Beginning to miss Civ3......

[Sherkon]

I've tried three or four games and I find myself missing Civ3. I've been trying to figure out why and I think it mainly boils down to two things. First, the pacing. It just feels too slow. I mean, I hit 500 to 1000AD with no conflict? How does that reflect historical reality? 5000 years with no wars?

The other thing is the lack of cities. Having only a relative handful of cities doesn't give me the feel of a 'Civilization' at all. It feels more like a suburban area.

There aspects I like (like a lack of pointless techs which Civ3 had a lot of), but I find myself missing the older games. Anyone fell the same?

 

[calyth]

What difficulty are you playing at? If you're below warlord, usually the AI is docile enough that you can keep them all happy. Anything beyond Noble, you're pretty much guarantee to have an AI that hates your guts and wouldn't mind letting them spill.
The lack of cities has something to do with countering Civ 3's exploitative strategies.

 

[potatokiosk]

I think they try to introduce conflict in ancient times with stronger barbarians.

 

[mutax2003]

You can try a custom game, on monarch standard size map, with raging barbarian and aggressive AI option on, you definitely see more wars and barbs afterward.

 

[Chieftess]

Slow? I think Civ4 is actually fast compared to Civ3. (thus why there's not as many wars - by the time you get one stack, it's time to upgrade). Like in Civ3, higher difficulty levels usually mean more wars.

 

[Helmling]

Yeah, get to Prince and you'll have them beating down your doors...frickin' Aztecs!

Oh, sorry...