The Reason You Play Civ III

[jarhead_leif]

,guys..its my first post in Civ3 forum..so uhm, Hi!..
.,just out of curiosity...
,why do you prepare civIII over cIV (forget about V)
....its already a decade old and later civ games are said to be better..but what are the advantages of civ3 and what part of the game you like most why you never get tired of playing??

 

[Ataxerxes]

For one thing, the game runs faster. CivIV in the late game can have a noticeable lag between turns. Not so CivIII. I know my computer isn't top of the line, but it's pretty modern. I can finish a game of CivIII in half the time it takes me to finish CivIV.

Besides, after you plan CivIV for a while, you want a break. I find CivIII different enough to provide that break. Really, I cannot think of them as two versions of the same game - they are two different games.

 

[LegionKiller]

Edit: Never played CiV, so I can't compare, but Civ III is the one that really revolutionized Civilization forever.

 

[TomYo689]

I don't like the extra stuff in new games or the graphics

 

[Fiddlin Nero]

UpgradeItus and I enjoy playing CivIII

 

[bigFRANK]

it was £5 and works well on my old computer

 

[dilettante]

Nostalgia... sweet sweet nostalgia...

truthfully, it's just a better game with great core mechanics (like combat mechanics) with an elegant, easy to understand UI and amazing soundtrack. Though bells and whistles are light (i really wish better diplomacy could be modded in), it's more the core experience of the game rather than the extras that make the game.

the reason why i keep playing? it's a true 4x whereas a Civ5 tends to limit expansion due to diplomacy and Civ4 limits expansion due to maintenance costs (as if conquest is a bad thing )

oh it has its flaws... diplomacy already mentioned, and just the lack of the aformentioned bells & whistles (Civ4 had grand diplomacy & religious factions, Civ5 has city states & better espionage).

Nonetheless, the core game is what really makes Civ3 fun.

 

[Goatcurry]

i enjoy 3 the most over 4 and 5, probably the nostalgia goggles i can't seem to get off

 

[Gazmeister]

i enjoy 3 the most over 4 and 5, probably the nostalgia goggles i can't seem to get off

Same as me.

 

[Jingo7]

Finishing an epic game of Civ3 is like finishing a good film or novel, and I'm filled with a profound sense of...something, I don't know what.
For me it's the most complete and diverse civ experience, especially with all the wonderful user-made stuff on this website. Although I wish civ3 would have put in a bit more of the revolutionary aspect, civil-wars, mass-rebellions etc.

 

[rysmiel]

....its already a decade old and later civ games are said to be better..but what are the advantages of civ3 and what part of the game you like most why you never get tired of playing??

Big empires, and combat on the right scale; civ 4 and 5 both make the game far too tactically scaled, with individual unit promotions and that sort of thing, and generally too small. Civ 3 is a logistically scaled game.

 

[dilettante]

Big empires, and combat on the right scale; civ 4 and 5 both make the game far too tactically scaled, with individual unit promotions and that sort of thing, and generally too small. Civ 3 is a logistically scaled game.

I agree with this.

I love the fact in Civ3 that your army units are either conscripts or regulars (two & three health bars respectively) and become veterans or elites (four & five health bars respectively).

I think that's a more logical way of promotions (they don't die as fast for the battle hardened vets and elites) rather than the RPG-like promotions of Civ4 & Civ5 (I like RPG's but Civ is not an RPG and shouldn't play like one /smh).

Because of the game's larger sense of scale, it makes sense to have a large army to invade another civ. But because there are no RPG promotions for the city defenders, it doesn't need a large-ass stack to capture a city so a back and forth of capture and hold can occur. I couldn't tell you how many times I've invaded border cities and get locked in a desperate struggle with the AI to get a foothold on their turf. If you get whittled down to a few defenders, you'll rush to try to get your remaining units to hold ground. Talk about extending supply lines and such...

Even better, I try a breakout maneuver of sending a core of elites to capture a city deeper within enemy territory only to get countered by the same move by the AI (oh you clever russkies with your cossacks).

 

[HunterAlpha1]

i play civIII because Civ IV can barely run on my computer. don't get me wrong, civ III is great, but IMHO Civ IV is better, especially the diplomacy.

 

[MarkK]

All I've tried as far as Civ4 is the demo, and I liked what I saw. But I'm not really into, or don't have time for, the learning curve right now. Civ3 satisfies all my needs. What more can I say?

 

[Immortal7777]

I don't really like civ 4. I mean the holy wars are nice but I don't like the interface and controls and it just doesn't feel right. You just feel more acomplished in 3 than 4

 

[Gath_Stormer]

You simply can't beat the classics. It's a solid game and even if there's something newer out. You gotta miss the good old days.

 

[walletta]

Hi everyone. Dormant poster here. I can't compare 3 with any other versions either as I haven't played any of them, but they sure seem to have plenty of detractors. It's a great game. Currently ruling the waves with Brittania on a giant archipelago map at Monarch level.

 

[Puppeteer]

I was introduced to the genre with Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (SMAC). (Well, at least that's the first one I really played more than a few minutes and got into.) I dabbled briefly with CivII and Freeciv and one or two other turn-based-strategy games, but when CivIII came out I got into it, and later PTW and then Conquests.

I bought CivIV early and was interested in the promised reduction in micromanaging and other features, but I just couldn't get into it. I don't know if I was just being curmudgeonly and not wanting to put the effort into learning the units, tech tree and game mechanics or if it just genuinely wasn't as fun for me.

I tried Civ Rev on Nintendo DS and on Xbox 360, but I just couldn't care about or enjoy the game in either format.

I haven't tried Civ5, but nothing I've heard or seen has interested me in trying it.

Whether it's objectively better or whether it was just the timing of my interest and the moments (Gandhi of India preemptively nuking me for one), I enjoy PTW and Conquests over everything else in the genre, although I sometimes fire up SMAC for a while, too.

 

[Armageddon1]

Because I still remember the glory days of Civ 3 online

 

[CommandoBob]

CivIII was the first Civ game where I played above Chieftain. I'm almost ready to start on Civ4, but I have some HOF goals I hope to achieve first.

CivIII is a very comfortable, familiar game at this point. Now, it took a lot of playing to get that way, in addition to a whole lot of help from others here at the forum.