Civ 4 vs. Civ 5
- Thread starter Arnie
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 16 May 2005
- Posts
- 31,297
- Location
- Manchester
Don't do either - go all the way back to Alpha Centauri instead 
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 520
An expansion for Civ 5 is due out soonish, "Gods and Kings", which adds religion and spies back to the game, 2 aspects which it lacked that resulted in a fair bit of criticism of the game.
Why not give civ 4 a go (or as suggested grab Alpha Centauri from gog! classic!) and see what you think before spending cash on civ 5...
Might be worth watching a "lets play" of Civ 5 on youtube to see what you think?
I'm fairly sure there is a demo too.
Why not give civ 4 a go (or as suggested grab Alpha Centauri from gog! classic!) and see what you think before spending cash on civ 5...
Might be worth watching a "lets play" of Civ 5 on youtube to see what you think?
I'm fairly sure there is a demo too.
I don't have a real favorite, civ5 has many improved things, both are quite a different game imho.
First play 4, then later 5.
Imho crappy in 5:
Hex instd. of grid.
No unit stacking ( painfully slow game at the end when you've won already and have an army 5x as large as the AI, but can't finish the game quickly as you have to move 50-100 units per turn 1 by one instead of in 2 or 3 big stacks.
In the beginning, happiness, even if you have all the luxury resources, it's hard to keep it up with growth of your cities if you're a decent micro-manager.
Rest is pretty good imho
Crappy in 4:
(Imho) culture, what you can do with gold, AI only making military... The ''fat cross''/ crappy city working limits, and city maintenance costs.
Then civ5 has the funky new policies system, I've grown fond of ranged combat in civ5, I've grown fond of city states and natural wonders, and also the happiness system ain't bad. Also like the way research & gold are seperated now.
But the no stacking means its boring/slow endgame where you are most powerful but have to go on and on to actually get a victory.
And hex means only 6 directions to go to instead of 9, combat has become FAR easier, especially against a dumb ai, you can pretty much own the AI with an army half as small (that applies to civ4 too I guess with good use of colleteral damage against ''stacks of doom'', but it's got worse, if you have a good chokepoint you can hold a 15 man army with a 3 man army so to speak now).
I never understood the whining about ''stacks of doom'' in civ4, of course you can put a whole army in a tile/hex ( which in reality would be hundreds of square miles) and I don't think it's realistic I can hold off a whole army of 20 (or more!) spear, swordsmen, etc, with 2 swordsmen and a chariot archer.
Endgame in civ5 is simply boring, the beginning is somehow always tough, very tough ( I play at Emperor difficulty level so ai ''cheats''), but near the endgame it's still Modern armor & stealth bombers vs (old) canons and renaissance riflemen. And it's painfully slow when you can't simply stack up 10 modern armor and blitzkrieg to the AI capital but have to slowly move em 1 by one
, and spend 1-2 more hours more on a game from a certain point that should be over in 5-10 minutes.
Civ5 is the only game really which has this problem, in any other strategy game, the moment you really own the ai, have an army 2x as big and modern than the AI, the AI no decent defenses, etc, you throw you army at the enemy easily and end the game in a couple of minutes without too much hassle, civ4 was already slow endgame, civ5 is even WORSE, far worse. I can't remember this problem in games like erm, Rise of Nations, Supcom, Age of empires, Rome total war, Command and conquer, Sins of a Solar Empire, etc... That is the only main flaw imho, even if you're 5x as strong, you still have to spend ages winning the game, rather than just sitting back, throwing an army 5x as big at the enemy or a rally point in the enemy base with all your factories/barracks working, sitting back, and watching the carnage.
Endgame in most strategy games is awesome, carnage, explosions, voilence, easy, etc...
In civ5 ( civ 4 also a little bit, but to a far lesser extent thanks to unit stacking), the end is tiring, ''meh'', and boring. It just goes on and on. Shame, as otherwise both civ4 and 5 are epic games which will always be in my top10 games of all time.
First play 4, then later 5.
Imho crappy in 5:
Hex instd. of grid.
No unit stacking ( painfully slow game at the end when you've won already and have an army 5x as large as the AI, but can't finish the game quickly as you have to move 50-100 units per turn 1 by one instead of in 2 or 3 big stacks.
In the beginning, happiness, even if you have all the luxury resources, it's hard to keep it up with growth of your cities if you're a decent micro-manager.
Rest is pretty good imho
Crappy in 4:
(Imho) culture, what you can do with gold, AI only making military... The ''fat cross''/ crappy city working limits, and city maintenance costs.
Then civ5 has the funky new policies system, I've grown fond of ranged combat in civ5, I've grown fond of city states and natural wonders, and also the happiness system ain't bad. Also like the way research & gold are seperated now.
But the no stacking means its boring/slow endgame where you are most powerful but have to go on and on to actually get a victory.
And hex means only 6 directions to go to instead of 9, combat has become FAR easier, especially against a dumb ai, you can pretty much own the AI with an army half as small (that applies to civ4 too I guess with good use of colleteral damage against ''stacks of doom'', but it's got worse, if you have a good chokepoint you can hold a 15 man army with a 3 man army so to speak now).
I never understood the whining about ''stacks of doom'' in civ4, of course you can put a whole army in a tile/hex ( which in reality would be hundreds of square miles) and I don't think it's realistic I can hold off a whole army of 20 (or more!) spear, swordsmen, etc, with 2 swordsmen and a chariot archer.
Endgame in civ5 is simply boring, the beginning is somehow always tough, very tough ( I play at Emperor difficulty level so ai ''cheats''), but near the endgame it's still Modern armor & stealth bombers vs (old) canons and renaissance riflemen. And it's painfully slow when you can't simply stack up 10 modern armor and blitzkrieg to the AI capital but have to slowly move em 1 by one
, and spend 1-2 more hours more on a game from a certain point that should be over in 5-10 minutes.Civ5 is the only game really which has this problem, in any other strategy game, the moment you really own the ai, have an army 2x as big and modern than the AI, the AI no decent defenses, etc, you throw you army at the enemy easily and end the game in a couple of minutes without too much hassle, civ4 was already slow endgame, civ5 is even WORSE, far worse. I can't remember this problem in games like erm, Rise of Nations, Supcom, Age of empires, Rome total war, Command and conquer, Sins of a Solar Empire, etc... That is the only main flaw imho, even if you're 5x as strong, you still have to spend ages winning the game, rather than just sitting back, throwing an army 5x as big at the enemy or a rally point in the enemy base with all your factories/barracks working, sitting back, and watching the carnage.
Endgame in most strategy games is awesome, carnage, explosions, voilence, easy, etc...
In civ5 ( civ 4 also a little bit, but to a far lesser extent thanks to unit stacking), the end is tiring, ''meh'', and boring. It just goes on and on. Shame, as otherwise both civ4 and 5 are epic games which will always be in my top10 games of all time.
Last edited:
What snowdog posted, I found true on a heavy weekend of playing Civ V - the endgame is so painful, what's the point? Then again, my first Civ was IV which means my standards were high.
I found religion to be quite annoying, yes it added depth but I was sick of the 'herp derp you are not the same religion as us -10' thing after a while.
I found religion to be quite annoying, yes it added depth but I was sick of the 'herp derp you are not the same religion as us -10' thing after a while.
2 is the most enjoyable from a music front
3 has the biggest and most dominating world maps
4 is the most addictive
5 probably the best but needs some work (like 3 and 4 did as vanilla 3/4 missed so much compared to the final release)
5 got be down as there is something about it I don't find quite as engrossing (4 I would just start a game and could play for ours till something went horribly wrong) but it is a lot better than the previous iterations. Mainly as the diplomacy in 3/4 is so horribly basic that you can see the game assume you need invading despite the ai having no chance of taking anything you have. Religion wasn't implemented right in 4 as well which was a shame, nothing more dull than you aren't a Hindu DIE! (hardly think world diplomacy has ever been conducted with that).
The end game in all of them is a bit rubbish, 5 is frustrating as the map's and game engine are never optimised for the large cut you end up with by then, so the game crawls along horribly. All others are hindered with stacks of doom, which can be summed up with the fight that "I have more troops than you" which has 0 tactics involved and just how many beast military cities you can produce (something that's a little tamer in 5, its quite hard to stick a city in the hills and expect a decent population with really high production).
There's lots of fun to be had in them all, but 5 (for me) has the best potential (party as I haven't blown a few thousand hours on them like 3 and 4, ruining the game surprise a bit for me).
3 has the biggest and most dominating world maps
4 is the most addictive
5 probably the best but needs some work (like 3 and 4 did as vanilla 3/4 missed so much compared to the final release)
5 got be down as there is something about it I don't find quite as engrossing (4 I would just start a game and could play for ours till something went horribly wrong) but it is a lot better than the previous iterations. Mainly as the diplomacy in 3/4 is so horribly basic that you can see the game assume you need invading despite the ai having no chance of taking anything you have. Religion wasn't implemented right in 4 as well which was a shame, nothing more dull than you aren't a Hindu DIE! (hardly think world diplomacy has ever been conducted with that).
The end game in all of them is a bit rubbish, 5 is frustrating as the map's and game engine are never optimised for the large cut you end up with by then, so the game crawls along horribly. All others are hindered with stacks of doom, which can be summed up with the fight that "I have more troops than you" which has 0 tactics involved and just how many beast military cities you can produce (something that's a little tamer in 5, its quite hard to stick a city in the hills and expect a decent population with really high production).
There's lots of fun to be had in them all, but 5 (for me) has the best potential (party as I haven't blown a few thousand hours on them like 3 and 4, ruining the game surprise a bit for me).
I recently bought Civ5 in the Steam weekend sale - I hadnt bothered previously due to the criticism the game received. I have to say, Snowdogs post sums up my feelings for the game. Although it has a much more polished feel, more innovations like proper ranged attacks, policies etc, it just doesn't grab me like Civ4 does.
Ive lost countless hours to Civ4. It's a game that at times I could not put down. And I can come back to it after months of not playing it and still enjoy a good long game. But with Civ5, Ive got one main game on the go and Im kind of bored of it already. I think the changed combat is the reason. Im not sold on hex layouts, and the removal of unit stacking is a step backward. True, it means you cant stack your entire army in one square, but as mentioned is this a problem? One square is meant to represent a huge area. I would have preferred a stack limit of 5 to 6 or something, rather than none at all. It makes combat slow and clunky and to be honest, a complete pain in the arse when you're trying to deploy and move an army. It feels like a complete chore.
I do prefer some elements though. Ranged attacks, and the ability to destroy a unit outright from range makes units like archers, catapaults and cannon much more useful. I havent reached the modern era in my Civ5 game, but I want to see if this also improved naval combat (one thing that could have done with more attention in Civ4 I think). I think theyve also revamped the hitpoints system which finally does away with some of the more silly Civ combat outcomes. My helicopter gunship or modern armour should never ever be able to be destroyed by a spearman or archer, no matter how much damage it has taken.
All in all Im not really sold on Civ5 yet. I will stick with it and see how it goes, but I think I'd prefer a combination of the new features and improved graphics engine in the Civ4 framework.
Ive lost countless hours to Civ4. It's a game that at times I could not put down. And I can come back to it after months of not playing it and still enjoy a good long game. But with Civ5, Ive got one main game on the go and Im kind of bored of it already. I think the changed combat is the reason. Im not sold on hex layouts, and the removal of unit stacking is a step backward. True, it means you cant stack your entire army in one square, but as mentioned is this a problem? One square is meant to represent a huge area. I would have preferred a stack limit of 5 to 6 or something, rather than none at all. It makes combat slow and clunky and to be honest, a complete pain in the arse when you're trying to deploy and move an army. It feels like a complete chore.
I do prefer some elements though. Ranged attacks, and the ability to destroy a unit outright from range makes units like archers, catapaults and cannon much more useful. I havent reached the modern era in my Civ5 game, but I want to see if this also improved naval combat (one thing that could have done with more attention in Civ4 I think). I think theyve also revamped the hitpoints system which finally does away with some of the more silly Civ combat outcomes. My helicopter gunship or modern armour should never ever be able to be destroyed by a spearman or archer, no matter how much damage it has taken.
All in all Im not really sold on Civ5 yet. I will stick with it and see how it goes, but I think I'd prefer a combination of the new features and improved graphics engine in the Civ4 framework.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 2,826
- Location
- London
5 Simplified a lot of things which enraged the die hard fans of 4... for a casual gamer though this was not a big issue so i enjoyed it very much, just like i enjoyed 4, and 2 (didn't play 3).
In short well worth buying the next time its on sale on steam (all the time)
In short well worth buying the next time its on sale on steam (all the time)
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,185
- Location
- Paisley
I dunno how many times Ive tried to get into 5 and its never clicked yet.
I recently got 5 and have played it a bit - it is extremely different to 4. Very much so. At first I hated it, but there was enough to keep me coming back. I think it's a lot easier than 4, and that could be why it appeals to me (was never very good at Civ no matter how much I loved it). Diplomacy is still terrible though. Why they can't make a decent diplomacy model I don't know 
I'd defo say play 4 a whole lot since you have it. Get 5 another time, when/if you start to get bored of it.
I'd defo say play 4 a whole lot since you have it. Get 5 another time, when/if you start to get bored of it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 5,248
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
I think both are great, but if I had to choose one to go and play right now, it would be V - purely because as I grow older, I like my games to have a little more polish - and while V had plenty of things which annoyed me, I liked how it played 
Ah yes, imho 3 was the best in terms of custom scenario's. It was really epic maps like Japan vs US in the pacific or colonizing the new world, in civ3 the whole rules changed significantly in some and that was really fun, civ4 scenario's were less interesting imho in comaprison and 5 even worse. The Mongol scenerio is ''meh''.
I understand why some people want tactics, but come on, in my latest game I have 150+ units and the 2nd strongest player has about 10-20, It's a ***** every turn moving the armies around. I play by locking out other players of good city locations forcing them to build rubbish cities in tundra and deserts and such or declaring war on me. Not to mention me being 20 techs ahead of the rest.
I completely forgot about Religion in Civ4 haha, but I never had much problems with it, I changed to the religion of the AI I wanted to be mates with asap and also adopted Free religion ASAP...
My problem in pretty much every civ game has always been:
I struggle early on, less so if I play at ''epic'' instead of ''standard'' but still, early game is hard, but at the endgame It's usually extremely easy even at high cheating ai difficulty levels. I play @ emperor difficulty @ any mapsize...
The AI's in 5 are somehow very agressive, also against each other, I could sit back last game and watch the 2 most powerful ones battle each other while I was turtling and passing them on the economy front. It was literally a word war the whole game. I think they have been programmed to murder out the player that built cities in places where they wanted a city.
That's why I play civ5(and4) mainly, to out-play the other ECONOMICALLY, not militarily.
I understand why some people want tactics, but come on, in my latest game I have 150+ units and the 2nd strongest player has about 10-20, It's a ***** every turn moving the armies around. I play by locking out other players of good city locations forcing them to build rubbish cities in tundra and deserts and such or declaring war on me. Not to mention me being 20 techs ahead of the rest.
I completely forgot about Religion in Civ4 haha, but I never had much problems with it, I changed to the religion of the AI I wanted to be mates with asap and also adopted Free religion ASAP...
My problem in pretty much every civ game has always been:
I struggle early on, less so if I play at ''epic'' instead of ''standard'' but still, early game is hard, but at the endgame It's usually extremely easy even at high cheating ai difficulty levels. I play @ emperor difficulty @ any mapsize...
The AI's in 5 are somehow very agressive, also against each other, I could sit back last game and watch the 2 most powerful ones battle each other while I was turtling and passing them on the economy front. It was literally a word war the whole game. I think they have been programmed to murder out the player that built cities in places where they wanted a city.
Last edited: