I'm new to the ''Civ'' series. What is the best in all the aspects? Civ4 or Civ5?

[eternalblue]

I started out with Civ III and loved it. When Civ IV came out, I found it more challenging, entertaining, and loved it even more. When Civ V came out, I was so excited and couldn't wait, but I ended up being disappointed by it. Found it somewhat simplified and definitely not as fun. I keep checking back here, hoping to hear something about Civ 6.

Ok, but do you think the expansion ''Brave new world'' will change something important to the core of the game with the new additions ? or not? civ 6 I don't know will be a long time to see a civ6 and if will be... it will be with the same core like 5 I guess with the same ideas...

 

[bagas12]

So true! I will be helpful. Try Civ 4 forum here :

http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=144

The boy is right asking here if he go to civ 4 forum they will just say good things, if he ask to someone who like civ 5 what he liked of civ 4 he will show the pro and cons.

You should just leave if you will not be helping him.

@topic

After the hexagonal and 1upt i just cant go back to civ 4 the combat is just much more fun, but i realy like the civics in civ4 expecialy slavery, that is not represented in civ 5.

Still i played civ 5 so much more cant realy explain every pro and con.

 

[dopingman]

*sigh* Every Civ 4 and 5 comparison is like comparing apples with pears. Both are fruits, both are sweet, some ppl like apples, some like pears, some like both. Try both and dicide which one is more of your flavour. I like apples and play Civ5, 'nuff said. Both games don't cost a fortune so just try both. If they would still cost 50 bucks each, I'd understand some hesitation, but for 30-40 for both, eh, I don't care.

 

[eternalblue]

*sigh* Every Civ 4 and 5 comparison is like comparing apples with pears. Both are fruits, both are sweet, some ppl like apples, some like pears, some like both. Try both and dicide which one is more of your flavour. I like apples and play Civ5, 'nuff said. Both games don't cost a fortune so just try both. If they would still cost 50 bucks each, I'd understand some hesitation, but for 30-40 for both, eh, I don't care.

thanx dopingman and bagas 12... you are right... the both of games are different in good ways and very good stuff... and yes the combat in civ5 and civ4 with the management of the empire... both are good stuff.. thanx

 

[bagas12]

*sigh* Every Civ 4 and 5 comparison is like comparing apples with pears. Both are fruits, both are sweet, some ppl like apples, some like pears, some like both. Try both and dicide which one is more of your flavour. I like apples and play Civ5, 'nuff said. Both games don't cost a fortune so just try both. If they would still cost 50 bucks each, I'd understand some hesitation, but for 30-40 for both, eh, I don't care.

The problem is not the question "what game is best", but, what the question mean, it is something like that line "what feature is cool and function better in each game".

I just find funny how such question is so hard to answer for some people. Everyone could easy say Paradox Games and Total war Games are apples/pears, but each one have features that the other dont have, and as the games are about the same genre stategy/war games, one is more complex the other is more tatical.

Same reasoning we could use to Civ 4 Civ 5, or Europa Universalis 3 and 2, Total War Shogun 1 or 2.
If i played the two games and someone ask me a straight question, "why do you like X over Y", just answer it. And respect each other opinion that's all

 

[whyidie]

Who cares?

Yeah.

 

[whyidie]

The boy is right asking here if he go to civ 4 forum they will just say good things, if he ask to someone who like civ 5 what he liked of civ 4 he will show the pro and cons.

You should just leave if you will not be helping him.

But it was ever so helpful!

 

[Dreadnought]

In my personal opinion, Civ3 > Civ5 > Civ4 (though Civ3 is ever so slightly better than Civ5).

 

[eternalblue]

But it was ever so helpful!

Helpful for people like you... you are the only one who is just westing your time here with nonsense answers,,, waste your time doing something else... what's the big point with this answers? if u don't like to help just don't bother... take a break... an eternal break... and give answers to ******** people like u...

 

[eternalblue]

ok... so now I know the both games because I was playing these days civ4 with beyond the sword , and civ5 gods & kings before that about 5 games... both games I was playing in ''prince'' dificulty that is like normal I like that because the AI don't have advantage and you neither... for a new person that I have tried first civ5 g&k and after civ4bts I can say that:

1. the ''tech tree'' - in both games is a little different but in the same way without major changes or differences is in the same sistem... so Is a draw... I give a point to both games... in civ5g&k I like because it needs much time to achive in ''standard'' mode for both games

2. the ''social policies'' and the ''civics'' - sorry but I like more how are made ''SP'' in civ5g&k ... without doubth is more interestring and is more rewarding with more things to chose is a evolution in good way of ''civics''... in civ4 they don't give an importance to this... a point to Gods & Kings and can optain of a reward with cultural points, so beautifull

3. the ''religion'' and ''espionage'' - is a good addition to civ4 without doubth, but in civ5 g&k relligion is more upgrated give a great importance to the game giving great ways to spread religion, inquisition, and make a great walk in the civilizations history... a point to Gods & Kings... espionage is in much ways the same but with addition of city states and another options the espionage works very good and it's rewarding and in the same way more risky... a point to gods& kings...

4. the '' special buildings , resources , wonders, special units , leaders '' - so the both games have the same number of resources without much addition to Gods&Kings.. but I like the ''natural wonders'' new thing because it gives a more joy to Gods&Kings.... if u are lucky u have some advantages, like youre positioning with te resources and wonders or stuff.. like in the real life, lucky or unlucky... the special units and the bonuses of the leaders both games have a good point... so Gods& Kings is a little more variated but with just little difference not much improved... civ4 beyond the sword have a plus with the microcorporations thing but who cares... I don't want to take care of Aluminium & CO and ''Herbal .... '' I just thing is not worth, without importance... Gods& Kings another point but with just little difference... but I thing is close to a draw...

5. the ''happines, health , culture,money, growth, expand'' of the cities - this is the big difference in both games... so ... civ 4bts gives a more variation , u need to take care of every city to have a growth, expansion with culture,health and happiness with more variation... in civ5g&k the culture happiness and money is in a ''total of all the civilization'' and affect all of the civilization not just a city because he has a ''lack of....'' but, I give a point to civ4bts because it's a little more complexe in this aspect, though I like more in civ5G&K how the cities expand and all the imperium, the unregular form...

6. the ''fighting system, the square/hexagonal grid, exploring, stack/1upt units,'' - here is the second and the last big difference in both games... I thing the points 5. and this point 6. of my oppinions are the major changes and here comes the preferences of the peoples... is simple in civ5g&k the fighting is changed in a so beautiful way that is giving you spirit of the tactical and strategical combat with the hex/grid with more positions and spaces to cover with the magical 1upt system... is more great evolution than in the civ4 and how great it works... the civ4 players complain this but this is just because they don't used to it and don't want a change in these way... my oppinion is that the fighting in a civ game have an very important role like the second civ5 offers it in such a beautifull way... civ 4 have hexes and gives 8 ways compas moving ,but the 6 hex ways work great... the exploring is more addictive and more ''want to search, want to see'' addicting way thing in civ5g&k, though I like the ''globe zoom out effect'' from civ 4... but in this aspect is a point to civ5g&k...

7. the ''A.I.'' - I have seen a lot of discusion in this aspect in a lot of forums but I, playing the both games, in civ4 I can say the A.I. is a little more challenging in harder difficulty than civ5g&k... and more of civ veterans want the stuff more chalenging, but is just a point of view from each side, though challenging it not means greatest or other things... Gods & Kings have a good A.I. , I was playing 5 games in prince difficulty so It was very ballanced for the each side ... I don't wanna the A.I to have all the advantages to kick my a*s but either I didn't want to have the advantage... so let's be fair and give a draw for both games, just because there are both challenging and both A.I. are ok made, despite all the negative comments I can say the both are great in the A.I aspect...

8. The ''graphics, sound, interface, menus'' - ok... these without a doubth, it wins the last game of the franchise with more beautiful menus with a joy to play it, graphics greatful a lovely to watch and the interface more advanced and in simplistic way without is not ''darker'' like in civ4 like ''closed, claustrophobic'' in civ5g&k is like u are on the top of the world watching in all the opened ways with opened skyes and the clouds are a great adition to the unexplored teritory very great... the sound in both games is great buth love much more the sound in the last game... so a point without doubth to civ5g&k ....

In a final comment to a comparation on both games is not much to compare is just what have we seen and what we enjoy.... from my point of view civ4 is good with all the management of the cities, empire growth , but civ5 g&k taking off the annoying stuff is not a deep like civ4bts but the best experience right now with major changes in some things but without changes in another is CIV5G&K... is made to give a good playing experience and its just make civ4 dated in some ways... once u have played deep civ5g&k u don't want to come back to play civ4, not because isn't good is just because is dated in much ways... so is just my oppinion, and thanx... and... just waiting for another civ5 great expansion ''brave new world''... so much to offer...

 

[Ravellion]

I'll tell you what I don't like about each game:

What I don't like about CIV4:
- easily gamed diplomacy system. If you want an Ai to be your ally, you can usually make it happen, even if it isn't in that AI's best interest. Not enough backstabbing - let's face it, the world isn't nice. It is possible to have a game pass without any war for you at all. This is too far away from the flavour of history IMO.
- Stacked units. I don't mind stacks that much, but in the late game, they become silly, with sometimes 50 units stacked. Also, this leads to micromanaging (No, I don't want my veterans to attack first, I want to soften them up with rookies... now where in the stack are my rookies...)

What I don't like about Civ5:
- The AI doesn't handle 1 unit per tile well.
- Trading resources has become a bit simple, and often used to exploit the AI
- I would have more, but G+K fixed a lot for me.

 

[Smokeybear]

I'll tell you what I don't like about each game:

What I don't like about CIV4:Not enough backstabbing - let's face it, the world isn't nice. It is possible to have a game pass without any war for you at all. This is too far away from the flavour of history IMO.

What I don't like about Civ5:

For the civ5 part, you left out "way too damn much backstabbing". Gad I hate predictable pendulum swings, that go too far in opposite directions. Balance would be nice....

 

[Drakarska]

I'll tell you what I don't like about each game:

What I don't like about CIV4:
- easily gamed diplomacy system. If you want an Ai to be your ally, you can usually make it happen, even if it isn't in that AI's best interest. Not enough backstabbing - let's face it, the world isn't nice. It is possible to have a game pass without any war for you at all. This is too far away from the flavour of history IMO.
- Stacked units. I don't mind stacks that much, but in the late game, they become silly, with sometimes 50 units stacked. Also, this leads to micromanaging (No, I don't want my veterans to attack first, I want to soften them up with rookies... now where in the stack are my rookies...)

What I don't like about Civ5:
- The AI doesn't handle 1 unit per tile well.
- Trading resources has become a bit simple, and often used to exploit the AI
- I would have more, but G+K fixed a lot for me.

Just because i'm curious, what difficulty were you playing in civ IV, and did you have agg AI checked?

 

[kettyo]

IMO CivIV-BTS is the best game followed by CivNet (Civ1-MP).

 

[Antiphon]

I've been playing every Civ game since 2 plus SMAC and Colo. And I'll have to say, best one for me is Civ IV with all addons. Civ V is nice enough, and I am playing it now instead of IV, but only because I had been playing IV until my eyes gouged out, plus the graphics are way better in V.

Whats better in V?
- Graphics
- Hex Grid
- Combat System
- Getting rid of transport boats
- Religions
- Unique Abilities, Civs more diverse while not as "stuck on a path" through traits
- City States

Whats better in IV?
- Cultural flip possible
- Government system, taxation
- Espionage
- Airlifting, Airports
- Corporations
- Diplomacy, with vasselage and colonies.
- AI is also better, though thats more like the big fault of Civ V.
- United Nations are not only a victory condition, but also an integral part of the game
- Random Events were quiet fun.

 

[eternalblue]

I've been playing every Civ game since 2 plus SMAC and Colo. And I'll have to say, best one for me is Civ IV with all addons. Civ V is nice enough, and I am playing it now instead of IV, but only because I had been playing IV until my eyes gouged out, plus the graphics are way better in V.

Whats better in V?
- Graphics
- Hex Grid
- Combat System
- Getting rid of transport boats
- Religions
- Unique Abilities, Civs more diverse while not as "stuck on a path" through traits
- City States

Whats better in IV?
- Cultural flip possible
- Government system, taxation
- Espionage
- Airlifting, Airports
- Corporations
- Diplomacy, with vasselage and colonies.
- AI is also better, though thats more like the big fault of Civ V.
- United Nations are not only a victory condition, but also an integral part of the game
- Random Events were quiet fun.

indeed there are a lot of things that changes one game from the other... but who wants taxation, corporation and micromanagement little annoying things in a game... you take your time with all that little administration things and will forget the big picture and the big point of the game... and that is why sid meyers and the stuff want to change the game.. to entertain without geting boring... ok the civ veterans they prefer all that things to make it more realistic and give more to do... but firaxis team wants to play it anyone to be more concentrated and give more combat and make it more addictive... with big changes in the game with the eras... both games have problems but civ4 was a great game but is dated its old... civ 5 have a lot more of potential now and in 13 july a lot more with the new expansion Brave New World...

 

[PhilBowles]

I've been playing every Civ game since 2 plus SMAC and Colo. And I'll have to say, best one for me is Civ IV with all addons. Civ V is nice enough, and I am playing it now instead of IV, but only because I had been playing IV until my eyes gouged out, plus the graphics are way better in V.

Whats better in V?
- Graphics
- Hex Grid
- Combat System
- Getting rid of transport boats
- Religions
- Unique Abilities, Civs more diverse while not as "stuck on a path" through traits
- City States

Whats better in IV?
- Cultural flip possible
- Government system, taxation
- Espionage
- Airlifting, Airports
- Corporations
- Diplomacy, with vasselage and colonies.
- AI is also better, though thats more like the big fault of Civ V.
- United Nations are not only a victory condition, but also an integral part of the game
- Random Events were quiet fun.

I played Civ IV a couple of days ago, and would agree with the government system and taxation (although both were somewhat shallow - maintenance in Civ V offers more real choices than Civ IV maintenance, which just amounts to "don't expand too fast", while civics presented somewhat badly-balanced options and not many of those). I think Civ V had the right idea decoupling social policies from technological progression, so that there's less default "rush to Monarchy whatever your strategy" type play, as well as giving culture an actual role in social progression.

I never liked corporations, and I just can't stand Civ IV's diplomacy. It's much too passive - I get through sessions without any need to interact with the other civs beyond opening occasional trade windows. While it has nice additional options compared with Civ V, the basic approach of the diplomacy engine feels weak and heavily outdated compared with Civ V's, even if Civ V's AI often can't handle it well. I also hate the "you can fight enemy civs inside your friend's city" issue.

Cultural flipping and a World Congress that works like the old UN (and includes a diplo victory condition with 2/3 majority as well as over a dozen other resolution options) are on the way back in the new expansion.

Random events were too overstated in Civ IV, but Civ V's gone too far in limiting them (while retaining them for ancient ruins, and if anything making those more common in the landscape). In particular I miss the occasions where a new resource would emerge on a tile as you discovered a gold seam or whatever.

Not sure if airlifts are back with the Civ V expansion, though airports in some capacity are, but I can take or leave those.

Espionage I'm undecided on. I liked Civ IV's approach of having an espionage resource you could control and build buildings to maximise, while in Civ V you can only boost defensive espionage. But I prefer the core Civ V system (as with diplomacy, it's a generally better implementation but with more restrictive options), and it does allow more flexibility than appears at first glance. In the expansion intrigue looks to be expanded through the diplomat option, and Civ IV had no intrigue system.

 

[JanusTalaiini]

I started out with Civ III and loved it. When Civ IV came out, I found it more challenging, entertaining, and loved it even more. When Civ V came out, I was so excited and couldn't wait, but I ended up being disappointed by it. Found it somewhat simplified and definitely not as fun. I keep checking back here, hoping to hear something about Civ 6.

Yep, this is pretty much my experience as well. I started with the original Civ, played all the iterations afterwards (including the CTP games), and Civ 5 is the first time I was honestly disappointed. That's not to say that 5 is a bad game (it's not), but it did away with enough of the good simulation aspects of its predecessors that it just isn't a Civ game for me. It ends up being more of a straight wargame than a civilization builder.

I still play it occasionally and buy the expansions, but I've logged maybe 1/15th of the time in it as I have in Civ 4 BTS.

 

[eternalblue]

Yep, this is pretty much my experience as well. I started with the original Civ, played all the iterations afterwards (including the CTP games), and Civ 5 is the first time I was honestly disappointed. That's not to say that 5 is a bad game (it's not), but it did away with enough of the good simulation aspects of its predecessors that it just isn't a Civ game for me. It ends up being more of a straight wargame than a civilization builder.

I still play it occasionally and buy the expansions, but I've logged maybe 1/15th of the time in it as I have in Civ 4 BTS.

Yes that's true... if u play first civ3 or civ4 u can see a lot of differences, but if u play first civ5g&k and play after civ3 or civ4 you can see all of 2 very dated and old in comparation of civ5 that it has much more potential, that is from my experience... both civ3 and civ4 are great games , they are the best of civ series and the emblem, because that was the original way of the civ games with great value and content. but... the new civ is very great for people that didn't played a civ games before and its a different game very very good and has a lot of things from the last civ... I think that is a good change for civ games because can play it more people not just a bunch of hardcore fans that like micromanagement and simulation of the empire... for the other people that is just boring and for this thing sid meyer changes much the core game to be more entertaining but addicting in the same way... if u ask me... I am addicted with civ5 more than other game, so this thing can say something... If u ask all the gamers: In a civ game what do you want form two things:

1.) 65% war with tactics and strategy conquest, domination, expansion with every leader in his way with special abilities and stuff... and a plus of 35% empire growth , happiness, culture and stuff to do something just see the empire growing.....

or

2.) 65% empire growing, micromanaging with corporation and every city with his stuff finance, governing, taxation, other things... and just 35% war , conquest, domination...

... a civ III or IV gamer will say : the second oppinion will be great... but the rest of the world will say: ok the second one is not bad but boring we want more action in a turn based strategy game than grow a city... and we want the 1.) For growing cities with all that things we have SIM CITY...

so that was thinking sid meyers with the firaxis team and the changed the game for all that peoples to be more familiar and entertaining and have changed so much and simplified things from base game... so the answer from all the most of people and peoples from metacritic is... a good change !!!

 

[Funky]

so that was thinking sid meyers with the firaxis team and the changed the game for all that peoples to be more familiar and entertaining and have changed so much and simplified things from base game... so the answer from all the most of people and peoples from metacritic is... a good change !!!

7.1 in metacritic is a rather mediocre rating by videogame standards... . The problem is not so much the simplification of the game (though that's a problem too), but the removal of the history part in a series based on history. You state correctly that war and combat tactics are the main focus of the game. This in itself is a very questionable change from previous civ versions, since civ has always focused on alternative historical developments with war as only one element among many. But the change would be tolerable if the developers hadn't removed every imaginable kind of realism and historical plausibility from the game.
Civ 4 was modeled around real history and its features represent various developments and occurences in our own history. In Civ 5, in contrast, the features have no connection to history at all and seem to only serve the purpose of being balanced towards eachother to make the different aspects of the game work out. But wether Civ 5 works as a game or not, it certainly cannot be viewed as a game of "Civilization".

Moderator Action: Maybe it's better if you then don't discuss here. Because we don't like to see such trolling around.