1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Civ 3 and Civ 4 Similarities?

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Strategy & Tips' started by Phaedo, Apr 7, 2010.

  1. Phaedo

    Phaedo Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,183
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    I've been away from both Civ and Civ Fanatics for a while but I decided to try Civ 4. I was pretty decent at Civ 3 (Perhaps the Rage Against the Machine game was my proudest accomplishment, though I had a lot of help from Buce, Tusker and Norton II) and enjoyed playing with many folks on this site.

    Although I haven't finished reading the manual, I was wondering if anyone out there had some brief overall similarities between the two game.

    Thanks in advance,
     
  2. Phaedo

    Phaedo Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,183
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    Actually, perhaps a short list of differences would be more helpful :)
     
  3. henrebotha

    henrebotha proud Fender owner

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    Messages:
    621
    Location:
    Cape Town, South Africa
    There's an article (perhaps in the Strategy Articles subforum) called "tips for people who hate Civ 4". It was written with Civ 3 players in mind. :)
     
  4. drlake

    drlake Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    1,247
    Location:
    Plattsburgh, NY
    The details of game-play are sufficiently different that the transition can be a beast. A couple of main things to watch:

    1) Warfare is quite different. You need to be more strategic in deciding which troops to build, which promotions to give them, and what order to attack in. Siege troops are FAR more valuable in IV than in III, and are critical to any war after the early years.

    2) Cities cost maintenance, not improvements. That makes expansion a very different prospect since building or conquering too many cities can crash your entire economy.

    3) You will do better when you specialize your cities according to function. There is far more benefit in this (and need for it) than there was in III.

    4) The AI you'll be playing against is smarter.
     
  5. cabert

    cabert Big mouth

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,710
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    France
    diplomacy feels different too, if I remember well the few civ 3 games I played.
    Mostly, you have religions that give you diplo bonus or malus (same religion = bonus, different = malus, no religion isn't a religion)
     
  6. Phaedo

    Phaedo Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,183
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    Thanks for the input and the article suggestion. I'm just started a warlord game and seem to be doing quite well. Maybe I'll have more to contribute to the forums after I play a bit.

    Cheers
     
  7. azzaman333

    azzaman333 meh

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    22,877
    Location:
    Melbourne, AUS Reputation:131^(9/2)
    The AI is still dumb, and siege weapons are still the best way to win a war with minimal losses.
     
  8. katipunero

    katipunero Prince

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    524
    Location:
    Philippines
    i play both 3 and 4 regularly and i really don't see much of a difference in terms of core gameplay mechanics. there are a few things to keep in mind though.

    first, the world is much smaller. what i mean by this is that you need less cities to accomplish what you can with 3 with at least 10-15 cities. unlearn optimal city placements, or ring city placements. just be smart where you settle cities in 4 and limit the number unless your traits, resources or civics allow you to expand some more.

    second, whip whip whip. in 4, you can time perfect whip cycles because turns on citizen whip anger are shown on your city screen. in 3 it was difficult because you need to count these turns in your head. a lot of other useful information is available to you now. its like civ 3 with civassist turned on by default. use every information to ur advantage.

    third, learn the controls. i mean mouse and keyboard shortcuts. warring is a lot easier as you don't have to repeat commands for stacks. create groups, select stacks of the same unit or all. and so on. but bear in mind that warfare is a lot trickier now because units are designed to be good and bad at or against something. just rely on the graphics model of the unit to figure out what they're good at. pikes and spears are good against horses for instance. there are exceptions to unit graphics and function of course but you'll discover them soon enough as you play more. you can still win with unit spam in 4, but the tactic is not as cost effective.

    fourth, try to take advantage of or play to your leader's traits, their unique units and buildings just like in 3. only in 4 these unique attributes are much more pronounced.
     
  9. MarcoPollo

    MarcoPollo Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Messages:
    112
    When I first bought Civ IV, I didn't like it much. I preferred CIV III as it was simpler. There were cookie cutter strategies that worked well. CIV IV is more complex, you have a higher degree of detail within the system.

    1) Resources and worker techs. I didn't like adjusting to the need for workers to tech up to be able to access different resources.

    2) Adjusting to balanced warfare. I didn't like the need to specialize army groups and learn siege concepts.

    3) Great People/Golden Ages. The ability to pre-determine great people and establish multiple golden ages seemed too broken at first. Strategy here took a long time to develop.

    4) Infinite city spam. This is no more.

    5) Multiple civic systems. Has made the game much more entertaining especially as a SPI leader.

    6) Culture and city conquest. It used to be that I could establish reasonable culture boundaries of captured cities within 6 turns in Civ III, now it takes much, much longer. So much so that it often makes sense to burn a city to the ground. So having settler units joining your army is not a bad idea.

    7) Railroads. In civ III railroads were very important giving infinite movement. Not here.

    8) Diplomacy is much more elaborate in CiV IV. It took a while to know how to manipulate it.

    9) Espionage took a long time for me to get used to. But it has made the game more dynamic and entertaining.
     
  10. CHEESE!

    CHEESE! On a long nostalgia trip

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,221
    Gender:
    Male
    A far, far better interface.
     
  11. Ataxerxes

    Ataxerxes Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    3,073
    Diplomacy works better in CivIV. A lot of the leaders won't plan a war at pleased and none will at friendly (unless Cathy is bribed). In CivIII, the leaders can attack at any time, any attitude.

    Right of Passage is usually a good idea in CivIV. Since at the start of the war units are automatically ejected from enemy territory, there isn't any more ROP-Rape. Right of Passage in CivIV gives trade income as well.

    In CivIII, you could leave an internal city unguarded (if you had no ROPs). In CivIV, every city demands protection and the minuses from not having a garrison in a city can get large as the city gets large.

    IIRC there is no unit support (unless you're in Pacifism).

    I like both CivIII and CivIV, but they are quite different.

    A few similarities would be chopping for hammers, early rush, and research along one path and trading for techs you miss.

    Happy Civving!:)
     
  12. Phaedo

    Phaedo Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,183
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    Thanks All. Really!

    There are a lot of helpful tips here. I'm still a complete noob when it comes to Civ IV diplomacy (mastering diplo was what got me to conquer Sid level with Civ III). Already, I'm planning to restart at a higher level than Warlord, which seems too easy. What a great community Civ Fanatics is!

    Cheers,
     
  13. huh?

    huh? Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    Messages:
    287
    As the game progresses, you can hover the mouse over the leader's name and see the diplomacy modifiers. You can see that some of them are relatively easy to gain and/or destroy.

    Just remember that you can't be friends with everyone. Eventually, you will trade with someone's worst enemy and start accumulating the negatives for that.

    You'll learn that there are some Leaders (not just civs) that will backstab you at a drop of a hat. There are some leaders (Toko) that it is next to impossible to become his/her friend. There are some leaders that if you are the same religion, they will be your friend for life.

    As you learn the ways of the leaders, you'll cringe when you are on an island with Monty, Shaka, and Cathy.
     
  14. azzaman333

    azzaman333 meh

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    22,877
    Location:
    Melbourne, AUS Reputation:131^(9/2)
    Anyone who played Civ 3 already knows not to trust Monty or Shaka.
     
  15. MarcoPollo

    MarcoPollo Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2010
    Messages:
    112
    What I found difficult was the Apostolic Palace. Learning how to set up my civ and wage war was a significant change from Civ III that I wound up turning diplomatic victory "off" while I mastered some of the simpler aspects of the game.

    Once I found myself to be skilled in the basics, then I added the dimension of the apostolic palace. It makes the game significantly more challenging. Especially as a warmonger.
     
  16. oranje willem

    oranje willem Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    Messages:
    323
    I really really had to get used to CIV IV, in fact the first few games i was disappointed, however when I got to know how the new mechanics worked I loved it more and more. I'm as far as playing against the highest difficulty level right now.
     
  17. troytheface

    troytheface Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,262
    talked to a friend that got it kinda late and i told him a few tips

    later, talked to him again and he said - i still make a bunch of settlers and build cities as fast as i can and beat noble
     
  18. Woodreaux

    Woodreaux Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    Messages:
    357
    Location:
    So Cal
    Trees: in [civ3] you could chop for :hammers:, then replant them to receive sustained long term :hammers: by working the them. In [civ4], once you chop a forest it's gone, until another one sprouts up. You can't replant it, but Forest Preserve improvements in adjacent forest tiles improve the rate of regrowth. Also, forest have there own improvement: the lumbermill for an extra :hammers:. It gains one more from railroad.

    Jungles: in [civ3] they randomly killed units parked in them by disease. In [civ4] they don't, instead they create :yuck: within BFC. :yuck: versus :health: affects city growth, but it is very much a secondary concern compared to :mad: vs :).

    Cottages: (assuming you're specializing your cities) spam these like there's no tomorrow around your commerce cities. Work them and they'll grow. The :commerce: they provide will fuel your expansion. I don't think [civ3] had cottages (roads improved commerce, right?), but in [civ4] they are a basis on which you can base your economy. There are other options, but the optimal one depends on traits and the map.

    Workers: they'll likely be busier in [civ4] than they were in [civ3], so build lots of them.

    Siege: build it early and often. As others have already noted, siege arty is way more important in [civ4] than in [civ3], but the point can't be stressed enough. When facing SoD think of several of your low/no XP having siege units as very-short range cruise-missiles that do collateral damage.
     

Share This Page