sabo
My Ancestors were Vikings
In my book they are two completely different games. Civ III was alot like Civ II in many ways, but Civ IV is a totally different animal
CIv 3 vs Civ 4..
- Thread starter bryanwallace
- Start date
doronron
King
Civ 4 is a lot like Civ 1.
People forget the greatest advantages of using Cv3. Its easy to mod for the average dude so stabalizing any size annoyance is as easy as operating an options menu for a Super NES game.
If Im feeling like raising the sheild cost of artillary to balance their power in numbers its done in secends and so is the reemphasis’s on build up of high producton citys along with it
Thats one tiny modifer. There are so many more, all easier then the python or xlm BS thast made CIV's "better modding" a real bust for most of us! (exclude the Kal el fans)
I don't even recall the Civ3 these guys talk about. I do recall playing with the flaws they recall in CIv4 cuz modding that game was a dam chore not worth the effort when CIv3 a la mod was sitting on the same shelf
This whole REZ thing can even be smoothed for more enjoyment by the "real empire Size" players. Simply raise the price and/or 'pop cost' of settlers then do the same with bonus food resouces! Now you made city placement more decisive.!
Remember its not that much a problem to start with cuz the world does fill up and all the claimed land will get gobbled up quick. When it does, the AI quickly puts on its game face and gets hungry for more
Being hit by a game stunner like a early AI army hurtin for land leaves you feelin insecure on future draft days (1st 100 turns) but still, turning the tables on the jerk was a rewarding experience
Futher enhancing the slow growth model CIv4 players loved, Civ3 modded uses clawbacks on building costs instead of unreal drawbacks with the city loss (ala CIv4). Combine this challenge with the no limts to war campains and no slowdowns and you got the recipe for what the real Civ exp is all about that is, better gameplay and performance that dosn't detur on the realism or the "right feel" of the Civ franchise inorder for the games growth hindering charteristics to play out accordingly.
In CIv3 Taming corruption with a focus on establishing Gov infrastucture (Maint costs) was done for example, by giving a high maint cost to run a Fed prison to best reflect the real finacial burden these improvements present to Govts. Improvements like this and others that wipe away citys annoyances from excessive burdern, to now bright spots in gameplay are all over the place with a easy mod set up.
Creating parks and sewers improvements with increased Public infrasfructure costs where it was warrented kills the "smack the mole" pollution games and put emphasis on paying in realistic ways!
The two imporovments (1 in pop pollution 1 in building pollution) truly were not enough. A lil increase in City max limt say, 14 instead of 12and simply lowering the pollution number to whatever was easiers still.
Does anyone know how to mod away Civ4's constraints on city expansion? or make more fitting alternatives? Bah didn't think so but see the point Im making?
It was dam easy in threezy!!! So obvios of a fix that it was done by all the 3rd Xpack type mods, all of which could have been shipped in-box with price tag attached. By mid 2005 nobody had to suffer anymore. It was simple as installing a patch or giving your 2d terrain the 2007 look compliments of Rhye, Snoop or Ares.~
Vannila Conquests says crossing the ocean is only reasonable in preparing to lay seige or collect resources. Drop in a third Palace patch and you got the likes of the "Interpol HQ" to get it done and with raise optimal city number raised to reflect a bigger map, Now your game is all bout sailing your settlers on high seas cuz overseas acquisitions with armys suitable for conquest were meant to be a breeze!.
Not that it matters to those who enjoy CIV, I still believe CIv4 expansion sales are hurt in a major way by resurgent Civ 3 modding efforts. With the games unique 'at ease' with the easel, your still seeing new blood flood in fresh streams of artistic imigination, later combed over by enthustaic testers to roll out full pedia script intact.
Imagine this ones size (pedia) , (sample 1 era of 4) Its a history lesson an a half but not for the arcade types
If Im feeling like raising the sheild cost of artillary to balance their power in numbers its done in secends and so is the reemphasis’s on build up of high producton citys along with it
Thats one tiny modifer. There are so many more, all easier then the python or xlm BS thast made CIV's "better modding" a real bust for most of us! (exclude the Kal el fans)
I don't even recall the Civ3 these guys talk about. I do recall playing with the flaws they recall in CIv4 cuz modding that game was a dam chore not worth the effort when CIv3 a la mod was sitting on the same shelf
This whole REZ thing can even be smoothed for more enjoyment by the "real empire Size" players. Simply raise the price and/or 'pop cost' of settlers then do the same with bonus food resouces! Now you made city placement more decisive.!
Remember its not that much a problem to start with cuz the world does fill up and all the claimed land will get gobbled up quick. When it does, the AI quickly puts on its game face and gets hungry for more
Being hit by a game stunner like a early AI army hurtin for land leaves you feelin insecure on future draft days (1st 100 turns) but still, turning the tables on the jerk was a rewarding experience
Futher enhancing the slow growth model CIv4 players loved, Civ3 modded uses clawbacks on building costs instead of unreal drawbacks with the city loss (ala CIv4). Combine this challenge with the no limts to war campains and no slowdowns and you got the recipe for what the real Civ exp is all about that is, better gameplay and performance that dosn't detur on the realism or the "right feel" of the Civ franchise inorder for the games growth hindering charteristics to play out accordingly.
In CIv3 Taming corruption with a focus on establishing Gov infrastucture (Maint costs) was done for example, by giving a high maint cost to run a Fed prison to best reflect the real finacial burden these improvements present to Govts. Improvements like this and others that wipe away citys annoyances from excessive burdern, to now bright spots in gameplay are all over the place with a easy mod set up.
Creating parks and sewers improvements with increased Public infrasfructure costs where it was warrented kills the "smack the mole" pollution games and put emphasis on paying in realistic ways!
The two imporovments (1 in pop pollution 1 in building pollution) truly were not enough. A lil increase in City max limt say, 14 instead of 12and simply lowering the pollution number to whatever was easiers still.
Does anyone know how to mod away Civ4's constraints on city expansion? or make more fitting alternatives? Bah didn't think so but see the point Im making?
It was dam easy in threezy!!! So obvios of a fix that it was done by all the 3rd Xpack type mods, all of which could have been shipped in-box with price tag attached. By mid 2005 nobody had to suffer anymore. It was simple as installing a patch or giving your 2d terrain the 2007 look compliments of Rhye, Snoop or Ares.~
Vannila Conquests says crossing the ocean is only reasonable in preparing to lay seige or collect resources. Drop in a third Palace patch and you got the likes of the "Interpol HQ" to get it done and with raise optimal city number raised to reflect a bigger map, Now your game is all bout sailing your settlers on high seas cuz overseas acquisitions with armys suitable for conquest were meant to be a breeze!.
Not that it matters to those who enjoy CIV, I still believe CIv4 expansion sales are hurt in a major way by resurgent Civ 3 modding efforts. With the games unique 'at ease' with the easel, your still seeing new blood flood in fresh streams of artistic imigination, later combed over by enthustaic testers to roll out full pedia script intact.
Imagine this ones size (pedia) , (sample 1 era of 4) Its a history lesson an a half but not for the arcade types
Yeah easy moding is an asset, but most mods throw the game balance out of the window. The worst thing you can do is just change that "annoyance" without considering the implications for the game and the AI which probably can't cope with the said change. End result game unbalanced and you have way too much advantage.
Balanced mods take time to make and test. Civ III been out alot longer then Civ IV, so there are bound to be alot better mods out for it. As I said the story w/ Civ IV isn't finished yet....give it time.
Balanced mods take time to make and test. Civ III been out alot longer then Civ IV, so there are bound to be alot better mods out for it. As I said the story w/ Civ IV isn't finished yet....give it time.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
35 turns?
None of my wars in Civ3, apart from AW games, lasted more than 35 turns, except if they were really in the beginning (where a warrior takes 10 turns to be built), and I can't really think of any war in the very beginning that I had recently.doronron
King
This was from the initial wave boarding ships to the occupation of the final city on an enemy continent. I'm not talking blitzing France and the low countries.
I'd suggest Conquests:
1. You obviously like civ 3 already, conquests adds a lot to that, and after that you can try some mods
2. It runs better. Even if you buy civ 4, check out the system requierments first
3. You can buy it very cheap from second hand store
4. Civ 4 without warlords isn't very good. After I got civ4, I went soon back to civ3, spiced up it with Rhye's mod.
Civ 4 is good too, but it's merrier to play civ 3 through first.
My humble opinion is like that of some others here: both games are good and have their strong and weak points, much depending on preference.
If you want to buy only one, I would go for Civ IV, mostly for reasons of having a larger community and a lot of great mods. Civ 3 has also great mods, but many modders have moved on and the community is shrinking (because many have moved to Civ IV or play both).
If you want to have big wars, or wage modern (or even atomic) war, you will need Civ III. Wars in Civ IV are more limited and require more careful planning; I used to calculate what types of units and what number I need to attack a neighbour and successfully take five cities (my usual target number per leap) and hold them afterwards (and then the same goal, but across an ocean).
Civ IV introduces a new feature: religions. They have an impact on strategy and offer some new avenues to exploit.
Micromanagement is also different, and they tried in Civ IV a new approach for some of the things we knew from the older Civs. In my opinion the changes were thought out and work, but some people prefer the old way things were done (maybe because they offered opportunities now gone).
In Civ IV you can also use culture as a way of attacking the enemy (although human opponents will know their danger and try to counter the effort; the AI is more vulnerable). A great bard for example gives a city where he is used 5000 culture points. If it is close to an enemy city, which has already a weaker culture, you can at least steal some squares from him (of interest in the case of strategic resources, which are scarce), and sometimes the whole city in due course.
I still play Alien Crossfire, Civ III and Civ IV, although I have stopped playing vanilla Civ IV the day after I loaded down the "Fall from Heaven" mod
I think all of them are good games and all of the sequels offered improvements to the basic game concept. The expansions of Civ III are mandatory if you want to use mods, btw, because most are based on them. I have not bought Warlords (because Fall from Heaven does not support it), but I will get Beyond the Sword.
If you want to buy only one, I would go for Civ IV, mostly for reasons of having a larger community and a lot of great mods. Civ 3 has also great mods, but many modders have moved on and the community is shrinking (because many have moved to Civ IV or play both).
If you want to have big wars, or wage modern (or even atomic) war, you will need Civ III. Wars in Civ IV are more limited and require more careful planning; I used to calculate what types of units and what number I need to attack a neighbour and successfully take five cities (my usual target number per leap) and hold them afterwards (and then the same goal, but across an ocean).
Civ IV introduces a new feature: religions. They have an impact on strategy and offer some new avenues to exploit.
Micromanagement is also different, and they tried in Civ IV a new approach for some of the things we knew from the older Civs. In my opinion the changes were thought out and work, but some people prefer the old way things were done (maybe because they offered opportunities now gone).
In Civ IV you can also use culture as a way of attacking the enemy (although human opponents will know their danger and try to counter the effort; the AI is more vulnerable). A great bard for example gives a city where he is used 5000 culture points. If it is close to an enemy city, which has already a weaker culture, you can at least steal some squares from him (of interest in the case of strategic resources, which are scarce), and sometimes the whole city in due course.
I still play Alien Crossfire, Civ III and Civ IV, although I have stopped playing vanilla Civ IV the day after I loaded down the "Fall from Heaven" mod
I think all of them are good games and all of the sequels offered improvements to the basic game concept. The expansions of Civ III are mandatory if you want to use mods, btw, because most are based on them. I have not bought Warlords (because Fall from Heaven does not support it), but I will get Beyond the Sword.
Your right. In time Civ4 will become better thanks to modders and the next X pack.
For CIv4 Im talking actual mods that lock the right look and in doing so, up the smoothness aswell. Im hoping for the key terrain mod matched with new unit design that I feel may change the expeience for a lot of people the same way Snoopy and Rhye did for Civ3 but with much more to offer like Huge maps being possible and fast flow following the whole way (on the right computer that is. theres no reason to complain if you havn't meet some real specs by then )
I also agree on your Unbalancing observations for both chapters. You notice it really taints opinions on mods when the first you try is an dud?. It makes you question why you should play another persons take on a game when you can have store bought quality with a few minor tinkerings to scratch any itch. Well in Civ3 you had the choice of both. Right now Civ4 players has to much reliablilty on the great modder to make we he wants. Problem is, everyone is particullar to certain things. I might feel a Polish horseman should be faster the a German unit for example
Thats why I emphized the advantage of Civ 3 in dept. Catering to all these people is a big plus but not the main reason, The abilty to elimate flaws to the core game with easy additions was most crucial I was more a Tekken 5 with a room full of friends gamer. lose, and you sit drink and smoke while the contoller goes around the circle. When I switched to Civ, I was at first reluctent to play around with programs that could potentialy taint the "secret formula" of gameplay. The editer was user frindly for small changes like adding more turns and making my maps bigger then standard huge but all my real problems never ended until I saw the Balancer mod, of all names huh?
packaged with CIv3 Complete. Being in good company the host game, it got past the 'change' blocker bouncer that was mind paid from the jade based on past experience with ungroomed mods that were madeSince opening my mind I was rewarded with an unbelievable effort that changed my opinon of Civ3 so much I call Balancer "Civ 3.5 RL" the meaning stands for "real life" refinements or or Reloaded even "redefined luxery" with supported pedia content, a big plus. That 2nd term also inspired by what was once my ride, a 97 Acura flagship. Sadly I ditched her and the electric console ended dash deep in mucky swamp water.
Its important to note that even great mods with Firaxis worthy content are mostly to historically dependent for a game thats about rewriting history.
Its these gems that most play on a repeat basis to the point they become a patch on your Conquest game that deserve the apointment to "3rd expansion".
Its kinda sad sign of the times when you look an see some of these mods on both sides come stoked withmore total content not even comparative in size to what Warlords or Ptw offered up its paying custumers. Worse ,the big changes in core game that suppose to be worth payin for come broken or hopless flawed like vassels in Warlords or PtW's MP game.
azzaman333
meh
If C3 is anything to base it on, the 3rd expansion will be the best. If I were you I'd buy C4 when BtS comes out, and buy BtS (which will probably include Warlords) when the first patch for it comes out.
^^ for sure. Im just hoping they improve huge map capabilties the way they improved turn times on same size for Conquests.
Some scenarios that reach the Conquests levels of quality would be a added bonus to. Breakaway games was a big part of that success though and I know they wern't signed on to make the sceanarios for Warlords
Some scenarios that reach the Conquests levels of quality would be a added bonus to. Breakaway games was a big part of that success though and I know they wern't signed on to make the sceanarios for Warlords
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 10,104
Concerning graphics: Here is the Civ 4 battleship (2 funnels) compared to a Civ 3 battleship (one funnel): http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5308065&postcount=331
So much to the graphics.
So much to the graphics.
dreadknought
timelord
Ive just recently gotten into civ4 , and believe me I was/am a huge civ 3 fan.
In time civ 4 will be better, imo, after all the current civ 3 took years to evolve into what is is today for certain mods. Civ 4 has a nice look and a good game plan for the future, that said it does lack epic scale and needs to continue to work on adding moddable features. They really need to make it appeal to the civ modders with some easy mod options, sort of a plug in tool.
I think in time it will open up and its not bad as is. Overall the AI is better and the potentiol is limitless, its just going to take some patience to become as good/better than some of the civ 3 mods that people spent years on. The modding tools will come in time and then I think the true potentiol will develop. 2-3 years from now, I expect a whole different ballgame with all the late innings stuff coming into play, so far Civ 4 is still just in the 3rd inning of a 9 inning game, imo.
In time civ 4 will be better, imo, after all the current civ 3 took years to evolve into what is is today for certain mods. Civ 4 has a nice look and a good game plan for the future, that said it does lack epic scale and needs to continue to work on adding moddable features. They really need to make it appeal to the civ modders with some easy mod options, sort of a plug in tool.
I think in time it will open up and its not bad as is. Overall the AI is better and the potentiol is limitless, its just going to take some patience to become as good/better than some of the civ 3 mods that people spent years on. The modding tools will come in time and then I think the true potentiol will develop. 2-3 years from now, I expect a whole different ballgame with all the late innings stuff coming into play, so far Civ 4 is still just in the 3rd inning of a 9 inning game, imo.
To anyone that pays any attention to basketball, here is an analogy you'll understand.
Civ 3 is the Kobe Bryant, the player at the top of its potential, but has reached the limit.
Civ 4 is the Kevin Durant, the guy that's coming in with good skills but has such a huge up-side if he's managed right.
Civ 3 is the Kobe Bryant, the player at the top of its potential, but has reached the limit.
Civ 4 is the Kevin Durant, the guy that's coming in with good skills but has such a huge up-side if he's managed right.
Andrew_Jay
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2002
- Messages
- 438
I'm not quite sure what the point you are trying to make is.Concerning graphics: Here is the Civ 4 battleship (2 funnels) compared to a Civ 3 battleship (one funnel): http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5308065&postcount=331
So much to the graphics.
The Civ III battleship will never look anything remotely like that in-game. Meanwhile, the Civ IV battleship is the actual in-game model.
No, that doesn't depend. I'll quickly illustrate the game that made me stop playing civ4 and go back to civ3...
It's near classical age. I have 3 cities. The AI is beating me on all fronts, but that's because I'm surrounded by barbarians, and I can't keep up with their onslaughts and build at the same time, so I focus on pure military buildup for a minute. I'm going to take out these annoying barbarians once and for all, so I can catch up to the AI. I set things up to where I'm going to take out 3 cities in one turn (hopefully - and it turns out that I do), then the other two barbarian cities follow on the third turn. So, I execute my plan beautifully, and everything works out as planned. No more annoying barbarians, I'm done expanding, and will consolidate now. Oh, except for the fact that I'm broke for the rest of the ****ing game, nearly my entire military disbands and I stay in the stone age because I execute a flawless strategy that I should have been rewarded for...
So, by your and Firaxis' logic, I should have just sat there and took the annoying barbarian attacks turn after turn, until I made enough money to support my "new" cities. **** that. Reward me for doing something good, not for playing the way you want me to play like some lamb led to slaughter.
spiralx
Chieftain
Perhaps you should've razed one or two of them for the cash rather than trying to keep all three? Historically I don't think it's unrealistic to assume that doubling the number of cities in your empire in a single year will overstretch your resources.
Exactly. That's the point. He should have kept one city and razed the rest.
Really, your original three cities must have been quite weak economically. Three good cities CAN support three to four newer and weaker cities. So if you can't manage to support that many new cities at this point, simply burn the less attractive ones.
Isn't it quite realistically than an economically weak Empire will get into very serious trouble when suddenly doubling it's territory? With the newly added cities obviously being poor themselves? Have a look at Germany, we've spent almost the last two decades trying to bring the East economically up to patch.
