Civ4 or Civ3?

Hard to say... both have enough strategy to keep you busy for years and as much realism as they want to (the tech tree contains many 'what-if' scenarios, and many good approaches are very far removed from anything a real-life civ did).

If you want a compact, deep but streamlined gameplay and don't mind a cartoony/tongue-in-cheek style, get Civ4.
If you want something a little more serious that really drives home the epic scope and you don't mind a few restrictive/heavy-handed mechanics, get Civ3.

I love civ4 and don't like civ3 at all, but they are both good games.
 
I've played hundreds of hours of every version since Civ2. All were tremendous fun in their time, but I can't imagine going back from Civ4 BTS to any of them. There are far too many great things introduced in Civ4 to list, but the diplomatic and economic systems alone are enough to keep me in Civ4. Civ3 strategy revolved around (IMO) cheesy tech for gold-per-turn trades - find an early tech nobody else has, then trade for 20-turn gpt deals, draining the world's economy in order to make it easier for you to reach another tech first. Rinse and repeat. Once you got the hang of it, it was a pretty straightforward game - I could easily win every game on Emperor and could play passably on higher levels. Civ4's economics and diplomacy are much more subtle and the overall game is far more challenging. I can win consistently on Emperor now and should probably move to Immortal, but it took me a long time to get there and even Monarch and Prince were challenging for quite a while. Civ4 is just a far richer game.
 
Its only at a site called Civfanatics where you'll find anyone crazy enough to say Civ 4 isn't the best version.

Civ 4 is the best version but shop carefully as prices are inconsistent. See if you can't get the Complete bundle for a good sale price.
 
definitely Civ 4! the only other Civ I played was Civ 3, and it doesn't even compare. but make sure you get the Complete Edition, with Beyond the Sword..

I'm a new player for Civ 4 man, and it's really great... they finally incorporated all these other ideas.. for me, Civ 3 always boiled down to Wars, but it seems like Civ 4 has a much more balanced game.

the graphics are so much better for one. but beyond that, the Espionage system is awesome, and SOOOO many improvements in the interface...

go to Amazon! I got the complete bundle for 23$
 
Civ IV is better for me and this seems the majority opinion. For history realism IMHO, I'd vote for playing Rhye's on Civ IV. Play Civ IV a couple of times and then try the Rhye's mod.
 
Here is an overall objective look at 3 verse 4:

Civ 4 is geared towards:
Macromanagement, developers tried to get rid of all forms of micro, so no nitty gritty down and dirty here.
Combat uses 1 number, but does have promotions and unit bonus'. So combat is easier to see who is likely going to win based on the single number strength factor, and game shows info on screen as well.
Civ 4 is not Epic and huge since a large empire often consists of under 10 cities, this was done to put in 3d graphics. But games will (definitely) not become overwhelming chores as the largest Civ 3 maps often can.
Civ 4's 3d graphics are nothing awe inspiring; when the game came out they were average, and now they could be considered very outdated. This is comparing Civ4 to other top-notch games of it's time at release (in which Civilization ranks very high). But 3d is inevitable, so I see Civ 4 as being a jump off platform and expect Civ 5 to have good/excellent 3d graphics.
The Developers listened to all complaints of Civ 3, and based Civ 4 off of that by attempting to fix those problems; as well as adding in new features.

Civ 3 is geared towards:
More Micromanagement based, but no micro is needed to play the game, but you won't fair as well as doing some micromanagement of your empire.
Combat uses the Attack and Defense combat values, which I feel is far superior to a 1 number strength value. But combat does not has specific unit bonus', which I like in Civ 4.
Feels Epic in that you can have half a thousand cities on a map (and more now)... but might feel too Epic at times when you may have too many cities; and many feel overwhelmed even trying to do a little bit of micromanagement with this number. But smaller maps can be selected.
Uses Sprite Isometric graphics which are also outdated, but game is close to a decade old.

Developers listened to things in Civ 3, such as Spearman beats Tank issue, corruption, and complaints against micromanagement, and changed these for the 4th version. Thus Civ 4 is Macromanagement based, corruption is no longer an issue, and units now have single strength value.

I tend to hear most often:
Players don't like Civ 3 due to corruption, micromanagement, combat issues, AI has some issues.
Players don't like Civ 4 due to small empire sizes, so-so 3d graphics, single number for combat, feels slower/loss of interest.
Although this is no exhaustive list.

Civ 4 has more modding capabilities due to XML, but is more difficult to mod (requires you know XML).
Civ 3 has less modding capabilities due to no source code, but has much easier editor to mod through.

As for strategy, history, and realism: there are major ups and downs to both 3 and 4 depending on exactly how much and what you are looking for precisely.
The overall game is not exactly the same, but the base of it is.
Civ 4 has many more options than 3 since it is that much newer. Civ 3 still has a vibrant community, and the size of it speaks for itself (mostly those who have reverted back to 3 from 4); usually it seems that of all users online here there are 3 times more people in Civ 4 forums than Civ 3, which is quite impressive given III's age.
For combat, neither is even remotely realistic whatsoever (anyone who says otherwise is out of their mind; for combat realism, a tactical war simulation should be played instead).
3 has a larger database of historical units because of it's age. For history, Civ 4 has the ability to mod scenarios more in depth than 3 does, since 3 you are stuck with the robust but limited capabilities of the editor.

Just so you know, I have 4 and all expansions, but went back to 3 primarily because the annoying things in 4 I felt were more annoying than the ones in 3 (most things in the I tend to hear most often list). I won't tell you 3 is better than 4, or 4 is better than 3... it all depends on your personal preference.

Tom
 
See? Look at all dem words. Hes nuts and you'll only find him and his sort here.

Civ3 is good for people who like spreadsheets, 100 identical cities in an empire that need babysitting and bad AI.

Regarding combat systems: Civ3 is an Attack/Defense value system done badly, Civ 4 is a Strength value system done well. In Civ3 you just spam the best attack value unit you have at the time. In Civ4 there is a counter system where one unit has a weakness to another so you need to mix armies. At the very least you'll need a strong unit, a counter to the strong units counter, and Siege or City defense depending on whether you're attacking or defending.

Moderator Action: Flaming - warned
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Senethro said:
See? Look at all dem words. Hes nuts and you'll only find him and his sort here.

Civ3 is good for people who like spreadsheets, 100 identical cities in an empire that need babysitting and bad AI.

Regarding combat systems: Civ3 is an Attack/Defense value system done badly, Civ 4 is a Strength value system done well. In Civ3 you just spam the best attack value unit you have at the time. In Civ4 there is a counter system where one unit has a weakness to another so you need to mix armies. At the very least you'll need a strong unit, a counter to the strong units counter, and Siege or City defense depending on whether you're attacking or defending.
Click to expand...
<snip>

The Developers have said it themselves, in combat generally the unit with the higher number wins. So saying stupid things doesn't make you sound intelligent.

My sort? Objective individuals who compare both sides evenly. Your sort is the picture I posted above :lol:

Senethro is an example of another Troll that tends to be some kind of trend. Some other guy went all ballistic before because he said every game in the universe sucks and people are stupid if they don't like Civ 4. You and him both have some serious mental issues. Perhaps you were beat or raped by your parents as a child?

Even an objective look at both games gets people of Senethro's sort all worked up and start crying stupid lines like "Civ 4 is better no matter what". Is your IQ that low you can't even look at an objective overview which was left for the Original Poster's information, and not for you?

Tom

Moderator Action: Image removed - warned for flaming
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Oh yes Tom, and your post makes you look like such a bigger & better man by unnecessarily flaming him. Well done.

All petty arguing aside, I've played both and I have to say that I like Civ 4 better. It (in my opinion) is more fun and less tedious. A game in bot civs can last a long time, but in Civ 3, turns in the later game can take 15 minutes each, due to the amount of units that need to be moved (like, for example, 50 workers). The UI is also much, much more helpful to the player in Civ 4. Civ 4 also has a bunch of cool features that I like.

However, I do like Civ 3 for 2 reasons; the sheer size of the maps and that the ancient age lasts quite a while.

Overall though I like 4 for all of its improvements. If I were you, I'd get them both on Steam. Buying both complete editions will only set you back $30 total.
 
Da_V_Man said:
Oh yes Tom, and your post makes you look like such a bigger & better man by unnecessarily flaming him. Well done.
Click to expand...

If someone calls me nuts (unncecssary flaming) because I give a fair judgement for both sides of 3 and 4 for the poster's information, not yours or anyone elses... then that person is a troll.

so I will put words in your mouth:

Da_V_Man said:
Oh yes Tom and Senethro, both of your posts make you look like such a bigger & better man by unnecessarily flaming the other. Well done.
Click to expand...

Tom


Moderator Action: Trolling - warned
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Tom, I'd be hurt if Senethro and Troll didn't have over 1000 hits on google already.

The Developers have said it themselves, in combat generally the unit with the higher number wins. So saying stupid things doesn't make you sound intelligent.
Click to expand...
I'm going to give this its special treatment as its particularly ignorant. Yes, of course the higher number wins. But in Civ 3 the number is fixed except for a few defensive bonuses. In Civ4 the numbers will change depending on circumstances. e.g. Pikemen have double strength versus Cavalry. Longbowmen have extra strength when defending hills or cities. You can even modify every unit so that it has specialisations against a particular unit type, or in a particular terrain or maybe it just heals faster.

What does Civ3 have to compare with that?

But if you're going to be all offended that I didn't show my working for how right I am, here goes:

tom2050 said:
Here is an overall objective look at 3 verse 4:

Civ 4 is geared towards:
Macromanagement, developers tried to get rid of all forms of micro, so no nitty gritty down and dirty here.False
Combat uses 1 number, but does have promotions and unit bonus'. So combat is easier to see who is likely going to win based on the single number strength factor, and game shows info on screen as well.
Civ 4 is not EpicSubjective and huge since a large empire often consists of under 10 citiesFalse, this was done to put in 3d graphics. But games will (definitely) not become overwhelming chores as the largest Civ 3 maps often can.
Civ 4's 3d graphics are nothing awe inspiring; when the game came out they were average, and now they could be considered very outdatedSubjective - Graphics? In a 4X?. This is comparing Civ4 to other top-notch games of it's time at release (in which Civilization ranks very high)False - it was only adequate even then. But 3d is inevitable, so I see Civ 4 as being a jump off platform and expect Civ 5 to have good/excellent 3d graphics.
The Developers listened to all complaints of Civ 3, and based Civ 4 off of that by attempting to fix those problems; as well as adding in new features.

Civ 3 is geared towards:
More Micromanagement based, but no micro is needed to play the game, but you won't fair as well as doing some micromanagement of your empire.
Combat uses the Attack and Defense combat values, which I feel is far superior to a 1 number strength valueSubjective - Try giving a reason why Civ3 one unit type stacks are better. But combat does not has specific unit bonus', which I like in Civ 4.
Feels Epic in that you can have half a thousand cities on a map (and more now)... but might feel too Epic at times when you may have too many cities; and many feel overwhelmed even trying to do a little bit of micromanagement with this number. But smaller maps can be selected.
Uses Sprite Isometric graphics which are also outdated, but game is close to a decade old.

Developers listened to things in Civ 3, such as Spearman beats Tank issue, corruption, and complaints against micromanagement, and changed these for the 4th version. Thus Civ 4 is Macromanagement based, corruption is no longer an issue, and units now have single strength value.

I tend to hear most often:
Players don't like Civ 3 due to corruption, micromanagement, combat issues, AI has some issues.
Players don't like Civ 4 due to small empire sizes, so-so 3d graphics, single number for combat, feels slower/loss of interestTheres no reason to think people with complaints about graphics or speed would go back to a worse looking, slower game..
Although this is no exhaustive list.

Civ 4 has more modding capabilities due to XML, but is more difficult to mod (requires you know XML).The best Civ4 mods are practically new games in their own right. Unfortunately, many are more ambitious than successfully realised
Civ 3 has less modding capabilities due to no source code, but has much easier editor to mod through.Endless scenarios and item replacements but essentially the same game. Doesn't excite me.

As for strategy, history, and realism: there are major ups and downs to both 3 and 4 depending on exactly how much and what you are looking for precisely.
The overall game is not exactly the same, but the base of it is.
Civ 4 has many more options than 3 since it is that much newer. Civ 3 still has a vibrant communityHah! I don't know about MP or if the Civ3 plalyers have some super secret hideout but there are Civ4 mods with more vibrant forum communities than Civ3. Check out Fall from Heaven., and the size of it speaks for itself (mostly those who have reverted back to 3 from 4); usually it seems that of all users online here there are 3 times more people in Civ 4 forums than Civ 3, which is quite impressive given III's age.
For combat, neither is even remotely realistic whatsoever (anyone who says otherwise is out of their mind; for combat realism, a tactical war simulation should be played instead).
3 has a larger database of historical units because of it's age. For history, Civ 4 has the ability to mod scenarios more in depth than 3 does, since 3 you are stuck with the robust but limited capabilities of the editor.

Just so you know, I have 4 and all expansions, but went back to 3 primarily because the annoying things in 4 I felt were more annoying than the ones in 3 (most things in the I tend to hear most often list). I won't tell you 3 is better than 4, or 4 is better than 3... it all depends on your personal preference.

Tom
Click to expand...

Plenty factually wrong and plenty subjective.

Tom, you're a civfanatic for the wrong reasons. You love the aspects of the game that were toned down between 3-->4. You like to do things other people find not fun. Fun in Civ is interesting decisions and choices. All Civ3 can give is braindead unit spam from identical cities.

Here are some Firaxis games/mods of that are better than Civ 3.
Civ 4. Alpha Centauri. Fall from Heaven.

Moderator Action: Flaming - warned
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Do you actually read the posts? Soren Johnson himself stated that one of the main goals of Civ 4 was to get rid of micromanagement and implement a macromanagement based system. This is precisely what they did. If you think that Soren Johnson is a liar, then write to him about it.

I stated the most common complaints against both Civ 3 and Civ 4 that are often given by players in both games... and I did so to inform the original poster of this information...

I mentioned that I do like the promotions and bonus' aspect of Civ 4, but a single strength factor is limiting in many respects, thus if Civ 4 had units with promotions, bonus' and Attack/Defense factors, the game would be much more versatile.

Perhaps you missed all the aspects of Civ 3 that I mentioned were not great... there were just as many as I mentioned for 4. There are also other downsides I did not mention.

It is not common in Civ 4 to have many cities at all... so why do you say false now? I made a good point for you; since you said you can't stand 100 cities in an empire that needs babysitting. So you should be satisfied with 10 city empires that need no babysitting.

The unit graphics are not good by todays standards, and were par when the game came out... zoomed way out everything looks fine, but units are substandard. Civ 3 graphics are not great either... as I mentioned.

If you disagree, that is fine, but all points are the most common things I see on the boards which makes players like one better than the other.

I LIKE Civ 4... I never said I did not like Civ 4... it is a much enjoyable game. I happen myself to find Civ 3 more enjoyable, but Civ 4 is very popular for a reason.

I'm done with this back and forth non-sense, it is a complete waste of time when I left a non-offensive post originally trying to give some helpful input on both sides of the game for the poster.

Thank you all and thanks to me also for making CivFanatics a less desirable place to be. I will post a special Civ 3 unit in honor of you.

Tom
 
tom2050 said:
Do you actually read the posts? Soren Johnson himself stated that one of the main goals of Civ 4 was to get rid of micromanagement and implement a macromanagement based system. This is precisely what they did. If you think that Soren Johnson is a liar, then write to him about it.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what this is in response to. Either you've misread me or I've mistyped something. Clue me in.

I mentioned that I do like the promotions and bonus' aspect of Civ 4, but a single strength factor is limiting in many respects, thus if Civ 4 had units with promotions, bonus' and Attack/Defense factors, the game would be much more versatile.
Click to expand...
Whats the difference between having a defensive ability that gives +25% to Str and simply having a different defensive value? Not very much in practical game terms.

It is not common in Civ 4 to have many cities at all... so why do you say false now? I made a good point for you; since you said you can't stand 100 cities in an empire that needs babysitting. So you should be satisfied with 10 city empires that need no babysitting.
Click to expand...
On a Standard size map then you're probably not going to spend a long time at less than 10 cities unless you're exceptionall peaceful. Small empires are a choice, not a requirement.

so... Troll.. go back to the hole where you came from. If you disagree, that is fine, but all points are the most common things I see on the boards which makes players like one better than the other.

Tom
Click to expand...

Most people enjoy Civ4. Civ4 is now cheap. Thats all the OP needs to know.
 
Senethro said:
I have no idea what this is in response to. Either you've misread me or I've mistyped something. Clue me in.
Click to expand...

Here you go, in this post that you left:
Civ 4 is geared towards:
Macromanagement, developers tried to get rid of all forms of micro, so no nitty gritty down and dirty here.False
Click to expand...
I'm sure there is micromanagement in the game still, but not near as much as 3 had, which most players think is a good thing. Much of the micro they scrapped I am glad they did, some I am not.

Whats the difference between having a defensive ability that gives +25% to Str and simply having a different defensive value? Not very much in practical game terms.
Click to expand...
All throughout history, some units are made with defensive and offensive roles in mind, and not all-around for both. A Machinegun Nest having 25 defense, but no attack capabilities, along with bonus' that give them strengths vs certain units, along with promotions would be an incredible thing. That was my point... the best of 4 and aspects of 3 combined. We will have to wait to see what 5 brings to the table.

On a Standard size map then you're probably not going to spend a long time at less than 10 cities unless you're exceptionall peaceful. Small empires are a choice, not a requirement.
Click to expand...

I suppose what I meant is that it is not as Epic in size, but 4 is more Epic in a large variety of other ways.

cepiolot, if they have demo's of either game, perhaps try them both out, since 5 is probably not incredibly far away from release (2010 perhaps?)...

Tom
 
it's funny to me how a game designed by practically the same people or person can generate so much debate/in-group out-group mentality. i say, a true civfanatic will love all versions because that's just how being a fanatic works. Soren is a history major and a computer programmer, and he was the lead designer for both versions. so it's probably safe to say that aspects of in-depth strategy and historical realism are strong in both versions.

to the OP, buy both versions if you have the money. But if you have to stick your guns out for just one version, go for CIV. if you take civ III instead you will be missing out on a lot! Sure you might hear a few voices saying that 4 is dumbed down and III is full of win etc but seriously, if you are young (<30 years of age), curious and eager to take on a great challenge and a mental workout buy 4. :D
 
I have played almost all the Civs for years, especially civ III and Civ IV, and I can honastly say I prefer Civ III. Because your empire has so many more cities and units than in civ IV, there is a greater ability to strategize (at least from my perspective), because there are more places to attack, and more units let diversify your offensive capabilities. BUT, I have to admit, I love Civ IV graphics and how games don't take 20+ hours to complete. Either way, neither game is inherently better than the other, it's a matter of personal preference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
New to Civilization 4
Replies
5
Views
1K
f1rpo
f1rpo
M
NA great prophet problem
Replies
0
Views
422
mardonius
M
mutax2003
[BTS] No need for PS5 or High End Gaming Computer
Replies
1
Views
348
Noble Zarkon
Noble Zarkon
<Nexus>
Civ4 on a Virtual Machine online?
Replies
0
Views
563
<Nexus>
<Nexus>
O
Tool - CIV 4 -All Mod Chooser 2025
Replies
3
Views
1K
Alucard0Reborn
A
Back
Top Bottom