CIV IV vs CIV III

Status
Not open for further replies.
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)
Not wanting to start a flaming, just trying to point out that not everything is as simple as you put it. let me see

1. religion
nice new aspect which is unfortunately too politically correct. Every religion is the same 100%. and at higher difficulties its often better not to adopt any in order not to make too many enemies. still a nice aspect overall

2. diplomacy
CIV does have options like asking someone to fight someone else without getting involved, that's true. However, trading has been nerfed beyond recognition. Not gpt for techs, the beloved WFYBTA hardcoded limit, the redding out etc. Espionage is a complete joke. There is no way to make a comeback from behind via diplomacy in CIV.

3. Tech tree
true, there are more techs but once you are a pro, you would know which techs you need to stay in the game...say writing, alphabet, literature (for GLib), then maybe CoL (you would know the techs the AI shuns and techs become not that flexible), later the rush for paper/edu and liberalism sped up by a GS etc

4. Combat system
CIV's combat system is too simple, only 1 value for attack/defense and the headache of the promotion system. Yes, there is the paper/scissor/rock thing. But nothing beats an axe rush in the beginning. Plenty of catapult/cannons/trebs/artillery will do the job. I sometimes think you can win the game merely using atrillery.
Plus, it has become a chore to fight, not fun. WW is plain crazy without proper governments...AW gamers feel totally frustrated with CIV

5. Graphics
Ueberfluessig wie ein Kropf would I say as a German. If there was ever a game that did not need 3D, it was this game. The mere fact of laggy play, crawling speed, small maps all boils down to this awful graphics engine that a civilization game doesn't need...

one thing though, that was indeed simpler, is modding and that's the big plus of C3C...
 
The only points you seem to disagree with me on are the techs and combat. I'll clarify.

Not only are there more techs, but there are more paths through the tree. This was easily the hardest change for me to adjust to, but once you get it, you realize how cool it is. more techs + more paths = more complex

Yes, there is only one combat value, but that value affects different units in different ways. For example, charriots, although they have a strength of four, have a serious advantage over axemen (and artillery), even though they have a strength of five. Spearmen are not only good for defending cities. They are good against mounted units, but suck against axemen. On top of all that, you have the promotions system to further specialize your units. Now how is that less complex than Civ III's combat system? In Civ III, you have attacking units (either fast movers or stronger, slower movers) for each age, defending units for each age, and artillery for each age. That's it.

How can there not be a flame war in a thread entitled "Civ III vs Civ IV"?:lol: All in good fun.:goodjob:
 
Civ4 is just... a bland playing experience. For one, warfare isn't fun when you're stuck meticulously attacking a city if you can beat them or meticulously pillaging your enemy's territory if you can't. Sure, they have a rock-paper-scissors thing, but that doesn't do much good if warfare in general is made boring. Also, terrible coverage of naval units, despite their historical significance.

There's also the fact that the otherwise good AI is crippled. Opponenets such as Montezuma, Isabella, and Tokugawa will pretty much always take a certain course of action, whether it is a good idea or not. Sure, there's more diplomacy options, but do I really want to talk to some of these people?

The graphics, of course, are overkill. They only serve to reduce the map sizes players can use.
 
Hello, I have been a long-term civ III player and have recently purchased civ IV and found it to be a terrible game in comparison.
Solution - go back to civ3 and stay there. :p
 
Not wanting to start a flaming, just trying to point out that not everything is as simple as you put it.

Mh, I think you calmly stated your opinions without throwing around flames. Let me see whether I can stay in the same vein while stating where our opinions differ.

1. religion
nice new aspect which is unfortunately too politically correct. Every religion is the same 100%. and at higher difficulties its often better not to adopt any in order not to make too many enemies. still a nice aspect overall

Agreed. One aspect that I like about religion is that it helps forming "blocks" of empires who like each other, but dislike other "blocks". This works similar to the "same culture" bonus of Civ3, but is a) stronger in effect, and b) plays more natural (in Civ3, you could have a positive diplomacy modifier with a civ far far away because on Earth your civs are neighbours - imho the religion system is a much more refined way for block building).

Making all religions equal forfeits lots of possibilities for strategical decisions, so I agree with you, the game would have been better if different religions had different features. Fortunately, modders are able to provide those.


2. diplomacy
CIV does have options like asking someone to fight someone else without getting involved, that's true. However, trading has been nerfed beyond recognition. Not gpt for techs, the beloved WFYBTA hardcoded limit, the redding out etc. Espionage is a complete joke. There is no way to make a comeback from behind via diplomacy in CIV.

Personally, I find trading much more realistic now. One of the things I really didn't like about Civ3 is how you could go tech-whoring, and how many games ended as mad tech races with every player trading every tech as soon as possible. Imho, the Civ3 AI was also much too gullible when it came down to trading cities. Trading has much improved imho.

I agree that Espionage in Civ4 isn't very useful. Personally, I don't miss it because I very rarely used it (it was a vastly overpowered feature in Civ2, and I cosciously decided not to use it because it made the game less fun for me - I honestly don't know whether and how it was implemented in Civ3, I only know that I never used it there). I can see how people who like this feature are disappointed from its implementation in Civ4 though.

Contrary to what you're stating, I've had several comebacks via diplomacy in Civ4. I've even had AI rivals helping me to come back by gifting me tech when I was backwards and they liked me (partly due to me adoptng their religion), which I found quite nice.


3. Tech tree
true, there are more techs but once you are a pro, you would know which techs you need to stay in the game...say writing, alphabet, literature (for GLib), then maybe CoL (you would know the techs the AI shuns and techs become not that flexible), later the rush for paper/edu and liberalism sped up by a GS etc
This is one possible way, but there are many others (CS slingshot being the most prominent one). Personally, I find myself choosing many different routes through the tech tree from game to game. Even if there are key technologies, I think it's safe to say that the Civ4 tech tree gives you more freedom for doing so, because the Civ3 tech tree had these hard-coded eras that blocked you from many advances unless you fulfilled a twelve-(or more)-part requirement.

4. Combat system
CIV's combat system is too simple, only 1 value for attack/defense and the headache of the promotion system. Yes, there is the paper/scissor/rock thing. But nothing beats an axe rush in the beginning. Plenty of catapult/cannons/trebs/artillery will do the job. I sometimes think you can win the game merely using atrillery.
Plus, it has become a chore to fight, not fun. WW is plain crazy without proper governments...AW gamers feel totally frustrated with CIV
The promotion system replaces (and vastly expands) the simple offense/defense system of previous civs, so there's no need for this any more. I find that it gives me a lot more freedom and opens many possibilities that I wouldn't have had in Civ3. I've lately come back from a bad start (no copper, no iron, no horses, aggressive neighbours) with offensively promoted archers (drill III and IV work nicely). I was not forced to turtle, Civ4 gave me a freedom of choices that I didn't have in a similar situation in Civ3.

Axe rushes in the beginning can be powerful, and were overpowered in the past, but can now properly be countered by chariots, which will simply smash most axemen they encounter.

The trebuchet may be too powerful as a city attacker, agreed. However, hearing from someone who prefers Civ3's combat that Civ4's artillery is too powerful sounds a little strange - actually, the one thing that I like most about Civ4's artillery is that it's much less powerful than its implementation in Civ3 Conquests, where artillery ruled the world, since it could red-line anything without any danger of being destroyed.


5. Graphics
Ueberfluessig wie ein Kropf would I say as a German. If there was ever a game that did not need 3D, it was this game. The mere fact of laggy play, crawling speed, small maps all boils down to this awful graphics engine that a civilization game doesn't need...
Here I agree with you. I wouldn't have lost anything if Civ4 had used the same graphics engine as Civ3. Fortunately, my machine allows me to play huge maps with 24 civilizations without lags, but it's really sad that so many Civ players around the world are forced to play smaller maps than they would want to because of the system requirements of a 3d engine they could happily do without.

one thing though, that was indeed simpler, is modding and that's the big plus of C3C...
Simpler, yes. The Civ3 editor was much easier to access than Civ4's python, XML, and SDK. But Civ3 modding, while being easier, is also more limited. A mod like Blake's Better AI, which improves the game AI a lot, unfortunately will never be possible for Civ3.
 
Psyringe, one the whole I pretty much agree with you and understand your point of view...slightly different personal preferences aside..now if only someone would combine the positive sides of both games and gave us Civ5.

I agree that modding ala Civ3 (easy) + into depth ala CIV would be just brilliant...
 
I got new computer before I bought civ 4 so i have no complaining about 3d graphics :lol:. Actualy they are ugly, but I dont care. Alot better than civ 3 unrealistic 2d graphics :lol:. I have no problems with huge terra maps, only in late game it takes 5-2 minutes to end turn.

I havent played civ 1. (Although for now i have downloaded it from web)
I loved civ 2.
Was dissapointed with civ 3.
Civ 4 is my favourite.

Tulx
 
Hi. It's a general discussion, so I'm definitevely not planning to convince everyone and/or argue about personal taste. I'll simply put my opinion here :)

I've been playing in Civilization since Civ2. Spent countless hours during university times playing in it, when Gold version with hotseat option came out all of us were celebrating :beer:
Then it was Civ3. Gosh! Lot of fun, every expansion offered more and more joyful clicking. When Civ4 was released I totally ignored that - got my hands on Play The World. My friends was constantly sending me messages how good the game is, superb, nice, etc. what made me dislike Civ4 even more.
About a month ago I borrowed Civ4+Warlords from my work colleague. He wasn't really into the game. Hm.
I've started it.
And that's it.
:woohoo:

NEVER (well, except Heroes III Wake Of Gods :goodjob: ) before I got myself sooooo deeply into any PC game. Whole month I've played only and solely in Civ4. :crazyeye: I'm still not bored, I'm still playing, fortunately by finishing the game twice on Emperor and usually winning on Monarch without reloading I'm somewhat cured - now I can play other games as well. :D :D
Obviously, there are many things in every game that one dislike, but Civ4... I've finally got my hands on game that is "proper". Game makes more sense, is more balanced, offering completely different experience comparing to Civ3. I'm totally addicted AND happy. My fiance little less though :gripe:
Graphics... Well, if You have new PC You're not bothered, if You haven't - I can agree moaning :D But that's not Firaxis fault, isn't it? Nowadays without fancy flashy thingies kids wouldn't be asking their parents to buy this/that, so company simply had to add something to ensure high sell.
For me Civ4 is the best of all series, offering a lot more challenge (no 0% research anymore xP), more sense and I'm not feeling outside the game at all, especially when Elizabeth with big army basically ordered me to stop trading with Genghis, I've done it and I can see Genghises army swarming towards my borders while guy "refuses to talk" :D :D
Have fun everyone ;)
 
I like all of them, but the one I like less is civ III for two reasons:

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

about but go to communism, then my total prodution is no bigger than before.

Great Leader, a war thing can be used as Army (which I think right) or as the

greatest builder (which I think unbalancing).

Best regards,
 
5. Graphics Ueberfluessig wie ein Kropf

Ganz genau! :agree: :agree: :agree:

Seems there is an overwhelming majority to kill this graphic engine and to replace it with something simplier (best: back to the Civ 3 units so the next Civ (5) can have thousands of animated high quality units again and is more modderfriendly in reality.
 
If you are like me then don't expect to play large/Huge Maps >_<
The one thing they did worse in CIV was the amount of memory it takes
I cannot play many great maps becuase my Specs are too low while in Civ 3 I can go ahead and play with a giant map with tons of different Nations
 
Every religion is the same 100&#37;.

I think the earlier religions are more valuable. Early culture and happiness, great bailout on early-game expansion with shrine, much easier to spread it without missionaries because no one has a religion.

CIV's combat system is too simple, only 1 value for attack/defense and the headache of the promotion system. Yes, there is the paper/scissor/rock thing. But nothing beats an axe rush in the beginning. Plenty of catapult/cannons/trebs/artillery will do the job. I sometimes think you can win the game merely using atrillery.
Plus, it has become a chore to fight, not fun. WW is plain crazy without proper governments

Chariots shut down an axe rush, but I get the point you're making. I dont feel like the promotions are a headache at all. I actually really like the system...I can customize my units to do certain tasks (like city raider or medic) or patch up their weaknesses (giving cavalry pinch to deal with riflemen). I think at first glance the combat looks simple, but its fairly complex...all the modifiers based on what units are fighting, all the different promotions, the wild card of first strikes.

Artillery...yeah, I more or less agree. I remember when Treb's first came out I thought "ill make a treb army and run over everything" and you can to a certain degree, but you cant hold it. So there is a balance in you cant build solely artillery. BUT really you can build mostly artillery with a couple garrison units. I know they had to make some kind of counter to cities with lots of troops that are fortified with a huge cultural defense and on a hill. Artillery is that counter. The flip side is that very little will hold up to a dedicated siege attack...I say very little because I had a stack of seals that had 2-3 promotions each with Washington and they shut down an artillery attack, and Ive also survived quite easily with Isabella's Citadel.


As for civ 4 vs civ 3...I really didnt like civ 3 that much. It felt far too easy to me, and some things really bugged me. Once you got an army going ,it was over. Warring was a chore because you could crush the ai easily. The whole game turned into a mopup duty grind. Culture was borderline buggy...taking a city, putting your army in it, then watching it flip right away and losing that army. Disappearing resources, while realistic, were also frustrating. REX was mindless and predictable, and also way too similar to civ 2. People complain about the Jaguar and Gallic warrior UU, but that was nothing compared to the f-15 and man-o-war.

I think civ 4 is much better then civ 3 for many reasons, but the main reasons to me are...

1. Great people
2. Civics
3. More traits
4. Music
 
ya...comparison...
i get to know CIV starting from civ2...hooked:)
civ3 even better game play...:D
found out Civfanatics forum got many same interest friends in CIV
with many fantastic mods and scenarios to download:lol:
civ4 out more realistic and balanced:cool:
because i play civ3 longer than civ4...got some feelings in civ3 that cannot forget..
so i make a mod that play civ4 game in civ3 system: Test IV Time - The Alternative World
may be i found out some how civ4 looks like this if civ4 3D new game systems not develop by Sid Meier and 2K Games:goodjob:
 
I really thought I'd hate this game but I was wrong. I just purchased it yesterday and could kick myself for not getting it sooner. I'm still a little concerned about late game performance issues, but so far, so good. The scenarios run pretty good on my laptop, so we'll just have to see.

The only thing I didn't like was the inability to play on a random map, but the patch fixed that.

Now if I could just play for one day without feeling the urge to run out and buy Warlords.
 
CIV requires a 'gaming' computer. Someone like me, who does not play any other games than the Civ series anyway, and uses his machine primarily for work - how am I supposed to play CIV?

And, while I fully agree with nerfing the tech whoring, they instead killed the whole concept of peaceful AI manipulation.


Bottom line: haven't touched CIV for half a year, and returned to C3C. And as long as I don't need a new machine for better reasons, this won't change.
Wholeheartedly agree with the 'Kropf'.
 
going to war was much more fun and exciting in civ3....i used to love backstabbing the ai by moving all my units by their major cities, declaring war, and capturing them in 1 or 2 turns.

the only gripe i have with civ 4 is that fact that once you declare war on a civ, all of your units in their territory teleport (yes somehow an axeman can teleport) back to your boundries.

Maybe firaxis chose to do this to balance the game out (blah blah blah) but warmongering got nerfed.....besides...what true satisfaction do you get out of a diplomatic victory...big deal....BRING BACK BACKSTABBING
 
going to war was much more fun and exciting in civ3....i used to love backstabbing the ai by moving all my units by their major cities, declaring war, and capturing them in 1 or 2 turns.

the only gripe i have with civ 4 is that fact that once you declare war on a civ, all of your units in their territory teleport (yes somehow an axeman can teleport) back to your boundries.

Man your one cheasy lil guy. how fun was it to ROP rape every civ you met. Why not just go into the editer and level your Unique Unit to the power of superman!,
Ether way your not realy playin a game called CIv3 your playing a subversion called Civ la cheasay.
 
One thing about civ3 I could not stand was that I would often be in between 2 other civs who are at war with each other. Their units would just go traipsing into my territory without even asking for permission! And then, when they make peace, one of them would decide to sneak attack me because they're already in the area. And without the zones of control from civ2, it's hard to protect your borders from someone you're not at war with.
 
however 'cheesy' it is it shoulden't have been taken away bc the ai was dumb in civ 3...if anything the ai should notice that you're moving troops into their territory and threaten war if you don't move them within a certain amount of turns
 
One thing about civ3 I could not stand was that I would often be in between 2 other civs who are at war with each other. Their units would just go traipsing into my territory without even asking for permission! And then, when they make peace, one of them would decide to sneak attack me because they're already in the area. And without the zones of control from civ2, it's hard to protect your borders from someone you're not at war with.

Why should they ask permission if there stronger then you! OH sorry is some paper work going to stop a blood thirsty army from meating its ends? Stop living in Civ4 sesame Civ land, in this game you can actually get bloody if you don't make the right move

In real life thats exactly what a army would do to drum up its neighbours support. MArch the army right to your door step try to perswade you to join.("Hey look at my cool blood thirsy army wann come play with us?" ;) In CIv3 they do just that!. If you give no support and the the two warring factions agree to peace whats left is your no good ass and their big army. lil pussys deserve whats coming they should have sided on and joined the fun. Theres no imaginary wall in history or CIv3 so stop prentending its a bad thing

Stop complaining and prepare yourself. Join the winning team by using scouts(worker unit) to check what side would win if you joined. THis is a chance of expanding your borders with the help of another army.(not a gazzilion artillary lile a lil chessist waits for :lol: )

DOn't tell me you think that war would have ended so quickly if you had joined on. Next time think about it in real terms
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom