What is the difference between Civ 5 and Civ 4

[Generals3]

IMHO so don't slate me if you disagree

Civ 4 was more about managing cities

Civ 5 is more about managing an empire

What i mean by this is that in Civ 4 the focus was on big cities and lots of them, that better you managed these cities the better you tended to do.

In Civ 5 each city has far more impact on the empire as a whole and therefore rather than micro managing subtle elements to improve you chances it is far more about making big decisions as to the whole future of the empire.

Which style you prefer will probably ultimately decide which game you like more.

I disagree . In Civ IV you had both big and small decisions . Wonders directly affected your empire and so did resources and civics . And all the micro decisions indirectly affected your empire as well (more science and gold affects your empire , more production allows a faster production of wonders and improvements, hence indirectly affecting your empire) .

The only difference is that local choices like happiness have been made global . Which is simplifying things (i would like to redirect you to my ten points post above)

 

[PieceOfMind]

So , as far as i know Civ V was released after Civ IV BTS . Why would i compare Civ V to an outdated version? What's next , "compare civ V to Civ I because of *insert silly reason* "

It's fair enough to compare it to civ bts with the final patch, but if you are going to do that, you should also keep in mind that the current state of civ5 is not final either. For example, rather than saying "civ5 should have espionage", it would probably be more productive to suggest that "espionage should be in the first expansion pack". It's probably being pedantic though.

One has to ask, do most people who are complaining about civ5 want civ5 changed or are they essentially making suggestions for an expansion? See, IMO the latter is the more productive reason.

There are also reasons for one to support a basic-game-first,expansions-later model for the game. Civ4 BtS would probably not have been as good a game or balanced as well as it is had there not been the huge amount of playtesting done on vanilla and warlords first. You need to have a working game first before you add all the extra features. It's fair to disagree with that view, but it is at least a rationalisation for a sequel to not be more complicated than the prequel+expansions.

 

[falconne]

Your reply doesnt really answer my question. Did they remove things like micromanaging things that served no real purpose? Did they remove crucial elements? And your comment about being able to beat civ 5 on immortal after 45 minutes is absurd. I have played 44 hours and still can not beat immortal. The only civ I've played is civ rev and civ 5 seems like a giant step forward. I have my hands full every turn, I don't know how much more they could add to make me micromanage. This game has more micromanaging for me than simcity 4 had.

You're question is very difficult to answer, if you haven't played Civ 4. It's like asking someone to explain the difference between the Mona Lisa and Michelangelo's David. They'd have to write an several pages of essay. To be more appropriate, it's like asking "I've done science in school, how will a physics degree at university be different?"

You really should just get Beyond the Sword, because it will be an year or two before Civ V gets to that level of depth.

And I think my post did sum it up. Basically, there's a lot more mechanics involved in the game - cultures, religion, espionage, health, local happiness, corporations, foreign trade, economics. Each was deep and interconnected to the other mechanics - as with any game, every mechanic that is balanced and well intertwined with the rest of the game increases the complexity exponentially, which is what made it so interesting and long lasting. This also meant you can't change one aspect of your empire without everything else being affected in a chain reaction. You don't have the kind of simplicity of Civ 5 where science is a factor of population count, so your empire could be at -20 happiness but still producing as much science and gold as normal.

In Civ 5 there are fewer variables to balance and the game doesn't punish you too much if one of them goes astray. Civ 4 is not that forgiving and you need to keep a lot of variables in your head. Having to balance all these mechanics made for several years of deep gameplay, because it took a long time to figure out foolproof strategies, even though the AI was not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

I didn't say you can win Civ 5 in 45 minutes - that still takes 400+ turns (only because everything happens so slowly in it). I meant that in about an hour after installing it, you can basically "figure out" the perfect strategy to win, even at the hardest level. After that, there's nothing interesting in the game any more. I just got bored after beating it on Immortal. I know others are beating it on Deity, but the game is just too boring to make me try. In Civ 4 there were so many mechanics, so much going on, it took a long long time to be able to understand it to this level. In fact, I don't think even now I understand it that deeply.

 

[JoxerNL]

it's funny how people are comparing Civ 5 to Civ 4 + expansions, just shows how clueless they are in the end.
Civ 4 (vanilla) sucked at release, get over yourselves.

 

[PieceOfMind]

You really should just get Beyond the Sword, because it will be an year or two before Civ V gets to that level of depth.

Actually, I second this suggestion. I think it would be really interesting to hear the gameplay impressions (on BtS) of someone who first played civrev and civ5 before they played BtS. There aren't many people who would fall into that category, and would probably help to shed some light on this whole debate.

lol, maybe we should start a fund for taking donations to buy civ4 complete for pennjersey83?

 

[Generals3]

It's fair enough to compare it to civ bts with the final patch, but if you are going to do that, you should also keep in mind that the current state of civ5 is not final either. For example, rather than saying "civ5 should have espionage", it would probably be more productive to suggest that "espionage should be in the first expansion pack". It's probably being pedantic though.

One has to ask, are most people who are complaining about civ5 want civ5 changed or are they essentially making suggestions for an expansion? See, IMO the latter is the more productive reason.

There are also reasons for one to support a basic-game-first,expansions-later model for the game. Civ4 BtS would probably not have been as good a game or balanced as well as it is had there not been the huge amount of playtesting done on vanilla and warlords first. You need to have a working game first before you add all the extra features. It's fair to disagree with that view, but it is at least a rationalisation for a sequel to not be more complicated than the sequel+expansions.

I understand your point . But i believe the fact Civ IV Vanilla didn't have certain feature doesn't excuse Civ V for not having certain features existing in Civ IV BTS. I can understand Civ V doesn't have the same amount of "new" content an expansion would bring . But the removal of already existing and fun content is inexcusable to my opinion.

 

[JoxerNL]

Frankly i think at the end of the day there is a simple way to look at things :
Put the Civ 4 manual next to the Civ 5 one.

There you go

First time i ever started up Civ 4 was after release and just looking at that MASSIVE manual was abit.. scary? lol
Civ 5 eases people into it as it feels intuative, and is easily udnerstandable.

I understand there are alot of changes for people to swallow, but if we'd all wait to see what happens after the first expansion and then pass judgements i think we'd be alot better off.

I too want most of the things mentioned, vassal states etc, however i am very down to earth in my views as to Vanilla Civ 4 didn't have Vassals etc either, will just have to wait.

 

[lonemessiah]

Falcone 'Civ4 is not that forgiving'

And @Generals3

I am not going to state which i prefer as it is probably best for impartiality when someone asks for the differences and not which is best. But i stand by my post.

In Civ 4 if you make a choice that you decide is wrong it is a lot easier to rectify it than in Civ 5, i.e adjust a slider, demolish a building, quickly build something that is needed or change your civic. Civ 5 forces you to stick with the choices you make, and so if they are the wrong choices you are screwed.

In Civ 4 if you cities are all doing well the rest of the empire pretty much looks after itself, you can easily build all the improvements available for each city without punishment, thus removing any need to think of the global picture when choosing them, all you really need to focus on is maximizing productivity according to your wishes. Even combat basically comes down to who can churn out the biggest number of troops the quickest, which is a city based stat and not an empire one. In Civ 5 it is good to have well managed cities, but you have to be more concerned with the empire wide impact of those cities than before. you can't just template how a city should develop now.

As i said it is my opinion, I am not new to the civ games (although i refuse to go down the route of justifying my opinion by when i first started playing civ), I look at Civ 5 as a whole new game, pretty much as i saw Civ 4 as a whole new game compared to Civ 3, again i won't state which i prefer, there is no point.

 

[falconne]

it's funny how people are comparing Civ 5 to Civ 4 + expansions, just shows how clueless they are in the end.
Civ 4 (vanilla) sucked at release, get over yourselves.

Since this has been posted about 3000 times, would you be the first to explain just why a new version of a game shouldn't be better than the last version we played? Possibly with examples from other franchises.

 

[JoxerNL]

I understand your point . But i believe the fact Civ IV Vanilla didn't have certain feature doesn't excuse Civ V for not having certain features existing in Civ IV BTS. I can understand Civ V doesn't have the same amount of "new" content an expansion would bring . But the removal of already existing and fun content is inexcusable to my opinion.

Ah but here is the thing, they built a civ from the ground up, they were given an ammount of money and a deadline, Civ 4 had 4 of those sums of money and deadlines. (well actually three as Colonization didn't really add to Civ 4).

To implement the full Civ 4 experience they would need triple the sum of money, triple the time invested, and a long deadline, and we ALL know what happens with long game developing right? Duke Nukem Forever anyone?

Yes yes, irony has it that its comming out after 11 years of being in development

 

[JoxerNL]

Since this has been posted about 3000 times, would you be the first to explain just why a new version of a game shouldn't be better than the last version we played? Possibly with examples from other franchises.

That is completely in the eye of the beholder.
Your oppinion at the end of the day, my oppinion is that civ 5 is epic, i got bored of 4 after many months of playing, civ 5 is fresh again, and i cant wait to see what the expansions bring.

Please dont confuse "your" unhappyness and "you" being dissapointed to being that the game isn't any better.
Cause to me, and apperantly many others, the game "is" alot better.

 

[Generals3]

Falcone 'Civ4 is not that forgiving'

And @Generals3

I am not going to state which i prefer as it is probably best for impartiality when someone asks for the differences and not which is best. But i stand by my post.

In Civ 4 if you make a choice that you decide is wrong it is a lot easier to rectify it than in Civ 5, i.e adjust a slider, demolish a building, quickly build something that is needed or change your civic. Civ 5 forces you to stick with the choices you make, and so if they are the wrong choices you are screwed.

In Civ 4 if you cities are all doing well the rest of the empire pretty much looks after itself, you can easily build all the improvements available for each city without punishment, thus removing any need to think of the global picture when choosing them, all you really need to focus on is maximizing productivity according to your wishes. Even combat basically comes down to who can churn out the biggest number of troops the quickest, which is a city based stat and not an empire one. In Civ 5 it is good to have well managed cities, but you have to be more concerned with the empire wide impact of those cities than before. you can't just template how a city should develop now.

As i said it is my opinion, I am not new to the civ games (although i refuse to go down the route of justifying my opinion by when i first started playing civ), I look at Civ 5 as a whole new game, pretty much as i saw Civ 4 as a whole new game compared to Civ 3, again i won't state which i prefer, there is no point.

While i do agree the civics were "too forgiving" i don't agree with the slider. Adjusting the slider was a strategic move. Sacrificing science for gold or culture isn't something which makes the game forgiving , it's a strategic decision.

And when it comes to demolishing buildings, i don't see whats wrong with that . If you make a mistake you should be able to rectify it , and all the production/turns invested in that building are still lost , so its not like you haven't lost anything by making that mistake. Now it's basically: "sucks to be you!" if you do something wrong. (same goes for Social policies which are way too static ) . And tbh , the empire wide impact of the cities are still the same . The only difference is that unhappiness screws every city over instead of the unhappy city .

 

[PieceOfMind]

Since this has been posted about 3000 times, would you be the first to explain just why a new version of a game shouldn't be better than the last version we played? Possibly with examples from other franchises.

I already gave an explanation above. Feel free to disagree with it, of course.

There are also reasons for one to support a basic-game-first,expansions-later model for the game. Civ4 BtS would probably not have been as good a game or balanced as well as it is had there not been the huge amount of playtesting done on vanilla and warlords first. You need to have a working game first before you add all the extra features. It's fair to disagree with that view, but it is at least a rationalisation for a sequel to not be more complicated than the prequel+expansions.

****************

While i do agree the civics were "too forgiving" i don't agree with the slider. Adjusting the slider was a strategic move. Sacrificing science for gold or culture isn't something which makes the game forgiving , it's a strategic decision.

And when it comes to demolishing buildings, i don't see whats wrong with that . If you make a mistake you should be able to rectify it , and all the production/turns invested in that building are still lost , so its not like you haven't lost anything by making that mistake. Now it's basically: "sucks to be you!" if you do something wrong. (same goes for Social policies which are way too static ) . And tbh , the empire wide impact of the cities are still the same . The only difference is that unhappiness screws every city over instead of the unhappy city .

From a gameplay perspective, the issue I can see with allowing people to demolish buildings is that it diminishes the importance of national wonders requiring all cities to have a particular building.

Apart from that, I would be in favour of allowing demolishing buildings (or even selling if the devs feel kind enough! )

 

[Generals3]

Ah but here is the thing, they built a civ from the ground up, they were given an ammount of money and a deadline, Civ 4 had 4 of those sums of money and deadlines. (well actually three as Colonization didn't really add to Civ 4).

To implement the full Civ 4 experience they would need triple the sum of money, triple the time invested, and a long deadline, and we ALL know what happens with long game developing right? Duke Nukem Forever anyone?

Yes yes, irony has it that its comming out after 11 years of being in development

So because one dev screwed up . Every dev should rush games and become like EALA?
I'm sorry but i've seen plenty of game devs do things right in less than 11 years .

 

[falconne]

That is completely in the eye of the beholder.
Your oppinion at the end of the day, my oppinion is that civ 5 is epic, i got bored of 4 after many months of playing, civ 5 is fresh again, and i cant wait to see what the expansions bring.

Please dont confuse "your" unhappyness and "you" being dissapointed to being that the game isn't any better.
Cause to me, and apperantly many others, the game "is" alot better.

This time I'm not talking about which game is better, but about this idea that's always posted, that Civ 5 should not be compared to Civ 4 + expansions. Why is this?

They started development on Civ 5 using the code from Civ 4 at BtS. They had all playtesting of Civ 4 to draw from, so they didn't have to figure out how to implement all those features again, it has already been done. So why can't we compare it to the last release of the product?

 

[Thedrin]

While i do agree the civics were "too forgiving" i don't agree with the slider. Adjusting the slider was a strategic move. Sacrificing science for gold or culture isn't something which makes the game forgiving , it's a strategic decision.

I'd disagree with this. In general, correct strategy was to have the science slider at the highest percentage that you could afford. If you were going for a cultural victory, you'd reach a point in the game where you'd switch over to low science and high culture, but that's the only significant exception I can think of. Even if you were basing you're research on specialists, the most significant difference that this would usually make would be to limit the highest setting you could afford to set science on.

By removing the slider they have removed a lot of management without removing a lot of strategy.

 

[lonemessiah]

While i do agree the civics were "too forgiving" i don't agree with the slider. Adjusting the slider was a strategic move. Sacrificing science for gold or culture isn't something which makes the game forgiving , it's a strategic decision.

And when it comes to demolishing buildings, i don't see whats wrong with that . If you make a mistake you should be able to rectify it , and all the production/turns invested in that building are still lost , so its not like you haven't lost anything by making that mistake. Now it's basically: "sucks to be you!" if you do something wrong. (same goes for Social policies which are way too static ) . And tbh , the empire wide impact of the cities are still the same . The only difference is that unhappiness screws every city over instead of the unhappy city .

I totally agree with most of what you are saying, I never said one method was better than the other, i just pointed out this is the main difference as i see it. It also seems to be the main thing that people point out when referring to whether Civ5 is dumbed down. But the OP was about what was different, not what was better. Many could argue that Civ4 was unapproachable to anybody outside the civ series, and most of it not needed for a complex game, that though is probably for another topic (and i am sure there already are just a few of those )

 

[JoxerNL]

This time I'm not talking about which game is better, but about this idea that's always posted, that Civ 5 should not be compared to Civ 4 + expansions. Why is this?

They started development on Civ 5 using the code from Civ 4 at BtS. They had all playtesting of Civ 4 to draw from, so they didn't have to figure out how to implement all those features again, it has already been done. So why can't we compare it to the last release of the product?

Ah assumptioons i do love those.

 

[JoxerNL]

So because one dev screwed up . Every dev should rush games and become like EALA?
I'm sorry but i've seen plenty of game devs do things right in less than 11 years .

Now your just trolling and not reading my entire post.

 

[PieceOfMind]

This time I'm not talking about which game is better, but about this idea that's always posted, that Civ 5 should not be compared to Civ 4 + expansions. Why is this?

They started development on Civ 5 using the code from Civ 4 at BtS. They had all playtesting of Civ 4 to draw from, so they didn't have to figure out how to implement all those features again, it has already been done. So why can't we compare it to the last release of the product?

Have you ever developed a game from scratch, and to a fairly restrictive deadline no less? Do you realise that it doesn't amount to just implementing everything at the start?

IMO you couldn't be more wrong when you claim, "They had all playtesting of Civ 4 to draw from, so they didn't have to figure out how to implement all those features again". Civ5 was built from scratch.