Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
The espionage system requires more micro in Civ 4 but gives you a lot more options than Civ 5's. I also vastly prefer the religion system in Civ 4 over 5, but that's purely a matter of opinion (minus perhaps the Apostolic Palace, but even that can be fun - or greatly frustrating - depending on what religious bloc takes control of it).
A big difference is of course the combat system, and everyone seems to differ in whether they prefer stacks or 1UPT. The AI is MUCH more competent in Civ 4's warfare, as it never really seemed to learn how to adjust for 1UPT or for terrain in Civ 5. You would never be able to fend off an invasion in Civ 4 with a few crossbows and a pikemen or two. Armies feel like real armies, and empires feel like vast nations rather than 2-6 city "sovereign territories."
I love both games of course, and you really can't go wrong with either. They're both different and unique enough that I play them both regularly. I will always prefer Civ 4 BTS though.
Better mods for CIV4
a bit better interface in CIV4 like the relationship to other civs
I think the combat system in CIV5 is better, but it seems its a matter of taste.
Critic of high niveau and shouldn't really consider. Maybe after 500h:
CIV5 seems somewhat unbalanced. DIplomacy and Culture seems very very strong.
Late game is a game break for me because you come to a point where you cant produce more happiness. That means you cant expand and if your win option is domination only (Caputre all capitals) it seems to be inpossible if the enemy is equal strong. Every city you caputre give you unhappinies and a combat malus if your global happiness going below 0.
In Civ4 you have futre tech, which you can research that gives you +1 happiness. Isn't much but you don't end in a dead end.
Well If you reach that point you do something wrong (so I guess I do something wrong).
-
It seems both Multiplayer have some connection problems. Don't know
Civ5 is more friendly for new players because it lack some elements from Civ4.
Yes It looks like Civ4 is better but I played CIv5 a loooooooooooot more than civ4 (comabt is.. urgh in civ 4. I don'T really like it).
If you new to Civ, maybe you play first Civ5 and then Civ4. Civ4 is cheaper..
My phone is gone. It's just GONE. Missing in action. MIA you might say. It's just GONE. I didn't even leave my ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ apartment last night but it's just GONE. WHY IS IT GONE. ♥♥♥♥!!!!!
No I'm not. I'm dying. Whether that happens tomorrow or some months or maybe a year or two from now, I'm dyin. I can't keep away from the chemicals. I'm not a bad person, I'd rather suffer in silence and isolation than negatively affect someone else. But I'm sufferin.
I have a gaping head wound since last night and can't find my ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ phone. But I'm alive and not 100% broke or in massive debt for once so I'm... alright. I'm alright. Thank you for asking.
Played now nearly all 200h+
Civ4 is a bunch of nice concept, but not more than this. Corruption, artillery, combat, religion, and nearly anything else is better in either civ5 or civ3.
How so? I know it's just your opinion, but I'm surprised you find the global happiness mechanic - as restricting as it is - better overall than the per-city limit. Not to mention whipping, etc. which was a really cool mechanic in Civ 4. It gave a lot more control.
Civ4 isn't a bad game at all, because ... well ... it's still a civ-game, but if i am going to play something else than civ5, which just stands out with it new 1-unit-per-tile-system (something changing the game so drastically, that it is hard to compare to its predecessors), i'd always choose civ3 over civ4, but i guess everyone who startet in this series with civ4 would say exactly the same about his game :P
I started with 5, and although I own 3, I really couldn't get into it at all. It just felt like an inferior version of Alpha Centauri to me, though in total honesty I've never even played a game of civ3 to completion. I really should give it another attempt, but if the learning curve in 4 was tough, 3 might as well be like learning a foreign language to me. Just my two cents anyway.
Your antique boats could cross the deep ocean for example, even without the technology, but if they did, there has been a higher chance, that the sink each turn.
Another interesting feature was, that units could cross your land without open border (which gave a lot of bad relations to the AI, if you did so). There was a optinon to throw them out diplomatically (the units were teleportet to the closest border, just like if open borders ends). The AI used this to make you declare war on them (because you could just say "get them out NOW, or I'll make them never leave again")
But mostly i preferred the combat behavior. Units did not only have attack/defense these days, but it all was way more simple. Sure, there were boni, and it sucked that you couldn't see, if you are going to lose or win, but there simply were no prehistoric warriors, who could beat a frickin tank, just because they are pumped up with defensive boni and promotion (+50% because hills, +100% because river, +50% because fortified, +125% city defense, +50% promotion against amrored units, +50% against tanks etc....)
So yea, civ3 lacks on depth and features, but it just had the best singleplayer expierence from all 4 civ games i played so far, while civ5 had the best multiplayer.