Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Been considering getting one of these for the last few days, but have heard mixed reviews for Civ V, and overly positive views for Civ IV, so was wondering to any folks out there who have played both, any suggestions or points you can add to my thoughts on making my final decision?

I've played both, and really enjoyed them. Civilization 4 is a classic Civ game- if you liked any of the previous ones, you will like it. Wonders are mighty things, you can found religions, Armies are massive stacked steamrollers, and there are some paths to victory that just aren't present in 5 yet- like corporation wins.

Civilization 5 feels smaller scale- armies cannot be stacked, and ranged units exist. You can bargain with, or conquer neutral city-states. It almost has a more intimate tone to it- I spend more time managing my cities and tending to my individual units and cities wants than I do in Civ 4. There is a period of adjustment. It took me a month or so to adjust, but once I did I found it a really great experience. I haven't touched its expansion yet.

Both if you like Civ 5?

There are pretty different.

Well I cut my teeth on Civilisation 2 and loved the complexity of it. I have since played Civilization Revolution on the xbox 360, and really liked that as well, even if it was much more console friendly, and not as complex.

With a PC that could run both at top spec at the same time, i have been considering getting one. I was initially going to get Civ V, but there are a lot of really negative reviews on Amazon, however over at GAME its quite positive.

Hence asking here and to those who have had experience in them.

Civ IV is better in nearly every way, and cheaper.

If you like both, wait a bit and get them as "complete" editions, the newer Civs really need their add ons since they come with less and less content from start.

The scale is also going down, from massive in Civ2/3 to medium in 4.
I'd try this site for good advice on Civ: http://www.civfanatics.com/

Yeah, the reviews of Civ IV are mostly in the high positive everywhere, thus my quandry.

Has anyone picked up the new Civ 5 expansion, does it fix any of the issues, or I am really better off getting the game of the year editon of Civ IV for quarter of the price it would cost to get Civ 5 and the expansion?

I am starting to sway towards the former game at the mo.


edit - ah cheers for the link 1hadhq, will check it out.

I will say this about Civ 5 - it crashes like nobodies business on my computer. Hangs, bluescreens, the lot. I've tried everything, but it just keeps happening. I've never had any trouble with Civ 4, and frankly, haven't felt like I got much more out of 5 than 4, so would advise picking up 4 over 5.

I love both of them. Civ V's recent expansion, Gods and Generals, added a lot of content to Civ V, including a slew of new civilizations and a religion system; before these additions were made Civ5 felt fairly incomplete when compared to Civ4 (which benefitted from multiple expansions). Now that Civ5 has begun to receive expansion content, it's really coming into it's own.

The biggest difference between the two, in my opinion, is the fact that in civ4, you can stack a hundred units in a single tile, whereas in civ 5, it's one unit per tile. One unit per tile makes your units feel like massive armies, and you need to put a lot more thought into deployments and maneuvers- in civ 4, you just move your infinitely large army (the Stack of Doom) from city to city. The AI in both games is not that great a general; in Civ4 the computer will never really develop effective means to stop your stack (ie massed artillery, bombers, or nukes); in Civ 5, the AI lacks the foresight of a human player and often fails to protect archers, artillery, etc. behind frontline troops.

I'd advise grabbing Civ 5, but if you do spring for Civ 4, you'll no doubt enjoy it.

I just can't get around the giant looking horses and people. Why do they have to be so big?

In comparison between the two; Civilization V is like a quickie in the back alley, its satisfying but its not the full experience. Civilization IV is like going down to the local 'hobby shop' and meeting up with someone you like in a nice room with scented candles and some lovely Marvin Gaye playing in the background. Sure there are some relatively useless aspects, but overall its much better.

If you are one of those people who go "Wtf man, they made everything easier and less complex! Casual gamers!!!" then DONT get Civ 5

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is Fall From Heaven II. It basically turns Civ 4 into the Forgotten Realms.

Or if you want a more complex game than Civilization IV there's always Europa Universalis III. You can't do everything militarily and its more focused on the diplomatic aspects of world conquest, in fact I was watching a friend of mine play and he had it set up so that when his king died he somehow gained control of half of Europe. I think it had something to do with prearranged marriages and such.

I just started playing Civ 5 yesterday... in fact I didn't go to sleep... my game isn't even done yet. I'm having fun with it. Mind you I'm awful at these games and am playing at the easiest setting haha. I've never tried 4 but always wanted to. I hear that's a better game than 5.

For me, 4 was better just because it had Nimoy. I don't think I've noticed any other differences.

CiV V has the superior combat system and graphics.

That's about it.

Otherwise it's dumbed-down, specialisation is taken out (if you decide to be a peace-loving hippy beatnik and get attacked, it doesn't matter if you didn't spec for war since you can just buy entire armies out of nowhere now) and the game feels like it's just being played *for* you. It's very forgiving and there's little that you can actually do wrong. Add to that a simpler tech tree and general lack of depth and you see why I go back to Civ IV every time....

I just wish that there was a mod to give CiV IV the hex system and one-unit-in-a-tile features from CiV V. That would be the ultimate CiV.

Civ IV is fantastic. Civ V is terrible.
It's a no brainer really.

I prefer civ 5 myself. It needs some improvements, but it is still generally much more focused than civ 4 was.

I've never play Civ4 before. .... but have been playing Colonization (using Civ4 engine) for some weeks...
and the game seems to be a bit hard for me.
also I DID play Civ5. starting with French, then some other nations. but never play Siamese before (nor include this nation into any settings

I don't understand WHY Sid Meier writes unit tech tree that Musket troops appears before 'cannon' ? in real life. Cannons comes first. then musket follows.

Lone Cat wrote:
I don't understand WHY Sid Meier writes unit tech tree that Musket troops appears before 'cannon' ? in real life. Cannons comes first. then musket follows.

Civ tech trees never make sense. A joke back then was that you can learn to write before you can read

Melissia wrote:I prefer civ 5 myself. It needs some improvements, but it is still generally much more focused than civ 4 was.

I might have to ask you to define that.

I think that Civ 5 'umss and errs'; beyond the social policies, you really don't specialise your Civ in the same way that you did in 4 and that's how I'd define 'focus'. If you wanted to have a cash machine civ before, say, the Renaissance, that was something you really had to gear yourself towards. Likewise spec'ing research meant a completely different part of the tech tree to the path trod by militarists. I'd say that the game got more forgiving in the more modern eras, but you had to *survive* that long. Ultimately if I was on multiplayer with friends and one decided to spec himself toward conquest and I did my usual lubby-dubby bubble of research strategy, I'd stand no chance.

One thing I *am* glad to lose from Civ IV is collateral damage... there was nothing more infuriating than seeing your stack of riflemen die to macemen because the AI was spamming suicidal catapults again

Henners91 wrote:I might have to ask you to define that.

Civ4 has a lot of irrelevant nonsense that can get in the way of enjoying a good game.

Something to keep in mind - Civ5 has mod support off the Steam Workshop now, super easy to install and use mods. It's just getting started, but should be a nice boost to the game.

Definitely Civ 4. V has nice graphics, slightly better presentation and UI, but thats about it.

This is the problem with big production studios being involved with games these days, or at the very least shows how all the big $ coming into games are a two-edged sword. Civ V is much more accessible to a newby than the other Civ games ever were, but at the same time it seems overly domesticated. You just don't have the range of ways to play that you had in Civ 4, and there are dozens of little things that have been removed from the experience. The AI is also absolutely terrible - its been made a little better by the expansion pack, but now the other states seem to alternative between being like sheep and blood-crazed psychos.

Don't get me wrong - you'll play and enjoy Civ 5, but after a few extended playthroughs you will have seen everything the game has to offer. Civ IV has much more reply value.

kenshin620 wrote:

Lone Cat wrote:
I don't understand WHY Sid Meier writes unit tech tree that Musket troops appears before 'cannon' ? in real life. Cannons comes first. then musket follows.

Civ tech trees never make sense. A joke back then was that you can learn to write before you can read

OMG I haven't laughed that hard in a while, crying with laughter here! haha That's brilliant! Thanks for sharing!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And to answer the OP.

Go with Civ4. It's one of the best games of all-time. Civ5 is good, but like so many others it feels to me as if it lost the epic scale of it's predecessors. I just couldn't get into it.

Be warned though I have lost entire weekends to this game. It is seriously addictive. I dread to think of the hours I lost in my teens playing Civ2, and it didn't get much better with Civ4...

I have played it so much that when I finally go to bed I will dream of civilization all night and plan my little expansions lol

Personally;

I loved the early stages of Civ5 a whole lot more. It feels so much more personal, you feel more in-control of your own empire, deciding and judging how it grows; every decision you make seems to have a major impact.

But when it gets larger, when the scale grows, Civ5 just doesn't cut it. You just end up skipping turns waiting years for things to build or construct. Civ4 got that down perfectly; you always felt as if you had something to do, regardless of the time period; you felt like some Grand Ruler atop a mighty empire. In Civ5, you felt like some Prefect to a mighty empire, governing a region in your Rulers stead.

But I prefer Civ5. Personal preference, I guess. I like the personal feel of things.

Civ 5 just feels so lazy... it's little things.

Like the loss of voice acting for your units that was based on your nation choice.

The loss of music based on your historical time period.

The loss of national music.

The loss of city music (when you zoomed in on them).

The loss of the game clock.

The loss (on release) of multiplayer that worked.

The loss of a whole bunch of multiplayer options.

The loss of health.

There's prolly a fair few more but this was just a quick brainstorm.

IMO CiV 5 was the first CiV game approached with the mentality 'People will invariably buy this so what can we release at the bare minimum?' I'm not going to say that it was as bad as, say, CoD MW3 as a sequel to MW2, as they definitely tried to change things, but the production values were nowhere near as high. Hell, I doubt Mr. Meier was even involved.

I just got Civ V per Steam Deal.


After some hours I am really pleased. Yes its more flat and sometime I miss something, but on the other hand something just feels more real.

I really like the city state concept or the city defense or the street system. Much more depth, I luckly pay for that with the city health system.

I REALLLY,REALLY can understand why they dropped the clock. Its just plain silly.

You may want to look at www.warlockmasterofthearcane.com. I picked it up off Steam (and it's DLCs) for ~$15.00.

For some reason, I can not add this as an URL.