Civ 4 or 3?

[Capello_Moderno]

I could never really wrap my mind around Civ3 - one thing in particularly annoyed me: the combo of rampant corruption + Forbidden Palace being incredibly hammerheavy + therefore needed to be built by a great person (was is general? or champion? what did the call the fellow in civ3?) to get it early enough for your tech and economy to run smoothly, meaning you had to wage wars and cross your fingers you'd get a GP - I think it was quite randomly determined when he'd pop up, whereas you can actually keep a check on when you're going to get a great general in Civ4 in the, rarely used, military advisor screen.

Religion in Civ4 works fantastically.

I do miss the advisors from Civ3 a bit.

 

[kiwitt]

I miss Civ 2. I accepted Civ 3. I love Civ 4.

 

[KaytieKat]

Hi

Im like Kiwitt. My very first computer of my very own was a hand me down from my brother and one of the games still on it was civ2 and I LOVED it. Civ3 was... meh.. it wasnt BAD necessarirly and had some good ideas but never had the "WOW" civ2 had--the wonder movies and advisory council in particular. Civ4 has the WOW back. (I still miss the advisory council and even the new wonder movies dont compare to just how cool those little quicktime movies were--I would build some wonders not for the benefits but JUST for the movies hehe)

Kaytie

 

[Antilogic]

One and the only one Civ3 features I miss in CivIV is "culturaly close start" - that is when you start as Greek, your neibors are likely to be Romans and Persians but not Native Americans.
It surely reduce randomness but I feel should still be available as an option.
Or it is and I simply could not find ??

There is actually a mod in the Customization forum that gives you this feature!

Too bad they haven't updated it to version 3.19 yet. I'm waiting for them to fix it too.



I forgot all about the great people system in Civ4--that is definitely a leg up on the sheer randomness of Civ3 (you might get a general or a scientist). Civ4 gives you the ability to plan and do more with your great people, which is a huge plus in my book.

 

[Alastriona]

Personally I feel civ 3 was really just an improvement over civ 2. Civ 4 however is a completly different game. Civ4's biggest perk is probably its many paths to victory, its many different ways to succesfully run your empire and the moddability gives it great replay value. Considering that most games take me 20-40 hours of actualy playtime to finish, your going to be busy with it for a long time. Unsurprisingly I think civ4 is the better as well.

 

[Glassfan]

Just my opinion, but Civ III Conquests was a better game than Civ IV vanilla. Only with BTS and fan-generated content has IV become worthwhile.

I think there's a corporate strategy involved. When Civ V comes out, it'll be shiney and hyped-up, but will be deliberately weak so you'll have to buy the expansion packs.

 

[Camikaze]

Perhaps because this is on the Civ4 forum you would expect a bias. Perhaps in some place like OT or All Other Games you could find less bias.

OT would still have a bias. Generally a bias towards Civ 2 or 3. That's because OT mainly consists of people who don't play Civ anymore, so are less likely to like the more recent version. One OT poll I could find was 6 votes a piece for Civ 3 and Civ 4, which, IMO, shows a Civ 3 bias (seeing as Civ 4 is clearly better, yet Civ 3 got equal votes).

 

[Antilogic]

Just my opinion, but Civ III Conquests was a better game than Civ IV vanilla. Only with BTS and fan-generated content has IV become worthwhile.

I think there's a corporate strategy involved. When Civ V comes out, it'll be shiney and hyped-up, but will be deliberately weak so you'll have to buy the expansion packs.

In terms of breadth of civilizations and base traits, the facts support this argument. But you still have the new great people system, religions, and civics. All three I consider strong arguments for the Civ4 system.

Really, anything after Warlords is great Civ4 territory (Warlords is what the initial vanilla release should have looked like, in my opinion, with the same BtS expansion later).

 

[morchuflex]

Civ4 is a vast improvement over Civ3 which was a vast improvement over Civ2 which was a vast improvement over Civ1.

I have occasionnally tried to play earlier Civ games again, and I couldn't go beyond a few turns. Crappy graphics are one thing... But how to bear with lousy interface, weaker AI, exploitable game features (RoP rape, anyone?)... Come on, the only reason to keep playing Civ3 is mods. And even there, Civ4 also has fine mods to boast: FfH, LoR come to mind. No regrets in migrating to Civ4.

 

[Takhisis]

OT would still have a bias. Generally a bias towards Civ 2 or 3. That's because OT mainly consists of people who don't play Civ anymore, so are less likely to like the more recent version. One OT poll I could find was 6 votes a piece for Civ 3 and Civ 4, which, IMO, shows a Civ 3 bias (seeing as Civ 4 is clearly better, yet Civ 3 got equal votes).

Really? it's all a matter of taste. I prefer civ 3, by far. I won't start explaining my reasons since I've already done that in many threads, yet I don't think that civ 4 is crap just because IMHO civ 3 is better.
"Civ 4 is clearly better"... that depends on the player. Beauty lies in the beholder's eye.

 

[Tasonne]

i played civ III for a loooonnnggg time and i looooovvvveeeddd them.

BUT CIV IV is waaaaay better, hands down

everything about it is better

+more resources, more is better
+more worker tasks/improvements (workshops + pastures etc etc etc) it's sooo much better than just, irrigate/mine and THAT'S IT, like, come one, i could not go back to the irrigate/mine of civ II and III
+being able to have a unit on the same square as someone! how messed up was it in III when you're walking through your allies' territory, using his road, and you have to spend 3 turns either waiting for the path to clear or walking around a unit

i'm sure i could think of more

GREAT GAME though

i was just like the op, not wanting to switch over. i don't know what he has done whether he's started with it yet but my advice would def be to make the switch, yes three is awesome but four is just phenominal

no complaints here whatsoever

 

[Mango Elephant]

Civ III is a lot more compact, fast, and eaisier to grasp. Civ IV has a lot more options, and you have to go way more in depth with Civ IV than some people would like too. Also, its my experience that Civ IV is harder to get interested in than Civ III, and I almost never finish a game in Civ IV because after the middle ages it seems everything just gets boring. I would go with Civ III for sure.

 

[The Rook]

I was a big fan of Civ2, Civ3 was a huge disappointment to me, Civ4 was everything I wanted Civ3 to be. Though I would quite happily return to the days of isometric graphics.

 

[Tasonne]

Civ III is a lot more compact, fast, and eaisier to grasp. Civ IV has a lot more options, and you have to go way more in depth.

you're totally right

i like them all but i like IV cause it's new to me and i get to learn about new stuff whereas with III i know everything about the game, there is nothing more to learn

lol happy new year b1tchez

 

[King Flevance]

Just my opinion, but Civ III Conquests was a better game than Civ IV vanilla. Only with BTS and fan-generated content has IV become worthwhile.

This has been my general stance as well. I played Civ 3 all through time of Civ 4 and warlords and a few months after BTS's release. When I finally got BTS and installed Bhruic's unnofficial patch, I have yet to go back to 3. And I honestly do not see a reason to.

OT would still have a bias. Generally a bias towards Civ 2 or 3. That's because OT mainly consists of people who don't play Civ anymore, so are less likely to like the more recent version. One OT poll I could find was 6 votes a piece for Civ 3 and Civ 4, which, IMO, shows a Civ 3 bias (seeing as Civ 4 is clearly better, yet Civ 3 got equal votes).

I am just quoting this because it made me laugh due to the bolded part.
But I agree OT tends to favor 2 and 3 for the reasons Camikaze states.

Civ4 is a vast improvement over Civ3 which was a vast improvement over Civ2 which was a vast improvement over Civ1.

Now I am gonna use this post as this is how I feel about the series as well. Each incarnation of civ has improved upon itself and I love that Civ is not a game that is afraid to try new ideas. Civ 1 was awesome, and 2 took things further bringing in those annoyingly tedious caravans that we all probably abused the hell out of. New governments came in, the wonder movies, a much better interface, unique styles to civs outside of color, etc. Civ 2 brought in new fresh ideas to the original game.

When Civ 3 came out, I really don't understand the malice towards it in the fanbase. It brought in natural borders through the idea of culture, additionally a cultural victory. Also bringing in a diplomatic victory. Civ 3 was the first time the AI was not destined to team up against the human towards the end of the game. As in 1 and 2 you victory was conquest, space, or time. 3 brought in the idea of ending the game peacefully through culture and diplomacy. Also they brought in the idea of military resources. They tried something new with artillery that I liked but needed some fine tuning. They also brought in the idea of the worker unit, great people, wood chopping creating yeilds, leader traits, probably some things I aint remembering. At any rate 3 was the most inovative addition to the series and had a much bolder approach as a sequel than 2.
But it had also taken the ideas brought from 2 and expanded upon them. They took the unique styles to civs in 2 and expanded them into unique units as well as the unique look. Tossed some governments out threw some new ones in for testing. Then they also tested the fanbase for multiplayer to boot.

Civ 4 has basically went as bold as 3 was with BTS. They have greatly improved the Great People system by actually giving it a system all its own. In the same way you have to balance military, techs, gold, etc. now toss in great people points. They have added a new experience system for units to allow promotions to specialize your troops. They have once again tried a new approach to artillery. Land improvements are more versatile. Religion has been added and can be fun and a pain. Health and happiness makes for a better system than aqueduct = 6-12 population and sewer system = 12+. Cities now have a sort of pseudo-personality. Cities have now became something more unique in their own right outside of namesake. The new maintenace (former corruption) system takes some getting used to. Mostly understanding that a city is only as valuable as the land around it. Previous version of civs, a city in a desert was still valid as it meant an defensive outpost. Now, its a bad idea - its better to just throw a fort there if you need it that bad. Civ 4 has added in a new espionage system, coorperations, vassal relations/colonies (as "minor" civs not a hut mining a resource), etc. Additionally you can now see for the first time WHY a civ is friendly, cautious, or annoyed with you. (Ex: +2 "Our open borders have brought us closer together") This helps you be able to manage your diplomacy.

As for which you should purchase, I would say 4. 4 has all the innovations 3 has plus some and expanded upon them. The game has moved in a positive direction towards offering a wider range of more diverse strategies. Also Civ 4 has really good multiplayer if you are interested in it. Yet another spect they improved this time around.

 

[Bowsling]

Optimal city placement/infinite city sprawl is a nice way to understand the proper ways to space out gravestones in a cemetery, so i noticed.

In the signature it goes

An almost identical thread was posted in the civ III forum, you might want to check that out for some more arguments.