CIV IV vs CIV III

Really the only thing that is truly, bona-fide, 100% better in CIV is conducting a few wars vs. playing 100%(but see below) peaceful. Otherwise, for the most part, it's very balanced. The whole point of CIV is to get away from gambits and strategies that are ALWAYS better than any alternative. Sometimes, certain wonders are extremely helpful...in other situations, they aren't. Some wonders are just always "nice to have", and some(like Chitchen Itza/Chicken Pizza) are unfortunately not very useful. CIV encourages balance, planning and adaptation. You cannot say "I'm going to do THIS, no matter what", you have to say, "Let's see how the map looks, and then I'll figure something out." I haven't played any other Civ game, but I'm not a stranger to strategy games or even turn-based ones.

Well, what I'm saying is this: CIV punishes you for imbalanced play-styles(generally.) If you simply try to do nothing but build, it's not going to be very effective. If you don't build up your economy or push too hard in a war, you will suffer. If you build nothing but axemen, you'll be trashed by chariots(at least in Warlords.) If you pursue the Pyramaids every time no matter your circumstances, you will suffer. You have to ADAPT to play CIV. Maybe if you're neighbors are Gandhi, Hatsehpsut, and Mansa Musa, you can relax and build up. If your neighbors are Montezuma, Alexander, and Napoleon, well, you're an idiot if you think they're going to leave you alone. The notion that it punishes expansion or building or anything but doing too much of one thing, IMO, is absolutely ludicrous. You have to be adaptive and build a little as a war-mongerer and war a little as a builder. Being entirely one or the other just doesn't work.

As far as graphics...it had to happen, and it already has, and it's pointless to cry over spilt milk. If your computer runs it slow, it's your fault. No offense, but you should've been well aware of the demands it places on your system.

In short....it is a far different game than CivIII, and to cast it aside because it's NOT CivIII would be silly...

Lance of Llanwy said:

I haven't played any other Civ game ... In short....it is a far different game than CivIII, and to cast it aside because it's NOT CivIII would be silly...

Click to expand...

Hi Lance of Llanwy, please explain how you can compare Civ 4 and Civ 3, if you haven´t played Civ 3. Or did I have something misunderstood ?

Civinator said:

Hi Lance of Llanwy, please explain how you can compare Civ 4 and Civ 3, if you haven´t played Civ 3. Or did I have something misunderstood ?

Click to expand...

It's obvious it's different from what people say, and not playing a game because it's "different" from one of your favorites, instead of upon its own merit or lack thereof, simply doesn't make sense....

Civ4 should be a better game than civ3. It cleans up a lot of the tedious micromanagement, diversifies military units in a more meaningful way, and greatly improves the AI... but it's not a better game. It's been polished and balanced to the point where it doesn't have a soul. In fact, what I would really like to play is Civ2 with an AI as advanced as the Civ4 AI...

Loved Civ 1

Didn't like Civ 2

Really loved Civ 3

Civ 4 is my favorite.

I had exactly the same reaction to Civ IV when I first played it after quite a long time playing Civ III. But, having put it aside for awhile, I came back to give it a second chance and found that it is better in many ways.

The main frustration with Civ IV is probably one of its greatest strengths but that takes awhile getting used to. There is a lot more freedom in Civ IV, and therefore a lot less hand-holding, which can be bewildering compared to the much more structured and limited approach in Civ III. Take the tech tree for example: in Civ III, you had to research nearly every tech in a given age before progressing to the next. Furthermore, each individual tech had specific immutable prerequisites and there were few branches so you pretty much always knew what you had to do next. There were some choices but eventually you would have to go down every road to get to the next level. In Civ IV, you can skip whole categories of techs for much of the game and tech far ahead in others. There are still some bottlenecks, but there is a lot more freedom of choice than in any game I've ever played. This can be very intimidating at first (it certainly was for me, at any rate) but once you get the hang of it, it makes each game a new adventure.

To take another example: the advisors in Civ III had very strong opinions and they frowned at you if they thought you were not taking their advice. But they gave you limited actual information. By contrast, the Civ IV "advisors" are just a bunch of charts and graphs that don't make many recommendations at all but they give you much more raw data to make your decisions. Again there is a preference for freedom over structure. It can be tough trying to interperet all that info, but once you figure out where to look, you can make much more informed decisions and pinpoint trouble spots (such as maxing out happiness) before they bite you. (I must confess that I kind of miss the advisors from Civ III, especially the shocked fellow that tells you someone has declared war!)

There are lots of other examples of this type of thing. In short, I feel as if Civ IV kicked away a crutch that I didn't even realized I was leaning on. Scary at first, but eventually I realized I could walk perfectly well without it.

potatokiosk said:

Civ4 should be a better game than civ3. It cleans up a lot of the tedious micromanagement, diversifies military units in a more meaningful way, and greatly improves the AI... but it's not a better game. It's been polished and balanced to the point where it doesn't have a soul. In fact, what I would really like to play is Civ2 with an AI as advanced as the Civ4 AI...

Click to expand...

How is it soulless? It is balanced, but not perfectly. Every civ is different and every leader is different. It has a lot of variety without becoming too stratified(granted, Rome, for example, kicks tons more arse than most Civs) but I don't see why people contend decently well-balanced=soulless. The only balance that is soulless is when everything is the same, and the array of options and variety in CIV are dizzying. The CIVs and leaders tend to be good at certain things and not as good at others, but there aren't any traits that are worthless and even the weakest UUs have their uses*coughmusketeercough*. CIV is a freer game that makes YOU make every decision and consider many alternatives. It is....a game of interesting choices, not obvious ones...

Edit: What I mean is...how exactly is it soulless? I'm sick of hearing blanket statements, give me details, and perhaps I'll be better capable of understanding your position..

Civ4 is the best. New features like GP, better Culture, improvements are improved and many more. You must be CRAZY to think 3 is better then 4

Civ44444444444!

Lance of Llanwy said:

It's obvious it's different from what people say, and not playing a game because it's "different" from one of your favorites, instead of upon its own merit or lack thereof, simply doesn't make sense....

Click to expand...

I don´t know if I translate all this well. At time I understand that you haven´t played Civ 3, but you compare something you don´t know with something you know (Civ 4).

I compared my impressions about Civ 4 -after playing it and trying to mod it a little bit - with my impressions when playing and modding Civ 3. I prefer Civ 3 at time over Civ 4 because it is much more fun for me to play and to mod it.

Lance of Llanwy, I accept, if you have much fun with Civ 4 (even without knowing something about Civ 3 ?). But please accept that other like me prefer Civ 3 over Civ 4, not because Civ 4 is "different" from Civ 3, but because it´s more fun for me... this is the difference. Civ4 gets it´s next change for playing it in the Christmas holydays. What mod shall I take for Civ 4 (epic game) vanilla and for warlords ?

Ball Lightning said:

Civ4 is the best. New features like GP, better Culture, improvements are improved and many more. You must be CRAZY to think 3 is better then 4

Civ44444444444!

Click to expand...

What a splendid demonstration of mindless fanboyism. Its a pleasure to come on this forum to read such intelligent and pertinent comments

Civinator said:

I don´t know if I translate all this well. At time I understand that you haven´t played Civ 3, but you compare something you don´t know with something you know (Civ 4).

I compared my impressions about Civ 4 -after playing it and trying to mod it a little bit - with my impressions when playing and modding Civ 3. I prefer Civ 3 at time over Civ 4 because it is much more fun for me to play and to mod it.

Lance of Llanwy, I accept, if you have much fun with Civ 4 (even without knowing something about Civ 3 ?). But please accept that other like me prefer Civ 3 over Civ 4, not because Civ 4 is "different" from Civ 3, but because it´s more fun for me... this is the difference. Civ4 gets it´s next change for playing it in the Christmas holydays. What mod shall I take for Civ 4 (epic game) vanilla and for warlords ?

Click to expand...

Oh, I understand...I just don't like people going around making bland statements about a game. I do feel I can make a reasonable evaluation on some things Civ3, such as the obvious difference of the tech tree, and some of the topics I've looked at in Civ3 board, but I can perfectly accept that people don't always like sequels. I'm mostly annoyed that people post stuff like "Civ4 is soulless" without offering any elaboration on why and how they feel Civ3 does certain aspects better. It's like saying you hate liberals and then not being able to come up with anything but a blanket generalization as to why(or vice versa, naturally.) If you're going to not like something and debate its merits vs. its predecessor, you ought to bring something more substantive and enlightening to the table. For my part, I'd probably at least try Civ3 if I had any money to spend for just trying stuff...

Hi Lance of Llanwy, what would you suggest as best current mods for a Civ 4 epic game in the Civ 4 vanilla version and for the Civ 4 Warlords version ? I will give them a try in the next weeks.

BTW.: I was one of the first who gave the Civ Community a lot of solid informations about the at that time upcoming Civ 4 features via EVO and Apolyton (Locutus) as I had the luck to buy a German cheap computer games magazine called "Computer Bild Spiele" which had a lot of informations on the upcoming Civ 4 while the civers around the globe did guess about them and the German civers were silent in posting something. A lot of my old screenshots are in the CFC Civ 4 gallery. They are easy to identify, cause they are the screenes with the worst quality . (http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/browseimages.php?c=5)

May be one of the reasons that I was so disappointed with the new version of Civ, called Civ 4 is, that I was very excited about it before I did get it.

ThERat said:

crimson, if you liked Civ3 a lot, there is a high chance that you might not like CIV. It seems more suited for players that liked Civ2

Click to expand...

Not at all true. I found Civ III to be far superior to Civ II (and a step up from SMAC), and I frankly would never go back to any of those games having played Civ IV.

It took a couple games to convince me that I would enjoy 4 more than 3 but only a couple. It really is a very different game and takes an adjustment period especially for a former Civ 3 addict. I am of the opinion that each version of Civ has been an excellent game and each has been superior to its predecessor. The reasons have been covered in numerous threads over the past year if you really want to see a wide diversity of opinion just look at some of those older threads on the subject.

I like Civ3 significantly more. I do play Civ4, but I play Civ3 about 5 times more often.

My reasons:

What I like in Civ4:
Religion (yeah I actually like that a lot, I wish it was in Civ3)
No limits in mods
And some other small things like music (which I find absolutely wonderful), zooming in and out as much as you want, interface (which I like), etc.

What I don't like:
War/Combat system. It is, IMO, muuuuuch better in Civ3!
Graphics (for the reasons already stated)
Why no culture groups? All cities have same graphics!! :thumbdown:
Artillery system

And many others.

Ok, I've spent MANY MANY MANY hours playing and mastering Civ III. I loved the game. It was a true addiction. I would leave parties early and slack off in school just to maximize the amount of time I could play Civ III. For me, there was no reason to get Civ IV.

Then, a few days ago, curiosity got the best of me. I went and bought Civ IV. At first I didn't like it because it was so different from what I was used to in Civ III. No more super fast land grabbing with settler factories. No more Republic slingshots. Everything was different, but somehow, still intriguing.

Over the last few days, I've moved past the basics and started to get into the finer details of the game, like how to balance your economy between cottages and specialists and expanding at a rate your economy can handle. Now, after getting a taste of the depth that Civ IV has to offer, I'd only go back to Civ III for nostalgia.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that all you people who have Civ IV but still cling to Civ III because it's familiar and a much simpler game overall, give Civ IV a chance before you run back to what you're used to. I challenge you to play Civ IV any time you would play Civ III for one week. If you still think its "souless" or "bland" or whatever, fine, but don't say that just because you suck at the game.

A much simpler game? No I don't think so!

And yes, I've played only Civ4 for a week, and still went back to Civ3. I am just trying to say not all of us are the same And not all of us suck as this game either!

It is a fact that Civ III is a less complicated (and thus, simpler) game. Here are a few reasons that prove that fact.

Civ III has no religion.
Civ III has fewer diplomatic options.
Civ III has fewer tech tree options.
Civ III has a simpler economic model.
Civ III has a simpler combat system.
Civ III has 2D graphics. (although this isn't so important)

All of these things add up to fewer viable winning strategies and an overall simpler game.

You are right; we all have different tastes in games. It seems you have already completed my challenge, as well. The only thing is I find hard to believe is that you're good at Civ IV and still don't like the game. It is kind of a Catch-22, though. You're not going to like Civ IV until you take the time to learn it, but you won't take the time to learn it unless you like it. Being a huge Civ III fan makes the cycle even more difficult to break, but it's worth it.

I liked Civ I, II, III and IV all the same. Each time a new one came out, I always thought it was better than the last, and they were all amazing games.

CIV is better IMO because it introduces so much more to the game. The more complex, the better - it makes it more immersive. If they hadn't gone with the stupid 3D graphics I'd be happy because it runs pretty slow on my laptop. Apart from that, great game.

I like both. CivIV>CivIII IMO, but then it has the advantage of being newer.