Civ 3 or Civ 4?

[Sashie VII]

Absolute BS. Civ3 is about as simple as a game can get. At high difficulty levels the strategy is always the same:
1) Micro Capital into Settler Pump
2) Rex
3) Tech to decent arty units
4) Use said arty units to conquer the world

That's it, that's as complex as Civ3 is. To be good at civ3 requires no strategic depth; all one needs is to be a good bean counter and follow a simple algorithm.

You implied that everyone playing at supposedly high difficulty levels would play the same way, ie REX their way to a good number of cities before using brute force to conquer the world by way of combined-arms tactics.

The first flaw in your argument, unfortunately, is that there are many different achievable victory conditions that you can aim for to win the game. Diplomatic Victory, Space Victory, Cultural Victory, not just Domination or Conquest. And if you browse around the SG area, you'll find that all these have been done at the highest level. And not necessarily by REX-ing their way there.

The second flaw, is that you implied being good as being able to implement strategies copied from another player. Anyone can read the relevant articles, print them out and keep them on hand for easy reference as they REX their way to dominance. But does that make them a good Civ3 player? No. Each map is different. Each layout of land and resources would be different. So you know a tactic that other player have used to win a high difficulty level, and you know how it works. Does this mean that you can apply that tactic successfully yourself? Not necessarily. This invalidated presumption to generalise the measurement of skill and quality is at best arguable, and in my opinion, ridiculously naive.

Compare this to civ4 that has deep strategic depth, allowing for a myriad of divergent strategies, including such novel concepts as not researching technologies, and still being able to win at the highest levels.

I for one am not willing to argue against Civ4 allowing for a myriad of divergent strategies. However, so does Civ3. To provide an quick example, the novel concept of not researching technologies (that you imply to have only been done in Civ4) have been done (a lot) in Civ3, long before Civ4 was released. High-level games have been won even by setting limits to yourself in terms of the number of cities, dos and don'ts, etc. The only limit to strategising in Civ3 would be your imagination.

Look we get the fact you die hard civ3 fans love your little algorithm. And that you confuse the fact this algorithm requires precise bean counting micro tedium with strategic depth. But the fact is civ3 has no strategy, it's just a simple follow the numbers step by step process. All it requires is following a simple formula; that's not deep, and it's not complex.

Do we? What algorithm? I would be interested to see you produce this simple formula that you so liberally imply to be a one-stop solution to all Civ3 games. I can beat Emperor (and perhaps Demigod) easily without settler pumps, or REX-ing my way to territorial dominance, or even waging one war. And if you ask around you will find players who defeat Deity and Sid regularly, and not necessarily by using the same strategies over and over.

Also, I would advise you not to label assertions as facts. A fact is a truth known by actual experience or observation. Your assertions, however, are unsupported declarations disguised by strong words to cover your lack of supporting arguments/evidence.

I believe that you are very confused about Civ3 and indeed, its players. Different players have different preferences. And in some cases, these preferences are so strong that many players enjoy doing things one particular way, just because they gain more satisfaction. I love waging war in Civ3, and I war a lot. Does that mean I can't win the game without going to war, and doing things differently? Of course not, it would be naive and simplistic to make such a presumption just because I prefer to play in one particular style. Perhaps you have seen too many players with one particular preference in these forums, that you began to believe that players who can beat the highest levels can only do so with one specific step-by-step method.

Or perhaps you just read these so-called facts posted somewhere and you thought it'd be cool to come here and to act superior in your so-called wisdom. If you can't debate properly, don't start one.

 

[Sashie VII]

On the home front - empire management - I think much depends on your expectations. Much about civ3 gave off vibes of fake depth for me. Micromanagement that didn't involve actual decision making ('wish I could write a script for this or delegate it to a 4-year-old without imagination'), anti-ICS precautions that either felt very heavy-handed or could be powered through and ignored, huge empires of interchangeable cities... I found the game a mess of draining, beancounting drudgery.

With more diversified economies, many interactions between the different government types, the Great People system and greater ability to specialise individual cities, I'd say that civ 4 is much, much deeper despite being less work.

I concede that in terms of complexity, Civ4 probably edges Civ3. However, I disagree that it's all bean-counting.

From your post, I think you're setting your expectations too high. Civ3 will never be Civ4, the same way Civ4 will never be an improved and ironed-out Civ3. Civ4 was made with some very significant changes and that ultimately made it a very different game in comparison. Empire management in Civ3 does involve decision-making, and a lot of it. City placement and other aspects of this part in civving depends on what you decide to go for in one particular game. Bean-counting it is not.

 

[ShunNakamura]

I am sometimes surprised by the animosity that some people exhibit in these types of comparisons. Then I remember that this is the internet.


Moving on, I quite like both games. Civ 4 fixes many things that in Civ 3 I didn't care for, but creates a slew of other issues(as is standard). They both have depth, they both have micromanagement(though Civ 4 reigns it in a bit compared to Civ 3, or rather makes it less tedious), they both are fun. However, gameplay wise I find Civ 4 a bit more enjoyable. Mostly because Civ 3's micro can get overly tedious in the late game and I end up burning out and never finishing anything. Meanwhile I don't have that problem(at least not to this extent) in Civ 4.

On the other hand however, Civ 4 lacks the era changing leaderheads(I like those), the graphics apparently bug more than just me, the removal of offense and defense is rather annoying, and the catapults are silly. But for the most part I have never cared for eye candy(so the differences in graphics while not my preference don't actually detract from my play much) and the promotion system makes up for the one number combat. So really all that grinds my gears is that catapult deal.

Or long story short I feel that Civ 4 slightly edges out Civ 3. If only Civ 4 had kept the Offense/Defense split and kept to a more classy graphic style and didn't go all weird on us with the catapults I would feel it would be much more than a slight edging out. However, as it is now it really comes down to preference, similar styles but executed differently. As such each will appeal to different people. However, the big thing helping Civ 4 in popularity is the limiting of micro headaches(imo of course). Too much tedious micro can very quickly put people off.

 

[Iranon]

@ Sashie VII:

This is not really something about 'high' or 'low' expectations. Both are excellent games depending on what you want from them... it's just that I can't get over this one aspect of civ3 that I seriously dislike.

I prefer 'dense' games where everything I need to do requires thought and consideration. I'm willing to familiarise myself with complex mechanics, then get out pencil and calculator and analyse a game to death... but I'll get bored quickly when I need to do cookie cutter micromanagement in game. I'm willing to tolerate a little of it in a real time environment (where some of the skill is in deciding where my limited attention is needed) but even there I dislike it. Turn-based games where it's a measure of my patience? Begone, foul spirit of soul-crushing tedium!

Just because I hate forced micromanagement with a passion doesn't mean it's necessarily bad. It forces the player to pay attention. It requires people to know how the game works, and rewards things like diligence and perfectionism.
It can even make the game more approachable... in civ4, understanding of the mechanics often isn't necessary because the game doesn't punish you as severely for small mistakes. Sometimes better understanding isn't even helpful unless you delve very deep into the details, which can discourage players wanting to improve.
Last not least, it reinforces the 'epic' feel, prolonging the game without overloading you with choices (which can break the flow).

 

[Spoonwood]

For an example of a high-level, non-settler factories, militaristic game without teching, just check Tone's standard domination game in the HoF. Some of Moonsinger's Sid games I believe also fit that description.

 

[Takhisis]

You know, after all, civ III's not the game for you if you're a grinder. I never play those strategies which involve settler factories, rushing techs, and so forth. I just build whatever's best for it. It's all about the fun.

 

[Sashie VII]

I am sometimes surprised by the animosity that some people exhibit in these types of comparisons. Then I remember that this is the internet.

I presume that is directed to me. I did not mean to sound hostile, my apologies if anyone was offended.

@Iranon,

I can relate to what you're saying regarding MM. Personally I can only micromanage to a certain extent before I lose the fun factor in playing, and I understand that the threshold for losing it would be different for every player. Again, I think this comes down to preference (or taste, if you will), in the sense that some of the aspects in the game does not appeal to you, and for some the annoyance brought about by these aspects may outweigh the joy of playing altogether.

That said, there are many utility programs around these forums that help keep track of the tiny details for you. CivAssist II and Mapstat comes to mind. With these to help, you'll find that the micromanagement would be less of a burden.

 

[Lord_Icewind]

I like both of them a lot, for different reasons. The Civics bit on Civ4 reminded me of SMAC, and that was brownie points, as it's my fav game.
But then again, the 3D graphics put me off a bit; I've never been a fan of cutting edge graphics; they are mere distractions most of the time in this kind of games.
You know what I think? Every Civ game has its charm. Hell, even Call to Power 1&2 had good ideas; the idea of -not- having any kind of workers was revolutionary for me. Shame that the AI sucked -so- much.

 

[ShunNakamura]

I presume that is directed to me. I did not mean to sound hostile, my apologies if anyone was offended.

Heh, not really I was mainly talking about how strong some of the feelings towards each game were. The diehard Civ 3 rules Civ 4 sux and diehard Civ 4 rules Civ 3 sux type comments(though honestly it wasn't anywhere near as bad here as I have seen before). Of course I may perceive it this way since I personally feel each game has its own charm. Mostly it was a comment on how strongly opinionated some people on the internet are, I rarely run into such IRL, but online such is a dime a dozen, thus I was mostly being humorous.


I really do need to try CivAssist, that may help with a lot with my burning out on Civ3.

 

[CommandoBob]

I have used both CivAssist II and MapStat (part of CrpSuite) and think highly of both. I use MapStat in-game more than CA II for a unique set of reasons. I use Notepad for turn logging, since I mostly play Succession Games. I can Alt+Tab in and out of MapStat with no problem, like any other program. I cannot do that with CA II. Once I am in CA II I have to Alt+Tab to something else (generally Civ) before I can Alt+Tab to Notepad.

My main reason for using either one was to be aware of when a city was about to shut down due to unhappiness. Second was to make researching trades a little bit easier (CA II is better than MapStat on trading details). I manually save at the end of each turn (habit) and MapStat (and I think CA II) will refresh their data with the latest save. By saving at the end of each turn, I have one last chance to fix any cranky cites.

 

[Camikaze]

I gotta say that by combining this poll and the other one, giving equal weighting to each, to be fair, Civ 4 comes out clearly the winner. I mean, it was almost unanimous on the Civ4 forums, but here Civ4 has almost 25% of the vote.

As for my opinion; eye candy is good. Civ 4 has better eye candy.

 

[Sashie VII]

Heh, not really I was mainly talking about how strong some of the feelings towards each game were. The diehard Civ 3 rules Civ 4 sux and diehard Civ 4 rules Civ 3 sux type comments(though honestly it wasn't anywhere near as bad here as I have seen before). Of course I may perceive it this way since I personally feel each game has its own charm.

I play both Civ3 and Civ4, although I tend to spend more time on Civ3. And I've come to treat both separately, ie not comparing the good and the bad of each. I think that allows you to enjoy both in its own way.

Mostly it was a comment on how strongly opinionated some people on the internet are, I rarely run into such IRL, but online such is a dime a dozen, thus I was mostly being humorous.


I really do need to try CivAssist, that may help with a lot with my burning out on Civ3.

Well, I don't really have a strong opinion either way (regardless of what I posted earlier), but I've been known to have strong reactions against condescending attitudes, RL/net. Be nice to me and I'll be nice to you



@CB, I find myself doing turnlogs almost every time I play now! And I've never played an SG in my life

 

[mythusmage]

CivIII, because my Mac is too old to handle CivIV.

 

[Kaidonni]

Civ III, because I can't be bothered with buying any more games (not after Stalker: Clear Sky ).

For the guy who said there are more strategies for Civ IV than III, including not researching...well, sorry, but that applies to Civ III. I'm doing it right now, with the Great Library under my control and plenty of AI contacts. Amassing some nice wealth for later on when I will *need* to buy techs. There are many strategies in Civ III, and I have never once felt like it is bean counting.

 

[tom2050]

Absolute BS. Civ3 is about as simple as a game can get. At high difficulty levels the strategy is always the same:
1) Micro Capital into Settler Pump
2) Rex
3) Tech to decent arty units
4) Use said arty units to conquer the world

That's it, that's as complex as Civ3 is. To be good at civ3 requires no strategic depth; all one needs is to be a good bean counter and follow a simple algorithm.

Compare this to civ4 that has deep strategic depth, allowing for a myriad of divergent strategies, including such novel concepts as not researching technologies, and still being able to win at the highest levels.

Look we get the fact you die hard civ3 fans love your little algorithm. And that you confuse the fact this algorithm requires precise bean counting micro tedium with strategic depth. But the fact is civ3 has no strategy, it's just a simple follow the numbers step by step process. All it requires is following a simple formula; that's not deep, and it's not complex.

Wow, are you serious when you left this post? To get that worked up over something so petty such as a Civ 3 vs Civ 4 discussion, perhaps you should take some relaxation classes, or give playing games a break for a while.

No one likes to hear one-track minded hateful posts; saying dumb things like "Civ 4 is better". Apparently depth to you is a shallow puddle. There are no beans to even count in Civ 4 (not that counting beans is desirable in the first place), most everything is laid out for you in that macromanagement world.

I don't even dislike Civ 4, I think it's pretty good, but if you cannot handle a 2 number combat system, and prefer 1 number, that is fine. Every game has many things that can be improved, which is the point of the discussion: the good and bad of both. But being a hater and leaving posts like this that give no grown-up objective argument to back up what you say no one wants to hear. Plus it lowers everyone else's IQ having to read it.

From what you said I suppose you hate every other empire game ever created in the universe, and there are ones that are older and far superior in many ways to Civ 4/ same with Civ 3. Same that Civ 2, 3, and 4 are superior to other games in ways, and vice versa.

Seems objective isn't something that is in your vocabulary.

And about the graphics, Civ 4 graphics are nothing at all to boast about, and neither are Civ 3's. 4's graphics were middle-below par when the game came out. Today 4's graphics are considered very bad, with 3's being considered very bad also compared to most any other top-notch game.

Need some screenshots of the units to prove it, compared to other top-notch games of it's time?

BTW, 4 is more popular than 3 by a far margin, no one argues that... and I would not expect it to be the other way around. Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri I still see as an immensely awesome strategy game, but that is not as popular as Civ 4 anymore either... Seems Phungus probably thinks that game is a piece of crap too?

Tom

 

[CommandoBob]

And about the graphics, Civ 4 graphics are nothing at all to boast about, and neither are Civ 3's. 4's graphics were middle-below par when the game came out. Today 4's graphics are considered very bad, with 3's being considered very bad also compared to most any other top-notch game.

Maybe I'm behind the curve, but I found (and still find!) the graphics in Civ 4 too cluttered. I admit I don't play a lot of new games, so I don't have anything for comparison. Like many others, I find the units too cartoony, but I can live with them. I am also a sucker for watching units fight, but the Civ 4 battle animations just seem like an interruption to the game, and I cannot determine why I think that.

I do like the interface, that is not bad, but the game map itself seems cluttered; too much detail of things I don't find important (individual trees, rising smoke, etc).

But I am still trying to learn to play Civ 4 well, so I plug away.

 

[phungus420]

Wow, are you serious when you left this post? To get that worked up over something so petty such as a Civ 3 vs Civ 4 discussion, perhaps you should take some relaxation classes, or give playing games a break for a while.

Way to start off with the passive aggressive tone. Of course behaving like an asshat is just par for the course on the internet. The holier then though passive aggressiveness seemingly a pivotal part of it. One tip though, if you're going to try to make your post have a high and mighty tone, do it subtly, starting off like you just have ruins it, and shows you're just slogging around in the mud with an upturned nose.

No one likes to hear one-track minded hateful posts; saying dumb things like "Civ 4 is better". Apparently depth to you is a shallow puddle. There are no beans to even count in Civ 4 (not that counting beans is desirable in the first place), most everything is laid out for you in that macromanagement world.

I don't even dislike Civ 4, I think it's pretty good, but if you cannot handle a 2 number combat system, and prefer 1 number, that is fine. Every game has many things that can be improved, which is the point of the discussion: the good and bad of both. But being a hater and leaving posts like this that give no grown-up objective argument to back up what you say no one wants to hear. Plus it lowers everyone else's IQ having to read it.

Civ4's combat mechanics are more in depth. The unitcombat classes and promotion bonuses have far more depth then a simple A/D combat system.

From what you said I suppose you hate every other empire game ever created in the universe, and there are ones that are older and far superior in many ways to Civ 4/ same with Civ 3. Same that Civ 2, 3, and 4 are superior to other games in ways, and vice versa.

Son I've been playing strategy games for quite some time. Hell I used to play Sid Meyer's RailRoad Tycoon, on a computer that required a DOS boot disk to start up.

Civ's combat engine is pretty crappy, it's 1v1 unit combats that are simplified as far as one can get. No one plays civ for the combat mechanics. Players have great games like the Total War series for that.

Now where civ shines is it's economic system. And civ4's has an incredable in depth and strategically complex economic engine. At the same time it bypasses tedious micromanagement and is intuitively presented to the user. On balance it's the best economic model I've seen in a strategy game. I suppose that's my main point. Which runs directly counter to the "Civ 4 is simple, civ3 is complex and strategic" argument the civ3 fan boys keep saying.

Seems objective isn't something that is in your vocabulary.

Seems you're a passive aggressive chump. Blow me.

And about the graphics, Civ 4 graphics are nothing at all to boast about, and neither are Civ 3's. 4's graphics were middle-below par when the game came out. Today 4's graphics are considered very bad, with 3's being considered very bad also compared to most any other top-notch game.

Need some screenshots of the units to prove it, compared to other top-notch games of it's time?

Civ's art is substandard. I'm not really much of a fan of Civ4's art on the whole. This is one area where I tend to agree with the civ3 fans on. So no argument from me here.

BTW, 4 is more popular than 3 by a far margin, no one argues that... and I would not expect it to be the other way around. Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri I still see as an immensely awesome strategy game, but that is not as popular as Civ 4 anymore either... Seems Phungus probably thinks that game is a piece of crap too?

You are correct, didn't like Alpha Centauri that much to be honest.

You implied that everyone playing at supposedly high difficulty levels would play the same way, ie REX their way to a good number of cities before using brute force to conquer the world by way of combined-arms tactics.

The first flaw in your argument, unfortunately, is that there are many different achievable victory conditions that you can aim for to win the game. Diplomatic Victory, Space Victory, Cultural Victory, not just Domination or Conquest. And if you browse around the SG area, you'll find that all these have been done at the highest level. And not necessarily by REX-ing their way there.

Assuming we are not talking some sort of rediculous set up like a dual map on diety/sid:

The Settler Pump, bean counting REX-ing is going to be found in every high level civ3 game. It is the only way to keep up with the AI. Please show me a high level (demigod or above) game that doesn't use a settler pump REX-ing start.

You may be right on the rush though, it may be possible to win a high level civ3 game without conquering a couple neighbors. It's been too long since I've played civ3 to really stick to my guns on this. However in civ3 doing so is extremely sub optimal, which isn't true in civ4. In civ4 you can do quite well on diety playing as a peacenick wonder whore. I simply have not seen such disparate strategic plays be succefull on high level civ3 SGs. I contend this is because Civ3's economic system is more linear, and it's "strategy" is more based on micromanagement tedium then depth.

Moderator Action: Warned - flaming. Please be nice.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Aabraxan]

What exactly is it that Civ 4 has that Civ 3 lacks that gives it this "depth," of which you speak?

 

[The Omega]

The Settler Pump, bean counting REX-ing is going to be found in every high level civ3 game. It is the only way to keep up with the AI. Please show me a high level (demigod or above) game that doesn't use a settler pump REX-ing start.

6 City Challenge on Sid

5 City Challenge on Diety

Too poor a start to settle rush on Deity

Too little room for a settler pump, on Deity


I've played both civ3 and civ4, and while I like them both, I just find it easier to become addicted to a civ3 game. Which is rather odd, as I hate micromanagement, and usually do terrible early on in most civ3 games due to my refusal to do make settler factories or even bother with city placement beyond, "Eh, this spot looks good". The way civ4 handles artillery, the one value combat system, and the extremely small scale (with six cities I once was the largest nation on my continent....) are what mostly turn me off from civ4, though I find its domestic aspect to be an excellent game.
Also, most of my favorite mods are on civ3.

 

[TheOverseer714]

I think this thread has come down to character assasination rather than an honest discussion. Sorry to see decent folks arguing with a troll. Go back to the Civ4 forums and rabble-rouse there. This forum needs a good dose of ketoconazole...

Moderator Action: Warned - flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889