IV or V? Or nothing at all?

[dojoboy]

Voted for V, but playing both. Have a Civ4 pbem game going.

 

[Misotu]

Err, how is it possible mess up seriously in Civ 5? If you are low on money, you build money buildings. If low on happiness, you build happiness buildings, etc. Unlike in Civ 4, where a couple of cities too much before you get right technologies can easily grind you research to a halt.

Messing up isn't the issue. A general inability to make the game fly and have fun is my issue. For example:

At settler level in 2785BC a warrior costs 120 hammers which is 20 turns in my size 3 capital city. Just for comparison, the Great Library would take me 63 turns, so basically building 3 warriors in my current game is the hammer equivalent of building a Wonder. Now that just doesn't feel right in terms of balance!

I'm about to start another game - I think choosing marathon speed for the last one was an error

 

[liquid_mage]

I took a break from Civ for the last 4-5 years. I owned all of the Civ Games 1-5 with all expansions and SMAC/X. After reading all these posts about how good IV wasI wish I would have spent more time on IV with expansions.

I'm playing V and I love the 1UT, Hex Map, the social policies, and newer graphics. Although I had to roll my nvidia drivers back to stop games crashes. The games seems slow even with quadcore, 4gb of ram, and a nvidia 8800gt. Even with the new features I like, the game does feel like it's missing something.

I will play 2-3 more games of V and if I still feel its lacking. I will give IV w/ BotS a couple of months then come back to V.

 

[Tokira]

I voted for Civ5 due to these things:

1) 1 UPT
2) Hexes
3) Better graphics
4) The animated leaders

I just feel that at the moment Civ5 is more interesting to play than Civ4.