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

[eternalblue]

Ok, so I just want to continue this topic and now we have a big final versus .... CIV 4 with all 2 expansinos and the CIV 5 with all 2 expansions... I wanna some civ fans suggestions what is more accurate to play... it will be civ4 beyond the sword or civ5 brave new world?
I just wanna see now that we have the all of 2 games full upgraded what game is like more complete in gameplay?
think that you have to chose one of those 2 ... what it will be? and what it makes the difference in all aspects? ( diplomacy, culture, nations, war, resources , trading, expanding, graphics, music & sound, tech tree, the civics & social policies, wonders & natural wonders, history, victory types)

this tread is for all of us and for a lot of people that are new and wanna play them in a fanatic way.... so reading all of the replys is very important because here are a lot of value information ... so oppinions .... is CIV4 > CIV5 ? or CIV5 > CIV4 ? and what it makes this question more important to answer is WHY you think this? at the end answering we will get some conclusions that we will talk about them... and thanx for your time if you wanna answer...

 

[Falconiano]

Civ 4 was ok but still too rudimental for me.
I played about 50 games there, while in Civ 5 I played hundreds if not thousands.

 

[pilot00]

Point is the contest right now is unfair. BNW is incomplete till the final patches enter play and the AI can make work of the tools available to it. Not to count rumor circulation of two civs receiving overhauls.

 

[gingerbill]

I like that 4 and 5 are different games , didn't want the same game remade with better graphics . I prefer CIV 5 but they both great games.

I completely disagree 4 was more complicated or harder , I play both on the same difficulty and they offer me the same challenge. I actually find 5 gives me more choices and way's to play. Only thing I preferred in 4 was trade posts growing and that industrial power could win wars by producing more units , though controlling the huge death ball of units wasn't that fun. There's lots I prefer in 5 over 4 , too many to list.

 

[eternalblue]

Civ 4 was ok but still too rudimental for me.
I played about 50 games there, while in Civ 5 I played hundreds if not thousands.

true... civ 4 was a good game at his time but now we have civ5 and is very difficult to put down and go with 4... I feel it too... Civ5 BNW at the moment offers too much to put down for civ4 BTS.

 

[eternalblue]

I like that 4 and 5 are different games , didn't want the same game remade with better graphics . I prefer CIV 5 but they both great games.

I completely disagree 4 was more complicated or harder , I play both on the same difficulty and they offer me the same challenge. I actually find 5 gives me more choices and way's to play. Only thing I preferred in 4 was trade posts growing and that industrial power could win wars by producing more units , though controlling the huge death ball of units wasn't that fun. There's lots I prefer in 5 over 4 , too many to list.

Ok thanx for your point of view... The problems from civ5 were fixed in BNW , and add a lot of things from the industrial era to the end... the second expansion complete the second part of the game, and now the entire game is a lot of content giving a lot of good playing experience with a lot of value...

 

[VainoValkea]

Ok, so I just want to continue this topic and now we have a big final versus .... CIV 4 with all 2 expansinos and the CIV 5 with all 2 expansions... I wanna some civ fans suggestions what is more accurate to play... it will be civ4 beyond the sword or civ5 brave new world?

"More accurate to play"? Do you want a historically accurate, militaristically realistic game? Neither Civilization is that. Civilization IV does have some more "simulator" feel to it, in comparison to the very gamey Civilization V but ultimately both sacrifice a lot of accuracy and realism for gameplay fun. That's the way I like it.

 

[Browd]

If you want historical accuracy, Paradox historical genre games (e.g., Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, March of the Eagles, etc.) focus more in that direction than any game in the Civ series.

 

[the343danny]

Civ 4 100% for me. Civ 5 killed the title for me. Its extremely bland and gets old very fast in comparison to Civ 4. At least in Civ 4 you could roleplay your civs like a real nation but in Civ 5 its impossible, with every AI always wanting a piece of your cake no matter what you do.

 

[PhilBowles]

At this stage I'd say that Civ IV is more "complete" insofar as it feels a finished gaming experience - in many areas it's now lacking complexity (such as such things as trade) in comparison with its successor, but overall it handles its systems better.

BNW was a very ambitious change to Civ V and added pretty much all the "features" deemed to be missing from Civ IV and then some, bar only a couple of (debateably poorly-implemented) options like vassalage, and a health system. But to me it now feels less "finished" than Civ V did after G&K - it's a better game than G&K, but the tourism system in particular seems incomplete and the AI has numerous difficulties with the World Congress. Civ V now feels a lot like a great game that needs a third expansion to finish it off.

Also, I dislike the way that the new systems appear to largely subsume AI personalities - in G&K you got a strong sense of who each AI was, but now diplomatic effects from trade, ideology, and World Congress resolutions appear to have the same effect irrespective of civ identity. It feels a regressive step, literally in the sense that it's closer to the way Civ IV did things than previous versions of Civ V (in which the AIs did have nominally distinct personalities, but unless they were out-and-out warmongers the effects of personality were largely invisible in comparison to modifiers from open borders and religion).

On balance, I'd generally prefer to play Civ V, since to me it feels an incomplete version of a better game than Civ IV, insofar as that makes sense.

If you want historical accuracy, Paradox historical genre games (e.g., Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, March of the Eagles, etc.) focus more in that direction than any game in the Civ series.

Picked up Crusader Kings II + DLC in a 75% off sale on Steam yesterday. Just started working it out, but I can already say that comparing it with Civ games makes Civ games seem an embarrassment if you're really after historical accuracy. Sure, CKII isn't without its anachronisms (for game purposes, every faction has a feudal system by September 1066, even though feudalism was introduced to - for instance - England by the Normans, not to mention a strangely-implemented de jure system that enables your laws to apply to territories over which you have no control), but at the very least it has a level of detail that feels accurate (and, without encyclopaedic knowledge of the period, I suspect largely is). Medieval II Total War feels like a rough approximation of the same kind of simulation, but neither feels at all like a Civ game and Civ isn't constrained by any meaningful efforts at historical accuracy.

Which is indeed a large part of Civ's enduring charm: it's a game of no-holds-barred alternate history, not just Britannia writ large in which the provinces and dynasties are fixed and all that you ultimately control is whose faction controls which at any given time.

 

[VainoValkea]

At this stage I'd say that Civ IV is more "complete" insofar as it feels a finished gaming experience - in many areas it's now lacking complexity (such as such things as trade) in comparison with its successor, but overall it handles its systems better.

I always found that Civ IV was only complete because the devs were tossing in poorly reasoned features that sounded good on paper (random events, quests anyone?). Less is more, especially more than "more but poor quality".

 

[PhilBowles]

I always found that Civ IV was only complete because the devs were tossing in poorly reasoned features that sounded good on paper (random events, quests anyone?). Less is more, especially more than "more but poor quality".

In fairness, I'd level the same criticism against elements of BNW:

Tourism is poorly thought-through and, aside from the poor design of having a resource accumulating from the early game that's of no use until the late game, what was intended to make the late game more interactive instead is binary, Wonder-dependent, and (like the culture victory it replaced) must really be played for from some of the earliest game stages (most culture Wonders are early- to mid-game). By the time you hit the late game there's not much you can do to influence relative tourism and culture aside from spamming archaeologists and museums, and the tourism Great People spawn at a rate you can't control to any degree (except, again, with limited early-game effects like National Epic and Gardens).

The World Congress suffers from an AI that can't handle it - it can propose resolutions moderately sensibly (except for the unfortunate AI tweak that everyone hates sciences funding), but can't link that to in-game behaviour (if a standing army tax is passed, the AI won't trim its army. If a World Religion is adopted, it will still resist you spreading it to them) and AI failings break the Choose Host system.

The ideology system is nice to play through the first couple of times, but it becomes repetitive when a game's-worth of building diplomatic ties with civs X, Y and Z is rendered irrelevant by whichever ideology they chose. Plus, unless you're going for culture victory and so have high tourism the ideology game plays out with little or no player input, since you won't be an influential player. The late game is not entertaining or interactive when you're just a bystander in other people's ideological conflicts and the best you can do is shore up your culture to prevent ideological takeover (and then to a very limited degree - you need to have been focusing on culture from much earlier in the game). The lack of a "post-ideology" game phase where, like religion earlier in the game, ideology becomes less relevant is a shame.

I actually find that most of the BNW improvements are to the early game, with trade routes, decision-making forced by limited gold, better balance between wide vs. tall, changes to Piety and the relevance of religion, up to the early stages of the World Congress. The late game introduces some nice ideas, but is a bit of a mess.

 

[VainoValkea]

True, BNW isn't anywhere near perfect either. However, every feature seems at least planned from the gameplay point of view, instead of simply "hey, wouldn't it be cool if there was..."

 

[CommonKnowledge]

Civ V is a brightly lit paddling pool whereas Civ IV is a murky and very deep well. I guess the reason I disliked Civ V was because it was a revamp rather than a sequel and I'm quite worried that if Civ VI is released then it will be a sequel to V rather than IV because, if they didn't do that, they wold be admitting V as a failure.

Personally I though V was an interesting offshoot, a bit like Colonization, but I don't view it as a real Civ game.

 

[VainoValkea]

Civ V isn't afraid to be gamey, while Civ IV, like earlier establishments, has trouble deciding whether to be a very complex history simulation or an interesting strategy game with well thought-out gameplay. It delivers neither, which is why I prefer 5 for picking one lane and sticking with it.

 

[mrwho]

I haven't played Civ 4 for a good while but I consider civ 5 to be a much better game. I prefer nearly all the changes from civ 4 to civ 5, with lots of complexity added in stuff like trade, combat, religion etc. I'd like to see a little more micromanagement in civ 5, with local health in cities, but I think civ 5 is a much more enjoyable experience with all in all much better mechanics. Civ 4 is still the deeper experience (according to everyone, I don't really know why) but I find civ 5 much more enjoyable.

The main things I miss from Civ 4 is the cottage system, the sliders, city specialisation (I never managed to really take advantage of that - I was a pretty crappy civ 4 player at the age I was), local health, and small things like seeing the entire globe and wonder/victory movies. Everything else I can think of is leaps and bounds ahead of civ 4 IMO (although that may be because I never played Civ 4 enough to truly understand it).

 

[mrwho]

Civ V is a brightly lit paddling pool whereas Civ IV is a murky and very deep well. I guess the reason I disliked Civ V was because it was a revamp rather than a sequel and I'm quite worried that if Civ VI is released then it will be a sequel to V rather than IV because, if they didn't do that, they wold be admitting V as a failure.

No it wouldn't be, to the same extent that Civ V wasn't admitting that Civ IV was a failure.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Civ IV Advantages:

- UI is better (less inputs to accomplish same actions, more hotkeys)
- More complexity (this is a plus/minus depending on preference)
- Engine/turn times --> Civ IV runs considerably faster
- Larger empires/more land coverage (plus/minus)
- Better balance between empires (though still pretty bad)

Civ V Advantages:

- Research agreements are far less broken than tech trades.
- More variety in playstyle between civs, considerably so.
- Combat and game outcomes in general are less influenced by RNG and more by player choice (big +).
- Less complexity (plus/minus), though both expansions added some so the difference is less now.
- Less micromanagement (plus/minus --> this game severely penalizes going for large empires).

There are some things people claim are better about one game or the other, but inaccurately. I'll do my best with these:

- Both games have terrible AI that generally does not actually try to win. Civ V's tries slightly more, but is generally still awful in forming victory plans and executing them. Both games "compensate this" by giving the AI that doesn't try to win within the rules so many bonuses that it's playing a different game at high levels. Don't be fooled by strict fans of either game saying otherwise; they are actually very similar in this regard.

- Automation is borderline useless in both games, and the three before them also, except in the cases where it doesn't exist whatsoever.

- UI is miserable in every iteration of civ without exception. This is a long-standing weakness in the civilization series. Basic control conventions from 10 years ago are not observed.

- Both games have large amounts of strategic depth, more than most TBS. If Civ V is still behind 4, it isn't far, and both are miles ahead of the first 3 games.

- Starting position balance in both of these is absolutely ludicrous. Variety is a good thing; one civ getting double (or more) the land available to all others without war or any expenditure whatsoever isn't.

- Victory condition balance is similar between games, as in some VCs are simply much easier to attain than others.

I could go further, such as getting into how IV is more tile-improvement focused while V focuses more on buildings as a yield generator, or how gold is more or less of a factor between the two, or comparing civics to social policies. However, the fact of the matter is that both are rightfully popular games with some serious flaws that can nevertheless be fun to play.

Also, I dislike the way that the new systems appear to largely subsume AI personalities - in G&K you got a strong sense of who each AI was, but now diplomatic effects from trade, ideology, and World Congress resolutions appear to have the same effect irrespective of civ identity. It feels a regressive step, literally in the sense that it's closer to the way Civ IV did things than previous versions of Civ V (in which the AIs did have nominally distinct personalities, but unless they were out-and-out warmongers the effects of personality were largely invisible in comparison to modifiers from open borders and religion).

AI behavior was very different civ to civ in IV if you know the mechanics enough. It wasn't just "warmonger or not warmonger". The major classifications I see used:

- Warmonger
- Expander (Joao, Zara, Catherine)
- Backstabber
- Zealot
- Religion spammer but not aggressive
- Culture *****
- Tech ***** (mostly just Mansa Musa)
- Game Thrower

However, quite a few AI fit more than 1 of these categories. The main difference in V isn't the AI variance, but rather how civs are geared towards pushing a given approach more than in IV, where the map conditions were *very* likely to force you to take an approach.

 

[mrwho]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but why is Civ 4 more complex? I find lots of the mechanics in Civ 5 like Social Policies over civics, religion, combat, etc more complex than Civ 4.

 

[bison21]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but why is Civ 4 more complex? I find lots of the mechanics in Civ 5 like Social Policies over civics, religion, combat, etc more complex than Civ 4.

People keep repeating it because it has been said so often that they just believe it now. Vanilla CiV was less complex than CIV as it had been stripped of many big aspects such as religion and not to mention stuff like culture-flipping which was never brought back in this form. But I personally felt it was evening out with G&K already, and BNW definitely adds much more. Sliders are not gone, they're changed. Assign specialists in order to determine how much culture/science/production/wealth you want to go. I am yet to see an empirical proof that the predecessor has more complexity. It is mostly down to your own preference and how you perceive the game to be.

What people keep forgetting is that CiV relies on an entirely different system- the 1upT change is much more massive than what it seems. I don't see the leaving out of features as a marketing strategy, but rather does it take a long period of time to see how the new system is evolving. I see this happening in many games that undergo a large structural change. I am convinced Civ6 will stick to the new system. It is easier to get into and is more strategy than it is simulation, and I think this is where it seems to be headed.

What would be the point in a better-graphics clone? I can see that happening for the Elder Scrolls Series since its RPG and heavily graphics reliant, but look at Tropico 3 and 4- WTH? Any way btt..