CIv 3 vs Civ 4..

[monolith94]

re: civ 2 looking better than civ 3, this is personal preference. I'm talking about what I personally think looks pretty. The terrain, the visuals of the landscape in civ 3 were just plain ugly. Civ 2 was simpler, and more streamlined, and just plain better in this regard.

Heck, I even liked Civ 1's palace more than civ 3's palace. I simply did not enjoy civ 3 very much at all.

 

[azzaman333]

re: civ 2 looking better than civ 3, this is personal preference. I'm talking about what I personally think looks pretty. The terrain, the visuals of the landscape in civ 3 were just plain ugly. Civ 2 was simpler, and more streamlined, and just plain better in this regard.

Replace Civ 2 with Civ 3, and Civ 3 with Civ 4 and you get my feelings on 3 and 4's graphics.

 

[spa]

I spent hours and hours on Civ II but I really disliked Civ III. Played a few games through and then it went on the shelf to gather dust. Civ IV on the other hand is firmly in the rotation and will be until the next one. Why?

Civ III
-corruption made conquering anything outside the circle around your government centre pointless and zero fun.
-no point to boats
-pollution. I mean who wanted to have an army of workers running around to whatever city spewed out waste that turn. Boring
-spam as many cities as possible as quickly as possible inside your government ring. No strategy in that.
-annoying resources that would vanish.
-poor ai.

CivIV
-crippling corruption gone
-I find boats are really important and actually useful which is a first in any civ game for me
-pollution has been abstracted (except for nuclear attack) so no more micro
-infinite city sprawl is dead
-resources are fairly balanced and don't vanish annoyingly anymore.
-the ai is "better" (good is still a leap for any game except maybe Galactic Civlizations).
-why the ai likes or dislikes you doesn't seem so random anymore
-religion adds a nice touch
-good graphics

Now the one negative for me in CivIV the first few times I played was that it ended so quickly and I never had time to play with my units because they went obsolete so rapidly. I tried going to the slower speeds but they also slowed production so it just made things longer and didn't really change much. Thankfully CivIV is easily moddable so I changed the cost of all technologies in just a few clicks with the tech editor (upped them all by different rates depending on era), turned off the time limit victory and voila my one big grief was solved. For me the magic that was lost in the mess that was Civ III is back.

 

[azzaman333]

CivIV
-crippling corruption gone

Replaced by even more crippling maintainance

-I find boats are really important and actually useful which is a first in any civ game for me

Boats are basically meaningless, and have little/no consequense in 99% of wars.

-pollution has been abstracted (except for nuclear attack) so no more micro

Change for the better.

-infinite city sprawl is dead

So is having more than 5 cities without all your units killing themselves.

-resources are fairly balanced and don't vanish annoyingly anymore.

Balanced = good, no chance of vanishing = bad

-the ai is "better" (good is still a leap for any game except maybe Galactic Civlizations).

Not really. The only reason its better now is because of Blake's AI, not through anything Firaxis has done (other than using Blake's in the core game)

-why the ai likes or dislikes you doesn't seem so random anymore

You could always figure out why they disliked you in Civ 3, if you played for a bit.

-religion adds a nice touch

But is extremely bland. All religions aren't the same in real life, so why should they be in Civ?

-good graphics

Which should be of no consquence in a game like civ. Gameplay before Graphics, not overload the computer with stupid crappy 3d graphics.

 

[tycoonist]

if your computer can run Civ 4, get that. it is harder at first but ultimately much much more fun and rewarding

 

[Napalm102]

I think you can get Civ III Gold for like 10 Euro, so just go get it. And besides get both games they are great.

I personally prefer Civ IV, but it is not without problems.

Civ IV Pros:
- Corruption gone (all cities are productive), replaced by maintance (slows expansion untill you can sustain your economy i.e. it is important to understand how your empires economy works in Civ IV) anyway I look at this, it is a good thing.
- Unit promotions, specialized units make it more interesting interms of warfare
- Because you get fewer cities, you need to adapt to the terrain, no more mindless city cramming into as tight a space as possible. You need to know what city you want and where it has to be.
- More tarrain improvements
- City specialization - good thing imho
- Riots are gone, the effect of angry citizens is now more subtle, crippling your economy and production as a whole, instead of icapacitating your city outright.
- Collateral damage is back, easier to kill SoDs, initiative is important, whoever strikes first has a better chance to win.
- Graphics


Civ IV Cons:
- A/D/M values for units are gone, replaced by Strength + Bonuses/Movement. I think Civ III system is better allowing for more diverese units with particular strengths and weekneses more apparent. i.e. Cavalry in Civ III good at attack poor on defense, in Civ IV it practically doesn't matter.
- Navy is next to uselless, going up against a civ with powerfull navy is no problem, can't do anything except pillage that lonelly fish boat. In Civ III you could destroy improvements up to 2 squares inland really putting a dent in the economy.
- Artilery (a suicide unit in Civ IV) can't cause damage without going into a direct combat.
- Airforce is rather passive
- Alot of modern game doesn't exist, including the airforce, because the game is usually won or lost by that time. Hopefully BtS expansion will fix that.
- Game speed too fast, units going obsolete too fast, don't get to be in particular age for too long, instead you just rush through it.
- Several uselless tiles (mountains/deserts)

Civ IV is still improving though, so it is too early to say for sure

 

[Tee Kay]

Hear hear!

Civ IV is still improving though, so it is too early to say for sure

Well going by the release notes for BTS it doesn't seem like Firaxis is making any effort to correct the problem you (we) raised.

 

[Salarakas]

I pasted the following quote into a similar thread many months ago but I'll do it again since I think it's spot on.

The things I enjoy a strategy game are aggressive expansion, fast-moving wars, and dramatic turning points. In Civ IV expansion is punished; wars are slow; and Great Leaders and Wonders mean less than in III, because they're so common. The result is a very bland playing experience.

There are many things that are better in Civ IV but the above mentioned things make it a lot less fun for me. I also dislike the graphics apart from the zooming feature. The problem is that you can't really play the game well unless you zoom in closer because the units get lost in the world. In Civ 1-3 you could easily spot every single unit on the screen and make your decisions based on that. In Civ IV you have to zoom in closer and actively search for all the units. For someone who likes playing larger maps this is a real pain in the bum.

 

[Mirc]

Get both. I personally like Civ3 much more than Civ4...

 

[Lillefix]

So is having more than 5 cities without all your units killing themselves.

It doesn't make much difference in practice does it? In Civ3 you could have a ton of cities but only the small core was productive. The only difference is that domination is harder and you don't get the illusion that you have great empire(since most of the cities in civ3 actually are worthless).

 

[azzaman333]

It doesn't make much difference in practice does it? In Civ3 you could have a ton of cities but only the small core was productive. The only difference is that domination is harder and you don't get the illusion that you have great empire(since most of the cities in civ3 actually are worthless).

So why bother changing it then? Maintainance is the major reason why I've never got into Civ 4, because I hate having my gold supply drained and my units going on strike because I was successful in gaining land either through building settlers or by winning a war.

 

[Ammar]

So why bother changing it then? Maintainance is the major reason why I've never got into Civ 4, because I hate having my gold supply drained and my units going on strike because I was successful in gaining land either through building settlers or by winning a war.

Because it's not true. Having more than five cities, of which three are rather small, new and not developed is not good in Civ 4. However, once those five cities become larger you have easily enough money to build three more cities.
And so on. And all of these cities can become important and profitable to your empire.

In Civ 4 it is easily possible to have large empires. Even the most distant city from your capital, can when properly developed be an financial asset to your civilization. What Civ 4 does is limit the speed of expansion, because it takes time for new cities to actually become profitable.

 

[azzaman333]

Because it's not true. Having more than five cities, of which three are rather small, new and not developed is not good in Civ 4. However, once those five cities become larger you have easily enough money to build three more cities.
And so on. And all of these cities can become important and profitable to your empire.

In Civ 4 it is easily possible to have large empires. Even the most distant city from your capital, can when properly developed be an financial asset to your civilization. What Civ 4 does is limit the speed of expansion, because it takes time for new cities to actually become profitable.

In other words, you have to war really slowly otherwise your screwed.

 

[Ammar]

In other words, you have to war really slowly otherwise your screwed.

That depends. You can easily win a quick conquest victory on certain maps. What you can't do is expect to actually HOLD all the territory of an enemy in ancient times, but taking one or two rich cities and burn the rest is a viable tactic even in ancient times. It actually makes you rich from the loot as well.

At around the time I get Civil Service, I am usually strong enough economically to conquer an large enemy civ and hold all their cities. Takes some time to build up infrastructure in the conquered territories, until I can do that to a second civ, though.

 

[potatokiosk]

I think maintenance costs are a little strong. I do agree with preventing rapid expansion from being the best strategy, but I don't think making rapid expansion impossible is a big improvement.

 

[King Flevance]

I think maintenance costs are a little strong. I do agree with preventing rapid expansion from being the best strategy, but I don't think making rapid expansion impossible is a big improvement.

I totally agree with that. Actually I think it would make since for expansive to have some way of fighting this off somehow. Although I don't know how exactly other than making their maintenance a little cheaper if that is possible. Sort of like Charismatics cheaper unit lvls. Reflect that into Expansives city maintenenance cost so that they are able to have 7 cities before that large economic dent gets applied.

But this could be overpowered because in most strategy games, an additional city is a large leg up on every other opponent. Even moreso in CIv than in typical war games. I think the main problem is that CIv is still using the same tile based economy system. Whereas if international trading (or a more dynamic economic system) was more lucritive, it could help early expansion. This would make gaining foriegn trade routes alot more important of a strategy if you wish to expand.

 

[lauralaura]

It really is down to personal preference. Personally, I'm a much bigger fan of IV than III, for the following reasons:

- AI is much smarter. Fighting against an AI in III was like beating up a kitten.
- Corruption is gone, so an enormous late-game empire which is actually productive is feasible.
- Religion.
- Diplomacy is better, partially because of religion.
- Less city micromanagement.
- No armies. They were just stupidly overpowered, and the AI couldn't use them worth a damn (see my first point). Once you got one, the game was pretty much over.
- Land warfare is much more interesting. Altough I do miss radar artillery.
- Less of a need to REX and stake as large a claim as possible.
- Civic choice is more intersting.

My preferred mode of victory is late-game domination (I usually turn everything win condition except dominiation/conquest off and start seriously conquering people around the musket era and don't win until well into modern), and Civ IV is awesome for that. Someone who favors another style of play would probably disagree with my analysis.

The only things I really really miss from III are meaningful naval/air combat and radar artillery.

 

[Andrew_Jay]

I think maintenance costs are a little strong. I do agree with preventing rapid expansion from being the best strategy, but I don't think making rapid expansion impossible is a big improvement.

It doesn't make it impossible - just a trade-off between expansion and funding for science.

I prefer Civ IV much more - going back to Civ III recently it was shocking how badly it had aged in only five years. For one thing, the Civ IV interface is lightyears ahead of Civ III's, and displaying more information on the map itself is a huge bonus.

What I like best about Civ IV is that your actions actually involve careful decision making and have consequences - in Civ III it just seemed that all you need to do is have "more" - more cities, more units, more territory, etc. etc. There was no real strategic decision making involved. In the new game there are pros and cons to a lot of what you do, x comes at the expense of y, etc.

 

[Kool Keith]

If you have a system that can manage IV, by all means, get cIV. The people who don't like IV seem to be those who are greatly attached to III. You don't seem to be partial to 3 so just go for the latest and greatest. IV was wildly popular so I'm sure you'll like it.

I personally love III. My favorite video game ever. Just to show that it really boils down to personal preference I totally disagree with many of the aforementioned pros and cons.

C3C is a game of efficiency. Be efficient in expansion. Be efficient in production. Be efficient with your economy. Don't waste anything.

I love this challenge and it is the essence of Civ III, IMHO.

Many fans of cIV claim that there is only one strategy in III: REX. Well, that is partly true. You need to expand as fast as you can. But what many fail to see is that myriad strategies and possibilities you need to take into account to make this REX happen.

So saying that REX is the only strategy somewhat misses the point. REX isn't the strategy; REX is the game.

There is nothing inherently wrong with C3C's corruption system. It just is. I truly don't understand the problem people have with it. I don't feel like it is less fun to dominate because of corruption.

The one drawback of III IMHO is the length of the game. Sometimes the game just takes too long. If I start a game and have a busy week or two it might be a month before I can finish it, and by that time I have generally lost interest and want to start a new game.

 

[doronron]

In other words, you have to war really slowly otherwise your screwed.

Just to counterpoint: Most of the wars I've fought in Civ4 were wars of annihilation and were over in 35 turns or less. It's the logistics of the thing -- setting up your own Schlieffen Plan basically. The occupation never hurt my nation overall. It was just a matter of rebuilding the culture and letting war weariness cool down a bit before planning out the next invasion.