Civ4 Complete vs Civ5 Complete "experience"

[killmeplease]

social institutions
i like civ5's policies more though i think it should be more dynamic. e.g. the player would not just buy a policy but also have to maintain it (with some culture per turn). switch on/off; choose exclusive paths in policy trees.. etc
1:2

combat
civ5's combat is much more fun though there are problems of 1upt everybody knows of: traffic jams, carpets of doom. some quartering/mobilization mechanic would be great and also rebase command like for planes or admiral (between ports, railway stations, military bases etc).
1:2

determinism
civ5's gameplay is far less depetdent on the random numbers generator (gp spawn, combat etc)
0:1

diplomacy
many people dislike civ5s diplomacy
but no way i want the return of the dumb automatons from civ4. civ4's diplomacy was too gamey. the player could fool ais like babies. now they are more competitors than roleplayers, some people dont like this but for me its a great improvement.
0:1

tech tree
civ5's tech tree is by far better, as it is a planar graph now. but sadly there are balance issues making the upper part (science buildings) a general priority
i'd prefer civ3's tech tree structure, it was great, combining the merits of the two approaches.
0:1

religion
compared to civ5, civ4's religion was a joke
0:2

assimilation
i kinda miss that. especially those faces w racial features from civ3.
although, culture wars were pretty stupid
1:0

UI
civ5's ui is less functional but its the first time in the series when UI does not look like a business app from 90s.
i also miss the citizen bar from civ3/2 as i stated earlier.
1:1

culture
with a link to policies, great works and stuff, civ5's culture mechanic is no doubt far superior
nothing to miss from civ4 here
0:2

diversity
civ5 is better in this aspect you know
0:1

modding
despite marketing declarations, civ4s modding was easier. code quality was better and the whole data/code structure was better thought out. steam workshop though is a nice addition in civ5.
3:1

overall
civ4: 7 points
civ5: 14 points

so, civ5 is 2x better than civ4

 

[FlorbFnarb]

The more I read the Civ 4 forums, the more I get the impression that high-level Civ 4 play is more accounting than anything. That turns me off quite a bit.

 

[reddishrecue]

The addition of steam really is a good move by the creators. Gamespy couldve still been useful but the programmers and the stores that sold civilization needed to be careful from manufacturer, over production and pollution. Civilization 4 could still be on steam with full bts expansion though for 9.99. Thats also what i like about civilization 5 its pollution free.

 

[FlorbFnarb]

Pollution?

 

[reddishrecue]

Yeah, pollution free because civilization 4and bts used to suffer from pollution and eventually, global warming. Civilization 5 hardly does that so it is way more environmentally than civilization 4 which starts turning good grass tiles into deserts from global warming that is brought by pollution. Civilization 5 doesnt turn grass or ground tiles into desert which is what i like about civilization 5.

 

[FlorbFnarb]

Yeah, pollution free because civilization 4and bts used to suffer from pollution and eventually, global warming. Civilization 5 hardly does that so it is way more environmentally than civilization 4 which starts turning good grass tiles into deserts from global warming that is brought by pollution. Civilization 5 doesnt turn grass or ground tiles into desert which is what i like about civilization 5.

Right, it just seemed odd you were talking about pollution in the same breath as commenting about the retailers being careful about...pollution or something?

 

[reddishrecue]

Right, it just seemed odd you were talking about pollution in the same breath as commenting about the retailers being careful about...pollution or something?

I dont want to get too off topic, but what i liked about civilization 5 the most was that it was more environmentally and that i already have access to multiplayer in steam. In order to get civilization 4 bts back on steam you have to repurchase it for 9.99 which is environmentally and healthy imho.

 

[LordBalkoth]

Right, it just seemed odd you were talking about pollution in the same breath as commenting about the retailers being careful about...pollution or something?

Reddishrecue is...continuously high or something. Don't try to make to make sense of what he says.

 

[marijan]

I've played all the civs (and both colonizations), starting more or less as an adult, so i remember them well. But after conquests I never looked back on the first two.
As for IV vs V, I oike them both. What really bothers me in CiV is the arteficial ways in which the expansion is checked. You start building a project, and suddenly it's scrapped because you just built another city to exploit a resource you need.
lack of stacking didn't bother me so much, it was actually fun trying to manoeuvre my units in order to enable them to shoot over each other's heads, and exploit their strengths in optimal manner.
i also liked land purchasing, and, oh, cultural bombs
oh, and I hate paying upkeep for the roads
on the overall, I'd play V for dynamics and IV for relaxation.

 

[rschissler]

The more I read the Civ 4 forums, the more I get the impression that high-level Civ 4 play is more accounting than anything. That turns me off quite a bit.

Accounting? I don't know where you get that idea.

 

[daft]

In civ 4 they started limiting my expansionistic nature, making it more and more difficult to build truly mighty empires, however civ 4 was better than civ 5 in this area, however, as a fan of exploration and expansion I am not too impressed. Combat in civ 5 is better, do not like naval transportation though, Leonard Nimoy's narration in civ 4 was a winner, city states I despise, the UA's, UU's and UB's in civ 5 are excellent, but hope they introduce more of each for many tribes in the sixth installment, social policies are deeply thought out, so overall, civ 5 wins, but only slightly.

 

[reddishrecue]

Reddishrecue is...continuously high or something. Don't try to make to make sense of what he says.

What do you mean by this?

 

[FlorbFnarb]

Accounting? I don't know where you get that idea.

I guess it's just that from my reading of the C4 forum, I am told that most buildings aren't worth the turns to actually build. Meaning, a bank takes long enough to build that by the time it's paid for itself, there's no point. The advice I'm reading is to build a barracks, granary, and a couple wonders, and the rest of the time you should either be building a military unit, or wealth.

That seems like building is fairly pointless. Also, note I said high level play. I get the impression that winning at the top difficulty levels involves constant microing of specialists to exactly tailor hammers to what you're building to avoid waste, etc.

It just seems a bit min-maxed, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

 

[Mumbomination]

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.

"Civ 5 has a fairly strange tech tree" Are you serious? Mysticism, Democracy, Fascism, Communism, Monotheism are technologies? They're ideologies, not technologies, while the ability to blow things up are plant an animal in a gods damn snare is

 

[reddishrecue]

I guess it's just that from my reading of the C4 forum, I am told that most buildings aren't worth the turns to actually build. Meaning, a bank takes long enough to build that by the time it's paid for itself, there's no point. The advice I'm reading is to build a barracks, granary, and a couple wonders, and the rest of the time you should either be building a military unit, or wealth.

That seems like building is fairly pointless. Also, note I said high level play. I get the impression that winning at the top difficulty levels involves constant microing of specialists to exactly tailor hammers to what you're building to avoid waste, etc.

It just seems a bit min-maxed, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

That's a good guess at micromanaging specialists in the higher difficulties but not only that you have to micromanage the spies in the espionage screen. Moving your spies after stealing a technology in a rival's city is important because the rival city could use counter espionage and kill your spy.

 

[rkade8583]

I play Realism Invictus on 4 and 5 with friends. RI has made me GODLIKE on 5 because of its' stack rules (and I generally stack the same unit on one tile anyway so it's not THAT much different.)

 

[daft]

Got to mention that Great leaders speaking in their native language in diplomacy screen is a big plus in civ 5 vs civ 4.

 

[reddishrecue]

Civilization leader speech really was great. The effects go away with mute though if you're just there to play..

 

[beetle]

You start building a project, and suddenly it's scrapped because you just built another city to exploit a resource you need... I hate paying upkeep for the roads

It is better to finish National Wonders before dropping an expo, but the hammers are not lost for 50+ turns, so not too big a deal. I really dislike the road spam previous civs encourage. Some road maintenance is better than none, and I think they found a good balance.

 

[Acken]

Yes late game civ4 map looks stupid.