civ 3 players will not move on

[r_rolo1]

Well, a thread in flames.....

I do not pretend to have the definite anwser for the " Who pwns who? " in terms of Civ III vs Civ IV . Civ III definitely has a more stable core, supports more cities and bigger maps in the same computer, has more mods and unitpacks.... Civ IV IMHO has a better core mechanic ( in spite of some big issues with loose strings, like the vassal system, espionage,.... ) , it looks better ( in spite of some very beutiful Civ III units... we're comparing core versions, not mods or unofficial x-packs ) and got rid of some of the annoying civ III features ( like corruption ( IMHO, it was stupidly implemented ) and polution ( idem ) ). So in the vis-a-vis, I really think that is a matter of taste....

But there is a argument posted here against Civ IV that I agree: the 3D engine. I understand that the current graphical cards handle better 3D than 2D, but I simply don't understand why do we have a fully 3d graphical enviroment that is completely eyecandy, not fullfiling any kind of pratical use in game. If we had a SMAC type enviroment ( with diferent heights and depths, and sattelites ) 3D would be awesome and would fill the propose of the game, but that is not the case of Civ IV ( by design choice: the code allows its use, like it was discussed in the SMAC Mod thread ). That makes a very heavy-processing game for the actual computing needs of the core mechanics ( read "fluff" )

For finishing, I have SMAC ( not the X-pak... didn't liked it ), CivIII Conquests and Civ IV BtS in my computer. I play them all, but BtS has a big advantage over the other two. I play SMAC 1/2 times per month ( love the unit workshop, the deformable terrain, the terraforming ,and the awesome diplo system ( far better than any one of the Civ series ones IMHO ) ) and Civ III is pratically idle since last year ( never were a big fan of it: IMHO SMAC had a better core..... )

 

[King Flevance]

I understand that the current graphical cards handle better 3D than 2D, but I simply don't understand why do we have a fully 3d graphical enviroment that is completely eyecandy, not fullfiling any kind of pratical use in game. If we had a SMAC type enviroment ( with diferent heights and depths, and sattelites ) 3D would be awesome and would fill the propose of the game, but that is not the case of Civ IV ( by design choice: the code allows its use, like it was discussed in the SMAC Mod thread ). That makes a very heavy-processing game for the actual computing needs of the core mechanics ( read "fluff" )

Yeah, when I first learned Civ 4 was going 3-D, I thought we ere going to get canyons, cliffs, sea levels, true-hillside/mountain-side cities. However, I was dissappointed to find, it was the same thing they had been doing with 2-D all this time. The 3-D in Civ 4 does NOTHING but slow down the game performance. Not 1 single feature was added to justify the switch. Civ 4 could be converted over to 2-D with NO gameplay sacrifices. And gain better performance.
Yet, some people believe that 3-D somehow is better than 2-D. It is not better when it adds nothing to the game. It is just a "this or that" situation. But going 2-D does offer a game that can be less stressful on your hardware. Plus makes for extremely easy graphical modding if the game plans to support modding like Civ does.

It would be nice to see some of this terrain depth be modded in as a mod component by someone. But it would take exceptional skill from my perspective to do so. (Use of the SDK I would imagine.)

I entirely agree rolo.

For finishing, I have SMAC ( not the X-pak... didn't liked it ), CivIII Conquests and Civ IV BtS in my computer. I play them all, but BtS has a big advantage over the other two. I play SMAC 1/2 times per month ( love the unit workshop, the deformable terrain, the terraforming ,and the awesome diplo system ( far better than any one of the Civ series ones IMHO ) ) and Civ III is pratically idle since last year ( never were a big fan of it: IMHO SMAC had a better core..... )

This section here proves the fact that newer is not always better. I was still in school at the release of SMAC. Younger still for Colonization. And these games people on these forums still play.

I still play Civ 3, and also Civ 4 both. And I claim they are as good as one another. I would propose the OP open his mind a bit and truly look at what each game is offering instead of their publishing date. This includes mods as well. Who knows, by giving a little, maybe your friend will respect your opinion a little more by seeing the good in 3 that he may look to find the good in 4. But by calling him foolish for playing Civ 3 and not being "with the times" or whatever, he is probably less likely to care what kind of games you like if you do not show the same respect for him.

 

[r_rolo1]

Civ 4 could be converted over to 2-D with NO gameplay sacrifices.

In fact you can play Civ IV in a ( false ) 2-D , by typing ALT-O.... Dunno if it affects performance ( I doubt it ).

About the 3D graphs: I really think that the graphical implementation was the biggest misstep of the Civ IV making. Yeah, the graphs are quite nice, but it look like they were made in complete indenpendance of the game mechanics. They don't add anything in terms of game playability ( you can't even play properly if you use the civ IV graphical resources ( i.e. the flying camerra ) to his full extent ) and are a big part of the 500-600 MB of RAM that a standart map consumes in later ages. The thing that annoys me is that ( by what I read in the SMAC mod thread ) the game core allows a SMAC type enviroment and a real usage of the diferent heights for diferent tile yields , not just the monolithic "flat/hill/mountain" system of the civ series, diferent heigth for diferent planes ( and even proper airbattles ) and even real satelites ( just use flying camera in BtS and see the SS from the floor.... if we can put a SS shot high in the air, why not a sattelite animation? ). The fact that wasn't done says something about the compatimentation of the civ IV developing team ( and the fact that they worked with a already built graphical engine ) and of the lack of imagination/time that surrounded them.

But well, that is way off topic...

 

[Stormrage]

Its not OT, we are talking how us Civ3 people won`t move on to Civ4. And you are stating some good reasons for that.

 

[T.A JONES]

True true Stormy Just like I posted actual evidence "Civ3 people won`t move on to Civ4". ..and Opps! seems like its followed me over to the next page!

Well heres something tangible I found laying around

Official Civfanatic Participation Ratings Oct 21, 2007. 9.24am

Civ3 ( 4 years after last Xpack) > Civ4 (4 months after last Xpak)
________________________________________________________

Why is the 'old' version beating the brand new, hyped dailey version even UP TO THIS DAY? Is Civ3 that popular or is Civ4 that bad? Its more of a combo don't you think?

Btw, This is no rare occurance..and yes I can back that up

Civ4 has tripped where no other has done so before, its lost in popularty to the 'older model' in the ultmate indicater for factoring replayabity levels, the modding sector.

Those who mod do so cuz they can't get enough of that game. If more are modding then theres a higher chance the games being improved. Again, this promotes higher replay levels in the end.
Truly its the only category where its worth comparing the partcipation data here at civfan.
If were talkin sales I can show you charts that show Warlords was beat by 'Desprate Houswives' the week it hit the street but this kind of evidence is a lot less concrete. Sure it might indicate civ4's true support. After all it does reflect Firaxis's shrinking returns after losing the intial cash padding Civ4 Vannila enjoyed from loyality earned with Civ3.
Of course those fans cut n run back to the 'empire type' strategy sanctuary with todays refined monocore processor churning the "Better corruption, army format, pollution, or _____( fill in the blank), patch" at super sonic speeds

So how can the OP be so sure Civ4 is the better model when it has establised the dubious and quite frankly rather embarassing distinction of being the 1st chapter in the series to ever be passed over by the modders, the backbone of the civ legacy, for a prequel thats 7 years its senior? (nevermind being outsold by soccer moms)

Ouch! Based on the OP's logic this has really gotta hurt.

 

[obliterate]

But Civ3 has been around for so much longer. Wouldn't you expect that to be the case?

 

[CyberChrist]

...
Why is the 'old' version beating the brand new, hyped dailey version even UP TO THIS DAY? Is Civ3 that popular or is Civ4 that bad? Its more of a combo don't you think?

Your 'evidence' seems flawed unless I am missing the point of it.


There are approx 1836550 posts in the Civ III section. Spread over 6 years this comes to approx 306100 posts per year.

There are approx 1240740 posts in the cIV section. Spread over 2 years this comes to approx 620000 posts per year.


As far as I can see then that makes the activity on the cIV sections more than twice that on the Civ III ones.

 

[gps]

This bug was created by stopping the AI from knowing the exact location of submarines. I know which I prefer.

To avoid submarines properly, the AI has to know where they are. The player also is asked when he's about to stumble about an AI submarie if he wants to continue and declare war or not. The player also doesn't see the submarine, but how stupid must one be not beeing able to conclude there must be one.
The difference between PtW and C3C is, in PtW the logic is working for the AI so they know where the sub is and ignore it properly by correctly avoiding it. In C3C the AI does not ignore it properly and is forced to declare war. That's a backstep, now matter how much you talk yourself into beliving it's an improvement...

Warlords has been patched twice. At release, Warlords stunk like rotting flesh in a blender.

Exactly. But C3C was patched three times and still stinks. THAT'S my point. Seem you finally got it.
I like Civ III and I like Civ IV. Both are great games. Both have pros and cons. I play them both now and then. Those flame wars, which one is better - well, I don't know. Both were made by (mostly) the same people, played by (mostly) the same player, who gave their feedback which went into the next version. So it's a pity we lost some guys along the way, that mourn Civ IV was not the super Civ III they expected, but something different. I guess you have to cope with the situation and stick with Civ III. It's still there, noone took it from you!
I am just dissappointed, that Firaxis did not show the respect Civ III earns by properly finishing C3C. I like it, I'd like to play now and then, but I hate the bugs. That why Civ III for me means PtW. That's all I wanted to say. CU in another thread!

 

[azzaman333]

To avoid submarines properly, the AI has to know where they are. The player also is asked when he's about to stumble about an AI submarie if he wants to continue and declare war or not. The player also doesn't see the submarine, but how stupid must one be not beeing able to conclude there must be one.
The difference between PtW and C3C is, in PtW the logic is working for the AI so they know where the sub is and ignore it properly by correctly avoiding it. In C3C the AI does not ignore it properly and is forced to declare war. That's a backstep, now matter how much you talk yourself into beliving it's an improvement...

As far as I can remember, my (few) submarines were targetted by various AI ships in PTW which ticked my off more than the rare attack on a sub in C3C

Exactly. But C3C was patched three times and still stinks. THAT'S my point. Seem you finally got it.

C3C 1.22 has an equivalent bugged level to Civ4 1.74 (4 patches).

 

[r_rolo1]

Its not OT, we are talking how us Civ3 people won`t move on to Civ4. And you are stating some good reasons for that.

I think you misunderstood me. As I wrote, I'm not exactly happy with the implementation of the graphics in civ IV , but do not take as a Civ IV whiner.... Civ IV has a far better core mechanic than Civ III ( the corruption system was just meh.... ( and IMHO is such a central part of the game than removing or modding it smells like cheating ) and the pollution one ... meh too ), it simply uses too much computer resources for what it does. I was just stating that, with the same resources and with roughly the same coding you could had made a far better game that would really use the 3D enviroment... and that is not the same as advertising Civ III .

 

[gps]

C3C 1.22 has an equivalent bugged level to Civ4 1.74 (4 patches).

Quick final reply: Do you think I count patches??? This is no 'which version has been patched most or less often contest'. I want an as much as possible working final version of the game. I got that for Warlords, I obviously didn't get it for C3C - and I don't know, how BtS will end up (but that's a different story with Bhruics unofficial patch, that fixes, what Firaxis should have done!!!). If they need to release 2 patches and that's enough, great. If they need 30, then give us thirty - but don't just abandon the work. THAT'S what I hate!

 

[King Flevance]

( the corruption system was just meh.... ( and IMHO is such a central part of the game than removing or modding it smells like cheating )

I took alot of corruption out, but left a decent amount in but added in more -X% corruption buildings. Then having to compensate for all that extra money you get, building maintenance was beefed up especially research type buildings. Beefed up so much in fact that Smith's Trading Company became a National Wonder. You really have to toy with the system to get it to balance out properly. But once you get it, It works rather well equally by reducing corruption to allow greater shield output, as well as keep the players GPT income at bay.

EDIT:

If they need 30, then give us thirty - but don't just abandon the work. THAT'S what I hate!

Yeah, I agree. But I honestly think BTS will get 1 more patch. The final patch. Whether it is a good patch or another that even breaks things further past what it fixes, it will be the last one. As IMO I think 2K will see continued support of Civ 4 beyond the final patch to be "throwing away good money". They will most likely want Firaxis working on another title to release so the money invested will result in more consumer purchases. And patching Civ 4, does not result in more profit to them.

 

[CyberChrist]

Yeah, I agree. But I honestly think BTS will get 1 more patch. The final patch. Whether it is a good patch or another that even breaks things further past what it fixes, it will be the last one.

Sounds like a plausible assessment.

However, while there is/was not a snowballs chance in hell that the Civ III modding community could ever fix/improve anything wrong/lacking in any Civ III version by themselves (beyond what the editor allows) - the same is not true for cIV. The cIV modding community will be able to fix almost any problems by themselves that might be spotted long after Firaxis have stopped supporting cIV officially.

 

[Stormrage]

Thats true. You guys got the code Someone give me a call when they make Civ4 into C3C+ (with 2D).

 

[BeyondCivilized]

Then what is "What the F!?" supposed to mean? Generaly I take that as meaning Firaxis did something outrageous by making the Arab Civ pink, like Firaxis should have known not to make it pink. Why is that? Firaxis is supposed to know that pink isn't one of your preferences? Does yellow likewise make your eyes "agonize in pain"? "I'm not a homophobe"? Gee there's obviously no connection being made between pink and homosexuality there.

I apologize for making the wrong inference from your statement. If I really wanted to "stab you in the head" or "blow your head off" I would have thrown in a lot more than candidness. I apologize for being candid.

The first thing you get when you say you hate pink is "HOMOPHOBIC! GET HIM!" Even in my Arab Country, with a relatively large Muslim community! (The majority) That I said what I said. You don't have to quote every word I say.

You don't have to take an internet gaming forum so seriously, I was obviously joking around. I don't really hate yellow, and the pink color does not bother me THAT much.

Also I won't accept your apology, and I'm going to hunt you down and kill you, you hear me! No I won't be using that smiling emoticon... I HATE EMOTICON AND EVERYONE WHO USES THEM, YOU'RE ALL ON MY DEATH LIST!

Also in CivIII, I find it funny that the musketman requires a resource, but the rifleman does not, and then the infantry requires yet another resource. Instead of fixing it in CivIV, they killed half the resources. Well done Fireasxis, well done indeed. Now commence project SMAC2 or I'M GONNA KILL THE LOTTA YA!

 

[Veinot]

I just startted playing Civ4 and I can say I'm esthetically pleased but there are little to no military units, Civ3 had more. that and the Navy units are greatly depleted. Has anyone made a mod that adds more variety to the Military units, or more precisley the navil units?

 

[King Flevance]

Thats true. You guys got the code Someone give me a call when they make Civ4 into C3C+ (with 2D).

I am pretty sure the bolded part is impossible. Because of its engine, its hardcoded.

 

[Stormrage]

My point exactly. Whatever you do it, it`ll never be proper Civ again.

 

[r_rolo1]

^^That I don't understand.... Why ( in your opinion) Civ games have to be 2-D? Why not multilayer ( as RL is ) ?

 

[Rhye]

Still how can you say the Civ4 is the better model when it has establised the dubious and quite frankly rather embarassing distinction of being the 1st chapter in the series to ever be passed over by the modders, the backbone of the civ legacy, for a prequel thats 7 years its senior?

Ouch! Based on the OP's logic this has really gotta hurt. Especially Civ4's back of box quote: "best moddable version yet!"

what????
Please post those screens updated to 4 months after Conquests, and we'll compare the numbers again.