Which game is better: Civ IV or Civ V?

[Lexicus]

Last night I was playing a game and a stack of siege only advanced on one of my cities. Same issue.

Do you have version 3.19 of BTS?

 

[rah]

Yep, only one I play. They never fixed the login on that. I can't believe you've never seen a stack of siege only in the game.

 

[Lexicus]

Yep, only one I play. They never fixed the login on that. I can't believe you've never seen a stack of siege only in the game.

I've seen stacks that were unbalanced with only one or two non-siege units but I haven't seen any only-siege stacks in a loooooong time.

 

[ashendashin]

So if the devs themselves have those kind of issues, what chance would modders have?

Way better chance than you think. At least for Civ5. Lots of people on CFC gave up on it really quickly and have extremely outdated ideas of what can be done with Civ5s concepts.
Doesn't help that Firaxis was also lazy with Civ6 and there's no source code for it. They don't work on the AI very much at all.

 

[warpus]

CIV4:BTS is the Civilization game that IMO has the best game dynamics, by far. The biggest problem in the game is the stack of death or whatever. That was fixed in Civ5, but the fix introduced game dynamics I don't like as much as in 4BTS.

Computer logic and gameplay in both games kind of sucks, and I usually play against computers, so the stacks didn't affect me much. Computer opponents don't know how to use them, but I do, giving me an advantage I suppose.. But I played at a high enough level such that it all more or less balanced out, I think.

Civ5 is good, but the game balance just isn't there for me. It's fun but Civ4BTS was a game I played over and over and over for years. Civ5 is more of a blip on my gaming radar in comparison. Civ6 suffers from similar issues, although it is an improvement.

 

[Cutlass]

Meh, the AI always seems to struggle with any mod that messes with core mechanics of the game. I remember in the heyday of Civ 3 modding it was generally accepted that trying to get the AI to properly use some of the more innovative ideas was an effort in futility and the question of "can the AI use this properly?" was a question that should be largely ignored. Otherwise mods would have remained extremely narrow in their scope.

This is a problem with the Fall From Heaven Civ4 mods which is most of the Civ I've played in recent years. While I really like the concept, there is too much that the player can do, that the AI can do also, but does not. If the AI played closer to the way I do, it would be much more difficult. But options available to the AI are only used by the player.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Thinking about it a bit, I think Civ5's greatest virtue is that it allows the underdog to have multiple ways to come back fighting. Earlier Civ games fully embrace the Unstable Equilibrium trope. In Civ4, a small empire needs to ready the pointy sticks, assuming it doesn't get crushed by stacks of doom. Situations like Thermopylae can be resolved by enough troops in the immediate battle area. Smaller nations have a tendency to become backward and have their peaceful victory options severely curtailed.

 

[Mouthwash]

Civ IV is the good one. I don't have much to say on top of what others have already posted, but it also has a huge, active modding scene (if you're just starting, use K-Mod). Despite its propaganda of being mod-friendly, I've heard Civ V is actually a lot harder to mod.

 

[Hygro]

If ya'll been to the front page you know @Kaitzilla 's vote

 

[Commodore]

Thinking about it a bit, I think Civ5's greatest virtue is that it allows the underdog to have multiple ways to come back fighting. Earlier Civ games fully embrace the Unstable Equilibrium trope. In Civ4, a small empire needs to ready the pointy sticks, assuming it doesn't get crushed by stacks of doom. Situations like Thermopylae can be resolved by enough troops in the immediate battle area. Smaller nations have a tendency to become backward and have their peaceful victory options severely curtailed.

And I think Civ 5 swung too far in the other direction. Now conquest is no longer a truly viable method of winning, which forces players to go for one of the peaceful victories. I get that Firaxis doesn't want Civ to be treated as a war game, but why not let players play it as a war game if they want to?

 

[Hygro]

And I think Civ 5 swung too far in the other direction. Now conquest is no longer a truly viable method of winning, which forces players to go for one of the peaceful victories. I get that Firaxis doesn't want Civ to be treated as a war game, but why not let players play it as a war game if they want to?

I find conquest in civ5 more than viable.

 

[Lexicus]

I find conquest in civ5 more than viable.

I won about 4/5 of the Civ V games I played with conquest, the other 1/5 are either diplomatic or science.

 

[rah]

It was hard to judge what was more boring. Dealing with the carpet of doom vs. repeatedly hitting next turn waiting to win another way. Either way it was rarely in doubt.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I didn't mind constantly hitting next turn for Civ4's space (two Engines and you still take that long to go to Alpha Centauri?) and diplo (okay, got the +1 attitude I needed, time for the next vote) victories. The cultural victory though, no thanks.

 

[Leathaface]

It's good to see IV winning the poll. There are many people who seemingly have only ever played V and swear by oath that it's the best Civilization game ever and you are outright wrong if you think otherwise.

 

[Lexicus]

It's good to see IV winning the poll.

I mean this is OT what'd you expect?