What IYO does IV do better than V?

[Leathaface]

I've heard people saying that V took away the complexity of IV, so that is a point.

 

[Blinky Bill]

I always felt that the way religion and diplomacy is used in Civ IV is way better. Having to consider what the dominant religion is on the map brings a more exciting element to the game as I may not want to annoy my neighbours just yet while covertly building up my army.

I could never really get into Civ V and I'm yet to take the risk with Civ VI so I'll keep plodding away at IV

 

[Robo-Star]

Run without Steam.

 

[Michkov]

Alt Tabbing

 

[Fish Man]

Not punishing you for conquest and expansion to the point where expanding beyond 4 cities is a death wish on any difficulty. Except there are no death wishes because V is so easy and simplistic compared to IV a lot of people, me included, literally lucked into beating deity without understanding basic game mechanics the first couple times around.

Those are the two main things IMO, though there are a lot of others.

 

[lindsay40k]

Pathfinding and logistics. IV does it adequately, V is a never ending logjam

AI military manoeuvres. IV’s can be tricked into splitting up its SOD or leaving a walled city to chase a worker; V has units jump into lakes in front of cannons

Larger maps. IV has a memory overflow bug that gets in the way. V doesn’t even try

Cold War. IV has transnational corporations that give protectionism and communism distinctive purposes other than affecting how quickly you fill the GP or hammer or army size buckets and how many of your people want to go and see the Louvre

Trade routes. IV doesn’t abstract an ongoing turn by turn yield into a physical unit that you can’t attach an escort to

Space race. IV gives you loadout options, and ways to bring down someone’s victory lap

I do like what VI has done with a number of these

 

[Gumbolt]

To be fair on Civ 5 once you beat the AI army there is nothing left. Then you are held back by issues of happiness to capture cities. Huge penalties for capturing cities. Waiting around for the states to capture cities for you.

Civ 4 has trade routes in the cities. It also has great Merchants that can perform a trade mission for 900+ gold.

Civ 5 is held back by 1UPT making war tedious. I prefer the stack system as it adds more fun and tactics to the war element.

There is much more micro to civ 4 with whipping, tile management and worker management. War fare is also much improved. Increased number of tile improvements allows many more option for city specialism.

The memory bug on civ 4 is not a huge one. Since upgrading to a Ryzen CPU and 16gb of ram I have vvery few issues.

Overall I got very bored of Civ 5 due to the warfare issues and the stagnant stages of the game where you seem to just build buildings and mass troops to stop some of the AI carpeting your empire in troops. E.g getting to 4-5 cities and pretty much being hit by a happiness cap. So either you build tall or wide empires.

Many people can quite easily beat deity level on Civ 5. Good luck on Civ 4. Much more of a challenge.

 

[Choeimok]

Let's see what I can think of... all subjective of course. I don't have a whole lot of experience in 5, so might be getting some things wrong.

Religion: I like 5's customization minigame, but the spread mechanics happen to be so annoying that I'd actually say 4 is better.
Capitals: I prefer 4's approach of "Capital" being a more dynamic term.
Warfare: Carpets vs SoDs... the latter has a lesser tendency to drag on forever, but I do like how units in 5 don't just die on a single dice roll and combat is a bit more tactical -> 5 slightly wins? Warmonger diplo penalty is too harsh though.
Diplomacy: Aside from the above (decay please?), Diplo in 5 somehow just manages to feel bland... there is less maneuverability and denouncements are silly.
City Management: very weird in 5. Eventually you run out of worthwhile things to build in a city, and there isn't a lot you can actually do at that point. And most cities turn out kind of generic, as variety in tile improvements is pretty lacking. Probably the biggest advantage of 4 in this comparison.
Civ variety: Civ tried to make everything more unique, but I did like having multiple leaders to play and play against the same Civ with sometimes completely different flavors. Not sure, tie.
Razing: Weird in both, but 5's "annex to raze" seems like a particularly weird idea. -> 4 is better.
Neutrals: Barbs seem far less threatening in 5. CSes are a cool idea, but the implementation feels too static and they got rid of barb cities completely... I'd still say tie as its nice to have interactions with something else than "major" civs.
Civics vs Policies: Policies are of course more fleshed-out, but I liked the dynamic nature of Civics switching. Still, 5 wins this one. Maybe its biggest edge.
Tech tree: 5's feels very streamlined, I feel like it gives much less room for beelines and ignoring stuff. The lack of early science in 5 feels odd as well. Another big one for 4.
Performance: Oh boy. 4. Big maps can still be rough late game, but...
AIs: Despite cheating like hell on higher levels and civs being less unique than in 5, I found 4's leader personalities far more memorable.
Trade: 5, easily. 4's routes were kind of tacked onto. And "diplomatic" trading is pretty much the same.
Happiness: Our glorious forces captured some small-time city off the country that attacked us to teach them a lesson? Boo, hiss! Exclusively global happiness makes very little sense. A local/global hybrid mechanic would be my favorite, but since that's not the case...


In total... I think both are enjoyable, both have their issues, but 4 is the better game because 5's design flaws are more infuriating.

 

[Inertial Voom]

I love challenges, and complexity, so what if I never get to deity! I have tried Civ V and Civ VI, and it does not have the reality of Civ IV. I would love to play Civ IV online, either pitboss or ip methods. I am on Steam, but no one seems to care about this older version any more. Tech seems to make things too easy, too fast, and too often. Eventually even high tech jobs of this decade will bite the dust. I hate retirement way too much time on my hands, and way to little money, but we spend more on charity than we spend on ourselves. I remember the amazing complexity of my old job, and the ability to create amazing projects, finally saving my old work $10,000,000.00 per year and all I got was the enjoyment of doing something far beyond my anyone else in my organization. No money, no recognition, but at least I am something of a local hero.

 

[dorkynorky]

I have only played 5 and 6 for the last decade. 6 was such a disappointment that I decided to go back and try out 4 again. All I can add to this thread is my opinion that 4 is much harder. Unit stacking, no city defense and no bombarding defenders makes for the need to have a much larger amount of total production go to units. Diplomacy is much tougher. Improvement based economy rather than pop based economy makes it tougher to manage cities. Cultural control of territory is a pain. Basically in 5 and 6 you can ignore the aspects of the game that you don't want to pay attention to. Don't care about religion or culture, just ignore them. 4 is definitely the game for those who like to experience the complete scope of the game and who also love micromanagement.

For immortal level I give the following formulas for victory
- Civ 6, build 5 archers and 2 warriors and win anyway you like
- Civ 5, work to settle 6 cities and build a proper defensive army. As long as no AI stomps all the competition you can win as you like.
- Civ 4, I used to win immortal, but now that I am relearning all of the differences I am still figuring out how to win at Emperor without intentionally going on a killing spree

 

[rah]

I have only played 5 and 6 for the last decade. 6 was such a disappointment that I decided to go back and try out 4 again. All I can add to this thread is my opinion that 4 is much harder. Unit stacking, no city defense and no bombarding defenders makes for the need to have a much larger amount of total production go to units. Diplomacy is much tougher. Improvement based economy rather than pop based economy makes it tougher to manage cities. Cultural control of territory is a pain. Basically in 5 and 6 you can ignore the aspects of the game that you don't want to pay attention to. Don't care about religion or culture, just ignore them. 4 is definitely the game for those who like to experience the complete scope of the game and who also love micromanagement.

For immortal level I give the following formulas for victory
- Civ 6, build 5 archers and 2 warriors and win anyway you like
- Civ 5, work to settle 6 cities and build a proper defensive army. As long as no AI stomps all the competition you can win as you like.
- Civ 4, I used to win immortal, but now that I am relearning all of the differences I am still figuring out how to win at Emperor without intentionally going on a killing spree

In summary, 5 and 6, easy, 4 hard.

 

[devolution]

@Inertial Voom
Check out the Pitboss community over @ http://www.realmsbeyond.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=20. Plenty of Civ4 (Pitboss) activity there, in fact it seems to be getting more popular by the day...

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

I love challenges, and complexity, so what if I never get to deity! I have tried Civ V and Civ VI, and it does not have the reality of Civ IV. I would love to play Civ IV online, either pitboss or ip methods. I am on Steam, but no one seems to care about this older version any more.

Would you perhaps be interested in PBEM games?

 

[Aristos]

In summary, 5 and 6, easy, 4 hard.

Put together, they achieve "easy" status, right?

 

[Archon_Wing]

Diplomacy after IV has never been the same. I suppose there was concern that 4's diplomacy was too gamey, and they were like NO WE CANT ALLOW 100% peace so they invented that laughably bad "opaque" diplomancy aka "I aint gotta explain s--" which permeates its successors. So 5 basically has the mercenaries for pennies thing where you pay Alexander 3 gpt to go to war with other people and leave you alone. Ultimately past 4 you can't really have any true allies but rather temporary friends.

And then the warmonger penalty. I guess it was a check on warring except it really doesn't.

Finally, the "tall" meta, which frankly is stupid where it's optimal to build 4 cities. Yes, there's been influential City States, but come on, the greatest empire should not span across someone's backyard. It's also bad for gameplay, since you can just turtle and ignore 90% of the map's terrain. Personally I of the wonder spamming type would default to this anyways, but when it's the "standard" it's no longer special.

And that really is one thing I really don't like about it which resulted in such a meta. Penalties. Penalties there. Penalties everywhere. I feel like I get penalized for doing anything.Yes you could get crushed by maintenance in Civ 4, but most of the time you were asking for it and there's many ways around it.

Civ 5 does introduce a number of cool features such as culture, ideology, city states, and the more complex World Congress thing but I feel like I'm not really playing a Civ game sometimes.

 

[salty mud]

A great many things!

- no 1upt. I get what Civ V was trying to solve, but the implementation was so forced and draconian that it totally ruins the experience for me. In Civ IV, I enjoy the feeling of industrialisation, seeing my armies become more advanced and bigger and bigger, fighting multifront wars. In Civ V there is a limit to the amount of troops you realistically want to field, lest the game turn into a logjam.

- AI. Controversial, but the AI leaders in IV are just smarter, and have more defined personalities. I know that finding myself next to Montezuma and Genghis will lead to a world of hurt. I know that with Gandhi next door, my empire will double in size very quickly. Civ V lacks this. I know that Dido will behave as stupidly as Attila.

- Empire management. A big one, this. Global happiness is the kicker for me in that I just cannot stand it. It's utterly nonsensical, tedious to deal with and plain bad gameplay. I know with a little practice it's easy to cheese, but happiness should NOT be empire-wide. Different cities have different sentiments. Workers and improvements are also much better in IV. Not sure whose idea it was to add upkeep costs to roads, but hopefully they've been relieved of their position by now. Note that this crazy design decision makes the tedious 1upt borderline unmanageable.


One thing I wish was in Civ IV - Civ V's minimap. It's so aesthetically pleasing, compared to the ugly one in IV.

 

[Lexicus]

*cracks knuckles*
okay
IV does better

1upt - not necessarily bad in itself, but the AI's inability to grasp the system makes V much too easy.

Scale of the game - Again I don't think that 1upt kills Civ V, not per se. Plenty of games, including chess, which is arguably the greatest strategy game of all time, do 1upt well. The problem in Civ V is that you have 1upt AND ridiculously small movement and firing ranges for most units. Most units move or shoot two hexes. Combined with the "tall" problem it means that your giant empire which stands the test of time can literally be six bowshots from one border to another. The small movement ranges mean that logistics is a nightmare. And Civ V's UI is so bad that, unlike Civ 4, you can't click on a unit and immediately see where it's going. 1 upt simply does not lend itself to a game on a grand scale of time and space like Civilization - the only way to do it properly would have been to vastly increase the number of tiles on maps, which would probably be too impractical.

Segueing us into UI - In Civ V it takes like four or five actions to create a build queue. In Civ IV it takes two. Civ V came out in 2010, Civ IV came out in 2005. Enough said. I also really don't like how they chose to display the religion stuff on the map.

Science=population - this is the thing I hate most about Civ V. The science=population mechanic makes it feel like I'm simply filling bins rather than managing an empire. Decisions don't feel meaningful enough. The slider system in Civ IV is vastly superior and makes you feel like you're actually doing something and making meaningful choices on a turn-by-turn basis.

Varied terrain - Yields in Civ V don't change much. Accordingly city placement and worker turn allocation, two crucial parts of the game in Civ IV, do not matter much.

Civics - while I do like the social policy and religious systems in V, I prefer IV's civic system. Being able to change civics makes the game feel more dynamic and again makes it feel like empire-managing rather than bin-filling. Ideally you'd have a combination of policy trees and changeable civics, which I believe is what Civ 6 does? Didn't buy it and haven't played it or looked at it really at all, so I'm not sure.

There are little things that annoy me about V, like the lack of ability to raze capitals, but those are the big items. Those are the reasons I haven't played V since 2014 and am still playing IV.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

1 UPT kills it for me. Even with all of Civ V's other faults, the worst thing is 1 UPT. I can't stand shuffling units around in endless log jams on a map that is too small for the units. Civ is supposed to be a game of the grand scale of an empire, but I get no such feeling from V and VI (though I've only played one game of Civ VI).

Civ V is a game for people who don't want to think. They just want to click and win. I like a bit more complexity in my games, thank you. Don't treat me like I'm stupid. I'm a Monarch player in Civ 4 and can barely manage it. In Civ V, I've won on Deity three times. What is there left to accomplish with the game? I get no "one more turn" feeling. It's just "maybe I should go to bed. This is dull, and I'm tired of shuffling units for this evening", and then I never finish the game.

All in all, Civ V was a waste of money. I suspect Civ VI will be too. I've got 5000+ hours in at playing Civ IV. I got my money's worth.

 

[rah]

And which genius decided after moving to 1upt that it was a good idea to add road maint. Multiple roads would minimize some of the pain of moving units without logjams and not make the goto so stupid. Just silly. Just to avoid the aesthetics of a map covered with roads.
But for me, I agree that the lack of variety in the terrain sums it up. All the terrain is the same boring thing. The wonders weren't that wonderful, the great people not so great. Nothing is really special.
When we were testing it, they spent tons of effort to make the maps boring despite our concerns and ignored the crappy AI. That's where the effort should have gone.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Road maintenance is the dumbest thing I've ever seen in this whole franchise.

And that's saying a lot.