CIV IV vs CIV III

Oh, and why shouldn't a civ ask for permission first before they resort to force? Are you saying it's a smart move for them to not have road bonuses?

And it's not real life when they turn their whole army around because a chokepoint is clogged with a single worker. Is that thinking about it in real terms?

potatokiosk said:

Oh, and why shouldn't a civ ask for permission first before they resort to force? Are you saying it's a smart move for them to not have road bonuses?

And it's not real life when they turn their whole army around because a chokepoint is clogged with a single worker. Is that thinking about it in real terms?

Click to expand...

Wheres this choke point? whos worker? how long was he working there? to many unanswerd questions. Seems like a small chance occurance that would permit article exception to the truth, One I havn't come across yet.


Like I said, Civ3 emulates real life on a level Civ4 never could. A guy strapped with guns and in uniform or a exotic Tank cruising around is far more noticable then a plain clothed dude(worker unit). Thats why you and them get away with freedom to move if your a civilian(worker unit) but weapons don’t. (worker gets one warning never get deported-- second warning followed by the boot, is gauranated for any offensive unit).

These plain cloths spies do your war reporting under any condition, before a ROP is even invented, or when you can’t afford one, or if the attidude is awful, still The worker can infiltrait, becoming your eyes, seeing whos got what and how many they are using n losing to pound another nation.This Vital information directly influencing the succsess's of your military campaigns is formed from freedoms in the Right of passage act. Civ4 RP is a flawed enjoyment sucking Auto pilot inducing peice o crap sleeper device.

Cool, I'll go deeper for ya son Next!...


AI's workers even help you build joint ventures on your land like links to trading routes that will benfit both nations-again this Civ3 system you call crap makes for more added realism and a more diverse+realistic worker program.-All cause of freedoms in border setup

OK now to the mass of AO UNITS The truth especially in older days is Armys(troops) move with the safty and future of their nation in mind. They won't divert their forces or have their campain come to a stop because they forgot to apease some ***** lil nation with a RP agrremnet.

THis works for you to. In Civ3 you can enter a small or tech insuffiant nation and overwelm them into silence. You may get a warning but most likly not a follow up if your big enough. Thats cool to me, its like reality they say "we got no beef with you" I say step aside! THis scenario is only in CIv3

History tells that Troops would flood lands in hopes of cohersing their neighbor or gambling they would be to hesitante to attack them.
For me, caught in the unexpected position with ungaurded citys or unsupported-badly positioned military You can bet I think it may be good to pay em to improve their attidude towards me, in hopes they pass on by and go to their intended target (if it wasn’t oroiginaly me!!)) Once you see them in your land, you can choose to join their conquest or get out the way!! They may be heading to kill a enemy of yours!, this gives the opportunity to expand the borders(without cheeze ***** gazillon artillary style!!) Tell me in CIv4 without this 'flawed' R+P, how would you have anticapated the attack. First you coudn't see the Civ's troops and second you coudn't use your worker to see where there target is!

Back to the Core, You see troops piling intp your land....You have to be tense untill you find out their intentions. Sure, you can tell them to leave, It’s a risk that cranks up the intesity. They could attack in fierce numbers, mybe they got more stashed in the near distance. Some Civ4 players may not like that feeling of unsuredness, cause the auto pilot takes care of tense situations like this.

I see Ai troops crossing my turf and Im thankful for the Flag they raise. It alerts you to a opportunity for Inteligence gathering made available and executable only because of the 'real life' deep strategy a flexible Civ3 RnP provides. Not worthless like you say but only more real in nature and in histotic context

Heres an example of explioting opportunitys to gain ground instead of ramming rare glitches found in game mechanics ( one in a million when tallying up all the ways I use to succeed ):

Ok Picking up on the intruding Civ's its obviouss to see when troops pile through Non-agreement [/B treays ]they tend to really stack up.! If I ally with these guys against whomever my spys say is their target, I get back up in sufficant numbers (stacks)and likly get paid a pretty penny for the effort ( dependin my size their status) and even will be in position to collect on the RP agrrement.
It gets better! If my new friends take over a mutual enemys city, my route is more valuable to them. So I ink the deal, open the the flood gates(RP), and we both pour over the enemys territory.

OK Well What if Im caught by surprise? in expanding mode? low on military, high on happyness expenditure? I play friendly and very cooperative with cash and techs and a R+P served on a golden plater. I sit still and watch thier army trudge through my land on to their intended target

THeir enemy's Citys situated on the outside of their territory are my target!. I sit low and wait for my new friendsto to wipe out these cities forever.

Im ready to drop my settlers and bring stabilty to the new land I was always impressed with the abilty the AI has to judge whats worth keeping and whats smashed to the ground. They understand a fast route to polishing of its opponent. More impressive its like they know the distance from their home and close proximity to the enemy will make culture flipping an almost certainty. No back and forth defend/offensive waste for the AI In CIv3, and am there to pick up the crumbs
OPTION TWO
Ok ANother option. I go to their intended target looking for a better deal then what their intruding enemy might have given me. I secure there help by signing a R+P with them instead to vanquishing these jerks off my land! Now With their support, I AMBUSH!!
The indruding army is trounced by my forces while my ally cleans up my back.Their home nation lies vertually undefended now. MY allie has a free pass through my land to quickly track down pockets of resistance and protect my urban centers,. THis gives me the added security to go for a invasion of the enemys homeland. Clearly Textbook

i liked civ 3 but i love civ 4...
It is just so much better in terms of reality, graphics (please dont blame the game for your slow computer), and the AI is tougher but more fun and realistic. the two games are incomparable to me... Civ 4 wins by miles

only that i didnt liked civ 3 very much...

tycoonist said:

i liked civ 3 but i love civ 4...
It is just so much better in terms of reality, graphics (please dont blame the game for your slow computer), and the AI is tougher but more fun and realistic. the two games are incomparable to me... Civ 4 wins by miles

Click to expand...

Im not picking on you bud, but somone mentioned blanket stetments regarding CIv 3's supioriority. It seems this could be the biggest generalized claim. Can anyone give examples how CIv4 is more realistic? or "tougher AI but "in a" fun "way

Don't worry. Im not expecting you in particular, but anyone with thoughts on the matter. thanx

Psyringe said:

- No corruption, no more tons of totally useless cities that you only keep to occupy the respective space on the map
- Much improved maintenance system, paying maintenance for cities instead of buildings now makes it viable to actually develop all cities, even if they are far away from your palace.
- Religion added, an interesting new game feature offering many new possibilities (although the implementation of many of those is left to the modders due to Firaxis being very careful and politically correct with religion as a game concept)
- much improved AI that does not magically know where your weakest defended city is, or where resources will appear thousands of years later
- Better implementation of artillery - still not perfect (suiciding artillery against well-defended cities seems not very realistic), but gameplay-wise much better than the overpowered artillery of Civ3 Conquests
- Unit promotions and many special abilities for units, which allow for interesting counters and counter-counters, much more complex, tactical and challenging than the simple "offense/defense" system of previous Civs
- all in all, more focus on viable builder strategies, including possibilities to actually win a game with a rather small empire (specialist economies etc.), less focus on war and conquest as in Civ3

Click to expand...

Also my opnion.

And want to know why I love CIV4 much more than CIV3? Haha, OK Im sruely an exception, as I already saw so many complaining about it, but the fact that war got to play a smaller roll in this CIV and Culture a bigger one(along with diplomacy), completely made my day. Its such an annoying thing to play a game where the strategy in only one and that is it, rush units on the walls of the enemies untill you win! And that is it? I mean OK, it can be fun sometimes and it suits most of the strategy game(all the RTS?), but come on, I play strategy games to actually MAKE STRATEGIES lol, and not only rush a lot of cities only to fill spaces along with your score and to build units and send to war, I Really wanted OTHER elements to play a bigger roll in the game, and CIV4 just made it for me. Sure war play a big roll still and you can win all games by military if you want, but now you also can actually win without focus on the militar aspect, and I loved it. But I know, I bet Im not the majorite And dont tell me to go to play SimCity then or so, why should I if I have CIV4?


And about the graphics..Erm, I agree maybe its too much for alot of computers(like this computer, I have to play in the other), but all I can say for those who have problems is, I'm sorry , really, its a great game you are losing here, I hope you get enough money to update your computer, and well if you think its not worthy, just get this money and go to a nice vacation
But well, as a lot already pointed out, it was a marketing strategy(along with some ingame improviments), they probably thought it was worthier get the requiriments a little higher.
No sarcasm here, just my real opnion.

Actualy they are ugly, but I dont care. Alot better than civ 3 unrealistic 2d graphics .

Click to expand...

That's your personal opinion. I find Civ3's 2d graphics much better. And just laughing at Civ3's graphics when responding to the other posters that said the 3d graphics of Civ4 are not so good is like laughing at their personal opinion, something like That's your personal opinion! (note I don't actually say that). It's mainly a matter of taste after all.

Most of my late cities have 1 shield and 1 commerce, and I can do nothing

Click to expand...

Read the war academy and learn more?

Mirc said:

That's your personal opinion. I find Civ3's 2d graphics much better. And just laughing at Civ3's graphics when responding to the other posters that said the 3d graphics of Civ4 are not so good is like laughing at their personal opinion, something like That's your personal opinion! (note I don't actually say that). It's mainly a matter of taste after all.

Click to expand...

Yeah, seems like I am the only person on these forums who like civ4 3d more than 2d graphics and I did not wanted to laugh on other peoples personal opinions. You missunderstood me. I still think that 3d graphics are alot better and realisticer than 2d ones .

I like 3d graphics more. I sometimes really got excited of Civ3, but after buying&playing CIV4 I have never thought about playing Civ3 again.

Though the graphics aren't the biggest thing in a game like this. Yes, they are important but it wasn't the graphics that caught me in CIV4. It was the game.

Tulx said:

Yeah, seems like I am the only person on these forums who like civ4 3d more than 2d graphics and I did not wanted to laugh on other peoples personal opinions. You missunderstood me. I still think that 3d graphics are alot better and realisticer than 2d ones .

Click to expand...

Who ever said you're alone? You don't have to be alone for that to be your personal opinion. Personal opinion doesn't mean opinion of the minority, so I did not imply that you are alone or in minority if I said preference of 3D graphics is your personal opinion.

Usually, civ3 is better than civ4, but occasionally you come across something quite stupid that wrecks the game. I never said civ4 was a better game, I said that civ3 can sometimes annoy me a lot with something incredibly stupid. It still isn't worth it to sacrifice fun to prevent the occasional failure of the system of gameplay, or replace it with graphics failures.

@ T.A JONES: Im not picking on you, dont get me wrong, if you prefer answer me in pm and I edit this, or whatever you prefer. Just asnwer me that if you are so kind, why do yo hate CIV4 so much? I mean, you dont like the game, but you are always in this part of the forum and always picking any chance to say how CIV3 is way better tthan CIV4 and how CIV4 simply sux. OK its your opnion, idc about it, but why do you make it your personal crusade? You are always here in the CIV4 part tryong to convence people that CIV3 is superior and even trying to make people stop play CIV4..My question, is simple, why?
Im not trying to flame on you, jsut want to know why so much hate


PS: I know that this thread is about CIV3 vs CIV4, but Im not talking only about this thread ands you know that..

PS2: If you see my post you will see some of the main reasons I prefer CIV4..

[2 cents:Keroro]
What I love about Civ 4:
The civics, much better than the government types in Civ 3. I still don't understand why they weren't in Civ 3 considering that they were in Alpha Centauri.
The Paper/scissor/stone nature of the units, the main thing that was missing from the wars in Civ 3 was a way of making a unit good against some enemies but not others. It's been corrected in Civ 4.
The unit upgrades, more realistic than the simplistic system in Civ 3.
The terrain, the ability to have cottages-hamlets-villages and so on, and the claiming of resources (including sea resources) is much better than in Civ 3.
The settler production, stops settler factories from dominating the game too early.
The endless modding possibilities, almost anything can be modded.

What I find pointless in Civ 4:
The religions, they're all exactly the same, (I have a feeling that this was done just to avoid any possible controversy) and therefore have no character.
The graphics, they're not as good as Civ 3 IMO, and are a block to modding efforts.
The barbarians, are crud. I don't want to be fighting lions.
The endless modding possibilities, almost anything can be modded. But it is difficult to do so without a proper editor. I don't want to learn XML and Python before being able to mod anything.

But basically, I agree with some of the other posters here - I find Civ 4 quite soulless. It is a difficult thing to describe, but I didn't find that I cared enough about the units and cities under my control. In many ways I didn't feel like I was in command of the Empire at all. The game certainly still had the 'one more turn' feel, but I didn't feel compelled to load it up afresh as soon as I got home from work. My feelings can be summed up thus - I would buy a new Civ 3 expansion the day it came out, I would buy Colonisation 2 or Alpha Centauri 2 the day they came out, but I have not got Warlords, and I feel no compulsion to do so.

I will remain more interested in Civ 3 for the next year I imagine, as the modding scene there is so amazingly healthy (Warhammer 2.5 just came out BTW ). If Firaxis get their act together and produce a decent editor then I may one day start paying more attention to Civ 4. To the people who prefer Civ 4 - fair enough, though I find too many flaws to love it yet.
[/2 Cents]

I will continue to hope for a game that brings together the best parts of Civ 3, Civ 4 and Alpha Centauri. Civ 4 ain't it IMO.

Work is very slow for me at this time of year.

Keroro, what a spot-on analysis...well said really

i have civ3 and civ4 but civ4 just seems very shallow compared to civ3 gold.

Arlborn said:

@ T.A JONES: Im not picking on you, dont get me wrong, if you prefer answer me in pm and I edit this, or whatever you prefer. Just asnwer me that if you are so kind, why do yo hate CIV4 so much? I mean, you dont like the game, but you are always in this part of the forum and always picking any chance to say how CIV3 is way better tthan CIV4 and how CIV4 simply sux. OK its your opnion, idc about it, but why do you make it your personal crusade? You are always here in the CIV4 part tryong to convence people that CIV3 is superior and even trying to make people stop play CIV4..My question, is simple, why?
Im not trying to flame on you, jsut want to know why so much hate

Click to expand...

Dude your grammer makes most of this unreadable(And I never thought I would be the one making this comment!) but rest assured, most of my comments are on point and I can't express hate for much of anything(I don't hate anything) so PLease quote a example for which you would like to discuss!

Im sorry you as a fine player of Civ4 feel so victimized by my words as to have to go and question my resolve. If I back checked your history what would I find? any patterns? how bout a tendency to write 'he he' following the absolutly most mundane statments? Now to anyone, my thoughts on Civ4 are nothing in question to why you feel some of things you do are so funny!!
You can answer on PM if you like

PS: I know that this thread is about CIV3 vs CIV4, but Im not talking only about this thread ands you know that..

Click to expand...

Im not sure I know much at all what your talking about. I do remember making some points on many threads between the two games. What are threads for again? should I be contridicting myself to be fair.

PS2: If you see my post you will see some of the main reasons I prefer CIV4..

Click to expand...

Dammit this is two easy, um... Sorry I don't no what this means.. Hope you took this ok. I softened it for you so your not to 'tramatized' like you said you were from my last response to you 'clever' questioning

T.A JONES said:

Dude your grammer makes most of this unreadable(And I never thought I would be the one making this comment!) but rest assured, most of my comments are on point and I can't express hate for much of anything(I don't hate anything) so PLease quote a example for which you would like to discuss!

Im sorry you as a fine player of Civ4 feel so victimized by my words as to have to go and question my resolve. If I back checked your history what would I find? any patterns? how bout a tendency to write 'he he' following the absolutly most mundane statments? Now to anyone, my thoughts on Civ4 are nothing in question to why you feel some of things you do are so funny!!
You can answer on PM if you like


Im not sure I know much at all what your talking about. I do remember making some points on many threads between the two games. What are threads for again? should I be contridicting myself to be fair.


Dammit this is two easy, um... Sorry I don't no what this means.. Hope you took this ok. I softened it for you so your not to 'tramatized' like you said you were from my last response to you 'clever' questioning

Click to expand...

I forgot to put an "earlier" before the "post" in my Ps2, ups my fault.

My grammer is that bad? Yew, which part exactely was really bad to read? I want improve ^^

That part(the ps2, which quote to my other earlier post(text)) was just to answer your earlier question. Anyway here was your question:
"Im not picking on you bud, but somone mentioned blanket stetments regarding CIv 3's supioriority. It seems this could be the biggest generalized claim. Can anyone give examples how CIv4 is more realistic? or "tougher AI but "in a" fun "way"
I didnt really say exactely what you wanted, but just some of the main reasons why I prefer CIV4

Well, I wont really search for a quote of you about how CIV3 is better, I bet you can find it without much problems around here. But I just got the impression, after reading your asnwers here in this part of the forum(CIV4 part to be clearer) for some time, that you are really trying to convice people how CIV3 is superior in many ways and that they didnt suppose to be playing CIV4 instead of CIV3..But probably it was just a wrong feeling? So you arent picking any chance you can here to say how superior CIV3 is from CIV4? That is great, just got a real wrong impression then .

I didnt really got victimized by your words here or in other thread(you know what is it right? Thread? Or I am doing wrong grammer again?), but I was just really curious of the reason why you seemed(to me) with so much hate of CIV4, and I thought that this thread was the best place to ask because then you could give me your reasons and argue in a civilizated way, right?


Man, I was trying to be really clear now in this text, without much grammer errors, to see if you fully understood me now, so if you have any doubts or observations about my grammer, please tell me, because I'm always looking to improve it, specially because I'm having superior education in english now(and didnt have any problems yet with the Business English part of it). So if you didnt understand something please tell me

hey I commend your efforts in the G dept its your 2nd language. I hinted my grammer is no better and its my 1st language!(not sure if you caught that on my original post)
anyway you seem to want a debate on what makes Civ3 better. You say you saw a bunch of posts where im saying Civ3 is the greater of the two right? then why do you ask me to repeat all of these things here? I supported all my claims with examples, that means you should know all the reasonings for my claims

so you arent picking any chance you can here to say how superior CIV3 is from CIV4? That is great, just got a real wrong impression then

Click to expand...

You said it. If the chance comes up, and i see it, I will express my opinion like anybody else, but only if the chance presents itself. Why is this a bother to you? because you don't agree with my opinion? then state your reasons why Im wrong in your eyes. Im always up for a disscussion, just don 't say something the likes of: I side with the same game to often. That sounds kinda dumb (no offence )

T.A JONES said:

hey I commend your efforts in the G dept its your 2nd language. I hinted my grammer is no better and its my 1st language!(not sure if you caught that on my original post)
anyway you seem to want a debate on what makes Civ3 better. You say you saw a bunch of posts where im saying Civ3 is the greater of the two right? then why do you ask me to repeat all of these things here? I supported all my claims with examples, that means you should know all the reasonings for my claims


You said it. If the chance comes up, and i see it, I will express my opinion like anybody else, but only if the chance presents itself. Why is this a bother to you? because you don't agree with my opinion? then state your reasons why Im wrong in your eyes. Im always up for a disscussion, just don 't say something the likes of: I side with the same game to often. That sounds kinda dumb (no offence )

Click to expand...

What you mean by "I side with the same game to often"? Sorry as you said its not my 1st language ^^

Anyway you are right, you already stated your reasons, but I was just curious if there wasent anything beside it hehe, nevermind, Im probably too paranoic

Well, some of the main reasons that I, personally, prefer CIV4(I already played all the others before) are in the asnwer 66 of this thread, feel free to read if you didnt, and the others reasons are mostly already written in the other answers of this thread

I think CIV IV is much, much better than CIV III. In CIV III, the whole game was expand like crazy, attack, get a leader and an army, and conquer. To get happiness, you needed to conquer and use markets. Temples were 'bad' investments. Republic was the best governemnt in most cases.

CIV IV really balances out the different strategies and keys to them. You can't jsut expand, you have to think about it. You can't always conquer. You CAN win when the opponent is larger. You have to balance a lot of strategic decision. We now have a more complex diplomatic game, far more choices about government types. You have diffferent map scripts which change the strategy even for the same leader.

As a strategic game, where options are balanced, I don't think they are close.

Breunor