Civ4 Complete vs Civ5 Complete "experience"

[Asklepios]

I have enjoyed both IV and V equally preferring different things in each game.

It drives me crazy having a nice bit of land to build a city in V and not being able to because of happiness. If there was a nice spot to settle in IV, you settle there. I miss that. I also dislike having to build, say, libraries in all cities to build National College. I prefer how in IV you have to build a set number of buildings, not one in every city. Obviously, I'm a much greater fan of going wide, not tall, and this is favored moreso in IV.

However, replayability is far greater for me in V as different civs play completely differently. In IV, I was doing the same thing every single time because the goal was the same no matter the civ you played. In V, playstyles vary so much amongst the civs that if you get bored playing one way, switch to a different civ.

All things considered, I'd never go back to IV. I played it a ton and its time has passed. Likewise, when VI comes out, it will be time to retire V.

I know what you mean. I've probably racked up the most hours on Civ 2, but I'd never go back to it now.

I sometimes go back to IV to play Fall From Heaven, but not for any other reason.
For me, its not that V is objectively better than IV, its just that V is the current shiny lovely game, so thats the one I play.

If I were going to pick one thing I loved about IV way more than V, it is that when you click "end turn", the next turn starts instantly.

Mind you though, this thread is making me nostalgic for it. I may just play a game of Civ 4 tonight.

 

[Sorinth]

Going by how many "Just one more turn" nights I had playing Civ 4 I'd say it was better than Civ 5. At the end of the day most games in Civ 5 are over by the late Renaissance/Industrial era, if I've already caught up/surpassed the AI in tech I'm going to win because the AI is incapable of catching up tech wise and even mass DOWs won't bring me down because war is too easy.

That being said I wouldn't go back. The main problem with Civ 5 is that it's new mechanics have so much potential but it hasn't realized that potential. 1UPT was a great change, but the melee/ranged is unbalanced and the AI is bad at it which makes war too easy and therefore boring. Though it's not as bad as going Tall and sitting back peacefully the whole game.

 

[lugialord]

4, of course. I got both G&K and BNW when they came out, hoping to improve 5, but that didn't work. Here are some reasons why:

-Last quarter of the tech tree is basically all military stuff in 5, it's incredibly boring
-Stacks weren't that bad (although I'm probably in the minority). You needed to diversify - having some axes along with your horse archers to protect them from spears, having spears to protect your siege units, it was quite balanced. In addition, siege units could shred stacks with collateral, which checked the use of stacks. Last, if you even have a threatening stack, you've played the game correctly; you've been able to devote enough production to building up a threatening military that's up-to-date without falling behind in expansion of tech, don't you deserve some benefits?
-5 makes it so ICS is the objectively best strategy - happiness is easily overcome, and lots of the cheap buildings >>>>> the more expensive buildings. 4 had the right idea. Maintenance made you expand in steps, as if you spammed cities everywhere as was the One Right Strategy for Civ3 you would surely go bankrupt. However, there comes a time, usually in the late renaissance/industrial eras that you can just fuel basically limitless expansion, as each city has a minute effect on your economy (especially if playing State Property).
-Civ is a series about empire building. It just doesn't seem right personally to have three cities and then sit back and think "alright, that's a good number".
-Roads cost money - whilst this is realistic, it's one of those "realistic" concepts that's just annoying - like pollution in Civ3. Especially in Civ5, a good road network is essential for moving one's army because of 1UPT (which is deplorable).
-No Leonard Nimoy quotes (RIP )
-Diplomacy ing sucks
-Civ 5 has a fairly strange tech tree - Acoustics, Trapping, Dynamite are technologies?
-Baba Yetu is gr8mazing
-AI sucks at tactical combat
-No dumb DLC (expansions =/= DLC)
-You get much more information in 4, like demographics, diplomatic relations, etc.

Civ 5 does have its good points (social policies and trade routes are interesting, so are UA's) but ultimately it's inferior to 4.

 

[reddishrecue]

Civ 4 has some good issues.. The mass unit stacking made units look like actual real life civilians since most of them were units that can be stacked together in 1 tile as a group.
The modern era combat becomes more interesting with air units. Civilization 4 had unhealthiness to its cities that was moved to its units in civilization 5.

Civ 5 has 1UPT and each unit holds its own style but it is healthier than old civilization 4 stacks that can often get lucky even at the lowest percentages. The civ 5 experience was usually better because civ 5 stacks didn't need to rely on the luck like civ 4 stacks were able to.

 

[DocRock]

I easily spend more than 1000 hours in both games and I loved BTS. And I hated Civ 5 vanilla with passion (deleted it after 80 hours). But after BNW, I could never go back to Civ 4. it's just a great package and I am still on my crusade to win deity.

 

[Acken]

My ideal game would be a mix of both. In my opinion, Civ4 has a more refined/tight design while Civ5 has more flavor and fun toys.

 

[LordBalkoth]

Could you give some examples, Acken? Never played Civ 4.

 

[baranysos]

I prefer the battle system of Civ 5, it allows more tactical options. But in other aspects like city and empire management, diplomacy etc. i prefer Civ 4. It requires more attention imo and i have fun while doing some reasoning and calculation about long term-short term plans.

 

[daft]

Civ 4's tech's are deeper, there's still the unforgettable Leonard Nimoy's narration, I still enjoy playing Civ 4 very much I've got to admit.

 

[Acken]

Could you give some examples, Acken? Never played Civ 4.

Well take 1UPT for example. It certainly is more fun but it also creates some very annoying situations like the poor AI performance, the carpet of units on Deity and the bother that is to move a big army. Civ4 MUPT has doomstack yes but they also represent your overall military power, a civ with a lot more power will crush a civ with no defense which is how it should be imo. Civ4 unit system feels more smoothly incorporated to the overall gameplay regardless of whether you like 1UPT better or not.

Another example is with strategic resources, they're a lot more useful in civ4. You will want to grab them or trade them for wonders or units. A start with stones will open up a lot of different strategies than a start with marble would. You will look hard for getting copper/horses or run the risk of getting killed early if you can't make units. By comparison Civ5 early strategics, especially Iron feels awkward as it is mostly used to sell it because of how 1UPT battle privileges range units.

On the other hand, take culture victory. BNW introduced a very fun new tourism mechanic while civ4 uses only a boring mechanic of just accumulating culture in 3 cities.

Civ4 has better balance between gold food and production. Your pop is limited a lot by local happiness but you can help high food cities by converting pop into hammers. And then your science comes from gold rather than pop. Civ5 is a lot more straightforward there: just grow.

It just feels very clear to me that you could view Civ4 as the great conclusion of the squared/Mupt era while Civ5 has a lot more experimental designs in it. It's not like Civ4 does everything right either.

 

[reddishrecue]

^^Not only that but civilization 4 units could often get lucky in percentages so it wasnt fair for the healthy units.

 

[orasis]

I hate Civ IV, there I said it, everything felt the same. It didn't matter who you played as... it was exactly the same. Leader abilities, 1UPT and things like social policies, tourism and religion that varies civilizations makes Civ V the better game imo.

I found IV boring and my least favorite of the series. I still played it.. but once V was patched with DLC...

I'll never go back.

 

[beetle]

It just feels very clear to me that you could view Civ4 as the great conclusion of the squared/Mupt era while Civ5 has a lot more experimental designs in it. It's not like Civ4 does everything right either.

Nicely balanced encapsulated review! This summary especially lets me remember IV fondly, without ever wanting to play it again!

So, if Civ4 is the penultimate in the original series, might it be fair to think of Civ5 as a new line? Sounds good to me, but now I am pining for Civ8, which we can maybe look forward to as the great conclusion to the hexed/1upt era!

 

[Socratatus]

The only thing better about Civ5 is the realistic leaders and the 1 unit per hex mechanic which makes governing wars a lot easier.

Civ 4 is better because it plays a much more realistic game. Armies don`t instantly turn into ships. There`s a nice random Events option that stops the game from getting yawningly boring in the quiet moments (Civ5). Even leaders give you mostly a choice of two Leaders to choose rather than one. Happiness actually makes sense (in Civ 5 it`s backwards). No stupid GDRs or Xcom units. Also i`m not forced onto Steam, I know if I lose the net, I can still play the game.

So in the end, Civ 4 is always on my drive whears Civ 5 often gets deleted after a month or two.

 

[Sync]

Never been able to get into Civ 5, and I have tried. I always found 1UPT to be messy. Dunno if this has changed in the past couple of years since I played Civ 5, but never liked how it applied to non-military units too. One of my own units should not block a worker building a road.

The main thing that put me off Civ 5 was the poor development in modding accessibility. It's been forgotten by many now, but Civ 5 was marketed hard as being "the most moddable Civ ever". Nearly 5 years later, it still hasn't lived up to that promise.

It's all about opinion really, but Civ 5 has never been for me. Civ 4 on the other hand, I still play at least once a week and still mod it frequently too.

 

[Acken]

Military units and civilian are now on 2 different layers yes

 

[Knight-Dragon]

IMO Civ4 and Civ5 are similar but sufficiently different games, with different mechanics and flavour. It all comes down to personal interest.

That said, I am enjoying and playing Civ5 a whole lot more than Civ4... even in spite of needing to stick to a 'tall' empire building method and the poor usage of units by the AI civs...

 

[cooldude1128]

I like both for their differing merits; Civ5 for the tactical combat and lack of units dying immedately guaranteed (barring a retreat promotion), Civ4 for the far better empire management and local city health and happiness, Civ5 for the better variation between civs (custom Unique Abilities? , Civ4 for the hyper-dynamic government types, and again Civ4 for the overwhelming number of creative mods that do stuff Civ5 can only dream of.

 

[reddishrecue]

The creators did a unique Job in making the health stay in civilization. The health that used to be in civilization 4 inside its food and growth section is now in the units. Pollutions and unhealthiness has been moved to unit damage now. Imagine where the pollution went to.

 

[FlorbFnarb]

One issue with Civ 4 for me, now that I've come around here and started reading about strategies, is that apparently most Civ 4 buildings are simply objectively not worth the opportunity cost. A bank takes so long to build that you're better off just building Wealth for that time. Building Wealth converts hammers into wealth the whole time, while building a bank eventually gives you a higher rate...but because you spend a lot of turns building the bank, with neither the Bank nor hammers giving you Wealth, that it takes forever for the bank to actually pay for its opportunity cost and really start enriching you.

So if the only buildings it's worth your time to build are barracks, walls, and a handful of Wonders...that's just stripping a lot of depth from the game. Supposedly health-providing buildings aren't objectively worth it either, since they just give you extra population that requires time spent building happiness buildings, which is more hammers lost.

From what I'm told, the way the math works out, the most efficient way to do things is to use slavery, forget health, wealth, culture, happiness, science and most production buildings, whip military units into existence, and produce wealth, science and culture by converting hammers directly and adjusting your sliders, rather than bothering with buildings that produce them. Avoid the necessity for health or happiness buildings entirely by using Hereditary Rule and Slavery, use Slavery to crank out military, go around SoD-ing opponents into submission.

Having most buildings be not worth the opportunity cost seems...a bad idea, to say the least.