I like Civ IV more than III. The main reason is that the combat system is much better than it was. In Civ III, I lost a ton of units I knew I shouldn't. It should not take a stack of 3 or 4 units that are in the Modern Era to kill a Longbowman, even if he is fortified on his Grassland.
Another reason is that Civ III treated the player like a newbie, with all that layman's-terms crap. At least Civs I and II treated you like a leader! They assumed you knew what you were doing and if it turned out that you were inept, then tough, they still respected you as you drove their beloved nation into the dust.
Also, I hated the way that even Ghandi refused to acknowledge your borders. Let's face it: The AI in Civ III sucks. TO illustrate my point: Ghandi is in the Renaissance. I am in the late Industrial age. He infringes my borders twice (Aggressive AI's are on). Third strike, he's out. I wanted to totally own the sucker, but since I had just opened a front with Russia (yes, I play Civ like Risk, sue me for my aggression) I had to leave it to skirmishing with him.
Then, Ghandi makes the mistake of trying to sack my capital in a deep raid. How he got that far I can't remember; I still had my cities and was busy at the time, and didn't look. However, as soon as I found out, I made peace with Russia, turned around and blasted that son-of-a-gun into the Stone Age. It was fun. I win, he loses.
OK, I know it was Aggressive AI in effect, but still: If you were near an opponent with double your techs, would you declare war? NO WAY! You'd make peace, crank the science and hope the cavalry/tanks were discovered soon enough.
OK, cIV is not perfect, but it's a heckuva lot better, and I haven't even gotten into the new features of Civ IV.
Another reason is that Civ III treated the player like a newbie, with all that layman's-terms crap. At least Civs I and II treated you like a leader! They assumed you knew what you were doing and if it turned out that you were inept, then tough, they still respected you as you drove their beloved nation into the dust.
Also, I hated the way that even Ghandi refused to acknowledge your borders. Let's face it: The AI in Civ III sucks. TO illustrate my point: Ghandi is in the Renaissance. I am in the late Industrial age. He infringes my borders twice (Aggressive AI's are on). Third strike, he's out. I wanted to totally own the sucker, but since I had just opened a front with Russia (yes, I play Civ like Risk, sue me for my aggression) I had to leave it to skirmishing with him.
Then, Ghandi makes the mistake of trying to sack my capital in a deep raid. How he got that far I can't remember; I still had my cities and was busy at the time, and didn't look. However, as soon as I found out, I made peace with Russia, turned around and blasted that son-of-a-gun into the Stone Age. It was fun. I win, he loses.
OK, I know it was Aggressive AI in effect, but still: If you were near an opponent with double your techs, would you declare war? NO WAY! You'd make peace, crank the science and hope the cavalry/tanks were discovered soon enough.
OK, cIV is not perfect, but it's a heckuva lot better, and I haven't even gotten into the new features of Civ IV.