Differences between Civ 4 and 5

[knighterrant81]

First of all, I'm not interested in which one is better. I want to hear what you think are the differences between the games. The basics of course are obvious; I'm talking about what the game emphasizes.

Here's what I see:

In 4, you had lots of different "resources" that often acted independently of each other. gold, hammers, food, science, culture, religion, civics, gps, pop rush, specialists, strategic and luxury resources, corporations, health, even city spam is a "resource" and so forth. Since these weren't strongly tied together, you could invest in one without really hurting yourself in another. Sure you would fall behind if you invested so much in one area at the expense of another, but investing in one didn't cost you in another resource, unless you were severely over invested.

In 5 you have a lot of the same resources, but there are fewer total resources, which means you are going to run into situations where investing in one resource will really hurt you in another area. For instance, happiness in 4 never seemed to matter much until late game or if you were playing high difficulties; in 5 happiness is central to the game if you want to expand - it "costs" a lot of happiness to build new cities or conquer your neighbor! The same could be said for gold - you need it for just about everything, so that means you're going to have to make more tough choices about whether you want that new city-state buddy or that new research agreement.

4 was a lot of fun, it was great to see if you could leverage an advantage to win. 5 is interesting too - but you have to balance all your resources a bit more than you did in 4 - you can't go attacking if you're at -6 happy, so you had better build some culture so that you can get that next SP that will boost your happiness.

1UPT - Stacks of doom have never made for the most interesting play. 1UPT definitely makes Civ more tactically interesting, and it is fun sometimes to beat up on a superior force because of their (terrible AI) tactics. However, it does cause problems - things get cluttered and workers and allied units often get in the way. It may be more tactical, but it is also annoying at times.

Diplomacy - the Diplomacy in 5 makes perfect sense if you understand one thing: the AI is trying to win. Whenever it sees an advantage it will take it unless the cost is too high. So for instance if you are getting tons of DOWs on you from your "friendly" neighbors, you need to build up your army so you are less of a soft target! This serves as a check on "total builder" playstyles. You can't neglect your military in 5. You don't need a ton, you just need enough to convince Napoleon you aren't worth the effort. Which was also present in 4 - I've had Monty land on my shores for a sneak attack many times in 4 when I neglected my army too much - but it seems like in 5 you are less able to convince AIs to leave you alone or play nice through pure diplomacy.

 

[Brichals]

Pretty spot on post.

Civ4 is open ended. Civ 5 is far more insular with all of the factors linked together. It's like you take a big box and push it in one direction. In Civ4 you can build a lot of small boxes and spread them around. I actually like the Civ5 version but it's very different to Civ4 which I never really got into.

 

[Fabiano79]

You are completely right. The games are different.

But I have to say that even if you accept the new ciV 5 gameplay, you have to admit that the game is broken. Its not working properly. The 1 upt is a fantastic idea, but doesnt work...yet. I can conquer the world with 6 units, and thats is just wrong.

Global happiness, tech tree too short, the civics, the economy, city states, all those thing still need tweaking, and Thals mod is out there to prove that. Also, theres no MP.

I know theres a lot of plp having fun with ciV..But we cant close our eyes and not complain.

 

[NicTeos]

1. Ressources : I generally agree, that the ressources acted much more independant. But you had to balance all ressources and specialise cities. At begin you couldn't expand at all costs, if so, you wasn't able to research anything.

At civ5, only the global happiness is a critical ressource, everything else doesn't matter.

In civ4 you had far more to think, to plan, to decide. In civ5 you get science based on population and also gold, if connected. you get static gold, production from many buildings.

Honestly I can't see where you have more choice in civ5 than in civ4, even at war you had to think about war exhaustion and also later how you can finance the more cities.

In civ5 I don't have to balance anything, also because there is no real choice.

UPT : It's a nice and good idea, and perfectly works in games like panzer genaral, battle isle or history line ( aka the great war ). But it fails in civ5, because of the variable map, too less units, too less different units, too slow, and maybe also, in reason of lacking the move and attack turn. In one turn you move and the other one can attack. In the next turn you can attack and the other can move. SoD were about strategical building of unit, what was interesting to me, and how to defeat the other SoD. There could have been made bigger tactical errors than now with UPT. The only think I like in civ5 is, that it is less random.

Diplomacy : you had, again, far more options you can do. In civ5 I only need diplomacy to convince the CS with gold and to dow the other nations.

Civ5 is just too simple, and nothing really matters.

Civ4 : Simulation of a Civilization
Civ5 : Arcade Civilization

 

[Wezqu]

*Gameplay

One of the game differences between Civ 4 and Civ 5 is Civ 5's game map. Civ 4 and previous Civilization games had a game map that had a square grid overlay. Civ 5 has switched to a hex grid, giving units greater flexibility in their movement options by letting them move in six directions rather than the four directions Civ 4 allowed. Military units can no longer share tiles in Civ 5 like they could in Civ 4, requiring armies to spread out over large territories. Civ 5 also has "city-states," which are small, nonexpansionist civilizations that players can use for trade and diplomatic purposes.

Civ 4 you could move eight directions but it was quite gamy when you just used the 1, 3, 7 and 9 buttons as it made exploring faster.

 

[knighterrant81]

But I have to say that even if you accept the new ciV 5 gameplay, you have to admit that the game is broken. Its not working properly. The 1 upt is a fantastic idea, but doesnt work...yet. I can conquer the world with 6 units, and thats is just wrong.

I agree there's some flaws with 1UPT, especially AI tactics, and I think those flaws are pretty fundamental and hard to fix. I don't think the fact that you need fewer units is one of them. It is nice not to have to build enormous hordes of units to do anything, especially when a belligerent AI decides to try his luck invading your territory!

But again, opinion. If you like having swarms of units, Civ 5 is probably not for you.

Honestly I can't see where you have more choice in civ5 than in civ4, even at war you had to think about war exhaustion and also later how you can finance the more cities.

I think you have fewer choices in civ 5, but they matter more. In 4, for instance, it didn't really matter if you didn't have much gold, because you could always pop rush instead of rush buy. You couldn't even rush buy at all until late in the game. As long as you had enough for your units without tanking your science you were pretty set.

In 5, you can use your gold for a lot more things because it is tied to a lot more things. However, your gold is not infinite and you have a lot more stuff you NEED to spend it on - building maintenance and unit maintenance are a lot more punishing, and you can't trade techs you have to trade gold for RAs, you need to buy CS bonuses to keep up with the AI - and the important thing is you can't do it all.

Finally, in 5 you can't change your government except at extreme cost in culture, so you're kind of stuck if you choose a bad SP. In 4 you can always switch governments and all it costs is a little Anarchy.

So 4 has more choices, yes. But because your "resources" are more independent, it is harder to shoot yourself in the foot making poor choices. In 5, there's some serious consequences if you make the wrong choices.

Again, both games are pretty great imo. I'm interested in non-obvious (counting civilizations or technologies would be obvious) assessments of the two games rather than value statements.

At civ5, only the global happiness is a critical ressource, everything else doesn't matter.

Happiness is pretty important. So is gold. You use these two resources to generate everything else. Culture, the third main resource, is kind of backward. Beyond building improvements, SPs, etc (which can be used to improve happiness and gold too so they're moot) your main source of culture is how few cities your empire has. If you want lots of culture, you "pay" for it in terms of "cities unbuilt or un-annexed".

Another thing in 5 is that Hammers seem to be pretty scarce until you really put some effort into building improvements that benefit hammers. Every production resource seems to have a different improvement too - and they all cost gold to maintain. Thus, you use gold to generate production too.

You can also see benefits and drawbacks to large and small empires. Small empires have no trouble with happiness and culture, although they might have trouble with gold, resources, and units. It is also much harder for small empires to clip the wings of a growing rival AI. Large empires have much less trouble with gold and resources, and it is easier to counter a rival by puppeting a few of his cities, but large empires will struggle with happiness and their culture will stagnate.

 

[apocalypse105]

Most important differents:

- Combat : Way better in my oppinion it has more strategy in it in civ 4 its more random...
- Hexes: Most turn based games use it so its a good thing.
- Civilizations difference: Way better each civ plays even more unique then before...
-Diplomacy: civ 4 had much better diplomacy in thisgame its nearly non existent it is in the game but it has no meaning....


These things are for me the most important changes...

 

[corrin]

Diplomacy - the Diplomacy in 5 makes perfect sense if you understand one thing: the AI is trying to win. Whenever it sees an advantage it will take it unless the cost is too high. So for instance if you are getting tons of DOWs on you from your "friendly" neighbors, you need to build up your army so you are less of a soft target! This serves as a check on "total builder" playstyles. You can't neglect your military in 5. You don't need a ton, you just need enough to convince Napoleon you aren't worth the effort. Which was also present in 4 - I've had Monty land on my shores for a sneak attack many times in 4 when I neglected my army too much - but it seems like in 5 you are less able to convince AIs to leave you alone or play nice through pure diplomacy.

This is a good way to look at the game's diplomacy. It seems broken in a lot of respects. But when you accept that the AI is acting like a human player -- trying to win the game -- you understand the diplomacy more. The AI is playing like a human player in this regard. If you make yourself an easy target, it will take you over because adding your cities makes it easier to win (especially for the AI since it doesn't have to worry about all the unhappiness from conquering your cities). If you are getting too powerful, it will try to knock you down to keep you from running away with a win.

The problem is, if you accept this is governing the AI's diplomacy, all of the other aspects are pointless. The treaties, the insults, etc. -- they are all immaterial since what the AI does will be governed by whether it thinks it can/should take you over.

 

[Fabiano79]

I agree there's some flaws with 1UPT, especially AI tactics, and I think those flaws are pretty fundamental and hard to fix. I don't think the fact that you need fewer units is one of them. It is nice not to have to build enormous hordes of units to do anything, especially when a belligerent AI decides to try his luck invading your territory!

But again, opinion. If you like having swarms of units, Civ 5 is probably not for you.

Thats not my point. What I wanted to say is that the combat AI is so lame, that I can actually win the game with 6 units.

I like having a small number of units, lets say 2 for each city I have, but its wrong when all I need to win the game is produce 6-8 units and go attack.

 

[Rhavanna]

I actually prefer the combat in civ5. One unit per tile doesn't feel wrong to me, and you can still build large armies if you want. I think the problem is that the AI is just plain dumb. Move their archers up within melee distance, never seem to focus fire, make no efforts to save wounded units, etc. That's why you can "conquer the world with 6 units" imo. I dislike the massive stacks of civ4, and throwing siege units away to blow up whole enemy armies, etc.

However civ5 also seems much simpler than civ4, and whenever I play I end up missing a lot of the features, (health, city-specific happy, trade routes, religion, corps, espionage, etc)

 

[RadioLemon]

Really, what I think made Civ 4 so much fun was the fact that it was extensible in many ways, due to the fact that the Civ bonuses were SO balanced and you can change your style of play in an instant rather than having to stick with the same Policies and a static research rate. I have never played Civ 4, but watching all the cool stuff you can do with the AI's and how in-depth the economy was (Especially the economy) I was excited for Civ 5 expecting that kind of complexity.

Boy was I wrong! I can see where they were going with it and trying to stop all the nonsense with unit spam winning every game, and the confusion of happiness AND health in each city, it can get confusing to a newer player, BUT

I think they could have made something like a Government Option kinda like Civics that can come into play, for it will cost some (Commerce? Food?) For upkeep for these certain governments, but the higher cost will yield more bonuses for that, type of government, with occasional revolts in place of Anarchy, but just not with modern tanks and that kind of suicide bonus.

What I am really saying is that I want more extensibility with my empire and to change it in every way like Civ 4 offered, without that silly UBER-PWN-ALL STACK WARZ that it DID have.

Know what I'm sayin? Military Now = Like, Economy System = Could be more fun!

 

[Keejus]

One point in civ V's favor that I feel gets far too little attention is the integrity of the civilizations. Beyond the fantastic music and unique UAs, I'm a fan of the more nation-specific civs, like the Abbasid Caliphate Arabia and the Iroquois Native Americans (though I think civ IV's were pretty much just the Sioux without the name?). Its leaders are also more appealing to history buffs, I feel (Montezuma I over II, Harald Bluetooth over Ragnar Fuzzybreeches), and it's the first Civ game with no sign of Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong.

 

[Thormodr]

Maps are way too small in Civilization 5 and this is part of the core design.

I love huge maps in cIV. They really add to the epic feel of the game.

 

[Fabiano79]

Maps are way too small in Civilization 5 and this is part of the core design.

I love huge maps in cIV. They really add to the epic feel of the game.

Me too.

The pace of the game is too fast as well. I dont like to play with slower speeds because they have a huge impact on production and is boring just keep hitting the next turn button forever. The solution would be a bigger tech tree, with the Eras lasting longer.

 

[NicTeos]

I think you have fewer choices in civ 5, but they matter more. In 4, for instance, it didn't really matter if you didn't have much gold, because you could always pop rush instead of rush buy. You couldn't even rush buy at all until late in the game. As long as you had enough for your units without tanking your science you were pretty set.

In 5, you can use your gold for a lot more things because it is tied to a lot more things. However, your gold is not infinite and you have a lot more stuff you NEED to spend it on - building maintenance and unit maintenance are a lot more punishing, and you can't trade techs you have to trade gold for RAs, you need to buy CS bonuses to keep up with the AI - and the important thing is you can't do it all.

Finally, in 5 you can't change your government except at extreme cost in culture, so you're kind of stuck if you choose a bad SP. In 4 you can always switch governments and all it costs is a little Anarchy.

So 4 has more choices, yes. But because your "resources" are more independent, it is harder to shoot yourself in the foot making poor choices. In 5, there's some serious consequences if you make the wrong choices.

1. gold is important, without you can't research, without you can't expand, you need it to trade techs, you need it to upgrade. Rush buy per gold is only avaible with Universal Suffrage and isn't very attractive, except some special cases. The perfect balance between all ressources is very important to have a chance on higher difficulties. Gold isn't TEH ressource in civ4, it is one of many.
One thing I haven't used for a long time was slavery, but slavery makes the difference of one dif. lvl. It's a powerful tool, if you can use it right. ( to rush stuff )

2. In civ5 it is tied to the same things, and normally in civ5 I didn't buy buildings until the end, only to buy CS. In Civ5, Gold was a by-product to me, I never felt, that I had to need to force the gold-sector. And RA were not that attractive with the last patches.

3. you can't compare SP with Civics. There were no real bad SP in civ5. And except some trees every SP bonus stacked, and also there was no need to ever change SP's. In civ4 you can't have every civic, you have to decide. There are some synergies between the civics, but if you go for military civics in the middle age you will suffer at other ressources. And anarchy hurts, each turn anarchy you lose gold,research,production and many more and have to calc, if it is really of benefit to switch.

4. in civ4 you can always make fails, in civ5, there is only happiness that matters. Everything else doesn't matter, if we compare it to civ4. And if you had -happiness your city grew slower, and so, if you had gone beyond the -10, it was your big fault. But if you have done so, maybe you should have asked yourself, if you were stupid....

5. And because the ressource are more independant, you have more choices. More stuff to observe, more stuff to think about, more stuff to calc, more options to get a ressource. And so to neglect one ressource more than others. That was in civ5 hardly possible, with population quite everything ressource come itself.

however, it is hard to talk about favour, but I like more complex games and so civ4 will always win against civ5 imho.

edit : and maybe you compare civ4 with civ5 and what you miss in civ5 compared with civ4. It's a long long list .....

 

[Shurdus]

Welcome to civfanatics, knighterrant81!

 

[WolfyAU82]

Having just had a taste of Civ4 has got me thinking...

The only thing I have noticed that Civ5 does better than it's most recent predecessor is a stronger emphasis on strategy and tactics by swapping the layout from a square grid to a hex grid and eliminating stacks with exception to military and civilian sharing the same tile.

Anyway, what are your thoughts of Civ5?

 

[nnja]

Anyway, what are your thoughts of Civ5?

type civ 5 sucks into the search and youll see what most people think

civ 5 is a fun little detour that is nowhere as deep as 4. i liked 3 the most due to its relative simplicity (and crusaders). civ 5 is addicting though as long as you dont hold civ 4 up as some sorta gift from the diety we know as sid meier. also, one unit per tile combat is amazing, even as the cpu has no idea how to use it.

 

[Truthy]

Civ 4 is a better game. Stacks of doom are not the greatest mechanic but they work well enough for a game that is supposed to be focused on buildings empires. On the other hand, 1UPT results in many things being eliminated or downscaled. In my opinion, Civ 5 is a disappointment and I could never imagine myself logging thousands of hours into it. I played over 700 of civ v, experimenting with mods and reading the forums for how to play better because I continuously found that I was bored. I began pondering that perhaps I had grown bored of the series altogether. However, upon returning to Civ IV I reached the conclusion that civ was fundamentally flawed; without serious work I would not be able to return to the game. I am waiting for several things now:
-More patches
-the release of the source code
-an expansion pack

 

[Babri]

Most important differents:

- Combat : Way better in my oppinion it has more strategy in it in civ 4 its more random...
- Hexes: Most turn based games use it so its a good thing.
- Civilizations difference: Way better each civ plays even more unique then before...
-Diplomacy: civ 4 had much better diplomacy in thisgame its nearly non existent it is in the game but it has no meaning....


These things are for me the most important changes...

SPs are better than civics. You have to plan ahead unlike civics where u suddenly adopted slavery & after the switched back to Universal sufferage.
Graphics : ciV has an edge because it is a new game.
Complexity : cIV is more complex. More features + more broken features (corporations, religion etc).
Gold is more meaningful. (CS require gold, gold for building & unit maintenance, rush buying...)
And the list can go on ...