I've been playing Civ5 since vanilla through all the expansions and patches and enjoyed browsing the civfanatics forums for almost as long. Awhile back I purchased Civ4 with BTS on a steam sale but never got around to playing a game, instead always firing up Civ5.I'm very interested in reading about a comparison of your 'civ' experience/immersion/enjoyment etc between Civ4 complete and Civ5.What would someone like myself get out of playing Civ4 if I already have Civ5?The main differences I know about are carpet of dome compared to 1 piece per tile and hex versus squares and cities can shoot. But I'm not so interested in the nuts and bolts differences as the experience differences (if that makes sense).Thanks. I actually have both Civilization 5 and Civilization 4 installed, and ongoing games on both of them. Though this is mostly because Civ4 has awesome mod support, and therefore has some awesome mods (I'm currently playing with Realism Invictus).I find Civilization 5 to be the best game. Frankly, just for switching from stacks of doom to 1upt, that was already all I needed for it to be the best Civ around. But even aside from that, all civ 5 'sub-system' like Social Policies, Religion, Trade, etc., are really well designed and more engaging.Though, as I mentioned, some modders managed to make awesome things with Civilization 4.

I set up a Civilization V Analyst site so that I could post collections of screenshot- and video-culled data and analysis of it. The site has other. It's a Brave New World for Civilization V, and a brave new world for Civ V mods. We've gone through our and tested our collection from the Steam Workshop for 2014 compatibility and freshness.

So I tend to play it constantly, too. And even in Vanilla civ4, there were some things I quite enjoyed (the city 'loyalty' for example). Civ 4: lots of rage and frustration, even just on the 2nd-3rd easiest difficulties. First the barbarians just flood you, secondly you encounter neighbours who spend a huge stacked army of horse archers, melee infantry and at least 2 catapults about 20 turns after you meet them. You get diplo penalties for not giving techs away, which was ridiculous.

Expanding costs lots of gold. Happiness is a bit harder to control. I mean, you have 1 city with size 1 and the people are already complaining that it's too crowded.

Dragon warrior monsters 2 gameshark. Add the random events and there is even more rage (BtS), along with spies. Religion system is also flawed and pointless.One time, I actually had a decent game going on warlord level and I was doing alright, until Sumeria suddenly won a cultural victory and I swear he didn't even have any legendary cities when I checked. Sumeria won without any notice.civ 5: The experience just gets better and better.

Just know how to expand and grow your empire and everything is covered. It's not just the 1Upt that lures you away from civ 4, it's the specific nature of combat. Not all combat is complete kills so no more. There is much in Civ 5 that is an improvement. I like the religion system and the social trees, those are nice. The trade system is nice and shiny and the numerous small improvements to the tech tree are appreciated.I am neutral on the combat system. Its great not to have to worry about the stack o' doom suddenly marching through your friendly neighbor's territory to attack you.

However, the system that replaced is completely beyond the AI's capability to control on the offensive. (On defense it is effective, if entirely predictable.) In Civ 4 I'd often get nervous seeing Montezuma nearby, nowadays he's a clown - as are all the early aggressors.My real beef with Civ 5 is that its boring.

The sides are much too specialized. Once you know your civ you are pretty much locked into a single path to victory - deviate from your strengths at your peril. Even if you're willing to do so, some victory paths are all but denied you when certain opponents show up. Interested in achieving a cultural victory as the Zulus? Sorry, Brazil is on the map.And on that last point, a Domination victory is really only available in the late game.

All those cool UU for ancient and medieval warfare are rarely used. Its rare that you can go to war and achieve something major without putting yourself too far behind in the tech race.If any of you modders could weld the social system onto the Civ 4 engine we'd have a winner. Click to expand.Selecting units from the stack could be more time consuming process on tablet than moving units actually.Why would strategy game need to be so micromanaging in terms of warfare? Civ 4 would allow for pretty interesting battles, why do people complain about SoDs so much? That's what army is - bunch of units acting together. One still needs to select which unit from the stack should actually attack.If you are longing for more tactical combat there are plenty of dedicated games for that. Click to expand.My main interest in Civ games is the ability to play a game that feels like reliving alternate history in a nutshell.

I prefer Civ IV over all the other parts of the Civ series (allthough I think Civ I to III were really good games in their own time) because it comes closest to that personal vision and interest. Yes it's still a game but the decisons I have to make in the game make (much more) sense also in historic context. Leaders behave like more like real world leaders than badly programmed AI trying to play a stratey game. Food matters, military power matters, business matters - and size matters. Stuff like global happiness, religious city states, collecting pieces of art, archeology, tourism (come on, give a break, seriously???) should not matter in a game about world history. Also warfare over 6.000 years of human civilization usually was stack of doom style (Alexander, Julius Ceasar, Napoleon). The first (and only) time we ever saw continent dividing fixed front lines like in Civ V was in WWI - and even then it was not the allied gouvenrments or the Kaiser who had to decide where each individual infantry regiment had to be placed.

Civ V might be an interesting game, but for me it's too abstract and pointless to even bother with getting into it. Civ IV is the game I still play regularly, still discovering and learning new things and strategies every game I play. So even if you prefer Civ V in the end (and I don't see why anyone would ) Civ IV was and still is one of the best strategy games ever release.

So what rational reason could there be for NOT at least trying and giving it a chance? I mean, it's already installed on your computer. Click to expand.I think the choices are still there, they just moved.

A lot of stuff that used to be in the tech tree is now in the social policy trees. Same goes for the leader traits. The religious 'techs' are now in the Piety tree and in the religious beliefs. Civics are gone, but now there are ideologies, and so on.Not everyone likes those changes, but in my opinion the choices are still there.Regarding the original question: my advice would be to stick with Civ V, if you enjoy it.

You should try Civ IV, but since it is a different game you may not like it the same way. Which is ok, just because a lot of people regard IV as the best in the series does not mean you have to agree.My impression is that most players who prefer IV over V are the ones who used to play IV a lot before V came out. This just shows how good IV was at its time.

We will probably have the same argument when Civ 6 arrives.