CIV III Fanatic=CIV IV n00b

[IRulErrThing]

I have yet to play my Civ IV game. I got it for Christmas, but from what i've seen in magazine articles and by reading the book i've seen that there are many differences, not just in Civics such as religion, but also in the unit department. Ironsides no longer get to travel ocean squares unless in friendly waters, bombers can't deploy from carriers, and i just read a thread in which someone downs artillery. I liked how they worked in CIv III. It was pretty realistic in my opion. I just hope i don't drown in the differences. I would like this version to be just as good as the last. Am I wrong?

 

[Blahness]

I'm also a CIV III Fanatic, and I just installed it today. o_o'


EVERYTHING. IS. DIFFERENT.

Siege weapons aren't overpowered, there're 5 different aspects of how your country is controlled instead of 1, religions are... freaky, and so much more.

It'll take time to get used to, that's for sure.

 

[Mrdie]

I only played the Civ III demo for a few hours, so no problems with me getting used to Civilization IV.

 

[Brewster]

CivIII became a way of life for me for almost a year. There are many new aspects to the game in CivIV that will take some getting used to before you will become proficient.

Best advice I can give: unleard everything you applied to CivIII and you will be fine.

 

[Psyringe]

In my opinion, Civ4 is a far better game than Civ3, but other's opinions differ of course.

At the core, the game is still the same. You still build cities, harvest food, production, and commerce, do research, build units and improvements ... and so on. However, there are many additions that affect gameplay, and also some subtle changes that require some time to get used to, especially if you know Civ3 by heart. For example, due to the changes in the maintenance system, ICSing will totally break your economy now, so extremely rapid expansion no longer an option.

The Civ4 artillery system is a mixed blessing. It's no longer an overpowered game-breaker, as it was in Civ3. But the current combat system lets you send artillery as a vanguard on suicide attacks into well-defended enemy cities, which feels a little weird.

 

[Ravellion]

Best advice is to just start playing. Sure things are a bit different, but if you're used to the series, you will be adjust fast enough. First thing you got to forget is go all out on settlers like most are used to in CIV3. They fixed that real nice (settlers/workers no longer costs population, instead they cost food and shields, which means you can build them even if your starting situation is poor on either). Other then that it's all basically the same: expand, build, improve tiles, wage war and all that.

After playing it for a few weeks I have to say they did a pretty good job. ( I'm one of the lucky few who's PC seems to be quite stable when running it. Had only a few minor crashes. After reading some of the problems people have with trying to get the game to run I'd have to say I'm quite pleased with my PC )

 

[Byrath]

Remember that expanding too fast will destroy you, learn the new city improvements that workers can build, and you will be fine. Run through 1/2 a game or so on Chieftain or Warlord level to get a handle on things, and I suspect you can move right up to Noble and do fine.

Its a far better game than Civ3, I don't think you will be dissapointed (unless it won't run, of course.. or possibly if you only like to play an all-out warmongering style..)

 

[rabottens]

I prefer civ4 over civ 3. Civ 4 tends to incorporate more of the previous civs 1-3 in its design. I had a lot of trouble getting used to Civ 3's resource shortages and battles for iron and gunpowder which would always be just barely out of reach and inside the border of a neighbor. Civ 4 seems more resource balanced and with a much smarter AI than Civ 3 had.

I can remember back in Civ I when a successful attack could eliminate a whole stack. And warriors could sometimes beat a battleship??? But it didn't keep me from playing the game. Each progressive civ became a little better and built on the failures of the previous Civ. I think overall Civ 4 does an excellent job of bringing the best of the best to the table and it does require a different mindset from the previous games. I like the replay value of Civ 4. You have such a wide variety of maps and conditions that it is nearly unexhaustable. Approach it with an open mind it will grow on you. It took a while for Civ 3 to grow on me but it did and I became proficient at it. I assure you with time you will learn to enjoy all the subtile differences.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Come to think about it I never played neither Civ3 nor Civ4 on Cheftain or Warlord.

I started Civ3 on Regenet, won and moved on to higher level.
I started Civ4 on Noble, won and moved on to higher level.

I guess I adapted well from Civ2toCiv3 and Civ3toCiv4 transitions.

 

[old guard]

sorry to be down on the game but ive played civ for many years now. civ was good civ ii is better civ iii is fantastic got civ iv for xmas (it was a long few weeks)loaded it,started it and what is going on.Now i know ive only been at it a few days and i shall keep trying(and reading the great posts hear)but i am not a happy bunny

 

[Robbobloke]

sorry to be down on the game but ive played civ for many years now. civ was good civ ii is better civ iii is fantastic got civ iv for xmas (it was a long few weeks)loaded it,started it and what is going on.Now i know ive only been at it a few days and i shall keep trying(and reading the great posts hear)but i am not a happy bunny

any specific reasons?

 

[Zydor]

Civ IV is more a thinking person's game, and less a "battering ram". Civ III recipes for success did tend to be somewhat simplistic, and a few well tried and trusted "tactics" inevitably led to success. Less so in Civ IV you cant ignore such 'trivia' as good commerce, production, and happy citizens in the rush to fertilize the soil with your evil opponents blood aka Civ III.

The "peaceful" route aka culture etc is also a lot better, and will be a welcome boost for many - widening the fan base of the game. So all in all, I reckon its a good stage in the Civ Series evolution. The new structure of the game opens up many intriguing doors for future releases now that a wider Base to the game has been laid.

I do have to concede however, I do miss the fact that the devastating power of Carrier borne Aircraft with Precision Guided Munitions, and modern "smart" Artillery/Rocket Launcher systems is not yet reflected in the game....

Lets face it for all the Profound Discussion on this .... and that .... and ... historical ramification X or Y ..... most enjoy a bit of inane beating the %^$%^&* out of some Civ Neighbours - go on ... admit it .... its, its well, Cathartic

Regards
Zy

 

[MaskedFrog]

I admit it Zydor. I like beating down my neighbors. I played on game on Noble and decided I would try out Nukes. Isabella declared war on me when I had tanks and she had knights. I sent over a carrier with some jets to destroy her infrastructure. Then I proceeded to drop about 10 or so nukes on her cities. In a normal game I usually try to get the UN to ban nukes but I just had to see what they could do.

I really like Civ 4 the more I play it. With all the different victory conditions and map types it keeps things fresh. One of my most fun games was trying for a cultural win with FDR on a standard lakes map. I built only 4 cities and just concentrated on defending my borders.

There are complaints about Civ 4 from other people on these forums. All I can say is give it a good try and see if you like it.

 

[old guard]

i havent given up yet(i will play it for weeks rather than hours first) but it just hasent held my interest so far ive played on many levels but it all seems to easy
maybe im not playing it right yet but civ i (and i still play it) throw to civ iii have me hooked i just dont think civ iv is my sort of game but i am still looking throw hints & tips

 

[Psyringe]

Erm, you think it's too easy on all levels, and yet wonder if you're "playing it right" and look for hints and tips? *scratches head*

 

[old guard]

ok let me try to explain i am not intrested in winning or losing i want a game to immerse me to the point that when i finaly turn it off my wife is not speaking to me(this is some times a good thing) because i havent done a thing to help all day.Civ i,civ ii and civ iii have done this for many years. So i look for tips & hints to create a game that will last for more than 3 hours win or lose (yes i have won in that time without any cheats ie more gold) all i want is a good days play with time to smoke during the slow bits.

This is my point of view that is all i dont mean to upset anyone

 

[Lahdoz]

I get it. I wasn't real impressed at first, but after about 20 hours of playing, and finally getting used to the new features that made more difference than I realized, I finally got into it.

Civics, religion, commerce, you need to know them all to play effectively. Specialized cities win the game. Relations with the other Civs make a huge difference in strategy. It's not just building an empire, it's how you build it. Some people will not enjoy it so much, but I am enjoying it at least as much as 3 even though it plays very differently.

I do hope you enjoy it once you get into it.

 

[TacNuke]

Never played Civ 3 to any degree really. I borrowed the game from a friend and played 2 games for maybe 200 turns each. I hated the fact in Civ3 the enemy could walk into your zone of control and plop down a city. I unloaded the game and never looked back. I was a HUGE fan of Civ 1 and 2 loved both of them. Civ 4 reminds me more of my experience with C1 and 2. A little frustrated at first getting used to the concepts in the game but now play it and love it. I really like the religion aspect of the game as well as everything else.

Side note: I played the knock-off Conquest of Power for a fair amount of time. I kinda enjoyed that too. Esp liked the moving trade goods over the waters etc, kinda funny.