Pretty significant on the tactical level. Civ V is the first one to use hexes instead of squares and also the first to limit how many units can be on a space.
Hexagonal squares made the game way easier vs AI. In Civ 4 I'd always get destroyed by the enemy showing up with 10 units at once, taking out my cities that were defended by just 2 or so units. In Civ 5 I can actually hold that off with like 1 well placed melee unit and 2 archers.
The combat got fucked 5 on. I'm no longer scared and can routinely build/buy armies in laye game faster than any enemy. Just play nice build productive forces EZ outpace every time
my opinion: Civ4 is all around a better game. Most details are just better in Ci4. Except, Civ5's one-unit-per-tile + hex-tiles are superior to Civ4's stacks-of-doom. It boils down to what's important to you, tile based tactics, or the rest of the game.
Addendum question: what if I'm absolute ass at strategy games? I cannot understand enough of Civ to have any strategy nailed down, and that's why I enjoy it. Is Civ 4 better or at least equal on this front? Do I need a bunch of old game knowledge to make this fun? For reference, I'm okay with being steamrolled by AI, as long as I don't need to do any googling to get past it
ok so there is grand strategy and tactics. Both probably the same in grand strategy, civ5 probably requires more thinking the tactics department. in civ4 you just make sure your stack of doom is bigger (more units in single tile).
Always happy to start my thousandth game on Civilization IV as Mao leading the People's Republic of China to glorious, global Communism.
But I must admit I do love Rome: Total War more despite the brutal imperialism.
That's it. I'm reinstalling CIV 4 and that insane huge mod
caveman 2 cosmos!!!!
How different is Civ 4 from 5? That's the only one I've played, but it drains my laptop like a motherfucker. Love playing Railroads on that thing
Pretty significant on the tactical level. Civ V is the first one to use hexes instead of squares and also the first to limit how many units can be on a space.
Hexagonal squares made the game way easier vs AI. In Civ 4 I'd always get destroyed by the enemy showing up with 10 units at once, taking out my cities that were defended by just 2 or so units. In Civ 5 I can actually hold that off with like 1 well placed melee unit and 2 archers.
The combat got fucked 5 on. I'm no longer scared and can routinely build/buy armies in laye game faster than any enemy. Just play nice build productive forces EZ outpace every time
my opinion: Civ4 is all around a better game. Most details are just better in Ci4. Except, Civ5's one-unit-per-tile + hex-tiles are superior to Civ4's stacks-of-doom. It boils down to what's important to you, tile based tactics, or the rest of the game.
Addendum question: what if I'm absolute ass at strategy games? I cannot understand enough of Civ to have any strategy nailed down, and that's why I enjoy it. Is Civ 4 better or at least equal on this front? Do I need a bunch of old game knowledge to make this fun? For reference, I'm okay with being steamrolled by AI, as long as I don't need to do any googling to get past it
ok so there is grand strategy and tactics. Both probably the same in grand strategy, civ5 probably requires more thinking the tactics department. in civ4 you just make sure your stack of doom is bigger (more units in single tile).
I mean you can even go as late as the early 2010s and get good gameplay from potato specs
Civ 5 is runnable on most shit boxes because frame rate really doesn't matter much. Played it on a shitty Celeron for a very long time
Rome: Total War heads stay winning.
Amen to that. I keep going back to pixel graphics and games old enough to have cd's.