What's so good about Civ IV?

[acluewithout]

This post got my attention:

From my impressions of activity on this site, I would say that Civ IV had a lot more players even after G&K. Most of the Civ IV players on this site did not move up to Civ V and many have not gone to Civ VI either. But let us not derail this thread, all you need do is go to the Civ IV forum and read...

I think I have a good sense of why people prefer Civ V (e.g. it's more complete, choices are permanent, prefer the graphics ...).

But what specifically do people like about Civ IV?

I don't know much about Civ IV. But beyond general "the AI was better" or relatedly "the AI was better with stacks of doom", I'm not really clear what's better?

Does anyone care to explain?

 

[Archon_Wing]

I've explained it a lot, but since I like listening to myself.

=====
Stacks or not was never a big deal to me. I never liked the RNG factor though.. But I only play single player so in the end it just translates to "dumb ai suicides army"

Of course the whole suicide a stack of catapults thing all the time is hardly accurate either since using a few smaller stacks of mounted units was more efficient plus horse units could hit multiple siege units too.

I think the game did a good job of doing peace vs war. There were more reasons to not kill each other and things like Free Religion incentivized getting more religions and it didn't have to be competitive.

It also made you take sides. Being neutral was a great way of being attacked by everyone so you had to balance it out.

So for those that don't like war there are many options. But of course killing everyone works too.

Also the game isn't that micro intensive thanks to the number of auto governor options, even for buildings. I mean sure it was needed to optimize on high levels but games can go faster.

I wouldn't say it is untouchable (balance is not that good) but it did a lot of things right and its flaws are less apparent.
====

The thing in Civ 4 is that you could do a lot of different things and still feel like you're not gimping yourself yet the game is still harder to master.
The other thing is that you didn't have to do tedious micromanaging if you didn't want to. Despite allegedly being more "streamlined", 5 and 6 fail miserably in this department.

Also wonders were cool.

I mean, it's hardly perfect. Balance is terrible and that's hilariously pathetic when you remember there's not much difference between civs. Civ 6 actually seems to be relatively well balanced if you take out the outliers as there aren't really many civs that I would consider purely useless-- less than a handful. There's also huge RNG luck factors in combat and it also shares 6's problems with forward settling and bad maps too. But it's still much easier to pick up...

I like 6, but due to the numerous UI flaws and pointless endgame mini-tasks, the difference is evident. Take this recent game of IV which ended on turn 378. It ends in under 3 hours and I left it running for a bit near the end too.

Oh yea, Egypt is good in this game. Used to be my favorite civ. They were cool in 5, and then well....


Now note that it was very rusty since I could finish games much faster than this. Now, if I were to close on a turn 400 Civ 6 game, how long would that take?

Of course, there is no timer in 6. :S

Overall? Actually playing Civ 4 reminds me of the stupid design decisions they made-- well, in fact, my avatar is of the Apostolic Palace which is one of the worst design decisions I have seen in the franchise. Well, up there with warmunger penalties. But hey, regardless of its issues it was still fun, and I can still say the same about Civ 6. I've always been about what a game does, not what a game doesn't.

 

[Socrates99]

Eh, I've enjoyed every iteration in the moment. IV was definitely more challenging. It had better diplomatic design and I wish the little random border events could get tied into VI's cassus belli system. Archon is definitely right about some of the automation options. VI can get really bogged down in the late game. I just think I like the new game, new features and all that. I played 3, 4, and 5 to death. It's VI's turn.

I have a tough time going back. I don't like SoDs. Personal preference I guess. I used to have a "rally area" in my empire where I'd fill SoDs before sending them into action. Literally waiting for a bucket to fill before I could use it. Now I make a unit and it goes into the field immediately. The SoDs made UUs kinda boring and the leader traits were bland. I never had any motivation to try all the leaders/civs like I did with V and VI.

Challenge and the diplomatic system for me I guess. To answer your question anyway.

 

[acluewithout]

I've always been about what a game does, not what a game doesn't.

I know I gripe a lot. But to be clear, while some things Civ VI doesn’t do well or gets wrong drive me up the wall, there is a heck of a lot I think the game gets really, really right. Fundamental stuff is really spot on (IMO), it’s just some balance and flavour that holds things back for me.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Moved to the Civ4 General Discussion forum. If you really want the answer to this, then it should be posted in a place where the players are that can answer it.

Moderator Action: Please keep this thread civil.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Major Tom]

Tried V for a while but there was no adrenaline rush. Quit due to boredom in the middle of a game and never went back. Back to 4, things can actually get pretty exciting. And also lot of interesting decisions from turn 0 and until win is obvious.

VI, never tried it, don't think they even have a HoF.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Tried V for a while but there was no adrenaline rush. Quit due to boredom in the middle of a game and never went back. Back to 4, things can actually get pretty exciting. And also lot of interesting decisions from turn 0 and until win is obvious.

VI, never tried it, don't think they even have a HoF.

I completely agree with this. Civ 5 and 6 just don't have that sweeping, engaging game play that Civ 4 has. I own Civ 5 and hate it, and I have played a little bit of Civ 6, but I don't own it. I play at a friend's place and he's been guiding me through the mechanics of the game. It's a great way to destroy a bottle of rum, but even then, it's a pretty boring game. And I HATE shuffling units around the map.

And you are right @Major Tom Civ 6 does not have a HoF, because to date Firaxis hasn't seen fit to release the source code for the game. I am unable to speculate why, but as a modder, I don't think they want their pathetic AI improved by the modding community. Whoops, I just speculated.

 

[rah]

[rant mode]
I've said it before but i'll repeat it. IV is better because there were things that exited me. I have to go back to civ II for the best example of it. It's simple but it sums it up. The WHALE. When you found a whale it was like hot damn, and if you found a finger hanging off the continent that touched 4 whales, it was just special. In civ IV you have have a wet corn. The double gold Flood plain area city. Terrain that would make a game special. Then came V. They went out of their way to make sure that terrain didn't matter. Plain and simple, they made it boring. You'd open the map and the only thing you'd hope for is a river. A RIVER, that's it. BORING. And the rest of the game followed suit. The wonders weren't at wonderful, the Great people weren't as great. With 1up the AI wasn't as good. [/end rant]

 

[Timoteo]

The main reason Civ IV is better than V or VI is you don't need Steam to play it.

Moderator Action: Can we please stick to game play issues and not get into the STEAM debate. leif

 

[plasmacannon]

Others have covered the main reasons, so I won't duplicate them. I'd like to add that, Civ4 has been around long enough for modders to upgrade the base game and create some newer (IMHO more enjoyable) versions of the game.
If one wants minor game improvements try BUG, BAT, Blue Marble or K-mod.
If one wants something beyond rock paper scissors, try Realism Invictus's version of Rock paper scissors lizard Spock.
If one wants to experience a fantasy version with giants and magic try Fall from Heaven2.
There are clearly more options available to the Civ4 player, than it's successors.

 

[MrRadar]

But what specifically do people like about Civ IV?

For me it's that you can really feel the breath of history There are distinct periods of the game which come and pass naturally, and you must constantly keep an eye on everything, looking out for opportunities or helping them to occur.
First exploration and mad langrabbing rush. You really have to compete for good city spots, which matter. Religions are born and religious camps formed, time for the first tough choices who'll be your first friends and enemies. Religion can truly be a case for war, unlike in the later instalments. Slavery rules the day, you whip your population to produce buildings and troops. Breakout wars, dogpile wars, free for all wars, religious wars. Or a universal lovefest, that can also happen.
Then feudalism comes with the system of vassals and the nature of war changes - you must really pay attention to diplomacy when picking your target - who likes who, or else after a few turns you may face a united front of a few civs against you, bribed into a war or peacevassaled. A few blocks of great powers with vassals may form and you'll feel very much alone if you don't have a few good vassals yourself.
Then civs start switching out of religious civics, and religion recedes from being a case for war to being a case for culture. You may find that you want as many religions as possible in your cities.
Industrialization comes. There's real unadulterated feeling of the Industrial Revolution! Build factories, coal plants, railroads and you will hear how your nation's economy starts humming and buzzing. Your cities may be a bit choking under all that smog, but they will push out an infantry unit or a tank every two-three turns. War becomes industrial - you send units to their deaths by a dozen but there are much more where they're coming from. You can also choose to build great wonders and push your borders with culture so that neighbouring cities will join your nation on their own volition.
Last stages of the game can be exciting as well, with neck to neck race to your victory condition, when a couple of other AIs are fast approaching their own victory of a different kind.

It can be much more dynamic game, the flexible civic system for me is better than the rigid policies of 5 or a bit too flexible cards of 6, diplomacy matters much more and you must constantly make choices which can make or break your game, you can manipulate other civs with religion and bribing, but bribing is more subtle and costly than in 5. Although tech trading is not very historical, it offers fun gameplay, and you can choose to tone it down in settings by only being able to trade techs that you discovered yourself or switch it off completely.

Difficulties are meaningful and there's real satisfaction when finally you can move one up. No question about winning deity after a couple of tries. Road to deity may be long and bloody and sweaty

Anyway, in case push comes to shove and you decide to get it, pick complete edition with BTS and better not buy it on Steam, get it on gog.com. I have Steam version that I can't play on Win 10, but GOG version is ok and DRM free. What's strange, I have no problems to play Steam version of Civ 3 on Win 10.

 

[6K Man]

For me, it’s a few things. I’ll try to sum them up.

Versatility/Novelty. You can set up different challenges for yourself, different map sizes, different speeds, handicap yourself or your opponents. There are countless mods and menu options to tweak aspects of the game to your preference. And every game is different – different map, different start, different opponents. There’s a sense of excitement whenever I start a new game.

Discovery: What Rah alluded to. Here’s a great city site to start at, or a big swath of green land blocked off for me to settle without AI competition. Excitement! Huts and events can add to that, if you’re into that kind of thing.

Urgency: There’s a double gold floodplains site 8 tiles from my starting point. Can I beat the AI to it? What’s in all that blacked out land? Who’s across the ocean and how far ahead or behind are they? Can I get Great Wall or Liberalism or circumnavigation first? Those sort of questions make me keep playing until I have the answer.

Challenge: None but the very best players can beat Civ4 Deity consistently. I haven’t played Civ5 or Civ6, but have seen others say that Deity on those games is comparatively easy and beatable within a few games of practice. Even my much-loved Civ2 became easy to beat on Deity eventually, once I knew the mechanics of the game. We have a pretty good understanding of Civ4’s mechanics and what you need to do to win… but it’s still hard to properly execute those steps, for most of us. And that challenge stems from…

Decisions: Someone, somewhere on CivFanatics, once wrote that what makes a game fun is interesting decisions. Civ4 does a great job of creating interesting decisions right up to the endgame, with lots of risk/reward assessments to be made, sometimes every turn. Research order, build order, who to befriend, who to attack, and so on. Neglect settlers/workers and you stagnate and fall behind. Neglect your army and you get DoWed. Attack Monty and Mansa will grow unimpeded; but attack Mansa and Monty will backstab you. Balancing competing needs is a constant challenge.

 

[acluewithout]

For me, it’s a few things. I’ll try to sum them up.

Versatility/Novelty. You can set up different challenges for yourself, different map sizes, different speeds, handicap yourself or your opponents. There are countless mods and menu options to tweak aspects of the game to your preference. And every game is different – different map, different start, different opponents. There’s a sense of excitement whenever I start a new game.

Discovery: What Rah alluded to. Here’s a great city site to start at, or a big swath of green land blocked off for me to settle without AI competition. Excitement! Huts and events can add to that, if you’re into that kind of thing.

Urgency: There’s a double gold floodplains site 8 tiles from my starting point. Can I beat the AI to it? What’s in all that blacked out land? Who’s across the ocean and how far ahead or behind are they? Can I get Great Wall or Liberalism or circumnavigation first? Those sort of questions make me keep playing until I have the answer.

Challenge: None but the very best players can beat Civ4 Deity consistently. I haven’t played Civ5 or Civ6, but have seen others say that Deity on those games is comparatively easy and beatable within a few games of practice. Even my much-loved Civ2 became easy to beat on Deity eventually, once I knew the mechanics of the game. We have a pretty good understanding of Civ4’s mechanics and what you need to do to win… but it’s still hard to properly execute those steps, for most of us. And that challenge stems from…

Decisions: Someone, somewhere on CivFanatics, once wrote that what makes a game fun is interesting decisions. Civ4 does a great job of creating interesting decisions right up to the endgame, with lots of risk/reward assessments to be made, sometimes every turn. Research order, build order, who to befriend, who to attack, and so on. Neglect settlers/workers and you stagnate and fall behind. Neglect your army and you get DoWed. Attack Monty and Mansa will grow unimpeded; but attack Mansa and Monty will backstab you. Balancing competing needs is a constant challenge.

That's very helpful. Thank you.

My two misgivings with Civ IV are losing 1upt and losing districts.

I know 1upt is a controversial topic, and I don't really want to open it up. Let's just say (1) overall, I prefer 1upt, but (2) it's not a deal breaker, and I can live with stacks and do understand it may have some advantages overall e.g. Maybe AI is better tactically.

Districts worry me more. In Civ VI, they let you make cities feel different and specialise, and they really help make the map more important. Without them, does Civ IV still make the map important (i.e. Do you play the map) and can you still specialise cities?

 

[Major Tom]

Districts worry me more. In Civ VI, they let you make cities feel different and specialise, and they really help make the map more important. Without them, does Civ IV still make the map important (i.e. Do you play the map) and can you still specialise cities?

Yes and yes. Playing the map is what make IV so good. Every game plays out different. There is a strategy article (sub forum) about city specialization explaining how you do it here.

 

[leif erikson]

Yes and yes. Playing the map is what make IV so good. Every game plays out different. There is a strategy article (sub forum) about city specialization explaining how you do it here.

Located here.

edit - some of the articles are a bit out of date, but you should get the idea.

 

[acluewithout]

Yes and yes. Playing the map is what make IV so good. Every game plays out different. There is a strategy article (sub forum) about city specialization explaining how you do it here.

Located here.

Ahh. That's the sort of thing I was looking for. Thanks very much. Looks like I have some reading to do.

 

[6K Man]

Districts worry me more. In Civ VI, they let you make cities feel different and specialise, and they really help make the map more important. Without them, does Civ IV still make the map important (i.e. Do you play the map) and can you still specialise cities?

Absolutely. Play enough Civ4 and you’ll start to recognize good sites for a particular type of city right away. A spot with hills and production resources is good for military production, a spot with rivers, grass or floodplain, and /or luxuries is a commerce/cottage site, and a location with tons of excess food could be a great person farm. Just remember that every city needs some kind of food source to grow.

City specialization is a big part of Civ4 – the opportunity cost of building city improvements is so high, especially on harder levels, that you’ll want to build only what a particular city type needs. That means Granary/Barracks/Forge in a production site, Granary/Library in a cottage city or GP farm. Other improvements are situational; some you'll never build, others, only in your capital.

 

[lindsay40k]

I want to like V & VI. I really do.

Their early game draws me in more than IV does. The tingling ruins, the Barbarians that do stuff, the natural wonders... and VI’s bulbing mechanic is exactly what I never realised I wanted.

...but none of it compares to managing my growth to pop my first GS, weighing up if I want to gamble on a Mids or GLH economy or maybe Oracle CoL or just axe rush Delhi, deploying bait units to draw apart a SoD, sending a defensive mounted army to flank an enemy army’s siege gear so they fall upon the anvil city I’ve drawn them into, whilst my own army of CRIII Samurai plays Stalingrad until I upgrade them to gunpowder...

...all with Baba Yetu, Dvorak, and Nimoy.

And no logjams.

And a Terra map script and colonial rules that make the New World an interesting prospect, as opposed to a happiness sinkhole that’s armed to the teeth and won’t trade.

And corporations! The later games’ ideologies make for a more explicit Cold War, but not so much fun as burdening other countries with your franchises until they either close their ports or overthrow the bourgeoisie altogether.