Civ III good for a Civ IV BTS player?

[plasmacannon]

Civ III Complete is being sold for a very low price so I'm wondering would it do anything for me, a fresh-faced newcomer who just got Civ IV Complete this year (and is disappointed in Civ V).

With Civ IV I found my personal Greatest game ever, but I'd like to give III a try too as I know that every Civ has it's loyal supporters who loves it..

If I'm not wrong, some Civ III stuff is even more hardcore than IV, like corruption or rebellions of cities?
I played Civ III with a friend back when it was released but without real strategies so I really can't compare.. I remember enjoying the ranged bombardment though, also I recall that bombardment actually smashed buildings from a city too.

Civ III graphics won't obviously compare to more recent Civs but it's no problem.

Personally, I would stick to Civ4. All other versions will seem like they are lacking something.
Civ3 if fun. The bombardment was great, but, as soon as you hit the corruption wall, (for the rest of us) we are reminded of why we don't go back.
Each new city producing only 1 production, which can never be increased, made this neet game, tank.

 

[babar]

Civ3 has better graphics than Civ4? Huh?

Civ3 has ugly unantialiased text and 2D-only graphics which are obviously significantly inferior to Civ4's 3D graphics.

Also IMHO the "straight" view angle in Civ4 (possible thanks to 3D) makes the tile grid more intuitive than Civ3's isometric view angle.

Sorry, I meant civ iii "looks better" rather than has "better graphics".

It's a matter of opinion of course, but I think the 3D graphics are unnecessary, and make the game look less elegant. The terrain and leader heads and are cartoonish, and provide very little sense of immersion, and the colours are drab and strangely discordant (although Blue Marble improves things a lot). I was kind of annoyed by the combination of high system requirements with an ugly appearance when it came out. Doesn't bother me now though, so I don't know why I'm ranting...

 

[cain3456]

If you're going to get Civ3, be sure it's complete. Vanilla Civ3 is broken and I went back to Civ2. PTW made Civ3 at least playable, but it took Conquests to finally make Civ3 worthy of the name.

 

[Vidar]

Civ3 if fun. The bombardment was great, but, as soon as you hit the corruption wall, (for the rest of us) we are reminded of why we don't go back.
Each new city producing only 1 production, which can never be increased, made this neet game, tank.

I have to comment on this. The key is specialists. Outside your core (or rather, your two cores. One centered on the Palace and the other on the Foridden Palace) you irrigate everything in order to have as many specialists as possible. This way even the 95% corrupt cities wil be somewhat productive.

 

[Spoonwood]

I haven't played civ IV, but Tom2050's comparison here, from what I can tell, seems like a good comparison of the games.

 

[gunkulator]

I haven't played civ IV, but Tom2050's comparison here, from what I can tell, seems like a good comparison of the games.

Disagree. Contains too many personal preferences like which feels more "epic" to you. There's nothing epic to me about dozens of 1 shield/1 commerce cities and micromanagement. More like tedium if you ask me.

Also strongly disagree with his take on combat. Civ 3's A/D isn't even as rich as Civ 2's A/D because at least in Civ 2, some units had bonuses, e.g. pikeman was +50% D vs horse. There's absolutely no strategy involved in which units to build in Civ 3. You just keep building the strongest attacker. Saying Civ 4 is simpler because there's only a single strength number means you've never played the game much. Go ahead and try to defend cities with spearmen str:4 instead of archers str:3 and let me know how that works out for you when the axemen come a knocking.

Pretty every single unit in Civ 4 has a bonus: archers as +50% D in a city and get a first strike. Spearmen get +100% D vs. mounted, etc. Then there's Civ 4 promotion system that lets you specialize units. Far better IMO than anything Civ 3 had

 

[Ataxerxes]

Disagree. Contains too many personal preferences like which feels more "epic" to you. There's nothing epic to me about dozens of 1 shield/1 commerce cities and micromanagement. More like tedium if you ask me.

Also strongly disagree with his take on combat. Civ 3's A/D isn't even as rich as Civ 2's A/D because at least in Civ 2, some units had bonuses, e.g. pikeman was +50% D vs horse. There's absolutely no strategy involved in which units to build in Civ 3. You just keep building the strongest attacker. Saying Civ 4 is simpler because there's only a single strength number means you've never played the game much. Go ahead and try to defend cities with spearmen str:4 instead of archers str:3 and let me know how that works out for you when the axemen come a knocking.

Pretty every single unit in Civ 4 has a bonus: archers as +50% D in a city and get a first strike. Spearmen get +100% D vs. mounted, etc. Then there's Civ 4 promotion system that lets you specialize units. Far better IMO than anything Civ 3 had

I agree with Spoonwood. I think Tom2050's remarks were about the most balanced I've read. Everyone else I read seems to have an axe to grind. I play both, but prefer 4. But I like 3 for a change of pace. Also, if you have 1 shield, 1 commerce cities you're doing something wrong. In C3C a lot of those outlying cities can easily get to 10 commerce that you can use. With the one shield, after they're set up you just forget about them. Take the bonus of some unit popping up suddenly after 50 turns.

 

[Spoonwood]

Disagree. Contains too many personal preferences like which feels more "epic" to you. There's nothing epic to me about dozens of 1 shield/1 commerce cities and micromanagement. More like tedium if you ask me.

Also strongly disagree with his take on combat. Civ 3's A/D isn't even as rich as Civ 2's A/D because at least in Civ 2, some units had bonuses, e.g. pikeman was +50% D vs horse. There's absolutely no strategy involved in which units to build in Civ 3. You just keep building the strongest attacker. Saying Civ 4 is simpler because there's only a single strength number means you've never played the game much. Go ahead and try to defend cities with spearmen str:4 instead of archers str:3 and let me know how that works out for you when the axemen come a knocking.

Pretty every single unit in Civ 4 has a bonus: archers as +50% D in a city and get a first strike. Spearmen get +100% D vs. mounted, etc. Then there's Civ 4 promotion system that lets you specialize units. Far better IMO than anything Civ 3 had

I don't consider "epicness" a personal preference. All the definitions of epic here suggest that the bigger some event is, the more "epic" it is. I haven't played civ IV, but if the battles require more units, and if you in general have more battles, and if you need to capture more cities to win than in civ IV, then it objectively stands that civ III is more epic, since there's more of everything which makes something epic. If you think "epic" means something else, what does it mean?

Second, if you check the actual thread where Tom wrote that you'll see that there's more to it than just building the strongest attacker in civ III. Also, if you go for an ancient age conquest or domination in civ III, according to what you wrote, you would train swordsman. However, many players of civ III would train horseman instead, because of their extra movement. Both strategies have their advantages and disadvantages.

 

[gunkulator]

Everyone else I read seems to have an axe to grind.

I'm not sure I understand this point. It's entirely possibly to disagree with a post without having any axe to grind.

Also, if you have 1 shield, 1 commerce cities you're doing something wrong.

I haven't played Civ3 for a while but IIRC every city outside of a certain radius would always be 1 shield/1 commerce - unless you switched to communism which was a late game gov't.

I don't consider "epicness" a personal preference. All the definitions of epic here suggest that the bigger some event is, the more "epic" it is.

Not at all. The first two definitions of epic refer to poetry so they are not applicable. It's definition #3 I disagree with with regards to Civ 3: "heroic; majestic; impressively great". By that definition, I find use of the term epic to describe Civ 3 to be a personal preference. One cannot factually state that it is or is not. It's not until definition #4 that epic means large scale. Giving that epic generally connotes greatness, I find it an ill-fitting term to describe the game unless conceding you are expressing a preference. Why not just say large scale? The terms tedious and monotonous also describe large scale, although they connote something bad.

Also note that later in the thread, tom makes this statement:
"I suppose what I meant is that it is not as Epic in size, but 4 is more Epic in a large variety of other ways." So there you go. Both are epic, but really it's just not a good word to describe the game.

Second, if you check the actual thread where Tom wrote that you'll see that there's more to it than just building the strongest attacker in civ III.

He's not making that claim. I am. That said, every rule has an exception and you did point out the one and only time in the game where there's an actual choice: swordsmen vs horsemen. But after that build knights, then cavalry, then tanks - oh and a ton of siege to enjoy the "epicness" of Civ 3 bombardment.

 

[Ataxerxes]

I'm not sure I understand this point. It's entirely possibly to disagree with a post without having any axe to grind.

My comment was made to refer to people deciding one is crap and not worth considering. Every game has advantages and disadvantages

I haven't played Civ3 for a while but IIRC every city outside of a certain radius would always be 1 shield/1 commerce - unless you switched to communism which was a late game gov't.

That's the danger of assuming on a game you haven't played in a long time. With C3C, totally corrupt cities are irrigated everywhere and the extra population is used to run scientists. The beakers from scientists aren't subject to corruption.

Not at all. The first two definitions of epic refer to poetry so they are not applicable. It's definition #3 I disagree with with regards to Civ 3: "heroic; majestic; impressively great". By that definition, I find use of the term epic to describe Civ 3 to be a personal preference. One cannot factually state that it is or is not. It's not until definition #4 that epic means large scale. Giving that epic generally connotes greatness, I find it an ill-fitting term to describe the game unless conceding you are expressing a preference. Why not just say large scale? The terms tedious and monotonous also describe large scale, although they connote something bad.

Also note that later in the thread, tom makes this statement:
"I suppose what I meant is that it is not as Epic in size, but 4 is more Epic in a large variety of other ways." So there you go. Both are epic, but really it's just not a good word to describe the game.

Good point. I agree that epic isn't a good way to describe it and is a matter of taste.

He's not making that claim. I am. That said, every rule has an exception and you did point out the one and only time in the game where there's an actual choice: swordsmen vs horsemen. But after that build knights, then cavalry, then tanks - oh and a ton of siege to enjoy the "epicness" of Civ 3 bombardment.

There are other choices. I seldom use cavalry because I bypass the tech to get to replaceable parts and infantry ASAP. Cav on their own are vulnerable to counterattack. You need a lot of siege in both III and IV to wage war effectively. With a lead in III you might not bother with siege. Cavalry wars in particular because siege is slow and unlike IV cannot defend itself at all. It does all come down to a matter of taste.

That said, I do prefer IV but enjoy III at times also. They are quite different games. I don't care to criticize others for having different opinions because enjoyment of a game is subjective.

 

[Big D Mullet]

Civ 4 is the best Civ game, by far. No need to go back to 3 or forward to 5 (unfortunately)

 

[katipunero]

Disagree. Contains too many personal preferences like which feels more "epic" to you. There's nothing epic to me about dozens of 1 shield/1 commerce cities and micromanagement. More like tedium if you ask me.

Also strongly disagree with his take on combat. Civ 3's A/D isn't even as rich as Civ 2's A/D because at least in Civ 2, some units had bonuses, e.g. pikeman was +50% D vs horse. There's absolutely no strategy involved in which units to build in Civ 3. You just keep building the strongest attacker. Saying Civ 4 is simpler because there's only a single strength number means you've never played the game much. Go ahead and try to defend cities with spearmen str:4 instead of archers str:3 and let me know how that works out for you when the axemen come a knocking.

Pretty every single unit in Civ 4 has a bonus: archers as +50% D in a city and get a first strike. Spearmen get +100% D vs. mounted, etc. Then there's Civ 4 promotion system that lets you specialize units. Far better IMO than anything Civ 3 had

Your words and my thoughts converge into one. Civ3 units had offensive and defensive values and nothing more. They're like numbers but with different graphic for each unit. Intuitive elements in civ 3's combat system is negative in that regard. This is why it's no rare occurrence that a spearman could dismantle a modern tank. After all, they're just basically different values dressed in different graphic.

In Civ4, you know exactly that a unit with spears even with lower strength values can hold its own against a mounted unit. Or that an archer will definitely hold back an invasion behind the city's walls with its arrows but will do poorly out in the open.

Civ4's unit system reminds me a lot of warcraft. In warcraft 3, there are armor piercing attacks, light unit attacks and siege attack and so on. This method encourages the player to mix up the platoon composition depending on whatever situation is. In Civ3, you can just spam a longbowman and then rest assured you've got every situation covered. Someone did an archer spam on civ4 on youtube, thinking the same tactic applied just as well as in civ3. The results of course were comical. He threw 10 or so archers in vain against a lone axeman fortified in the city. It was funny as hell.