Civ 3 or Civ 4?

[RobZimmerman]

Back a couple years ago, I loved Civ III, but then my disc broke. When Revolutions came out recently I've had a yearning to play Civ once again for the computer, but Civ IV is out now, and I hear that it is an entirely different game than Civ III, prompting me to wonder which I should get.

Which do you guys think is better? What are some pro's and con's of both? Any feedback would be awesome

 

[Takhisis]

Civ 3 is more "serious", and way more moddable.
Civ 4 has some is a bit... glam? comic? I'm not sure how to desrcibe it, it's just not my way for videogames., and new mechanics i. e. religion, which can be copied by a moderately experienced modder in Civ 3.

All in all, kick 's ass.

 

[Arexander]

Well said Takhisis. I fully agree with you and we CivIII players just got an awesome scenario update released and running.

 

[Moosezilla]

Civ 4 grafix make me sick!

 

[dreamchaser214]

Civ4 is better. It has better diplomacy, specially in KI behavior. The gameplay itself goes a bit swifter. I prefer Civ3 just for a few things, like no infinite-radius nuclear missiles (so the possibility of "cold war" with lots of nuclear submarines just waiting to drop hell on earth)..hahaha.

__________________
GameFly Video Games Box

 

[CommandoBob]

I'm much more familiar with CivIII than Civ4, but I am trying to learn the latter.

My Take, so far:
Civ4 handles overflow production much bettter than CivIII.

Civ4 attempts to handle a game-play irritant in CivIII, that of the trespassing AI settler pair, with Open Borders, but replaces one problem with another.

Civ4 has many more resources than CivIII but more is not better. Some Luxuries require a specific improvement before it is a benefit. I think that works for Strategic Resources (Coal, Iron, Uranium and such) but not for Silks and Wines.

The combat model in Civ4 is designed against the CivIII Stacks of Doom. However, a Stack of Doom of just one unit (which is what they designed against, as best I can tell) was never a good idea in CivIII. Each stack needed attackers and defenders, fast movers and foot sloggers and rock throwers for defensive bombardment. Same is true in Civ4, just different combat mechanics to get the same effect.

Civ4 has religions, but each act pretty much the same, so the net effect not so great.

If you have the right resource, Wonders can be built faster in Civ4, generally about twice as fast as not having the resource.

The 3D engine is just eye-candy. I prefer the combat animations in CivIII to Civ4.

Tech cost can decrease over time, as the tech becomes less and less important, down to one turn of research.

Great People Points are distracting.

When a settler is active all of the food resources on the map are visible and seem to float above the map. This is frustrating. Civ III does this better.

 

[Robo-Star]

I didn't play much Civ III, and it was a couple of years ago now at least...I do like Civ IV's health system, single Strength rating for units, Great People, and better handling of resources (as in being able to trade all resources, not just certain categories of resources - only 'Luxury Resources', is it?), though. If Civ III can handle them in a mod, though, I might just have to dig out the CD.
-

 

[phungus420]

...and way more moddable.

Flatly not true. Civ3 is easier to mod basic things, like adding new units. However CivIII has absolutely no exposure of it's source code, so there is nothing like the Civ4 SDK or Python modding available in civIII; in short civIII allows a straightforward means for simple modding, but it is completely impossible to add fully new concepts and gameplay features, let alone drastically rebuild the game as is done in many civ4 mods.

 

[Takhisis]

Civ4 has many more resources than CivIII but more is not better. Some Luxuries require a specific improvement before it is a benefit. I think that works for Strategic Resources (Coal, Iron, Uranium and such) but not for Silks and Wines.

Man, ever heard of Megaresources.zip?

Civ4 has religions, but each act pretty much the same, so the net effect not so great.

They can be modded by cloning governments.

The 3D engine is just eye-candy. I prefer the combat animations in CivIII to Civ4.

I think you haven't really dug into the whole modding and customizing affair.
You can find better animations, graphics, music, and so forth in the Civ3 - Creation & Customization forums. Check some of the subforums out!

• Utility Programs
• Graphics Modpacks
• Completed Scenarios

And much more! Keep digging into it.

I didn't play much Civ III, and it was a couple of years ago now at least...I do like Civ IV's health system, single Strength rating for units, Great People, and better handling of resources (as in being able to trade all resources, not just certain categories of resources - only 'Luxury Resources', is it?), though. If Civ III can handle them in a mod, though, I might just have to dig out the CD.
-

Civ III lets you trade Luxury Resources and Strategic resources. Why should you want to trade a bonus resource that only adds to a tile's output without giving you happy faces or allowing you to build improvements and wonders? It would be a waste of code.

Flatly not true. Civ3 is easier to mod basic things, like adding new units. However CivIII has absolutely no exposure of it's source code, so there is nothing like the Civ4 SDK or Python modding available in civIII; in short civIII allows a straightforward means for simple modding, but it is completely impossible to add fully new concepts and gameplay features, let alone drastically rebuild the game as is done in many civ4 mods.

Yes and no. Have you tried the fan-made editors?

 

[Robo-Star]

Civ III lets you trade Luxury Resources and Strategic resources. Why should you want to trade a bonus resource that only adds to a tile's output without giving you happy faces or allowing you to build improvements and wonders? It would be a waste of code.

Eh, Civ 4 it is then.
-

 

[EvilConqueror]

Civ III is much better in my opinion. A lot more enjoyable.

 

[CommandoBob]

I think you haven't really dug into the whole modding and customizing affair.

No, I haven't. Most of my games have either been Succession Games or HoF attempts, where modding is frowned upon, but only to make the challenges the same.

I do use Smiley's Popheads and darski's 31 color pallette but that is about it.

 

[Takhisis]

No, I haven't. Most of my games have either been Succession Games or HoF attempts, where modding is frowned upon, but only to make the challenges the same.

I do use Smiley's Popheads and darski's 31 color pallette but that is about it.

Start downloading. That's an order, private!

 

[timerover51]

I have both Civ3 and Civ4, and with Civ4, I can even mod it on my Mac laptop if I want to. Cannot play it really, since it is a lot more graphics-demanding, but I could mod it, which I cannot do with Civ3. That has a Windows-only editor. However, I much prefer Civ3, and bought a Dell desktop from my son's high school to do the needed editing. I probably spent as much on the desktop as I would have spent on all of the Civ4 expansions, maybe more. Note, the desktop also can run Civ4 better than my Mac Ibook, but I still much prefer Civ3.

As to why, there are several reasons. First and foremost are the graphics. They look like a bad video game as far as I am concerned. I could not care less about 3D imaging. I like the graphics in Civ3 far better. Second, the single factor combat system is not something I am in favor of, being a miniature war game designer who really likes separate attack and defense values. Third, I have attended seminary, and have the equivalent of a Master of Arts in Religion. I really did not like what I saw about the way religion was handled in Civ4, and it was one of those instant turn offs. Overall, the game mechanics did not appeal to me in the least.

I will happily continue to play Civ3, along with Age of Empires II and Age of Empires III, Rise of Nations, and Age of Mythology. All of them have 2D graphics, and I am perfectly happy with that, and how the games run.

 

[Pounder]

I still play Civ4 once or twice a year if I want a short game of a day or two, it is a good game, but there is not enough strategy and luck is a much bigger factor in the game.

I like Civ3 better for the strategy and the graphics, the units are far better in Civ3 and in much larger variety.

I like epic games, my typical Civ 3 game will last a month, with lots to do on every turn.

I have tried to play marathon games on Civ4 and for the most part you get several more turns with nothing to do, I don't like clicking end turn several times in a row without doing anything.

The diplomacy on Civ4 does have some nice features, too bad the leader doesn't change through the eras.

I play Civ3 for a couple hours each day before the rest of the household gets up and I never get tired of modding and playing the game (since it was released).

I played Civ4 constantly for about a year, I bought the expansions, but after that it was back to the classic game play of Civ3, with about four days a year on Civ4.

 

[Takhisis]

btw if you post it on a civ3 forum the poll's very likely to be biased in favour of Civ III.

 

[Pounder]

btw if you post it on a civ3 forum the poll's very likely to be biased in favour of Civ III.

This is true, but it is nice to advertise, maybe there will be a few more converts.

 

[phungus420]

Civ2 wins:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=343569

 

[Civinator]

I didn't play much Civ III, and it was a couple of years ago now at least...I do like Civ IV's health system, single Strength rating for units, Great People, and better handling of resources (as in being able to trade all resources, not just certain categories of resources - only 'Luxury Resources', is it?), though. If Civ III can handle them in a mod, though, I might just have to dig out the CD.
-

Robo-Star, such a mod for Civ 3 will soon be available in a betatest version.
Please note that Great People were an invention of Civ 3 and not of Civ 4:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7241760&postcount=5

And it is no problem to replace pollution with unhappiness in Civ 3 too (what is done in that mod).

It is also no problem to set single strength rating for units in the Civ 3 editor if this is needed (but it isn´t). In Civ 3 luxury and strategic resources can be traded ( so limited to a maximum number of 32 if you don´t want to run in a bug). But too much tradeable resources slow down gamespeed especially in later eras (a problem that is much more annoying in Civ 4 than in Civ 3).

Additionally in that mod you have different leaders for a civ in different eras of the game, an implemetation of religion that at least by the prebetatesters of this mod was rated better than the implemantation in an unmodded Civ 4 and an interesting methode against the ICS-tactics.

This mod and others (that adept a lot of concepts that were shown in the preview thread of that mod: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=291104) are needed, as a lot of civers are not happy with the way the civ series is going especially with Civ 4 and Civ Rev.

I want to play a civ game in a big world with goodlooking units and not a game simulating only a small district with a handful of cities (as otherwise Civ 4 would have been completely unplayable due to the pc-power overkill of that unnecessairy and badlooking 3D-engine). I also don´t like the cartoonish style of Civ 4 that was even increased with Civ Rev.

 

[Theov]

Red Alert 2 is still my favourite. Oh and Blitz the League is pretty cool too. That's all I have to say to this, no comments any more. No comment.