Actually, Jones, in more than one game that I've played I've seen empires of 20-30 cities-in games consisting of 16-20 players (and not even on the largest map size). On larger maps I've seen even larger empires. Personally, even in Civ4 50+ city empires would be a headache to manage on a turn-by-turn basis. In Civ3, where you have to deal with whack-a-mole pollution and where unhappiness is a far more binary event (i.e. your city is either functioning or non-functioning), more than 50 cities would be a micromanagement NIGHTMARE. Trust me, even a medium sized map in Civ4 can give you enough room to move and play to last 3-4 months of constant playing. In addition, there are so, so many more INTERESTING CHOICES in Civ4 than Civ3. In Civ3 your choices are: build a mine, build a farm. In Civ4 your choices are-as the game progresses-build a farm, build a cottage, build a workshop or build a mine. Throw in a river or a hill and then its: build a windmill or a watermill. Of course, unlike Civ3, the kinds of resources you have in your area also effect both your city placement, improvement building and your tech choices. Then, of course, there are the choices thrown up by promotions. Do you want your unit to be anti-archer, or anti-melee? Or maybe you want them to be good fighting in jungle and forest terrain. Then you have to decide whether you want to pursue your own religion, or wait for religion to come to you from your neighbours. Your choices WILL impact on future relations with said neighbours. As will your overall treatment of them. By contrast, in Civ3, you can cultivate a friendship with a neighbour for 3,000 years, and they'll still declare on you with no good reason. In Civ4, if a friend declares war on you, there will ALWAYS be some underlying reason.
Then there are specialists. What specialists you want in your cities will determine both what you build IN the city and what you build AROUND the city. Your specialist choices impact on your Great People which, in turn, will modify your game-play strategy. Then there are civics. Each category offers up unique choices beyond the Democracy=Peace/Communism=war "choices" of civ3. Got a happiness issue? Go Hereditary Rule, got lots of specialists? Go Representation. Want a big boost to your capital? Go Bureaucracy. Want extra promotions for your units? Go Vassalage. Want unlimited artists and merchants? Go Caste System. Want to rush wonders? Go slavery-and so the list goes on. You can mix and match too-so I CAN have Representation with Vassalage and Caste System if I want.
These are, of course, just the beginning of the good things I can say about VANILLA Civ4. Throw in Warlords and Beyond the Sword and there is so, so very much more. Oh, did I mention multiplayer and editing functions OUT OF THE BOX? I must have. In Civ3 you had to wait until Play the World to get that level of functionality (though, as I recall, MP was broken initially). So, yes, if you like a few binary decisions and loads of micromanagement, then I'd definitely recommend you play Civ3. If, however, you like loads of really interesting decisions, a genuinely different game every time and far less micromanagement, then I recommend Civ4. That's not to say that I agree with *every* decision they made re: Civ4. I would have liked more early game civics, and I'd have liked greater differentiation between religions, but compared to my issues with Civ3, these are minor-and much, much easier to rectify. BTW, Jones, I have NO EXPERIENCE in IT or programming, but was easily able to extensively modify and add to the civic system-via the XML. I have since learned some very rudimentary python and C++, and that allows me to do even MORE, but not everyone can be a computer programmer, which is why I'm so glad we have such a HUGE civ4 modding community.
