Civilization V or Civilization IV?

[Dijeangenie]

As the title says - I'm not trying to start a war here, I just fancy playing a 4x game and I have obviously heard great things about the series, which one should I pick? (Not played a Civ game before)

 

[Bateluer]

IV.

Civ5 was mostly created as a vehicle to sell DLC. It really is a disgrace to the franchise.

 

[Craig234]

IMO, the consensus:

If you want the game that's more challenging, has more details, is better for a more serious player, Civ IV.

Now my opinion on Civ V - if you want the one more accessbile and pretty smooth to play, more fun if you're a bit more casual, Civ V.

I found Civ V to be more fun, get in and play, while people who like a more detailed game, which seems to be most Civ players, seem to prefer IV.

FWIW, I play very lightly, on normal difficulty.

Note that the biggest criticisms of Civ V are before its expansion was out.

 

[Bateluer]

Note that the biggest criticisms of Civ V are before its expansion was out.

I did pick up the Gods and Kings exp on an Amazon sale for a few bucks, but haven't played it. The game was so foul the first time around, my motivation to try it again is pretty much nil. The jury is still out on the second expansion though, and I'm pretty sure they won't be correcting the deeper flaws with Civ5's mechanics, like 1UPT, civilization sizes, pacing, and whatnot.

 

[datalink7]

IV

I picked up God and Kings and while it improves V, it still isn't nearly as good as IV (particularly with mods).

 

[postmortemIA]

IV, and when you get really tired of it, V
IV should be much cheaper too, no point of paying more for worse game

 

[JujuFish]

SMAC is where it's at.

 

[pwoz]

I agree with others that IV is technically better. V is also very easy. In IV the highest I could beat was immortal and deity absolutely kicked my ass. In V deity is not really hard if you make it past the first 50 turns.

That being said, combat in IV is quite boring. You'll have a giant stack of doom versus their stack of doom and then it's pretty might a free reign once you clear that.

 

[Dijeangenie]

Looks like I will be picking up Civ IV then - presumably its worth getting the complete edition for a couple of quid more? - also they seem to have the dreaded Games for Windows live on the box art (like here - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sid-Meiers-...FICG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363439147&sr=8-1) does it require it?

 

[ramj70]

Looks like I will be picking up Civ IV then - presumably its worth getting the complete edition for a couple of quid more? - also they seem to have the dreaded Games for Windows live on the box art (like here - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sid-Meiers-...FICG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363439147&sr=8-1) does it require it?

I have the Civ IV complete edition and it didn't require Windows live even though it was on the box. Mine came with Civ IV Colonization also which was nice.

 

[Dijeangenie]

I have the Civ IV complete edition and it didn't require Windows live even though it was on the box. Mine came with Civ IV Colonization also which was nice.

Cool - looking at it again I think its maybe just the "games for windows" logo rather than the "games for windows live" logo!

 

[Agent11]

I like the religion system in V better, and the graphics are better in V. Although the free cities can be annoying if you let them.

 

[Lee Saxon]

I'm just gonna say it - I like V a little better.

I've wanted City-States since II, hexes are just better, infinite unit stacks were the worst (although I wish V would let you stack a little - 2 or 3 units), I like the religion system better...

Man, the system requirements are crazy, though. Processing AI turns is a CPU killer, terrain generation is a GPU (AND CPU) killer...

 

[HardcoreRobot]

combat in V is much more satisfying. stacks of doom were lame.

 

[darkewaffle]

Never played IV, but as a player new to the series I've had a ton of fun with V, particularly large scale multiplayer games with all my friends. But single player is pretty good too, especially on the higher difficulties. But I disagree that it's not hard if you make it past 50 turns; you can survive, but you have to pretty ruthlessly efficient to be able to win. I think I've won one immortal game thus far (and even then it was a bit lucky at the end) and no deity.

 

[el-Capitan]

I did pick up the Gods and Kings exp on an Amazon sale for a few bucks, but haven't played it. The game was so foul the first time around, my motivation to try it again is pretty much nil. The jury is still out on the second expansion though, and I'm pretty sure they won't be correcting the deeper flaws with Civ5's mechanics, like 1UPT, civilization sizes, pacing, and whatnot.

As someone who has played all five iterations to the death, I suggest you give V another try. It has come a loooong way since vanilla - as has IV.

 

[stevty2889]

With Gods and Kings expansion, I like V better. Before expansion, I had 20 hours in Civ V. After expansion, I'm up to >120 hours.

 

[desura]

I suggest King Arthur the Roleplaying game by Neocore games.

It's much better.

Civ IV and V I have played a lot. Basically, the games for me at least are about

1) coming up with some formula to test against game system.

For instance, let's get France and go down the Liberty tree (France has +1 culture per city) and also the religion tree

or

Let's do Rome, try to find iron, build as many legions as possible and attack enemy

or,

let's be Huns and early-rush a neighboring civ with battering ram + horse archers.

etc

then you basically babysit the experimental formula for 10 hours. And with Civ, basically the games are won about 1/2 to 2/3rds of the way through and the final playthrough is basically mopping up the rest of the map. Unlike previous versions, there are no scrambles to prevent say a diplomatic victory with the apocolipctic palace or a space race victory by capturing capital before reaching alpha centauri.

But uh, King Arthur the ROleplaying game is better. Much better. You have seasons. An interesting storyline. Genuinely cool artwork. Great tactical battles. Don't bother with civ at all. It's horrible.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Don't bother with civ at all. It's horrible.

wow. I get you like King Arthur, but hyperbole much?

I haven't played V so can't offer comparisons. But if you haven't played Civ IV ever that is a game you need to play anyway. Then if you're some kind of weirdo and don't like it; try V.

 

[diesbudt]

combat in V is much more satisfying. stacks of doom were lame.

Oh god this....

 

[M0rphz0r]

I suggest King Arthur the Roleplaying game by Neocore games.

It's much better.

Civ IV and V I have played a lot. Basically, the games for me at least are about

1) coming up with some formula to test against game system.

For instance, let's get France and go down the Liberty tree (France has +1 culture per city) and also the religion tree

or

Let's do Rome, try to find iron, build as many legions as possible and attack enemy

or,

let's be Huns and early-rush a neighboring civ with battering ram + horse archers.

etc

then you basically babysit the experimental formula for 10 hours. And with Civ, basically the games are won about 1/2 to 2/3rds of the way through and the final playthrough is basically mopping up the rest of the map. Unlike previous versions, there are no scrambles to prevent say a diplomatic victory with the apocolipctic palace or a space race victory by capturing capital before reaching alpha centauri.

But uh, King Arthur the ROleplaying game is better. Much better. You have seasons. An interesting storyline. Genuinely cool artwork. Great tactical battles. Don't bother with civ at all. It's horrible.

The OP wanted to know whether he should play Civ IV or Civ V. Your opinion on King Arthur the Role-playing Wargame (which belongs to a different genre, since it's a mix of RTT and RPG and doesn't have turn-based combat) is utterly irrelevant in this context.

Furthermore, Civ rules.

I haven't played Civ V enough to give an informed opinion, but I've spent about 300 hours with Civ IV; you really can't go wrong with it if you're into turn-based strategy.

 

[sigurros81]

Unless they've patched the hell out of it, I found the AI in Civ5 to be rather random and arbitrary in the most annoying way. It really is the biggest turn-off for me. I have both Civ4 and Civ5 on Steam and I always find myself clicking on Civ4 to give it a few hours of turn-base goodness. I've tried several times to give Civ5 another chance, but after 50-80 turns, the enemy AIs just frustrate me.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong but I feel like I cannot win a game of Civ5 without resorting to a military civilization, as any other path you go tend to piss off your neighbors and they end up warring with you.

 

[desura]

wow. I get you like King Arthur, but hyperbole much?

I haven't played V so can't offer comparisons. But if you haven't played Civ IV ever that is a game you need to play anyway. Then if you're some kind of weirdo and don't like it; try V.

I've played IV. It's just a cluttered mess, really. Later on, turns take like half an hour unless you turn on quick combat.

 

[Kadarin]

I prefer IV; I just couldn't get into V. I'd love to see an updated IV with hex tiles, though.

I'd really love to see an updated SMAC, but I doubt that will ever happen.

 

[desura]

The OP wanted to know whether he should play Civ IV or Civ V. Your opinion on King Arthur the Role-playing Wargame (which belongs to a different genre, since it's a mix of RTT and RPG and doesn't have turn-based combat) is utterly irrelevant in this context.

Furthermore, Civ rules.

I haven't played Civ V enough to give an informed opinion, but I've spent about 300 hours with Civ IV; you really can't go wrong with it if you're into turn-based strategy.

Eh, the way I see it, King Arthur is similar to Civ because

1. top-down view (obviously)

2. fighting over towns and territory

3. have to manage economy. Can build buildings to improve territories, but also have to watch national budget.

4. move around discrete armies. In Civ, you tend to move around armies in groups, so it's effectively the same thing

What's interesting is that there's more character. So like, where in Civ you'll have a city that is unhappy, in King Arthur, the unhappy region will be plagued by bandits, or nether-creatures, and you'll have to devote one of your armies to taking care of that, leaving one of your other regions exposed.

You also have to deal more with internal politics. Your heroes will sometimes mutiny and leave. You also have to deal with their wives and how that affects the domestic economy.

Ultimately I found King Arthur to be similar enough to Civ for where it mattered (top-down big picture strategy) but with lots more personality, and far more streamlined *yet* intricate combat and economic systems.

You can also opt to auto-resolve battles, which makes it all top-down view.