Why is Civ5 better than Civ4 - worth a read

[Yosh1]

Back in the day I bought Civ2 and looked in wondered at the 4 inch thick instruction manual on the way home in the car.

Then I aquired Civ 4 *cough* and the game was absolutely ace, loved the mods, it ran well, played it so much it was partially involved in a relationship failure!

I just got Civ5 as I have no woman to spend my money on, and dont get me wrong.... I did not want more of the same I wanted better.

Massive Phail, would have taken it back to the shop and swapped it for fifa11 if I could find the receipt but thats life.

I miss the control, It's not as invloved as others, it's like playing with auto-pilot. I must be missing something. It must have an aspect that I dont know about..........

BUT tell me WHY it is better than Civ4 please.

Peace love and happy gaming
Yosh

[MoistPancake]

Yep, Civ IV at release was considered perfect and everybody loved it compared to Civ III. Civ IV was perfect and Civ V should have been Civ 4.5 with no real changes. Civ V will never improve and this is the best it will ever be. Stop playing now. [/sarcasm]

[NTense]

Why does it necessarily have to be better then it's predacessor? It is an entirely different game, with graphics updated to today's expectations. Civ4 is still fully functional if you prefer that style of play. If you're ready to let the old days go and move on to Civ5 then welcome! If not, please no more comparisons, each has it's pros and cons, there is no better

[Otakkun]

I think that V is good, and I don't find as much patching needed as most people, but I do understand where the bulk of the complaints are coming from. Diplomacy is a bit whack, and I would like replay added back in.

I don't know. *shrug* I'm not a fanatic, but I'm definitely a fan of this one.

[Jazzterisk]

I would never say Civ V is better than IV.
Civ V is certainly a bigger change than IV was from III. However, are the changes for the better.

Yes and no.

Better: 1UPT and ranged combat. Combat in general is much more fun and strategic. Graphics are much better. Strategic resources are really cool (e.g. only can build limited units per resource).

Changed but not better or worse: Social policies are an interesting change from civics and I like them as a different way of simulating the whole government thing. I can`t say they are better or worse. Barbarian camps (I like them the same as the roaming hoards in Civ IV). I do miss the barbarians building their own city though. City states are interesting but they are too simple at this time as there are limited ways to interact with them (again, this could be vastly improved with a patch or expansion).

Worse: Diplomacy is much much worse (however, it has the potential to be improved). Terrain improvements are worse (there is no variety). Victory options are poorly implemented as usually you are forced into a domination route by the overly aggressive AI.

That`s just a short blurb on some of my impressions.

The one thing I will say in favor of Civ IV being a much better step up from Civ III than Civ V was from IV is that after IV came out I never went back to Civ III. However, I still find myself playing IV now and then.

I really like Civ V but IV (with patches and expansions) is a very very good game. In my view civ IV approached perfection for a strategy game. There are things I would change but it is so good.
I think the devs realized this and that`s why they went in such a radical direction which I applaud them for however, there are a lot of rough edges in civ V.

In summary, I would say Civ IV (patches + expansions) is a better game than civ V. But Civ V has a ton of potential. If the devs release some expansions which build upon the base they`ve built it could definitely equal or surpass Civ IV.

[jpinard]

* Hexes.
* I like social policies (but they're poorly balanced which takes the fun out of it).
* Graphics.
* Emotes by leaders.
* Ranged combat is fun.
* Intro video.

[Nickotene]

Why is Civ5 better than Civ4?

No unit stacking – the days of building a massive military are thankfully over and therefore you can now complete each turn in a reasonable time.

Hex tiles – so simple, so effective.

Ranged units – early units are now ranged!

Graphics – even on my system which is at the low end of the recommended spec it looks great.


The forthcoming (and much needed patch) will sort out many of the negative issues I have with the game.

Latterly with Civ4 I only played modded scenario games such as the brilliant Rhye's and Fall and the Second World War games. For me the standard game, even with add ons such as BTS lacked interest after a while. I needed a new challenge and Civ5 gives that to me.

[tarkin1980]

Sadly, I've stopped playing single player Civ V since the AI is so utterly useless, but thats pretty much my only gripe with Civ V. Other than that it is VASTLY superior to Civ IV, imho. I'm mostly into multi player and there's nothing in the world that could make me go back to Civ IV. Stack of doom and kamikaze artillery (no ranged attacks) utterly broke Civ IV for me.

Here's my list of why Civ V is a better game:

No stack of doom
Ranged combat
Combat in general is more fun
Hexes
Social Policies
Start locations in multi player seems more balanced (in Civ IV you got shafted by start loc every other game)
Civilization traits are more interesting and diverse (although some of them are utterly useless :P)

There's probably more but those are the most important ones.

[Davetopia]

Different engine, different rulesets... Not better, just a different experience. Also can't fully compare until some expansions roll out. I love Civ IV but I have played it to death! So until burnout wears off, I am loving civ V because it is so radically different.


It is not some amazing strategy game yet. I have my favorites, but it's close. With some tweaks I could easily call it one of my favorites. (my favorite btw, were all on nintendo and super nintendo - nobunaga's ambition, romance of the three kingdoms, and byzantum empire FTW!)

[sirwill72]

I would never say Civ V is better than IV.
Civ V is certainly a bigger change than IV was from III. However, are the changes for the better.

Yes and no.

Better: 1UPT and ranged combat. Combat in general is much more fun and strategic. Graphics are much better. Strategic resources are really cool (e.g. only can build limited units per resource).

Changed but not better or worse: Social policies are an interesting change from civics and I like them as a different way of simulating the whole government thing. I can`t say they are better or worse. Barbarian camps (I like them the same as the roaming hoards in Civ IV). I do miss the barbarians building their own city though. City states are interesting but they are too simple at this time as there are limited ways to interact with them (again, this could be vastly improved with a patch or expansion).

Worse: Diplomacy is much much worse (however, it has the potential to be improved). Terrain improvements are worse (there is no variety). Victory options are poorly implemented as usually you are forced into a domination route by the overly aggressive AI.

That`s just a short blurb on some of my impressions.

The one thing I will say in favor of Civ IV being a much better step up from Civ III than Civ V was from IV is that after IV came out I never went back to Civ III. However, I still find myself playing IV now and then.

I really like Civ V but IV (with patches and expansions) is a very very good game. In my view civ IV approached perfection for a strategy game. There are things I would change but it is so good.
I think the devs realized this and that`s why they went in such a radical direction which I applaud them for however, there are a lot of rough edges in civ V.

In summary, I would say Civ IV (patches + expansions) is a better game than civ V. But Civ V has a ton of potential. If the devs release some expansions which build upon the base they`ve built it could definitely equal or surpass Civ IV.

Great post! I agree 100%.

[Davor]

Your post "Phails on so may ways, it was not worth the read.

Back in the day I bought Civ2 and looked in wondered at the 4 inch thick instruction manual on the way home in the car.

Hope you were not driving.

Then I aquired Civ 4 *cough* and the game was absolutely ace, loved the mods, it ran well, played it so much it was partially involved in a relationship failure!

I hated Civ IV on release. Firaxis has not learned nothing from this release.

Also, you talk about mods. So that must mean you waited months or years after the release of Civ IV to play those mods. How come you not giving Civ V the months or years to play those mods as well? There fore your "review or opnion" is invalid then. If you compare Civ IV to Civ V then fine, but to measure the game on mods? You are not givning the modding community time yet. So that part is not valid then. Compare what Firaxis makes to what Firaxis makes.

I just got Civ5 as I have no woman to spend my money on, and dont get me wrong.... I did not want more of the same I wanted better.

*insults* What is your point? As you say, if you spent the money on a woman, she would be gone eventually, at least you will always have Civ V with you, unless Steam goes under or you decide to not play Civ V. So again, what is your point?

Massive Phail, would have taken it back to the shop and swapped it for fifa11 if I could find the receipt but thats life.

*insults/trolling*

I miss the control, It's not as invloved as others, it's like playing with auto-pilot. I must be missing something. It must have an aspect that I dont know about..........

Finally something to say about the game. I agree with you 100%.

BUT tell me WHY it is better than Civ4 please.

Peace love and happy gaming
Yosh

I am having fun right now, but that fun is not lasting much. I like how I can explore. I love there is no Stacks of Doom anymore. I like the new combat, in the begining of the game.

I actually like the user interface now. Took me a while to get use to it, but I am enjoying it now.

I wouldn't have been so critical in your post, but you said must read, just had to show you that it really wasn't.

Happy gaming to you as well.

[legacy_programmer]

I love how you put 'must read' in the post title, and then dove right into postfail mode.
V is better than IV because:
V is a bigger number.
V is a prime number and IV isn't.
V stands on its own while IV requires I and V
You can give someone a high V but not a high IV.

[jlozeppeli]

Different engine, different rulesets... Not better, just a different experience. Also can't fully compare until some expansions roll out. I love Civ IV but I have played it to death! So until burnout wears off, I am loving civ V because it is so radically different.


It is not some amazing strategy game yet. I have my favorites, but it's close. With some tweaks I could easily call it one of my favorites. (my favorite btw, were all on nintendo and super nintendo - nobunaga's ambition, romance of the three kingdoms, and byzantum empire FTW!)

Uhuh, no offence, because i liked too nobunaga's ambition and the three kingdoms series, but they are not the top strategy games out there, to be honest, they are quite avarege (with some of the kingdoms series truly awful)...

[Wavemanmav]

Here's my list of why Civ V is a better game:

No stack of doom
Ranged combat
Combat in general is more fun
Hexes
Social Policies
Start locations in multi player seems more balanced (in Civ IV you got shafted by start loc every other game)
Civilization traits are more interesting and diverse (although some of them are utterly useless :P)

There's probably more but those are the most important ones.

Agreed. That is not to say Civ 5 did everything better, but I think the game is pioneering a new and better direction.

[Sicis]

I too think it's better for all the reasons posted above plus I think it's better because cities must be seiged now.

The fact that's is so different from Civ IV means there is still some replayability to Civ IV and there wouldn't be if V was the same as IV.

[Vin]

I think that V is good, and I don't find as much patching needed as most people, but I do understand where the bulk of the complaints are coming from. Diplomacy is a bit whack, and I would like replay added back in.

I don't know. *shrug* I'm not a fanatic, but I'm definitely a fan of this one.

I agree with the Diplomacy! I am quite sick of being asked to declare war on so-and-so like, 8 times per turn, every single turn. No means no, dammit!!

Other than that, it's a good game. At first, I thought I would miss the religions. But have since come to accept the Policies. Religions in 4 were a bit overpowered. Social Policies temper the affect, by allowing everyone equal access to the same bonuses, so long a you can achieve increasing your culture.

I also didn't think I would like 1UPT. But have come to accept that as well, for a unique feature. As well as ranged combat. It makes taking cities that much more difficult.....if the AI were better. lol.

As for graphics, smoothness, and so forth. I wasn't terribly impressed, nor was I terribly disappointed. It was about what I expected. What REALLY impressed me, was the interface! I love how clean, neat, and organized the interface is! I was half a afraid of having to spend the first 2 or 3 hours trudging through the new menu system, but they made it incredibly obvious where things are located, and they are located in places that are....well....quite obvious!

But, fix the diplomacy! No means "NO!" lol.

[Agent.0.Fortune]

Not having played previous versions of Civ I can only comment on the things I like and dislike in this version.

1. Pace. The game pace is extremely slow in the begining due to small population and long build times, but very frantic at the end. It also seems that by the time I start working a victory condition it is too late to finish before domination end.

2. Tech-tree. Ultimately everyone starts and ends at the same place. Maybe it is because I am ending the games too late, but there isn't a significant differnce in selecting technology paths, they all quickly start converging again and all the civiliazations end up being identical. even the unique units become obsolete. I would love to see a tech tree that is so expansive that it requires some decisions on what to focus on. I would also like to see more cultural differences, each civ should have a late game unique unit.

3. AI, the computer is horrible about tactical decisions. I almost never build armies until needed since a couple of troops can hold off any computer attack (although once I was mildly surprised to see two computers simultaniously declare war against me and attack from two fronts). The computer seems to have poor strategies as well. I've never had to worry about the computer defeating me with a non-military victory, it always ends up with me doing my own thing waiting for the computer to come knocking, they never force me to go on the offense to prevent an alternate victory condition (although I have only played on lvl 4 & 5)

[Jharii]

I just got Civ5 as I have no woman to spend my money on, and dont get me wrong.... I did not want more of the same I wanted better.

Hmmmmm. What kind of women are you buying for $50. Or are you comparing to the collector's edition?

But I agree with waveman and tarkin... This new direction is refreshing, and imho, will make for a better game once it's entirely flushed out, much like how Civ4 wasn't truly flushed out until all of its expansions were available.

To me, vanilla Civ4 and vanilla Civ5 are on par with each other as far as their impact on me at release. They held/hold my interest quite nicely. As long as Civ5 evolves as Civ4 did, I'll be much happier when it's all said and done.

[Akinaba]

I loved Civ 5. And i believe that the improoving of existing engine and logic is a key to better gamplay. That's all. No arguments.

[jmendes]

I like the direction civ V has taken, but it will only be a great game if they patch the problem, improve the AI, and realease a couple of expansions.
I´m having fun so far, but already getting bored cause of the problems.

[jmendes]

Not having played previous versions of Civ I can only comment on the things I like and dislike in this version.

1. Pace. The game pace is extremely slow in the begining due to small population and long build times, but very frantic at the end. It also seems that by the time I start working a victory condition it is too late to finish before domination end.

2. Tech-tree. Ultimately everyone starts and ends at the same place. Maybe it is because I am ending the games too late, but there isn't a significant differnce in selecting technology paths, they all quickly start converging again and all the civiliazations end up being identical. even the unique units become obsolete. I would love to see a tech tree that is so expansive that it requires some decisions on what to focus on. I would also like to see more cultural differences, each civ should have a late game unique unit.

3. AI, the computer is horrible about tactical decisions. I almost never build armies until needed since a couple of troops can hold off any computer attack (although once I was mildly surprised to see two computers simultaniously declare war against me and attack from two fronts). The computer seems to have poor strategies as well. I've never had to worry about the computer defeating me with a non-military victory, it always ends up with me doing my own thing waiting for the computer to come knocking, they never force me to go on the offense to prevent an alternate victory condition (although I have only played on lvl 4 & 5)

Agreed.I should have quoted this in my first post but im lazy and a little drunk right now.

[Vin]

Not having played previous versions of Civ I can only comment on the things I like and dislike in this version.

1. Pace. The game pace is extremely slow in the begining due to small population and long build times, but very frantic at the end. It also seems that by the time I start working a victory condition it is too late to finish before domination end.

The point of Civ, is to try to emulate human history. Starting way back to the dawn of recorded history (indeed, even in prehistoric times) things were going rather slow. For a couple of tens of thousands of years. Up until about the Roman times, in fact. Well, until the Crusades, anyway. From there, human technology has evolved faster and faster with each passing century. And in the 20th century, we have had more scientific advancements in a hundred years, than we have had nearly in all of human history previously combined.

So it's no surprise that a game with the title "Civilization" will be slow in the beginning, getting more and more frantic the closer to the end you get.

2. Tech-tree. Ultimately everyone starts and ends at the same place. Maybe it is because I am ending the games too late, but there isn't a significant differnce in selecting technology paths, they all quickly start converging again and all the civiliazations end up being identical. even the unique units become obsolete. I would love to see a tech tree that is so expansive that it requires some decisions on what to focus on. I would also like to see more cultural differences, each civ should have a late game unique unit.

Again, Civ is trying to emulate history. Ultimately, there are no super-secret technologies that only one single civilization (or group of civs) have had, without other civilizations eventually getting their hands on, and spreading around the globe. Exception: nukes. But even nuclear technology is spreading from country-to-country every decade or so.

As for unique units, what sort of modern day unique unit would you suggest the Romans or the Greeks to possess?

The point is, empires comes and go in real life, and countries rise and fall. Due to economic, cultural, and technological reasons. Indeed, the modern United States is beginning to fall back, due to an aging education system, and other countries, like Japan, catching up, and even surpassing us on the scientific/technology fields. So there is really no reason to have the "older civs" be able to possess a unique unit in the later epochs in Civ.

3. AI, the computer is horrible about tactical decisions. I almost never build armies until needed since a couple of troops can hold off any computer attack (although once I was mildly surprised to see two computers simultaniously declare war against me and attack from two fronts). The computer seems to have poor strategies as well. I've never had to worry about the computer defeating me with a non-military victory, it always ends up with me doing my own thing waiting for the computer to come knocking, they never force me to go on the offense to prevent an alternate victory condition (although I have only played on lvl 4 & 5)

I pretty much agree. But then again, I have only played on Prince level thus far. Unfortunately, it would be incredibly difficult to test just how good the AI combat tactics really are, since they get increasingly larger bonuses in any level above Prince.

[Agent.0.Fortune]

The point of Civ, is to try to emulate human history. Starting way back to the dawn of recorded history (indeed, even in prehistoric times) things were going rather slow. For a couple of tens of thousands of years. Up until about the Roman times, in fact. Well, until the Crusades, anyway. From there, human technology has evolved faster and faster with each passing century. And in the 20th century, we have had more scientific advancements in a hundred years, than we have had nearly in all of human history previously combined.

So it's no surprise that a game with the title "Civilization" will be slow in the beginning, getting more and more frantic the closer to the end you get.

Yes, but this is about the game's pacing, not simulated historical accuracy. I just find the game boring early on, the developers attempted to accomodate this by having grearter spands of time elapes per turn earlier compared to late game. I don't know what the solution is, perhaps having shorter research times (in turns) ealier or more units to explore/battle with.

Again, Civ is trying to emulate history. Ultimately, there are no super-secret technologies that only one single civilization (or group of civs) have had, without other civilizations eventually getting their hands on, and spreading around the globe. Exception: nukes. But even nuclear technology is spreading from country-to-country every decade or so.

As for unique units, what sort of modern day unique unit would you suggest the Romans or the Greeks to possess?

The point is, empires comes and go in real life, and countries rise and fall. Due to economic, cultural, and technological reasons. Indeed, the modern United States is beginning to fall back, due to an aging education system, and other countries, like Japan, catching up, and even surpassing us on the scientific/technology fields. So there is really no reason to have the "older civs" be able to possess a unique unit in the later epochs in Civ.

I'll admit that is probably an issue with me not being more aggressive earlier in the game, and waiting for all technologies to catch up. As for unique units, I feel the developers could have taken some liberties. If you are going to assume that a historical civiliation could survive and thrive beyond its historical demise, surely it would create additional unique units. This of course would be completely fictional (much like the survival of the aztec empire) but a fun late game twist (I know I enjoy the early civilization unique differences). Unique units aren't actually unque, they are existing units with differnt art and custom ability, these could be an extension of the game earlier unit/theme like the greek olymic stadium and Javelin artillery.

I pretty much agree. But then again, I have only played on Prince level thus far. Unfortunately, it would be incredibly difficult to test just how good the AI combat tactics really are, since they get increasingly larger bonuses in any level above Prince.

what I am seeing as I increase the difficult level is just a rapid tech developement. Now I am not always leading the way in Wonders and technology - scary to see Ramses hit the future age in 1886, even scarier to see see helcopters on my border buzzing my musketmen.

[aeligos]

Civ 4 *cough* Civ5

I find Civ V to be more challenging.

For example, I have to read more..., well, maybe that's because the game is rather new to me, but still, after awhile of 'paying attention', I just wanna go, "Bang, bang, die rebel scum!" as I stack (...wanna stack, that is) my army against the weaker civs.

-.-

[Akerzork]

[QUOTE=Davetopia;1239951]Different engine, different rulesets... Not better, just a different experience.QUOTE]

I couldn't agree more, I have been playing Civ IV lan games extensively with my friends on the net (<3 hamachi)

And since we have been playing this so much it was time for a change, in a way I am glad Civ V wasn't Civ IV, this means that their two latest editions can both create experiences in their own way albeit being somewhat similar. should it have been civ 4.5 I would prob recognize myself, apreciate the fixes (1)for a while and then revert to playing it as sporadically as I play civ IV nowadays.

(1): No i do not think an archer should in any way be able to kill a tank, no matter how damaged said tank is.

[Fantasy]

This thread just reminded me how much I miss the replay.

[da_Vinci]

(1): No i do not think an archer should in any way be able to kill a tank, no matter how damaged said tank is.

Archer that kills 'copters, at least:
http://www.crankycritic.com/archive/...ges/rambo3.htm

dV

[lowwizard]

Sadly, I've stopped playing single player Civ V since the AI is so utterly useless, but thats pretty much my only gripe with Civ V. Other than that it is VASTLY superior to Civ IV, imho. I'm mostly into multi player and there's nothing in the world that could make me go back to Civ IV. Stack of doom and kamikaze artillery (no ranged attacks) utterly broke Civ IV for me.

Here's my list of why Civ V is a better game:

No stack of doom
Ranged combat
Combat in general is more fun
Hexes
Social Policies
Start locations in multi player seems more balanced (in Civ IV you got shafted by start loc every other game)
Civilization traits are more interesting and diverse (although some of them are utterly useless :P)

There's probably more but those are the most important ones.

Some Civs got steam rolled with their traits. Tell me how, +1 naval movement/sight compares to bushido.

[Schdcd]

As long as AI and the player suffer no penalties for over-expanding, this game is retarded. I absolutely hate the way research is tied to the population and not money and how you can occupy half of the world without losing any money. Let's see some real world examples like US and China. China is not technologically 5 times ahead of US because it has that much more population and US is not occupying Iraq for free.

In Civ IV, conquering had an effect on everything in your empire and that is how it should be in Civ V, because it only makes sense.

The biggest problem with the game is the way AI can do ☺☺☺☺ all it wants and it doesn't lose anything. It's kinda lame to watch the AI conquer and occupy a continent with 2 luxury resources and have positive happiness and income while sustaining a massive army. At least the AI seemed to have some penalties in Civ IV. Massive continent sized empires rarely had much, if any, technological lead to the smaller civs, because all their money went in to city maintenance.

Civ V does more wrong than right. Civ V lacks more than it adds.

[Davetopia]

Uhuh, no offence, because i liked too nobunaga's ambition and the three kingdoms series, but they are not the top strategy games out there, to be honest, they are quite avarege (with some of the kingdoms series truly awful)...

I meant at the time and looking back those series stand out as my favorite strategy experiences on a console/pc.

Which is why I like change... After awhile even the greatest things become mundane and boring. Yes, civ v has issues.. however it can be the best experience until another experience replaces it.