Civilization V or Civilization IV?

[datalink7]

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.

The biggest problem for King Arthur, for me, was that with it's real time combat it starts moving into territory covered by the Total War games, which absolutely ANNIHILATE it in the real time portion.

 

[desura]

The biggest problem for King Arthur, for me, was that with it's real time combat it starts moving into territory covered by the Total War games, which absolutely ANNIHILATE it in the real time portion.

I haven't played those games much, but they probably do.

I played some of total war rome and...I think King Arthur's heroes make it more personable.

In any case, the King Arthur combat system is a lot more interesting than Civ's combat system, has a lot less clutter, and actually has more depth.

 

[turn_pike]

Personally I'd say go with Civ IV.
Especially since they are likely to be much cheaper than Civ V.

I also dislike some of the design decisions made in Civ V. Jon Shafer, the designer of Civ V, wrote an article about some of the failings of Civ V.

That said Civilization series can be somewhat formulaic. Chop wood for settler, beeline to swordsman / catapult and conquer your neighbor. It really gets repetitive after a while.

While I loved Civ, I now swear by grand strategy games by Paradox. They're much more complex and you are often less able to manipulate the circumstances. I'd suggest reading some reviews on Crusader Kings II and see if it might interest you.

 

[Possessed Freak]

I started on Civ III, it took a while to figure out what was going on. When I went to Civ IV, I had to relearn stuff. But the transition to Civ V was ultra easy... because for the first time they dumbed it down. Resources... meh. Workshops EVERYWHERE. The non stacking meant that if I out maneuvered the enemy, their city was MINE.

In civ IV, the ai basically cheated to keep up with the player's ability. They had an unbelievable amount of units and still was able to research and stay positive income. Even if the AI cheated in Civ V, it was simple out of the gate. I have not played any of the expansions, and I don't care to give the franchise ANY more money since the game left such a horrible taste in my mouth. If they improved it, great... but they certainly lost me as a customer.

 

[darkewaffle]

Civ V on normal difficulty is easy, sure. But I would expect Civ IV to be as well. However ramp it up to Emperor and Deity and the AI is nearly impossible to keep up with.

 

[blackwhiskers]

there's this deal happening currently: http://www.nuuvem.com.br/promo/dose-dupla-2kgames

and I have a dilemma, too. should I get civ V for, like, 5 bucks, or not?
does anyone know if the base game without expansions is any good at all? have patches made it better?

I have played civ IV quite a bit, and I really like it, save for perhaps the stack-of-doom combat, reading that V is dumbed down certainly makes me cautious.

 

[you2]

civ 5 is often 5 bucks (in usa); you can wait and buy it later if you want.

 

[Craig234]

there's this deal happening currently: http://www.nuuvem.com.br/promo/dose-dupla-2kgames

and I have a dilemma, too. should I get civ V for, like, 5 bucks, or not?
does anyone know if the base game without expansions is any good at all? have patches made it better?

I have played civ IV quite a bit, and I really like it, save for perhaps the stack-of-doom combat, reading that V is dumbed down certainly makes me cautious.

Some like 5, some don't. I think it's worth it; you may not, hard to say.

 

[HurleyBird]

MoO 1.