Why do people love Civ 4 so much? | Civ 4 Review

[@Afronautsays]

Civ4 is the last game of the series that made me feel like I was building a civilization instead of just playing a 4x game.

[@gabrielandy9272]

even with the one tyle city system? i just can't go back to any other civ after the spreaded citys, it feel much inferior to me.

[@日光-d8k]

@@gabrielandy9272 spread out cities look less realistic. Even today, most land *isn't* urban areas.

[@Phlebas]

@@日光-d8k In my head canon, I always imagine the districts are just towns or smaller satellite cities surrounding a more central large city.

[@日光-d8k]

@@Phlebas Hard for me to imagine when their graphics are extremely seamless with the city core. To each their own!

[@logicaldude3611]

The unit stacking was incredible. If you really wanted to take over another civilization (or defend your own), you had to REALLY prepare. There was no such thing as just taking 5 units and trying to attack. To me, it’s the peak of the franchise and it was so complex that they had to start dumbing down the later games. As a lifelong player who transitioned from 1 to 4, it doesn’t get any better.

[@peacefuldawn6823]

One of the many things I love about Civ 4 that can't be found in the newer civs is border expansion, since your borders expand by rings rather than tiles. This meant you could gain control of more ground faster, leading to your borders actually meating with the borders of other civilisations, as opposed to the vast majority of land being unowned like in Civ 5 and 6. It makes it feel more realistic, and it's fun when your dominant culture causes your borders to encroach on enemy land.

[@Latinkon]

When two borders overlapped in the game, it gave certain parts of the game world that "disputed territory" vibe.

[@duhgreatnate249]

That's why I always play newer civs on the biggest map with as many AI civilizations as possible. There's no un-owned land by the industrial or modern Era.

[@BlueTemplar15]

That's unrelated to how fast borders can expand though - it's a balance issue between culture production and cost of border expansion...

[@appropriate-channelname3049]

yeah that's a big problem with alot of civ games. Maybe they can add a system where once a city has grown to certain point it starts exerting frontier borders that reach out to the normal max limit and once you reach around the max limit normal they expand out once more. essentially Theze borders would be considered your land but you wouldn't be able to work them.

[@beetheimmortal]

This is one of my biggest problems with Civ 5 and later. It never feels like you're running an actual country for many reasons, but this is definitely a huge factor.

[@Jon0387]

Plus you have a great narrator in the game: Leonard Nimoy. He’s probably my favorite out of 4, 5, and 6.

[@JumboPixel]

I think I mentioned that (I hope so, it was in my notes!) absolutely right though!

[@nicmclean8239]

Wait Spock was in civ

[@nicmclean8239]

The spock

[@nicmclean8239]

OMFG

[@nicmclean8239]

I'm playing some civ 4 now

[@DC_Greed]

I miss the vassal system, and the random diplomacy events you could react to. I also preferred the tech tree progression through the ages. Civ6 feels like the ages jump too far from one to the next. I feel like there is so much missed, not per age, but altogether. Missing a little bit each age adds up to a lackluster tech tree,

[@Murrangurk2]

You didn't mention the map! The fact that you could zoom out and see the map in relation to the globe was AWESOME and a feature I feel is sorely lacking from following editions.

[@JumboPixel]

Oh goooood point!

[@murilovieira2785]

You can zoom out the map in Civilization Revolution too.

[@_Aemse]

this. starcraft 2, and warcraft 3 suffered from the same problem. they're zoomed up so close to the game in the new versions that it ruined the feel of the game for me.

[@HerrSposato]

I loved it as well!!!

[@Phlebas]

I think the best thing about Civ 4 that future Civ games didn't quite get right were: 1) Its UI. Everything was super transparent. Want to see who's friends with who at a glance, maybe before accepting an alliance offer? Check out the diplomacy screen. Want to see why the AI likes or dislikes you? The information is there right away (nothing hidden behind diplomatic visibility). Want to know how switching government types will affect your economy in every detail? All in the government screen. There was no guesswork in Civ 4 so every decision you made felt fully informed. 2) It felt like a role play game. The AI was not meant to simulate other players, it was meant to simulate a civilization with its own agenda and you were in a world with them. Civ 5 and 6 deliberately stepped away from this design choice and I think it was a mistake. It was nice to have an AI that didn't metagame.

[@支離-q1u]

2) when your get Alex, Shaka as neighbour…🥲

[@ILMTitan]

I fully agree about the AI. It shouldn't be trying to keep you from winning. It should be trying to build the best civilization it can.

[@BlueTemplar15]

Including the Civilopedia - the one in Civ5 is just depressing in its lack of gameplay and historical content compared to the Civ4 one !

[@ttaibe]

Completely agree

[@Snoil]

Completely agree, also Civ 4's opener with Baba Yeto stands alone amongst all vid games as the best hands down

[@jessel3621]

Civ 4 is my favorite because of the combat. Stacks allow you to have armies of different sizes, are easier to move, and the AI is the best in the series and actually a challenge because they can manage stacks. Stacks are also more realistic. Civ maps are not big enough for 1 unit per tile. In WWI Germany marched the majority of their army through Belgium to attack France. Try doing that on an earth map with 1 unit per tile.

[@benjaminhardin4029]

Yeah for sure, I think the dynamics of civ 4 have always felt far closer to real life than those of any other civ game. If you think of these tiles as proportional to the size of the world, they should be like hundreds of square miles. Plenty of space for any number of units and certainly not a distance archers can shoot across as they do in later games. Like you said it's critical for keeping the game manageable for the AI too.

[@TheLabecki]

I agree. I think Civ V and VI make the mistake of combining large scale grand strategy with smaller scale tactics on the same map - the result hurts both the grand strategy feel and does not allow for fully realized tactics. If they want tactics, they should have a separate battle map - like a turn-based version of the Total War battles.

[@NoFramesPerSecond3924]

@@TheLabecki someone needs to make a mod for that

[@nostrum6410]

i just wish the turn times were much lower, they can get quite out of hand and dont use modern hardware well

[@jessel3621]

@@nostrum6410 really? I have a 3 year old laptop with windows 10 and civ 4 runs really fast on it.

[@CrimsonSp33d]

The intro song is an absolutely beautiful song that can bring me to tears.

[@AMM278]

Legendary

[@gorilladisco9108]

Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.

[@Max-px5ym]

We get it

[@NC7491]

It's still on my play list. It's amazing.

[@LazyAceDia]

What I love about this game is how challenging it is. After hundreds of hours, I can only win about half of my games on Monarch difficulty, while after a couple games in Civ 6 I already feel like I could take on Deity. Maybe it's because the AI can't handle 1UPT, but they don't feel like a genuine threat in 6 like they do in 4. Something I love about religion in civ 4 that's not mentioned in the video is how it ties into diplomacy. Generally, the AI will be friends with civs of their religion and enemies with civs of any other. Religion is the key factor in determining how the player needs to strategize diplomatically for the first half of the game. Adopting a religion can help you secure good relations with dangerous neighbors or create powerful allies who will help you in wars. It's very simple on its own, but ties neatly into the grander scope of the game

[@tombottle2205]

"I can only win about half of my games on Monarch difficulty, while after a couple games in Civ 6 I already feel like I could take on Deity" As a seasoned Deity player (Civ III - VI), it seems silly to me to have your take based off a couple games without having actually won Deity games in Civ VI. Come back after some sub-200 Deity victories. Not saying IV is not challenging, because it is... but you 'feeling' you could beat Deity is not the same as beating Deity. Just sayin..

[@LazyAceDia]

@@tombottle2205 You're right. I hopped into deity to try it out and got my ass handed to me by barbs. I guess I was really saying playing Civ 6 on deity feels like a more easily attainable goal than in 4, but that's just my impression. Which game do you think is the most challenging? I'm curious what someone who has played at a high level for so long would think. Update: I just got a sub 200 Deity victory (Religious; Cleopatra). Civ 6 is a great game, but I still don't think it's as difficult as 4. Of course, difficulty doesn't make a game good, but I wish 6 required the same precision from the player as 4.

[@solarflare1206]

my strategy with religion was to prioritize founding all the religions myself, not doing open borders or trades with any civs to prevent accidental religion spread, then carefully opening up civs one at a time, with missionaries ready on their border. Eventually, all civs on earth follow my religion and I start working towards a diplomatic victory OR a military victory, since everybody being the same religion makes the other players passive and forgiving, and thus easier to pick off one by one.

[@Peachrocks5]

The difference between Immortal and Deity on civ IV though is about the difference between Noble and immortal. Deity in Civ IV is ridiculous and some games apparently are mathematically unwinnable. It pulls no friggin punches, cheats like crazy and shows no shame about it. Admittedly I kinda prefer them telling you 'exactly' how they cheat and sure some stuff was hidden but the basics were known. In any case I was nowhere near beating Deity in IV, only beat Immortal a few times, yet in V I can beat Deity easy and VI I can do it but its harder. This is despite the fact I put way more time into IV then V or VI. I do like VI a lot more then V but IV is so strong in so many ways.

[@gabrielandy9272]

u should judge the difficulty on the prince ai tho, because higher difficulty settings its just the AI cheating, and in some cases the ai also cheat on prince too.

[@anteeko]

To me the most amazing civ experienced.. I loved it so damned much:) I couldn't get used to CIV 5/6

[@JumboPixel]

Certainly a great game

[@Peachrocks5]

The interesting thing is doom stacks are largely a myth. Siege weapons are so devastating to them that all things being equal, the defender has a massive advantage. Especially where the AI is concerned.

[@internationalartprojects8660]

I agree I love the warfare element to Civ 4. Civ 6 feels like Sim City to me.

[@drewphataman5208]

People that are knowledgeable about the game would criticize the suicide siege element, not "doomstacks". Regardless though, the AI in civ 5-6 just can't handle the fighting well. So later civs are about two full difficulty levels easier than civ4 - kind of a game killer if you're not interested in multiplayer.

[@KitteridgeStudios]

In the game's manual the devs even explicitly state that collateral damage was implemented as a counter to doomstacks.

[@LinkMarioSamus]

I think the issue is that many don’t really bother playing on higher levels where the intricacies of combat really show.

[@Chr1s_1986]

Then you havent played on Deity there are very well "doom stacks" of 50-90 Units and thats at a time where you most likely only have 20 if good land xD.

[@mattiyito1]

Civ 4 is a lot more deeper than what came afterwards

[@hoosierflatty6435]

Us old dudes basically want the Civ4 fundamentals but with hexes. Would be cool to have the different policy trees and other newer features too in some areas. The AI just doesn't do 1UPT well so STACK OF DOOM it is for me.

[@MedicineMan55]

I'd probably like limited stack sizes determined by technology and civics. Ie. logistic & organization or something. Something between 1upt and stack of doom. But overall I'm still more fond of Civ 4 than the later iterations. It feels closer to historical sim than the more gamey sequels. The Civ 4 world feels larger somehow too, in spite of the technical limitations in the old engine.

[@JumboPixel]

Stack ‘em high, make ‘em fly!

[@KitShannon]

I couldn't agree more. I'd take a stack of doom that works over 1UPT that sadly doesn't. I think Humankind seems to offer an interesting solution to this old problem, dare we hope even a better AI? As for Civ4 it, while it is an awesome game, it cannot be overstated how much of its longevity is due to its moddability. Essentially it's many 4X games in one: Science fiction including several IPs like Star Trek and Dune, Fantasy (Fall from Heaven II is probably the most prestigious mod for Civ4), historical replay (all the RFC mods of which Rhye's and Fall of Europe is probably the best)) and many, many, many more. Unlike Civ6, Civ4 could never have suckered us with piecemeal DLC, because the mods gave us awesome content for free.

[@Latinkon]

@@KitShannon Agreed. As someone who played Civ 4 on launch back in 2005, it's sad seeing "modern Civ" fans get hyped over piecemeal DLC when back in the day players got substantial expansions such as Beyond the Sword and fantastic overhaul mods such as Fall from Heaven. Civ fans simply deserve better.

[@bobbydylsn2633]

@@MedicineMan55 Many mods adress stack limitation. For example in Pie' Ancient Europe mod bigger armies has tendencies to revolt and attacks you. Also logistics techs (or lack of it) can really criple your stack. And last - big armies = big chance to start epidemy and kill half of your units (at best). In Realism Invictus mod you can build unlimited stacks but from certain point every unit decrease power of other units (big armies are difficult to lead) so you must choose wisely. Best strategy is to build mixed armies because different sort of units adds different set of bonuses to you stack.

[@OrgullosaMenteNerd]

Civ 4 has the best opening song, I steel singing it today, but I must say, mí favorite Civ of all time is Civ 3, nothing beats the personalization of you own palace, the music of the first era is still playing in my head.

[@UnstoppableAW]

Civ 4 is just so fleshed out, both the mechanics and the atmosphere. For me, it is easily the most immersive Civ game. The mechanics are very well executed and balanced. Religion, for example. I much prefer Civ 4 religion to 5 or 6 because it's not just a build-your-own stat bonus. Religion takes on a life of its own and forges alliances and rivalries with other Civs. And if you know how to use it, you can really manipulate the strategic and diplomatic angles of the game. The AI is also not just competent (something 5 and 6 still have never achieved) but actually surprisingly clever and rational. Finally, while unit stacks are definitely not great, there's more strategy to the combat, with siege weapons and collateral damage, than most people give it credit for. The mods are legendary. Beyond the Sword brings you Rhye's and Fall of Civilization, which makes Civ as close to a historical simulator as it's ever been, and very challenging too. The Road to War WW2 mods and Final Frontier (space total conversion) are also excellent. Beyond the Sword is to Civ 4 as Brave New World is to Civ 5, but even moreso. And finally, the atmosphere. The soundtrack is unparalleled, among Civ games but also just games in general. There are tons of songs, and the soundtrack changes dynamically based on civilization and time period to really capture the feeling of a time and place. And then of course, there are the Leonard Nimoy technology quotes :)

[@NettiGaming]

I marveled at the genius of civ one on my amiga, obsessed over civ 2. Civ 3 blew my mind as a stepping stone to the later games. Civ 4 was amazing. Words don't explain how much I loved it. Introducing religion. The music as well. Some cracking leaders. Exceptional mechanics. I loved the stack mechanic. Colonization. A masterpiece. Civ V was good later once the later dlc came along. Loved the graphics style. Civ 6 has so much in it it feels bogged down. Mabie it's me but civ 4 was the golden age for me. Right in the MSN messenger era I spent hours on this even days. I think that's probably why my first relationship failed 🤣 Thank you for the lovely memories. I still play civ colonization in the 4 era.

[@sechernbiw3321]

Civ 4 is still the best Civ game and the best 4X game ever made. In fact, this game is so good that I would not be at all surprised if people will still be playing this particular game even hundreds of years from now. This game is much more comparable to something timeless like Chess or Go than it is to most video games which have a limited playability. Personally I have been playing Civ 4 on a pretty regular basis for 10 years now. No other video game compares to it. The worldbuilder and the truly mindblowing dedication and ambition of the modding community also make the game basically infinitely replayable. The Caveman2Cosmos mod for example has been in continuous active development by dozens of people for 12 years now, and is still being very actively updated. What other strategy game has a modding community like that? I would try the base Beyond the Sword game before diving into the mods though. I still play the base Beyond the Sword game as well as Caveman2Cosmos and various other awesome mods such as Rhyes and Fall of Civilization. I would love a remaster sometime soon if it were done right (read: not like Warcraft III Reforged, please leave the original alone), just to move beyond the limitations of the 32 bit engine and maybe update the graphics and unit models. If the remaster were compatible with the old mods and community-made maps, that would be best if it is possible. That alone would be WELL worth my money. That said, you can play the game for years and not even notice the mild limitations of the 32 bit engine, it's only a very advanced player who is ever going to want to play on the really ultra gigantic maps or mods which push the limits of the 32 bit engine. It is really incredible what that engine is capable of considering it is 32 bit.

[@YouTubePremiumDude]

How many bits is the engine, though?

[@lateralus6512]

Yes Civ 4 needs a remaster. It’s a timeless classic. Not many games have achieved its level of greatest since.

[@jaskamakynen7766]

I agree the comparison to chess. It simply is a perfect game. so easy to pick out of the box, start and have fun. But not easy to put down 😊. I always say that Civ 4 as a game simply JUST WORKS. Civ 6 just makes me bored

[@jrave5353]

Civ IV is the perfection of the concept originally conceived in Civ I. Firaxis couldn’t really improve on this concept any further so they had to reinvent Civ for Civ V, and they’ve improved on that template for Civ VI. I wonder if Civ VII will be an even further advancement of the “Civ V style,” or if they’ll try to reinvent the game once again

[@nasseq]

they need to improve on 1 UPT mechanic. Other grand strategy games have managed to improve them by now like Old World.

[@kentknightofcaelin4537]

Nah, Civ V is still better than VI.

[@Kjotleik]

A good comment overall on a not-so-new game. I won't call it an old game. After all, it was released in THIS millennium. The one thing I disagree with in your comment is the one you made about the stack-of-doom. Having all your military units in one stack, that you can move around together, makes wars go a lot faster than in later Civ-games. It is the one-unit-per-tile in Civ V and VI that slows down war to a never-ending and boring excercise. If you know what you're doing, wars in Civ IV can be done really fast, thanks to the stacks.

[@JumboPixel]

Oh the stacks are definitely quick!

[@支離-q1u]

I used to think the combat of civ4 is boring…until I played Civ5 (at first I thought it is great)🤣 It is not a good idea for Civ to play war games.

[@raptorhacker599]

@@支離-q1u autistic games u mean there is no war game that has battles with armies placed on different continents

[@OrangeNash]

Exactly. He said stacks could make the war drag. Well, Civ 4 plays a lot faster than 5 or 6. Typical game of 4 on "normal" takes me 6 - 10 hours. Depending how long spent min-maxing the cities, could take longer. But 5 and 6 always take *way* longer - with nothing much happening at all! Never mind "stacks", Civ 5 and especially Civ 6 just d-r-a-g. Upwards of 40 hours to finish a regular game (well, higher than normal difficulty as it is so easy). After which, I just dont' feel like playing again. Think I have 80 hours on Civ 6, thats 2 completed games. But must have finished 50+ of Civ 4. Not sure what takes the time on Civ 6 as there isn't that much thinking involved, let's be honest. For me, Civ 4 was that last real Civ game. 5 and 6 are something else. Not terrible games, but different enough from the core Civ concepts, they are spin offs that shouldn't have the Civ name.

[@trent3727]

Napolean in real life used stacks.

[@renano95]

Civ 4 colonization might be my favorite honestly, the small scope and more complex supply chain interactions was so good

[@weltraumvogel2]

and with the TAC-Mod it feels like the good old "Colonization". Still playing it today from time to times

[@mrfabulous4640]

The We The People mod is a necessity.

[@relix7373]

The graphic fidelity of Civ4 and functionality of the UI in Civ4 are extremely important. The later titles gave us pretty environments, but the map is confusing, muddled and the UI clunky and filled with lots of extra menus and options making balancing very difficult and playing take forever, ESPECIALLY in Civ5. Civ4 also has the greatest Civ mod of all time, the Rhye's and Fall Dawn of Civilization mod-mod is unrivaled in dedication and scale.

[@ShamanKish]

Caveman to Cosmos mod compilation brings this game to another level.

[@petrosmos688]

Because it actually feels like managing a civilization throughout history, rather playing a board game.

[@andrei1971]

Civ IV was an epic game. I used to mod it and even created an entirely new custom civilization with all new distinctive city styles and units. Also had a new world colonization feature. Only major problem with Civ IV was the terrible AI diplomacy. You would constantly get other leaders making unreasonable requests/demands like giving them the rare tech you just discovered for free. And when you declined giving away valuable stuff for free, they grew to hate you. The AI always nagged you that way. Other than that it was a fun game if you had all the expansions.

[@BlueTemplar15]

I'm pretty sure that the AI mods fixed this issue though ?

[@sechernbiw3321]

They tend to do this much more if you have less military power than them, or if you are not only much more powerful but also of the same religion and there is a more powerful civ of a different religion which is close to them or at war with them, in my experience. If you are much more powerful and of a different religion or on bad terms with them, they tend to not ask you for anything, presumably because they are afraid of getting on worse terms with you and don't want to encourage you to invade. It does depend partly on the leader as well. I think Civ IV's diplomacy makes a lot of sense actually. In the real world, some countries do exploit any military or economic leverage they have to force other countries to transfer technology or resources to them, and this has happened throughout history.

[@johnjim6793]

In my eyes Civ 4 is not only the best of the series, but the best computer game of all time. I've played every edition since Civ 2, and I really wanted to like Civ 5 and 6, but I always come back to my beloved Civ 4. Here are some of my reasons: (1) Great modability. You can do almost everything within the game engine. (2) Transparency and plausability. In Civ 6, for example, I never understood how tourism worked and what you got your points for. In Civ 4, you can track everything, and what does what and when is perfectly clear. (3) Clarity: There is a very clear separation of what elements grant what bonus. For example, your tiles will produce food, money or production, but never culture. For that you have certain buildings. As another example, every leader is given two character traits out of a restricted set of very cleary distinguishable options. In Civ 5 and 6, everything is too mushed together for my taste. (4) Map: Maps have never been better than in Civ 4. They are as large as you want, offering all kinds of tactical situations, but at the same time they are super accessible. You always know what is going on in your empire. That is one of the weakest points in later installments which are beautiful to look at, but difficult to play with. I really like Civ 6, but optically it is one giant overstimulation. It is like one big bee hive where you are constantly struggling to find out where is what. (5) Technologies and cities: Both are driving elements of the game in Civ 4, and more than in Civ 5 or 6. What I like best about technologies is that you really feel you are progressing through different ages. Certain technologies are more important than others: the Alphabet, Monarchy, Iron Works, Currency, Astronomy, and of course the religious techs. In Civ 6 I often have the feeling that it doesn't really matter in what order I do what research. (6) Ages: The way you move through seven (I think) ages is beautifully made. First you explore your surroundings, then you have the race for settling space and the first wonders. At a certain point the game focusses on who will be the first to circumnavigate the globe, then come new wonders, and in the end there is the space race. When you discover an ancient technology, you might hear quotation by Cicero. When it is an industrial technology, it might be a quotation by Oscar Wilde. Also I always found it more immersive to have a soundtrack synchronized with the age you live in rather than with your culture. A combination of both would be perfect. (7) Maturity: Civ 4 is a game that trusts the intelligence of the player. The subtle jokes about Dan Quayle and Al Gore, the soundtrack by John Adams, the tactical game play that takes its time and isn't "dumbed down" - wonderful. (8) Art style: I didn't like the realistic style of Civ 5 because I found it too serious. However I understand people who criticise the Civ 6 graphics for being too cartoonish. Civ 4 has the right combination. The way leaders are presented is serious enough to make diplomacy important, but at the same time all the "quirkiness" gives them real personality. Isn't it funny when Alexander complains "Nobody is ever listening to me!" ? (9) Multiple ways to play: As much as I liked the "Golden / Dark Age" concept of Civ 6, I always felt I am too much tied down to play the game in one specific way that the developers want me to. That is not the case in Civ 4. You can be a warmonger or a peacenik, you'll always have a fair shot at winning the game the way you want. (10) Loading time and PBEM playablity: Last but absolutely not least. I dearly miss PBEM in the later Civ versions. Civ 4 is loading so quickly that you can just make your move and then send the savegame to the next player, often literally within a couple of seconds. Civ 5 and 6 can't ofter this for the sheer fact that they take an eternity to load. Of course there are certain weaknesses. The "stacks of doom" have been mentioned. "Owning" a religion might be a bit too overpowered for all the money that will pour in. When you are stuck in a place with no bronze, no iron and maybe not even horses you are done for. Generally, when you lag behind around 1500 bc, there is little you can do to catch up. The espionage system never convinced me. But all these minor quirks don't matter too much to me, to be honest.

[@rafaellouro2144]

Civ 5 and Civ 6 - NO YOU CANT HAVE WARRIORS AND ARCHERS INSIDE THE SAME CITY/TILE THERE IS OBVIOUSLY NO SPACE!!!

[@CornaGaymink]

Chad Civ 4: haha stack attacc goes brrrr....

[@gendoruwo6322]

yea, you just never feel truly scared in civ 5 and 6... They come at you one at a time, pfft... Try Civ 4 .... meet 20+ stack of doom, then you'll know true terror of war.

[@MrAbgeBrandt]

@@gendoruwo6322While Civ 4 is the better game, try Civ 3 :D Doom stacks of 50+ units weren't rare there.

[@hairharbor5080]

@@MrAbgeBrandt Personally I much prefer Civ III to Civ IV. Civ IV felt so much smaller and less epic. And apart from Baba Yetu Civ III had better music in the game.

[@Independent97]

The mod "Realism Invictus" really balances out BTS in an awesome way, allowing for stacking while also limiting the desire to stack too much with a series of logistics bonuses and nerfs that change as technology progresses.

[@Nanook128]

For my tastes, alpha centauri was the pinnacle of the franchise. That said, civ 4 holds a very respectful second place.

[@BigB86]

I have been playing civ4 since it came out. I can honestly say it is still the most diverse and rewarding 4x iv played. 5 and 6 I feel tried to push you down a path and had too many odd mechanics that made the games seem shallow and lord knows iv tried to love them but they just don't compare. I would love civilisations to come back to this style only maybe copy human kinds battle mechanic?

[@ultra_marcus]

It really is a classic, it’s the only civ I never stopped playing.

[@jodhweijoundica3453]

the fact that you can't stack units anymore and that your cities have less freedom of choice as to what they specialize in makes 5 & 6 profoundly different games. Civ 4 was the last of its kind and will grace my computers for a long time into the future. In 1-4, you had the option of speeding up combat. The fact that it's complex is attractive to many people who are seeking a strategically challenging experience. Also, it's not always wise to stack up in civ4, you're vulnerable to siege units, and your siege units are vulnerable to withdrawing horse units. An interesting strategy is to get a great general and lead some cavalry, getting all withdrawal promotions. You get like an 80-85% chance to withdraw or something like that.

[@Facesforce]

Civ 4 is the final evolution of the Civ 2 family, which was ended upon the release of Civ 5. Civ 5 is a different game altogether, with it's peace time focus with severe warmonger penalties. Even vanilla Civ 6 had this DNA from Civ 5, something that is slightly remedied with the grudges system of the newest expansion. That being said, Civ 2 will always have the definitive spy experience in my honest opinion. If Civ 6 imports the suitcase nuke feature, then I'll change my opinion.

[@vgmusicdispenser]

For those who'd like a fantasy mod, try Fall from Heaven II.

[@dominicnzl]

I ended up playing FfH2 even more than civ4 itself. Such a great complete overhaul with so many interesting ideas... and it became one big brawl that just worked.

[@OrangeNash]

Yes, almost a different game. And Fall from Heaven II is one of the best fantasy strategy games in it's own right. I prefer it to several of the other "proper" fantasy games such as Age of Wonders and Endless Legend. The tactical battles of AoW are decent, but the strategic map and civ building is far behind FFH2. And I think the cultures in FFH2 are more interesting than the standard tropes in many other similar games.

[@somecuriosities]

If a strategy game can be characterised by the strategic decisions you make whilst playing, then civ 5 & 6 are like having 1 button that does 100 things; civ 4 is like having 10 buttons hat do 10 things. That is why civ4 remains the best strategic Civ game.

[@Golemoid]

I started with 6 and honestly I can't get into older entries because they don't have the district system, and that's my favorite part of the game.

[@matomatic4599]

This was the first civ game I played and I loved it to bits, although I was a bit too young to properly understand the mechanics and strategies. Don't think I've touched it in the past decade, probably worth a revisit come to think of it!

[@JumboPixel]

It was the same for me! And I’m really glad I went back to it. And I mean, for $7 on Steam it’s an easy sell during a sale!

[@nevadanate4957]

I just went back to it and the game makes so much more sense. Trade routes are still a little tricky but I feel like I actually get resource / city management now

[@BlueTemplar15]

@@JumboPixel Please, stop supporting Steam, it's the reason why Civ5 and 6 will certainly not "stand the test of time" - it's also the only game version where you have to use a "beta" version to roll-back a "patch" that broke mods and added nothing of value... (For instance, the GoG version doesn't have this issue.)

[@alandev1872]

Civ IV is awesome, although how you play without resource yields switched on and with no UI Mods (BUG/BAT & Blue Marble are pretty standard now). Stacks of doom are much easier to work with than the carpets of doom we get in Civ V and VI.

[@CaribbeanHistory]

I’ve been playing Civ4 since 2006. I’ve seen gameplays of 5 and 6 but none of them convince me to play. Around the early 2010’s, my most recent computer couldn’t play the game because of its age and I thought I would never play it again until I learned about Steam. When I got Steam, Civ4 was among the first games I downloaded when it was on sale with all the DLC’s included. To this day, I play a lot of BTS, specifically Rhyes and Fall of Civilization because of the historical victories and stability. It makes it so realistic. The other mods are also very cool. Lastly, the very subtle expansion they did with the 1000AD scenario by allowing you to play as the Byzantines and Vikings (they were unplayable in the Vanilla version), was awesome! Colonization is tricky to understand at first but you get the hang of it later as you keep playing.

[@raptorhacker599]

Im already bored of the single tile unit crap in 6? should I give 4 a try?

[@aqgh1]

@@raptorhacker599 Yes, CIV 4 is the best of them all. AI loves to pump out military units all the time though so wars are frequent.

[@ThoriberoCaroli]

So true with Rhyes and Fall. They still haven't made a TSL and TSD combo that works so well. If only my empire wouldn't fall due to instability all the time... X) But when I did manage to make the Romans survive, and go colonize America? That was a feeling of triumph that no other Civ-game have managed to give me...

[@OrangeNash]

One reason Civ 4 was loved and still is loved is that it offers so much strategic and tactical depth. Over at Civ Fanatics forum, each Civ version has a "Strategies" section where people discuss strategies. Civ 4 has way more posts than 5 or 6, even when taking into account the years since release. Each Civ since 4 has got simpler, basically. Some like the simplicity, some prefer the more involved strategy of 4.

[@henrik9658]

Best civ game, I came back to it a year ago and made it my mission to get comfortable on deity difficulty and upload games

[@Taipei_103]

I love stacks of doom,and I was sad when Civ V removed that option. Civ III and Civ IV are my two favorites.

[@zodiac7287]

Caveman to Cosmos, a still actively developed mod, has me still playing Civ 4 even all these years laters.

[@Pizza7478]

Same Friend. The thing probably has 10,000 hours of content by itself

[@gorilladisco9108]

The problem is, it adds too much things. For example the leader trait is sooooo long that the popup hint can't list it all. And it crashed my computer after a few turn. Don't kill me, but I used the largest map size and my computer can't handle it.

[@Snoil]

Where do I find this?

[@Diver13666]

I have played Civ 1 just a litle in 90s, I tried Civ 5 once and dropped it and I played Civ 6 for six last years (in coop with my wife despite constant desyncs and dumb AI). Last week I discovered Civ 4 for the first time in my life and I can say that I'm in love with it. Yes, it has aged graphics and square-tiled map, but it feels like a huge UPGRADE to the game mechanics of Civ 6. (I miss the tactical aspect of Civ 6 a bit though, because I like 4x warfare, but the Civ 6's AI warfare was nonsense anyway.) And when I checked some mods for Civ 4 it just blew my mind. Right now I'm playing with A New Dawn 2 DLC-like mod to familiarize with core mechanics of Civ4 (and especially with revolts) and I have already had a glimpse of Caveman to Cosmos mod which expands the tech tree and game mechanics to a degree beyond all my expectations. It looks like a Peter Molyneux fantastic project, not a mere mod. So, as I said, in 2022 Civ 4 blew my mind.

[@ValTheGnat]

Alpha Centauri is still my fave “civ” game

[@favorius]

We must dissent.

[@DS-uo1zy]

awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww the nostalgia of that intro song. I was around 12 when i played civi back then. Now Im 21 and ill start humankind

[@jeanfonssedeporte3158]

You haven't spoken enough of all the fabulous mods ! You can really do what you want with the game engine, some mods even turn it into an X-COM kind of game !

[@allardpruim9474]

I play Civ4 on a regular basis and while it's a old game I really enjoy playing it with Realism Invictus. The downside however is that RI causes my game to crash later on in the game because of the old 32bit limitations.

[@BlueTemplar15]

Consider playing on a smaller map ? AFAIK Caveman 2 Cosmos has managed to deal with many of these issues, since it's *much* bigger than RI ? (Of course, as it gets bigger, new 32-bit issues pop up...)

[@CausticSpace]

@@BlueTemplar15 Managed is certainly not the word I'd use for the optimization in C2C. The dev team had to basically hault adding new content cause their mod keeps breaking cause of the limitations of Civ4

[@craigdavidson5613]

Thankfully I have a keen interest in Civilization IV. I found a copy at my local EB Games many years ago. It was a anthology pack, which contained Civilization IV, its two expansion packs, the Colonization spin-off, and Civilization III and its expansions. All for $15AU! I looked elsewhere in the store, and at the same time, during the same store, nearby, they also had Civilization IV with just the two expansion packs for $18AU. Luckily I went for the better deal. And did I mention it also was DRM free, and that you could play it without the disc in the drive?

[@spankythedog56]

I had a set back in 07 just like that plus civ 1 and 2 (on one disc) and also a card game version of 4 which was actually a lot of fun

[@molybdane7240]

Since plenty of people mention in in their comments, I thought that stacks of doom were countered by collateral damage units. Still, the balance might have been in favour of the stack. Besides that, Civ 4 introduced cottage industry to make your cities look like they were sprawling, and corporations.

[@JumboPixel]

Yup, and corporations wouldn't make a return until Civ 6's New Frontier Pass some 15 years later!

[@DrWonderbaum]

Yes! Collateral damage screwed my invasions a number of times

[@juangazol4997]

love this game, still playing it almost weekly, love the Next War mod in BTS, clones, mechs, etc. Hitting stacks of attacking armies, building the "perfect" stack, the annoying random events, raging barbarians, its all good. I rarely finish a game, I love the initial set-up, with the mad rush for territory and resources, using great artists to do culture bombs on border cities, taking snark from other civ leaders and the stress of a sudden war declaration just as you are about to declare war on someone else and your doom stacks are all ready, but on the wrong border and you realize that even though you have tanks and choppers, you left your smaller cities guarded by archers and warriors. Love using corporations and religions to seriously stack up the cash. Love razing aggressive civs who have unwisely decided to attack (looking at you Monty!).

[@msmith42001]

I hated when they took out the "globe view" full zoom out. Civ 4 problem was the stack of death. Infinite units in 1 tile. Here comes my 30 m-1 tanks who can all attack in a row.

[@JumboPixel]

Indeed it was an issue

[@sanseverything900]

I found shuffling around a huge number of units in 5 just got so tedious in the end game. Plus the AI had no idea how to use its units. I could easily push back an attack even if the AI outnumbered me 4 to 1. Civ4's stacks of dooms to me were just an abstraction of a civilization's military might, similar to how armies were represented by numbers in Europa Universalis. For people who are into the wargame style of shuffling around units on a board Civ5 is probably preferable to them, but I always preferred the focus on empire building/managing in Civ4.

[@seanbeadles7421]

One unit per tile is also problematic I’ve always thought a unit cap of say 10 would allow for unit density but also require more tactical thought

[@vulcanworf7422]

Great review. Civ 4 put together many in-game mechanics that made it so enjoyable & complete. These dynamics are critical to modern game dev. The player agency, do you build a warrior or building or long-term wonder? Exploring the map & then planning what to do based on your discoveries. Collecting resources was investing. The music was fun although the medieval music could drudge on over many games spent in that era. The war system wow, the medieval warfare was like a ind. game. The modern era is like playing a game w/in the game. The achievement system was so rewarding from the music to the animations & you felt so invested building your empire, especially if you shot for a culture win. Also the challenges develop as you progress in the game from attacking barbarians to cunning diplomatic rivals, i've seen games where the last couple of turns literally made all the difference.

[@PaladinLuke]

I feel one huge aspect about why folks like 4 over the rest of the games is the modding capabilities. It doesn't have an easy-to-use platform like the Steam Workshop to get distributed on, but it does have massive modding potential. Complete overhaul mods like Final Frontier or Fall From Heaven 2 look nothing like the original game and take it in completely different routes. You don't get that same level of control or change in the later games. Heck, even I'm making a personal mod just to mess around with in 4. I'm too dumb to figure it out for 5 or 6.

[@Pizza7478]

I'm a Big Caveman 2 Cosmos Fan. That one Mod has so many things packed into it that it could honestly count as 10 full $60 Price tag games by itself. And I'm talking $60 games from back when said games always had actual content. And it's still getting more.

[@PaladinLuke]

@@Pizza7478 C2C has always been a bit too overwhelming for me (I use smaller mods like History Rewritten in its place), but it's truly remarkable what their devs have done. It's a testament to the amazing power a community can have given the right tools.

[@alastairbrewster4274]

Hi friend I like modding too, what have you done?

[@PaladinLuke]

@@alastairbrewster4274 Nothing impressive so far, mainly Civ, religion, and texture reskins along with a handful of unique units and buildings.

[@PaladinLuke]

@@Pizza7478 Also, I recently got into C2C again and it's one hell of a ride in and of itself. Definitely want to get to Simulation Analysis some day!

[@gumbycat5226]

Because I hated the first release of Civ 5, I never got into it, and I don't know what it is about Civ 6 but I often struggle to keep engaged. I remember the Civ 2 scenarios, Alpha Centauri and Civ 4 as the games I most enjoyed playing, and I have been playing Civ since its inception, and nothing else except for Heroes.

[@trent3727]

I liked civ 2 for the cinematics and Elvis "the people cant help but fall in love with you"

[@defend4ever]

Civilization 6 seems too animated for my liking. I always come back to 4 because of it's more "realistic look" despite it being the older game.

[@iamunamed5800]

Civ IV with the Realism Invictus mod is, for me at least, the best grand strategy game there is. That mod relieves some of the doom stacking issues and makes the game more fun without adding too many complex features. If you think bigger is better there's also C2C which adds tones of extremely interesting features (but also a lot of needlessly complex ones as well)

[@boredandquarantined3161]

I can't get my RI Mod to work and Im super upset XD

[@sledgehammerk35]

@@boredandquarantined3161 have you downloaded and installed the latest update? Don’t know if that’s the problem, but they released a new one last year.

[@boredandquarantined3161]

@@sledgehammerk35 thats what I thought! I tried it yesterday and it worked fine! Thanks the for help tho!

[@ecliptairedux3281]

I love how in civ 4 you can build as many cities close to your future enemy civs without grievances also world builder is to tempting to cheat in war or cause chaos , also the mods are awesome makes me wonder why didn't I ever try them until this year been playing this game since 2005 when I was 10 years old lol makes me feel old.

[@0red01]

I'm still playing it. On the munde3 world map mod. I had the best game ever as USA. Turns took so long but utilized so many things in the game. I play exclusively beyond the sword now civ 4.

[@JosStorm]

World builder is hilariously fun. Watched my brother get so annoyed because his cities keep getting infiltrated by Ashoka's spies, so he spawned attack helicopters, MBTs, modern infantry, and nukes in which he used to destroy India lmaoo

[@WalterWorldGames]

I liked Civ5's hex grid and the anti-stack-of-doom "one unit per cell" rule as well as how cities are no longer limited to the cross. But I played it only twice: first time didn't last more than a dozen or so turns; second time I actually played it through. After that, I never really felt like playing it again. It's such a departure from past iterations that it's as if I'm playing a different franchise. On the other hand, yesterday I was feeling nostalgic, so I started a new Civ4 game. It felt just like home :-)

[@Clery75019]

1UPT and even hexes are only good ideas at first sight, but when you actually dig them out, they lead to very devastating consequences in simplifying things excessively and removing tons of depth to the game. 1UPT leads to much smaller civilizations being built as getting too big leads to clogging the map, and hexes restricting moves to only 6 directions instead of 8 considerably reduces the map complexity. Try to draw a map of Europe with hexes and with squares, you'll immediately see how the hex-map will feel much less detailed. That's actually a much bigger issue than the supposed "diagonal exploit" which isn't really one considering that AI pathfinding use it as well s human players, so there's actually nothing to "exploit" at all. Those are regressions, not progress.

[@Ashadow700]

I remember playing and enjoying Civ 4 back in the day, but after getting used to the new mechanics of Civ 5, it honestly just feels clunky to go back to it. Still fun reminiscing about though. =)

[@abbajabba4]

For mods, Blue Marble is a great little graphics update for the world textures.

[@savannaha5038]

Do you know how to get blue marble in 2022? The main download place has been down for a long time and I really wanna be able to use it outside of the RFC Dawn of Civilization mod :(

[@ShadowDogProduction]

Civ 4 felt like the designers got 95% done and then realized they had really bad diarrhea but they weren't allowed to leave their work stations until it was completely finished so they rushed the HELL out of that last 5%

[@JumboPixel]

Lol, I had a good chuckle at this one 😅

[@Jeffthecreepyastafan]

The modding community may be small but very loyal to the game they love, caveman to cosmos is by far one if the best civ4 mod I ever played. Absolutely incredible.(there was a fallout mod before it was cancelled sadly due to time and resources but what he have from it is still impressive)

[@jondm733]

Civ4 to me means mostly FFH2 EMM

[@jondm733]

I recently replayed Realism Invictus and I forgot how great it is as well for a more historic accurate mod. Very focused in strategic choices.

[@Jeffthecreepyastafan]

@@jondm733 true but despite the lag and difficulty at times caveman to Cosmo's is absolutely incredible. (It's hard to get to the nanotech age let alone into space unless you use the special space maps that allow that) but it's still fun.

[@jondm733]

@@Jeffthecreepyastafan I never managed to play a full game of that. All mods are great in their context. This is the beauty of this game, so many different approaches with all the random new maps and combinations give endless experiences.

[@firedog2820]

C2C is slow boring and bloated lol

[@sstlibertas6440]

The culture system peaked here. Hate the drab tourist system and arbitrary, permanent boundaries. The limited build charges, incremental price increase for workers and builders, and whole diplomacy system are also garbage, but I will hand it to Civ6 that religious combat is pretty fun. I just wish Civ4 had a mobile/iPad version

[@DylanSargesson]

Civ IV was my introduction to the games, still my favourite despite having also played V and VI

[@tertiary7]

The theme became iconic and performed around the world. I saw it at the Hollywood Bowl around 2008. And a few other venues.

[@froreyfire]

Baba Yetu? It's actually the Lord's Prayer (Our Father in Heaven) in Swahili.

[@turtlegod1013]

I'm actually singing Baba Yetu at my spring hs choir concert. it's magical.

[@DrWonderbaum]

I'll gladly take stacks of doom back if it's that or an AI that has a pile of military pieces that it just sort of noodles around the map for 400 years before I come through and sack their cities while they inexplicably retreat.

[@muffinman5741]

Because I still prefer stacking units

[@JumboPixel]

Really, why's that - more simple to manage?

[@muffinman5741]

@@JumboPixel it's mostly about the immersion to me. I always wanna be able to pretend that there is a real history happening. Like I wanna have a feeling "how would this look like in real life". Stacked units just seemed more realistic to me and makes you inagine big battles and armies. I also don't really like giant cities. I would really prefer the genre going back to single tile cities and stacked units tho I know I'm alone on that one.

[@ZerglingWasteland]

@@JumboPixel I'm in the same boat as the OP and part of is that the AI in Civ5/6 really can't handle one unit per tile, making it utterly incompetent at warfare. Civ4 AI is also nothing special, but the relative simplicity makes a large stack of units actually threatening instead of an exercise in watching the AI clog up a superhighway with its own units. While certain features of 5 / 6 are certainly more complex, the AI is not equipped to deal with them properly, which is why Civ4's Immortal difficulty is a challenge and 5 / 6... is much less so.

[@technokicksyourass]

@@JumboPixel Late comment... but the appeal of doom stacks in multiplayer.. is that they were decisive. The first 20 minutes of the game, you had to select when to switch your economy from growth to military.. build a stack.. then send it in a single surprise attack. The moment you send your stack into view of the enemy, your adrenaline was flowing... because in this moment, you were going to be dashed.. or you would capture an entire civilization in a move that would often allow you to go on to beat the remaining 6 players due to the economy boost of having all the extra land.

[@filipinorutherford7818]

​@@muffinman5741Nope 100% agree with you. Doom stacks was awesome. This whole cities in Civ 5 and 6 having cannons and catapults automatically there and abke to shoot multiple hexs away was just dumb and made taking cities a massive drag.

[@vunu.]

THANK YOU FOR FINALLY MAKING THIS!

[@JumboPixel]

My pleasure 😇

[@hairharbor5080]

Nothing will ever beat CivIII.

[@EddyGirón-r4k]

If it wasn't for the probability attack/defense chance for all units being so out of balance (losing many units with a 95% + of winning a battle) maybe it can be considered as the best Civ of all them. Plus the absolutely nonsensical feature of global warming damaging your valuable city tiles makes it impossible for Civ 4 to get even the second spot as Civ 2 has so many unique qualities to it, and NO serious counterproductive features that are going to torture your beloved gameplay. A smaller egregious one would be how many animals the game spawns that more often than not kills all of your scouts before they can explore half of the map, ridiculous. I used to like it so much but after really trying to learn Civ 5's mechanics, I would be lying to everyone if I were to place Civ 4 above third place.

[@wilberwhateley7569]

Scouts receive combat bonuses vs animal units - if you are losing them in large numbers to animals, you’re doing something wrong…

[@EddyGirón-r4k]

@@wilberwhateley7569 100% bonus against animals they have, a lot, isn't it?!!! yet when the scout only has 1 point of strength and the animal has 2, tons of lions and panthers all over the place, one is bound to lose them ALL. I used to play on Immortal, and I'm not going to make a video just to show how stupid the system Civ 4 uses is, especially to avoid this kind of replies from people. I've given my scouts 50% more defense on forests and jungles and trying to make them go through that type of terrain, and still losing them, it's ridiculous. All of these games are ridiculous, and one would be that too if were to play them. There's no fun, only frustration and anger, one is better off getting married instead, the pros and cons ratio is more forgiven than playing any video games, especially if one has learned to identify people's personalities, the risk immensely lowers. Did you know one can acquire Construction and Aesthetics through huts (villages)?

[@wilberwhateley7569]

@@EddyGirón-r4k Considering that most animals have an attack power of 2 (3 at most) this should be more than enough if you take advantage of the terrain - stick to hills, woods, river banks or preferably tiles that have combinations of these features and your scouts should come out on top in most engagements vs animals.

[@EddyGirón-r4k]

@@wilberwhateley7569 You told me NOTHING new and you didn't answer my direct question to you, figures. Scouting is basic compared to the things one has to manage in these games and I reiterate, these games (maybe with Civ 2 being the exception) are not worth anyone's time simply because they are absolutely frustrating (anyone who values their time, that is) Video games WERE MEANT to be a fun experience, not a negative one. On the other hand, don't know why you felt compelled to reply to me with such weak argument, ignoring more than 65% of my initial points. YOU are indeed doing something wrong when engaging in conversations.

[@TheMelnTeam]

Still the only Civ game with an above-mediocre UI. Seems like more modern strategy game designers don't know how to make UI.

[@JumboPixel]

Good point - it does have a solid UI, for it's age especially!

[@murilovieira2785]

Civilization Revolution also have a good UI.

[@Pizza7478]

@@murilovieira2785 Yes, but it was also so barebones it made Civ 6 look like it has content

[@lunsen402]

Caveman to cosmos is a great civ 4 mod. Takes a while to get through all the eras but really fun (i think)

[@rossusarnulfus7552]

Mods in Civ 4 were what glued me to that game for so long. There are plenty of really good mods, such as Rhye's and Fall of Civilizations (and it's modmods), Realism Invictus, Varietas Delectat, Fall from Heaven II and many, many more. I didn't play basic game that much, I always played some mods. Unfortunately, I didn't found such variety of mods for 5 and 6. Somehow Civ 4 allowed modders to mold itself into ways not possible for other Civ games. Oh, and while I like customization of religions in 5 and 6, I don't like that religions are tied to certain civ that created it. In Civ 4 religions are more independent from it's founder, and also one civ can create multiple religions, even all of them, which is a bit more realistic to me.

[@shinydewott]

4:26 I haven't really played Civ IV, but saying the Civ VI world builder is better than Civ V's is ludicrous. The Civ VI world builder is unstable as all hell, especially for making scenarios. It doesn't allow you to set world wonders, change capitals or even rename cities and while it does give you the option of having more than 12 civilizations or 24 city states, you can't launch the game with them and even if you do with mods, it consistently crashes (god forbid I put 33 city states on the map instead of 32). You also can't place cities too close to eachother like in Civ V's world builder

[@redseagaming7832]

I really love civilization for games where you are on a battle on multiple fronts I went to war with Japan in one game just to get the iron and oil deposits but then Greece joined the war on Japan side I thought I was going to lose this was my first real victory in Civilization 4 by the end of the war I got the oil and iron deposits and 95.6% of all Greece was annexed by me my Empire was now three times the size of what it was at the start of the war( I was the smallest Empire on the continent). I didn't know how to buy improvements for cities back then so I actually waited patiently for the buildings to naturally rebuilt with turns I had one goal on my mind after winning that war and rebuilding the economy conquer the entire continent which I achieved the Japanese the Maya the Russians we're all conquered and absorbed into my Empire making me the Continental superpower since I had the game as six continents I immediately started the invasion of the continent of Egypt. By 2800 ad I had the largest army in the game 3000 battleships 1300 modern armored tanks at least three continents under my control 100 transport ships my country was so huge in my armies were so fast my computer could barely handle the amount of units on the screen so it slowed down

[@Charles_Anthony]

Civ4 is a masterpiece. I enjoy Civ6, but it just isn't the same. One unit per tile killed the series, but the new ideas with districts is pretty interesting.

[@earlofdoncaster5018]

1UPT was a brilliant idea. They just didn't supply an AI that could cope with it.

[@raptorhacker599]

@@earlofdoncaster5018 it is one of the most stupid ideas possible

[@earlofdoncaster5018]

@@raptorhacker599 Why?

[@adzi6164]

I do agree that combat in V and VI is more tactical, tho. The "no stacking" limitation is good in theory... but I feel that the maps aren't really balanced around that, any larger army and everything bogs down (good thing that support units can stack with combat ones tho)

[@OrangeNash]

@@adzi6164 Theoretically. In practice, the combat in V and VI is so simplistic, it has no challenge. It makes tic-tac-toe appear like 5 dimensional chess.

[@ugandanknuckles3900]

It was the first one I played. And the only I think. That music at the start brought a nostolgia I havent felt in awhile. My favorite part was the quotes. Something about this game felt pure and good hearted. Almost innocent as a childrens learning book. Very captivating for its time. My time.

[@omaha2pt]

I started with Civ III. Played them all since. Civ IV is the only one I still play to this day, every week if not every day.

[@ServingOthers99]

As someone who first got introduced to the Civ series with Civ 3 in probably 2003 or so, then got Civ 4 and its expansions in the years 2006-07 and played the living crap out of them (I actually still play 4 regularly lol and sometimes play 3 when i'm feeling extra nostalgic), I am incredibly biased in favoring 4 over 5 or 6, of course, but I still would say that BTS in particular (especially the Rhye's and Fall mod) is the best Civ game ever made. Hands down. It just has so much depth, complexity, and opportunities to use so many different tactics within a variety of major strategic frameworks imo. I tried out 5 and 6, personally just didn't care for some of the mechanics, but like I said I'm highly biased lol.

[@_Aemse]

you should try the end war mod and letting the other world powers form major bloc's (pump them up if you have too) while you build up for a massive end war in a final gambit for world hegemony - I really had a lot of fun, my armies had to cross the nuclear wasteland (in response to a smaller less advanced nation that was nuked into nothing) to fight the 2 other world powers I fed technology and funding - I basically roleplay nowadays on noble difficulty lol.

[@hostandersson4301]

I never liked any civ game after 4. I started playing CIV 2, but when 4 came I was hooked. I still play it today, and for most of this time I've played my own simple modificated run: Highlands, dense mountains and lakes to create natural choke points. Raging barbarians to keep the early game fair. Monarch difficulty. And the cherry on top: All sciences that get you past the Renaissance, I've blocked in the game files by removing them. So you're stuck forever into the future still in Knights, Castles and Trebuchets. I find it extremely replayable :)

[@michaelcooke]

One of the things I enjoy most about Civ IV are the choices you have to make early on that have a big impact later in the game. In a recent game I tried holding off building factories to see what happens and of course it ended up slowing things down later when I was trying to build a modern navy. I kind of knew that would happen, but I wanted to see how things could play out differently if I chose a different path up the tech tree.

[@professorpenne9962]

it felt like and still feels like a board game and having nimoy narration is just a chef kiss

[@4u57inc0v3110]

You know what I miss in Civ 4? Being able to queue tasks for your workers. That was really nice. Not to mention once you were done building your fat crosses, there was a completely separate button for building a trade network. No worrying about the workers building over previous improvements until and unless I wanted them to.

[@vraborf.2722]

Civ4 is an amazing but not perfect game, if it is modded. Unmodded, it is unworthy for a Civilization game and feels half done. That is what I think about it^^

[@gabrielandy9272]

i just can't go back to any civ game after the new city building style of VI its much superior in my opnion, feels more like a city building game that i love.

[@meleemommy]

That's fair, that's what you like, and what makes it imo a completely different game than Civ 1-4.

[@Malryth]

I originally got into the original Civilization game back just after High School. A friend of mine gave me a "copy" of the game and he also had one of those Brady Strategy Guide books, which was an immense help. Since that fateful day, I've enjoyed the series. I was big into Civilization II, when Civilization III arrived, it has the look and feel of Civ IV but borders are meaningless to other AI players. I agree that Civilization IV, especially if you find it on sale at Steam or GoG's is well worth the price. It still kept with the "efficiently programed" philosophy, so you don't need much of a PC or laptop to be able to play this on. That's where my journey ended with Civilization. My tech game is lame and I don't have anything to even play V or VI on. Then again, I haven't heard much great things about those games compared to the "hay day" of Firaxis. Great review and discussion about a game that anyone who's into strategy games should try.

[@Rich4098]

Civ4 BTS was the pinnacle. The only weakness was managing stacks of doom. It was about governance, which is at the heart of what civilization is about. It showcased the cause and effect of how civilizations progress chronologically, without artificial constructs that only make sense in real history.

[@jstube36]

For me Civ III is still the best of the franchise. But there were features from Civ IV I did enjoy. Immigration was a concept that should return. The wild animal barbarians were a great feature. The sprawled out city was a nice realistic feature. The cartoonish graphics were a bit of a turn-off. But that was tolerable with all the other nice features.

[@JumboPixel]

Interesting - do you still play Civ 3?

[@jstube36]

@@JumboPixel It may be obsolete for Windows 10. But I think I'll try it anyway. I highly recommend, any fan of the series, to try a couple of games on Civ III. Civ III Conquests was the last of the expansions. One interesting feature. You can settle cities within your own territory. especially useful for stealing strategic resources from a rival Civ. And Civ III is still the best in terms of Sea activity. And you can obtain a World Map(to unlock the entire map) instead of waiting to gain Satelites. Try it out.

[@sloppyolivermon9]

I always hated playing on a world map and France would turn Paris into an uninvadable fortress. shame nukes couldn't kill units

[@Christina-g4s]

Yes nukes could, stack tile and city killers. Shame Ai always voted to ban them before I built them 😂

[@tomfrascina5846]

I'm torn between 4 & 5 being my favourite. I prefer things about each one but nothing too major

[@legitplayin6977]

Never played the game, but Baba Yetu still slaps like no other songs in the series. Edit: Holy ****** is this Stalin at 3:17?

[@lankylemon8555]

Looks like it, probably the most famous Russian leader they just had to tone it down and make it more PC in later instalments

[@tomaszkolano8943]

Yes Agressive and Industrialist leader of Russia/The Soviet Union. Stalin's personality is focused on extreme espionage and build up relations with civs, which has same government as him.

[@legitplayin6977]

Ok thanks guys for the info, now I need to buy this game.

[@JumboPixel]

Believe it or not, that is him. It feels weird because, like everyone is saying, we haven’t seen such controversial leaders in Civ for a long time!

[@legitplayin6977]

@@JumboPixel Controversial or not, papa Stalin’s moustache speaks out to me.

[@Shenanirats]

I'm old enough that I've played each game on release. Civ II was impressive, but a predictable progression of graphics and gameplay. Civ III was basically a nicer, more refined II. But IV? Wow! When that dropped, with the new religion mechanic and the foundations of now core concepts were quite revolutionary. The graphics were quite advanced, and I dont' think have aged all that much. Plus, Baba Yetu is an epic little ditty. I also ponder how the internet game sites over taking print media helped push the hype, and perhaps the nostaglia for a lot of gamers now days. I remember seeing a lot online about IV, whereas with III I only knew about it from PC gaming mags. I do really enjoy VI, but I find it easier to go back to IV than V. I felt V was just a slightly more refined version. The original will always be my favourite, but IV is next on the list.

[@0red01]

Remember when it was a disc with no Internet? No steam! I used to get paid to play civ on a computer while I babysat a building. I play 2 on PlayStation before I was able to use a computer for 3.

[@vgmusicdispenser]

Oh and corporations were pretty fun too. Who wouldn't love Sid's Sushi Co.? :D

[@meleemommy]

I've been playing since the original and I tried 6 and just couldn't for the life of me get into it. I think I recall feeling the same way when 5 came out. Civ IV really is the best for now. I hope they return to these roots with 7.

[@gendoruwo6322]

5 n 6 are for ... 'new players'. true hardcores go for civ 4.

[@brian4579]

Five years ago I bought this game at a thrift store for $1. I just played it for the first time yesterday and it's replaced sleep for me. Merry Christmas and one turn of anarchy! Super fun!

[@edust83]

I always played on Prince difficulty because that's how I enjoyed Civ4 the most (like most other player I think higher difficulties are like playing with cheating AI). But now I'm pushing myself to beat Emperor's mode so now I have to develop new ways to play. Its incredible how after +15 years I'm still discovering its hidden mechanics and learning new tactics.

[@RogerSullivanNOLA]

I don't even understand how people think CIV V and VI are great games at all. The AI in those games is awful at playing the game, and completely ruins the single player experience for me. CIV II, III and IV are all far superior games, IMO.

[@Pizza7478]

I know right? Civ V was at least Tolerable, but Civ 6 is a clusterfuck of a downgrade in every possible way.

[@aaronyandell2929]

I was introduced to the Civilization series with a booklet for Civilization 3, but I only really started playing with Civilization Revolution. Civilization 4 looks very similar to CivRev, and for that reason alone I think I can get comfortable with Civ4 rather quickly.

[@0red01]

I still have the booklet/manual. Read the whole thing before civilpedia. Classic!

[@ianbrooke6342]

When this game first came out I thought it looked awful, I still do. The mechanics are better than Civ3 (which was terrible to play) but when I can't stand looking at it what's the point?

[@OrangeNash]

Part of the problems with Civ 5 and Civ 6 was that Civ 4 was just so good, it was hard to improve on. Something had to change, right? They were obliged to keep churning Civs out. So the only changes have pretty much made it worse. 1UPT sounds neat, but ends up horrible. Limiting stacks would have done. Squares to hexes? Never has a more pointless change been made! It makes not one bit of difference to the core game. Oh, scrub that - districts. Also sounds a novelty, but ultimately, adds nothing other than change for change sake. "Interesting decisions?". No. Just change for changes sake and more busy work. Novelty value that like 1UPT, soon wears off when you realise it means what used to be a "Civilisation" is now a "County" and adds no genuine strategic depth to the game. For Civ 7, they may as well just change the colour scheme of 6 and leave it at that. It couldn't be worse than the current sickly yellow that makes what should be a deep strategy game look and feel like a cheap mobile phone app.

[@BlueTemplar15]

Hexes alone would have been an interesting change. See Shadow Empire for a recent 4X game with both hexes and stacks.

[@winedrooling6702]

I bought this game when I travel to Aotearoa. I was so obsessed with this! Hahaha I remember long evenings very stoned playing. Aghh I miss so much hahaha

[@biggestboofer]

Honestly considered buying the game during the steam summer sale just to have to baba yetu play on loop cause idk if i could handle learning how to play a 3rd civ game

[@R-H-B]

Baba yetu is on youtube if you just want the music

[@JumboPixel]

Hahaha! Yup it’s so nostalgic, I had a lot of fun with it in the video 😅