got me into the Civ series.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I liked Civ 3 but I hated it when I was building railroads everywhere and my only source of coal disappeared.

 

[History_Buff]

SMAC, not SMAX. I felt like the expansion broke a good balance and perfect story of the original game.

That might be the case, I never really played SMAC without the expansion, as I bought them together originally.

I never used the expansion civs though, they were all kind of silly. I'd occasionally throw the Cyborgs in in place of the University if I needed a good opponent. And the occasional Pirates game would be interesting. I really, really like throwing Fungal Missiles around though

 

[History_Buff]

I should add: one of the biggest complaints about my last game is that the AI has no idea what to do with city states.

For instance, in the end game, I was competing against Darius, who's economy was much, much better than mine. Probably twice, maybe three times GPT (I was keeping up by spamming GAs). He had thousands of gold in the bank, and doing absolutely nothing with it. He could have bought off every city state in the game (which would have hamstrung me), but instead he let me claim all of them. :crazyeyes:

 

[say1988]

Civ IV BTS, is the best Civ game, without a doubt, for me.

My expectation is that Civ VI will be awesome though, with each even iteration taking the concepts introduced in the previous one (i.e. the game itself in I and culture, strategic resources, etc in III) and polishing it into something great.

 

[Leoreth]

My expectation is that Civ VI will be awesome though, with each even iteration taking the concepts introduced in the previous one (i.e. the game itself in I and culture, strategic resources, etc in III) and polishing it into something great.

I hope not, it would be better if Civ5 was the HOMM4 of the Civ series.

 

[Glassmage]

I hope there is no Civ 6 and they focus on other universe/projects.

 

[say1988]

I hope not, it would be better if Civ5 was the HOMM4 of the Civ series.

That is what I thought about Civ III, but I have since changed my mind.

I hope there is no Civ 6 and they focus on other universe/projects.

Why?
I would love to see SMAC 2 in between (if there are IP issues as I believe it was published by EA rather than MicroProse or 2K), then just rename the thing). With minimal mechanics changes, but focus new graphics and improved UI.
But I definitely want and expect a Civ VI. I may be disappointed, but I still want ot see it.

 

[Disgustipated]

Am I the only one who finds the AIs in Civ V a little too trigger-happy compared to IV? Im just curious as to whether I screwed up somewhere.

I did play one Civ5 game at a lower level than I usually play at, and the AI's never declared on me. The reason? My military was the largest in the world. At my current difficulty level I can't afford much, if any military . But at that other difficulty level, no AI's messed with me. It's worth a shot.

Yes it does seem silly to build a military if you don't use it, but the hammers do pay for themselves by keeping you out of war.

 

[Singularity]

Civ III, I don't play it anymore. But playing CivIII Game of the Month(my sig hasn't changed since those days ) was a peak in my civ career. I loved every minute of it, and have never been that engrossed in the series. I play Civ V much more rarely than Civ IV, but when I play Civ IV it's either Rise of Mankind or Master of Mana(FFH2 Mod-mod).