Not sure if this is in the right place, or even if it belongs here at all, but the bottom line is this: I created a reddit post showing a stack of doom that I made, and me and everyone who dared to even suggest they like IV in the comments were downvoted to oblivion, with someone calling pretty much everyone on this forum "nostalgia-jerking dip****s that can't appreciate meaningful changes and innovation to the game." It irks me to no end that people can't be tolerant of others' opinions or even attempt to understand an opposing point of view before dismissing a particular claim or anyone who supports that claim as stupid. IMHO, combat in IV is arguably more balanced, because you actually have to put thought into building and using your army. In V, despite all the possibilities for tactical maneuvering, at the end of the day, I've realized there's pretty much limited depth. The overwhelmingly dominant strategy is to spam cbows, xbows, and eventually artillery, with a melee unit to tank and cap cities - all other units are pretty much worthless, and I don't think I've ever seen a single anti-tank gun in use. The procedure for battles is pretty much this: Is there something to shoot at? If so, shoot with your 5-10 ranged units. Is there a unit about to die? Retreat it. Slow advance. Repeat for profit. Not as complicated or as much an improvement as most people make it out to be. In IV, on the other hand, units have counters. It's like TF2's rock-paper-scissors system. You have to create a stack of the correct composition and then use it properly, sometimes making hard choices about whether or not to sacrifice units (something which almost never comes up in V, tbh). And you have to take into account the composition of your enemy, promotions (which make a much bigger difference), your numbers vs their numbers, etc... For example, let's say you want to take a hilltop city defended by archers. Blindly throwing axemen or swords won't work, because you need a 5:1 ratio of attackers to defenders, and that's an unacceptable loss ratio. So you build a couple of catapults to soften them up, and you sacrifice just the right amount so you don't lose too many but your axemen will win all their battles. But wait, they have chariots. So you have to build a couple spears to counter those. And throw in some archers as a local garrison force if you don't want your new cities to be instantly taken back. Hold on, they're 10 turns from feudalism! You won't be able to challenge them for a LONG time once they get longbows! So do you split up your stack to win faster but risk losing your army in a failed attack, or do you conquer just 1-2 cities and let your opponent plot revenge once they're safe with most of their empire intact? Etc. etc... The bottom line is, both V and IV are better than the opposing fanboys give a lot of credit for. I already see a lot of people downvoting me and others for even daring to like IV as a game, much less suggesting some (or many) aspects are superior to V. It honestly felt kind of the same here, where borderline elitists greeted me with something like "welcome to a REAL civ game" when I first asked for advice stating I came from V. If nothing, I'd just like for people to stop hating on others' preferences and take time to thoughtfully process each others' arguments instead of blindly bashing people for their opinion and not bothering to actually consider their point of view. More likely though, nobody will read this, so I guess tl;dr: V is good, IV is good, can't we all just get along? Sorry if this dragged on too long or is totally inappropriate, I just needed to vent. That is all.