CIV IV vs CIV III

Status
Not open for further replies.
In other word this patch fix one problem by removing one of the options that the AI couldn't handle , that is army stacking problem. I could just as well point out there is already a fit to the armies problem called civ3 vanilla.

What the? :eek: Don't you see the obvious differnce in the one unit army life bar? Your actually tryin to say to have no army is the same as having one of the magnitude shown?. You have never played this game have you? lol..
Man I had my hunch all your civ3 talk here was regurged from some HOF expliot thread but now Im pritty this is the case.
You have never played " Rood and the Dragon" one of the most famous mods that use this patch. Advice? Don't talk if your uneducated otherwise you end up being schooled here. Not the best place right?

LOOK! two of them! How do you miss it? Used to seeing much bigger units I guess!



A lot bigger then average don' you think? And Yes, LIke I said, The kind of advantage thats warrented for the amount of resources invested!:D

Because of this extra life the army unit has a MAJOR increase in chance of being promoted to elite, hence even greater life bar discrepency between the average opposing unit. You see you have more of a Chess 'rook' type here, not the all chessy invincible army that took out a civ when stacked with few artys

ALso the unit has the extra movement!. With this it can attack more red-lined units and thus arrivie at 'Elite' faster. This means its odds in combat are quickly what an expienced army should expect . A inexperienced army can still take a licken and thus this 1unit Army model better reflects that.

So as you see the 'Army' abilty is code removed that brought added to benifit to the game, especially as hope agaist '40 city Civs' that can be common place. OH wait in Civ4 they took that out to :)

Just admit you have one less thing to repeatidly complain about here. AS for me and others, the reality is Today civ3 players have a more balanced unit thats more realistic and more fun to use. Oh and guess what? the AI USES THEM AS MUCH AS YOU! :cool:

So you were sayin?
 
Just admit you have one less thing to repeatidly complain about here. AS for me and others, the reality is Today civ3 players have a more balanced unit thats more realistic and more fun to use. Oh and guess what? the AI USES THEM AS MUCH AS YOU! :cool:
First I'm not complaining and no I haven't played every single mod for civ3. I have at times given AI civ Armies to see what they would do with them. They did use them sometimes yet in the end I kept my armies alive while destroying the AI easily. Like artillery my experience is the AI didn't know what to do with them.
The problem with these killer god-like units is the AI can't focus like a human player. Even in civ4 the AI is careless with their warlords units even though they are not as powerful as civ3 armies.
P.S So far, even though they are still a little overpowering, I like FFH2 idea of god-like units where you can only build one per game as well as the possibility of losing that unit forever with each battle.
 
I managed to install and play Civ IV last night and here are the pros and cons compared to CIV III

Pros:

1) Graphics are better.

2) As usual, more units, buildings, etc.

3) I like how units could be promoted in various ways and become unique.

4) Religion is an impotant new element. Government is highly customizable.

5) Great people is a nice concept and what they could do.

6) It is nice to see the units fight closeup.

Cons:

1) The game was very hard to install, esp with certain video cards.

2) It is hard to summon the units that are inactive. With Civ III, you could just go to the military advisor screen and see and activate all your units in one screen. With Civ IV, seems like you have to go to each city and activate the units. Is there an easier way?

3) There is no obvious way to initiate contact with other leaders. You have to go to the foreign advisor screen and right click on the leader's picture, which is not very apparent.

4) There are so many details and structures on the screen that it is hard to see what resouce is on a given square. I know there is a way to turn off the units, but is there a way to turn off all the improvements on the land to better see the terrain and resources?

5) It is harder to see from a glance the status of the city screen All the parameters such as food, production, etc, are in the form of numbers and bar graph. With Civ III, those parameters are better presented. For instance, you can count the actual units of production shields or grain.

6) In the city, screen it is also harder to scroll though and select what the city is building. With Civ III, you can bring up a list and you can select what to build quicker.

7) I think that now there are too many wonders that each wonder seem to loose it's importance and purpose.
 
First I'm not complaining
Yes when you say "AI sucked when it did have armies as well as dealing with players armies" You are complaining . I had to silence this not just to stop you but so other know its wrong aswell.
and no I haven't played every single mod for civ3.
I didn't ask if you played every mod. I asked if you played one of the most downloaded mods of civ3 called Rood of the Dragon. A mod that used the enhanced feature of gameplay in question. See the difference?.Well How about The MEM mod then? This another massively downloaded mod using the army patch feature. Surley you would know a "Army" with one unit dosn't negate all its advantages?. IT weakens just enough to balance compared to other units. This way it warrents the use by the player and is also now used by the AI on equal basis.
I have at times given AI civ Armies to see what they would do with them. They did use them sometimes yet in the end I kept my armies alive while destroying the AI easily. Like artillery my experience is the AI didn't know what to do with them.
SO you see the Army is being used in the pictures I provide here Right? You know all 6 examples showing more then 10 army units being used by AI are drawn from the same epic, Right?
You said you tried testing the one unit army in mods but it didn't work? Still how come you were oblivious to the fact a 'one unit eqpt army' gets a higher life bar (otherwise, you wouldn't have suggested playing vannila is the same thing Im i right? :) )

I mean basicly after all this you sayin its just on your computer it dosn't work. Wow you have a cursed civ3. Is this the same one civ4 runs faster then civ3 on? :D

The problem with these killer god-like units is the AI can't focus like a human player. Even in civ4 the AI is careless with their warlords units even though they are not as powerful as civ3 armies.

Dude What 'god like units' ? Those were patched :(
How about I lay into a speel on the problem with vassels or any other problem with civ4 before they were patched? OH wait, that would be pointless to compain about a game aspect already fixed and thus dosn't exist for any player who dosn't intentially want to experience them.
ITs Kinda like how you choose the 2 slowest mods in civ3 that use massive maps never dreamable on civ4 and pre stacked with thousands of units. But wait, comes to the most popular for being the best performing and balanced/patched and you say Well jee, "I never played them all" lol

Why does Smidlee plays all the best unofficially patched'/mods civ4 he can get his hands on but stick with the worst aspects when playin civ3? Simple, so he has something to talk about when hes hatin on civ3 all the time? :lol:


WHy not talk about the balance problems that come with playin Sid? The player has as much choice playin that as he does playin "god like units" Am I right? :goodjob:
 
Why does Smidlee plays all the best unofficially patched'/mods civ4 he can get his hands on but stick with the worst aspects when playin civ3? Simple, so he has something to talk about when hes hatin on civ3 all the time? :lol:
You do know there is a difference between a unofficial patch and a mod? A mod actually changes the rules farther than the original design. So I wouldn't call FfH2 (nor Rood and the Dragon) a unofficial patch by any means.
Bhruic was being careful not to change the game (rules) more than intented with his unofficial patch
 
You do know there is a difference between a unofficial patch and a mod? A mod actually changes the rules farther than the original design. So I wouldn't call FfH2 a official patch by any means.
Bhruic was being careful not to change the game (rules) more than intend with his unofficial patch


Moot. How does this apply to anything I just said?

Do armys now NOT work like Ive shown them to? They work better so I improved the game design and you say because in your opinion its more mod then patch it cancels the effect?
Your grasping.
Lets not forget before BtS everyone was saying Go get Blakes mod or the combat sucks. Wait! DOn't forget the Better AI mod, the AI is dumb ass without it. This was for 2 years! . Whats the differnce now that its included? Does that mean the game is better now that you save 5 minutes not having to add what used to be on the net as amatuer content?
 
Troytheface wrote:
"Conquests had two horrible bugs-Armies the AI did not use and the submarine start a war bug. Any Civ4 balance issues pale in comparison."

AI don't use Armies? man where have you been.
You see you are referring to a mod while troytheface is talking about Conquest. It seems the Rood and the Dragon also removed artillery from the game.
 
Troytheface wrote:
"Conquests had two horrible bugs-Armies the AI did not use and the submarine start a war bug. Any Civ4 balance issues pale in comparison."

You see you are referring to a mod while troytheface is talking about Conquest. It seems the Rood and the Dragon also removed artillery from the game.

What about the mod these photos came from :lol:

What about any game with the army count moved back?
How did artillary get involved. Did I start talking about spys ;)

smidlee said:
AI sucked when it did have armies.

I answered to this. I showed you evidence proving your wrong did I not?. The fact you both found fault with civ3 and were both playin a unpatched version is not a coincidence. Now your arguements changed to instead what makes a patch and we know this is ireleveant. The armies play back based on how you patch, just like any original fault with civ4 . You play prebug or post bug. Its your choice. The fact you had no pre-existing knowledge this patch worked till now says a lot.
You plug in cheezy you get cheezy. Simple as that. Most now know this if they were reading my posts. Only you say its the games fault :goodjob:
 
Smidlee said:
First I'm not complaining
Yes when you say "AI sucked when it did have armies as well as dealing with players armies" You are complaining . I had to silence this not just to stop you but so other know its wrong aswell.
and no I haven't played every single mod for civ3.
I didn't ask if you played every mod. I asked if you played one of the most downloaded mods of civ3 called Rood of the Dragon. A mod that used the enhanced feature of gameplay in question. See the difference?.Well How about The MEM mod then? This another massively downloaded mod using the army patch feature. Surley you would know a "Army" with one unit dosn't negate all its advantages?. IT weakens just enough to balance compared to other units. This way it warrents the use by the player and is also now used by the AI on equal basis.
I have at times given AI civ Armies to see what they would do with them. They did use them sometimes yet in the end I kept my armies alive while destroying the AI easily. Like artillery my experience is the AI didn't know what to do with them.
SO you see the Army is being used in the pictures I provide here Right? You know all 6 examples showing more then 10 army units being used by AI are drawn from the same epic, Right?
You said you tried testing the one unit army in mods but it didn't work? Still how come you were oblivious to the fact a 'one unit eqpt army' gets a higher life bar (otherwise, you wouldn't have suggested playing vannila is the same thing Im i right? :) )

I mean basicly after all this you sayin its just on your computer it dosn't work. Wow you have a cursed civ3. Is this the same one civ4 runs faster then civ3 on? :D

The problem with these killer god-like units is the AI can't focus like a human player. Even in civ4 the AI is careless with their warlords units even though they are not as powerful as civ3 armies.

Dude What 'god like units' ? Those were patched :(
How about I lay into a speel on the problem with vassels or any other problem with civ4 before they were patched? OH wait, that would be pointless to compain about a game aspect already fixed and thus dosn't exist for any player who dosn't intentially want to experience them.
ITs Kinda like how you choose the 2 slowest mods in civ3 that use massive maps never dreamable on civ4 and pre stacked with thousands of units. But wait, comes to the most popular for being the best performing and balanced/patched and you say Well jee, "I never played them all" lol

WHy not talk about the balance problems that come with playin Sid? The player has as much choice playin that as he does playin "god like units" Am I right? :goodjob:
 
the fix for these glaring glitches is an unofficial patch?

No thanks, and i suggest most gamers would not even know where to look for such a thing.

some people have a hard time keeping up to date. Like an old man in out of style clothing, driving a 70's oldsmobile in mint condition- there is an aesthetic to such-like hearing someone talk about the good ol days- quaint and child-like at best.
 
Well to me the "one-unit" army sounds a lot like Civ4 warlord.
 
I managed to install and play Civ IV last night and here are the pros and cons compared to CIV III

Well, like everything in this thread, it's ALL A MATTER OF OPINION. :)

My opinion?

Pros:

1) Graphics are better.
I think they're significantly worse. Same as with Europa Universalis 2 vs EU3 (the game, not the Civ4 mod).

2) As usual, more units, buildings, etc.
Yes, and I find that a not so great thing. Civ4 improved surface aspects and nerfed the basics. If you want thousands of units, download a mod, that's why Civ is moddable.

3) I like how units could be promoted in various ways and become unique.
I like that too, it's a nice improvement.

4) Religion is an impotant new element. Government is highly customizable.
I prefer the old governments, the ones in Conquests (Vanilla didn't have enough of them, I agree).

5) Great people is a nice concept and what they could do.
Nice concept, poorly implemented.

6) It is nice to see the units fight closeup.
Again, a really unimportant surface detail, at least in my opinion. :)

Cons:

[...]

7) I think that now there are too many wonders that each wonder seem to loose it's importance and purpose.

That's exactly what I meant when I said it improved surface aspects, nerfing the basics.



All in all, I think Civ4 might be better for sales, better for young people to get into Civ, but if I was new to the series I would have put them in this order 1 < 4 < 3 (even though 1 was a greater breakthrough than all the others IMO), as it seems Civ4 has desperately tried to become prettier while losing (a part of!) the actual beauty of the game. To me, that's not so good, because I'm in the (quite small) group of people that prefer a better strategy (that is, in my opinion) to a worse strategy with better graphics. The others are not in this group, so they regurarly bring up these small things as arguments over it (kind of like "whoa, how can you not like it when you've got animated rivers on which you can see the water flowing in the proper direction!!"), but we must all remember that all strategy games players are themselves in a similar group, at a larger scale, compared to other gamers, so I don't think this is a good thing in general even when not considering my personal opinion on what is better for the game and what is worse.
 
@Mirc

On the specific topic of governments vs. civics, I agree. Governments are better. Unfortunately, this is one of Civ3's biggest defects. CivII had governments. Civ3 doesn't. It has A government - Republic. The rest of the pretenders to the name, except under rare circumstances, are useless.

On another topic, I simply cannot understand anyone who claims that the original game was the best of them all. Civ1 and Civ2 were basically the same, except that Civ2 was better in every way. From the graphics to the combat to the AI. In every way. How could anyone possibly prefer Civ1 to Civ2?
 
Well to me the "one-unit" army sounds a lot like Civ4 warlord.
Sure I guess in some ways one being both units are utilized by the AI now.
Yet from words of the unoffical patch creator:
Bhruic said:
No, it was dropped in Civ IV completely. Even if you want to make the case that the Warlord unit is functionally equivalent (a very tough case to make), that wasn't introduced until the first expansion pack.

Heres the link hmm see any thing familar yet? :mischief: But Hey! Looks like I made my case twice now based on the same original post!. How bout that? :D

Ya 'Warlord' I'll accept coming from you. I never hear the same amount of critism the army attracts being put on the Warlord so I guess to all civ3 hate-on members the "Army patch" would be a improvement. ;)
For me its using a civ3 combat system with rapid response and less waitin on turns playing realistic empire sizes, that I like so much more. The fact we've taken one of Civ3's few broken elements and fixed it to the point its actually adding to this type of gameplay as opposed to axeing from it, makes the revamp Army unit so sweet. :goodjob:

Civ3 IMPROVED ARMY PATCH version 1.19
Designed to refine civ3 code into smoother more 'real' epic expierience.

THe basis for this patch is to give AI Civs a chance to where otherwise they would have been laid to waste on a opening offensive advance. Also to re-equipt the "Army" unit back in the players arsenal but this time as a balanced weapon that when used wisely, still poses a great threat to AI opponents ranging from any size.

Yes before there was alot AIvsAIwar but now its turned into somethin a lot less predictable, meaning worth watching when results of AI's on huge map campaigns are very influential on your development . :)
ITs a valid wildcard that was needed for the type of "huge" map game maker to take advantage of the what civ3 was built on, that is realitic size.

In a civ3 sized "huge" Where attritution come into play, AI needs a stack breaker, a city taker so they can get in the door to essential replenish stops along the invasion route. Once the army breaks the lines they use captured citys as cultural-speed barrier for added defence thus speed bonus for them on attack. Also healing stations with defencive fortifications and the capture of defensivly stationed artys formally residing there, All are used as momentium after the intial breakout. YOu start to see how these big titans can fall now.
Havin no AI army option was the reason the intial seige was so hard for them. It would take pile ups or preyin on the weakest to see a collapse of power. Now with the Civ3 "WARLORD" we see them use another option.
Durin peace time a AI unit can build up a major resistance to any attack but with a new Army in the mix the resistance dimishes to the point the AI will have a real chance not giveing up to settle for peace son soon. (and with nothin accomplished)

It takes no genious to see the carry over to diplo as more AI deals are held to integrity.
Without expiencing the full effects this game undergoes with the patch utilized, your totally blind to the advancement of civ3 over the new chapter!. After being delivered a chain of realistic and benifical gamepay aspects to whats already an amazing strategy Xpiernce, Civ3 is the greatest incarnation of the series yet!
condensed version:
- the AI can use armys and their improvement to gameplay is pritty much the same for the player. Its the new ability to break into a fat ass civ'd defences. THis makes for more legit dealings with Mutual A"s and springs forth the 'anything can happen' type feeling with world events in relation to power ladders
 
Some questions:
- Where do I find it?
- Does it also work with Conquests?
- Does it work with RaR-Mod?
- If this is so, how do I have to change the Patch-Mod-Install-Sequence in order to get the AI-Army-Patch to work?
 
the fix for these glaring glitches is an unofficial patch?

No thanks, and i suggest most gamers would not even know where to look for such a thing.

some people have a hard time keeping up to date. Like an old man in out of style clothing, driving a 70's oldsmobile in mint condition- there is an aesthetic to such-like hearing someone talk about the good ol days- quaint and child-like at best.

What the hell are you talking about? :lol:

The term "unoffical patch", the one you seem to be mocking, was actually taken from Civ4's Beyond the sword! :sad:
Its the most used version of BtS on this site!
 
Some questions:
- Where do I find it?
- Does it also work with Conquests?
- Does it work with RaR-Mod?
- If this is so, how do I have to change the Patch-Mod-Install-Sequence in order to get the AI-Army-Patch to work?

Where is it? You can find it in your very own editer. Its like picking what difficulty option you want cept you go into the editer menu, find army, click the change and save. Done!

Whats better is this patch balances the game so players who before needed highiest levels to enjoy challange with "God like units" at their disposal, now gladly will leave behind those unfun levels of upper difficulty where cheap AI advantages push you to 'arse ram and repeat' like a HOF legend or worse, like a Smidlee, total unreal and cheasy ;)

Yep Thats all a patch is when 'rule changes' are the the only thing effected. Its just another balance meter to refine difficulty, hopefully based on realism . Its the last bit Thats the important part and why I explained the rational of a one unit system.

If its proven designers leaned to the players side in one of the game mechnic's scales, well then is it not right a respected modder like embyodead come along and makes the minor adjustment to restore balance thus adding to enjoyment by way of enhanced realism and more intresting gameplay? Dam right! and if its proven to work upon playtest then its safe to give out to the rest as the "unoffical patch" just like Bhruic's was in the beloved civ4 forum.

Don 't listen to anything a civ3 naysayers has to say. First they never understood any change concepts but "play and throw away". Second, Now Their pissed the one thing they can't fix, which is performance, is costing them thier sanity or making them choose a scaled down "travel sized civ." :lol:

As for you. You can have everything I wrote above on any "Conquests" epic sized mod you ever choose, but to keep it ontopic..... Check your pm for the screenie explains how. Give a man a fish he eats for a day teach a man to fish... well you know the deal, this is a duck pond with stocked rainbow trout not python hunting ;)

ADD: I might post a upload thread with a 'patch' for the other guys in civ3 forum if i feel inspired but really its pioneers, guys like embryodead who should be gettin the cred, after all they invented. I only playtested it. :)
 
On another topic, I simply cannot understand anyone who claims that the original game was the best of them all. Civ1 and Civ2 were basically the same, except that Civ2 was better in every way. From the graphics to the combat to the AI. In every way. How could anyone possibly prefer Civ1 to Civ2?

I've never played Civ2*, that's why I'm not including it in my calculations. Might be an awesome game, I just don't know. :)

* actually I played it for about 3 hours at a friend, but guess that isn't enough, is it? ;)
 
My great disappointment with Civ III is that it initially promised so much, then really delivered so little. It was really just Civ II+ more than it was Civ III. i.e. it was Civ II with slightly better graphics & 1 or 2 extra features. It was still the same-old, same-old: Infinite City Sleaze; Build a city then build some mines & build some farms-rinse & repeat ad nauseum. The only really significant changes was Culture & resources, but espionage & diplomacy actually went BACKWARDS from Civ II, & was certainly much worse than the major developments added to SMAC.

Now Civ IV is a REVELATION! Specialists that matter, Great People, Religion, Civics, Diplomacy that actually makes some sense, a whole host of terrain improvements, the end of ICS (though Cottage Spam has wormed its way in instead-even though as a tactic it is not nearly as effective!)

Of course, that was just what was in the basic game. Warlords brought us the Warlord Unit which made combat slightly more meaningful & Unique Buildings which helps to differentiate the different civs so much more.

Beyond the Sword, like Conquests in Civ3, has been the best expansion of all. Espionage has finally taken its place as an effective tactic to use against your rivals. Events increase the feeling that you are playing within a real world. Corporations & the Apostolic Palace also help make the modern age & religion even more interesting respectively.

Best of all, the whole thing is so darned MODDABLE. If there is something you don't like about the game-or something you think is missing-go & look in the C&C forum-you are BOUND to find something you are looking for. If not, then ask & it will probably be created for you. Civ III never had that flexibility!

To me it just seems like, when they made Civ IV, they threw out all but the bare bones of the Civ game, & built it practically from scratch-which is what they should have done with Civ III in my opinion!

Aussie_Lurker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom