CIV IV vs CIV III

[Sporkbomb]

I am having trouble believing Civ 4 is more warlike. If you want to have a war-centric game, then the AI will respond accordingly. I have yet to win a game in Civ 4 through conquest or domination, mostly because cultural and diplomatic victories are so easy to achieve. This may be because I prefer larger map styles, which seems to change play styles. In Civ III, I was at constant war, whether I was isolated on my own continent or smack dab in the middle of an AI crusade, no matter the map size or difficulty. Civ 3 and Civ 4 are VERY different games but they both have something in common: They are both Civ games.

Besides, it is only fair to compare vanilla civ3 to vanilla civ4. Saying "if I get this patch or that mod, then Civ3 is so much better" is pretty silly, because Civ4 has not been around long enough to have as many patches, mods, modmods, or fixes (official or unofficial). So, comparing Civ3 vanilla to Civ4 Vanilla, I prefer Civ4 for many reasons (several, if all, of which have already been stated):
more effective maintenance system compared to corruption system
less emphasis on warmongering
less emphasis on REXing
Great People (though I think this area could have been much better)
more USABLE government options
graphics are phenomenally better

downsides:
Naval combat in Civ4 sucks by comparison

 

[mythmonster2]

I play both, but CIV just doesn't give me that "One More Turn" feel as much as Civ3 does. Also, corruption maddened me to no end. My solution? Weaken it. I did it within five minutes, while I can't do diddly squat with CIV.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

When I first got Civ IV, I thought it was much better than Civ III, surpisingly because I thought it was easier to ply. Thinking Civ IV was amazing, I uninstalled Civ III, gave the CD away, and gave Conquests to my friend--huge mistake.
1.) Warring is not fun in Civ IV
Suicide cannons are ridiculous. If one thinks the occasion spearmen beating the tank was ridiculous, the suicide cannons are much worse. I was warring overseas, captured a city with serveral modern armor. Everything seems good, I envision their entire empire falling to my horde of tanks. For Civ IV, however, this was not meant to me. As I moved most of my modern armors out of the city, I see a massive army with cannons and calvary a few tiles away. Once my turn ends, they attack my army, because Civ IV's ridiculous culture borders allow the AI to keep massive swaths of land, so they use their roads to get to my units. Oh well, they can't defeat me anyway--wrong. After about 15 cannons attack my modern armor, they are seriously damaged, and there army of calvary killed all of my modern armor. Wow, looks like I'll have to ship a new horde of modern armor to their continent! Civ IV was supposed to get rid of annoying concepts, but it instead created a new one.
2.) Your so called "empire" doesn't seem anything like an empire. Unlike in Civ III, you can barely build any cities without your economy crashing. Even if you can the maps don't allow you. You probably could fit more cities on the Civ III standard map than you could on the CIV huge map. Playing huge maps, which I love to do because the more civs the better, is almost impossible, esp. in the late game, when the turns take a ridicluous amount of time.
3.) The graphics aren't all that. Sure they are 3-D, but they definentley don't equate for the ridiculous slow speed of the game. The leaderheads in Civ III look better than the ones in Civ IV, as they substitued realism for animation. They also don't have culture groups, which made the civilizations more unique.
4.) Modding may be easier for people who know how to work it, but for the average civ player who just wants to make a scenario, it's terrible. I easily made them for Civ III, but have found it difficult to just make one in Civ IV.
5.) A few little things that I miss from Civ III: The music, popheads, throne room, and interactive adviosrs. Without these, the game just doesn't seem as fun.

I think I'll just go and buy Civ III: Complete. It's only $20--$60 cheaper than Civ IV and BTS.

1. A large # of cannons would wreck tanks in civ III also, unless you had enough tanks. Bombardment was quite strong in civ III. The AI wouldn't even LOSE the cannons if it used them correctly, they'd just redline all your tanks and then you're just as scr00d! Note that a couple drill promoted mech infantry or machine guns would probably have been better. IMO war in civ IV is far superior to III although I don't like the "tech through 3 techs while fighting" element that we see on normal speed higher levels. Nevertheless, this still-flawed system is probably the best we've seen yet.

2. If you know the concepts of empire management in civ IV (very hard, actually, usually only high level plays manage to afford them) you can get double digit cities in the BCs and afford them, AND still tech well/protect yourself. Once you get currency/col the # increases past 20. Still, as you say it isn't a cakewalk, but having to actually MANAGE cities rather than just running more and more constantly every second seems a welcome change to me.

3. Mostly agree. IMO graphics at the expense of gameplay or reasonable play speed on a halfway current machine is an unworthy tradeoff. I'd have liked lower low-end specs for civ IV, huge maps would be more playable without waiting 10-15 seconds or more between turns on a machine that is newer than the game itself.

4. Eye of the beholder I guess. I don't know how to program, but after minimal instruction from Bleys was able to create effective worldbuilder maps for noble's club and PYL almost instantly. That's both in-game and text editing ----> pretty simple. Never did it in civ III though so possibly that's even easier. IV is pretty easy though.

5. I hate the throne room and other crap that slows the game down (this includes wonder movies in all versions). I must admit the leader heads in III were better in many cases and had that nice era dynamic. I also must admit I like the unrealistic version of Cathy (aka civ IV) much, much more. Civ IV is based on history but intentionally not 100% realistic. Which is easier on the eyes?!

Overall IMO the IV gameplay is far more refined, but they did go some directions with the game I wouldn't have. They're not gonna please everyone though, especially not 100% completely pleasing everyone.

 

[Smidlee]

3. Mostly agree. IMO graphics at the expense of gameplay or reasonable play speed on a halfway current machine is an unworthy tradeoff. I'd have liked lower low-end specs for civ IV, huge maps would be more playable without waiting 10-15 seconds or more between turns on a machine that is newer than the game itself.

Remember the options that was given to Firaxis wasn't "Civ4 with a 2D engine" vs " Civ4 with a 3D engine " but either "Civ4 with 3D engine" vs "no civ4 period". So not having a 3-D engine would seriously limit the gameplay since no cash equals no civ4. 3D engine was a requirement made by Atari. (before 2K stepped in)

 

[Iranon]

Absolutely hated Civ3. The game mechanics felt heavy-handed to handicap overly large empires and the best solution was to power right through the restrictions. I also hated the RoP system that rendered tactics in war almost irrelevant.

What I love about Civ4 is the wide variety of legitimate playstyles... I don't really get the complains there. If so inclined, I can reliably get a dozen cities by the end of the BCs on Normal settings (I think my record is at 17, without warfare) and catch up in research once my thinly-spread empire recovers.
On the other hand, 6 cities are enough for an efficient road to cultural victory... with good specialisation and a focus on wonders you can still compete for other victory conditions, against empires several times that size.
I've been blocked in at 4 cities (2 of them sucky beyond belief or relief) until well into the medieval era, without being able to snag any wonders or remain at tech parity... and won by Domination after getting the ball rolling by scavenging cities in a war between Deity AI giants, with a thoroughly obsolete army.

In civ3, I never got the same impression of freedom in picking my own road to victory.

 

[Midnight-Blue766]

I really enjoy Civ3 (in fact, all but 6 posts, this one included, are in the Civ3 Forums!), but I also found CIV equally enjoyable. Here are the things I liked in
CIV:
-The Civics
-How most leaders got their own diplomacy theme instead of one for each culture group
-The different map types were enjoyable.
-The Modding capabilites (though I haven't gotten around to making one)
-Religions (though I wish you can have religion-specific units and improvements)

Things I missed from Civilization III:

-The Map Editor
-Destroying your own cities
-How when your troops are in foreign land without permission, the AI pops up and makes a silly remark about the presence (My favorite was William of Orange's "Tiptoe through the Tulips" comment.)

 

[Kazbar]

Am I missing something with people's graphics? I mean, my computer is by no means the gaming PC I want it to be (Oh Oblivion, how I wish to play thee...), but I don't have any slowdown problems. Runs smooth as silk on high settings, regardless of map. Am I just lucky?

Either way, I never got into Civ3. Though, that may have to do with me playing Civ4 first, as our first experience is usually the one that gets glossed-over by our minds, but either way, I've found that I simply can't stand to play III. I sit down, start up a game every once in a while (Thinking "OK, I'm in the mood for it"), and after a few dozen turns, I just find myself wanting to play Civ4 again.

I don't care about people's preference, though. A good friend of mine said this once on the interwebs, and I think it fits here perfectly:

"Whoever prefers whatever can play whichever way they want forever."

Take it for what it's worth, I guess.

 

[PieceOfMind]

2. If you know the concepts of empire management in civ IV (very hard, actually, usually only high level plays manage to afford them) you can get double digit cities in the BCs and afford them, AND still tech well/protect yourself. Once you get currency/col the # increases past 20. Still, as you say it isn't a cakewalk, but having to actually MANAGE cities rather than just running more and more constantly every second seems a welcome change to me.

If so inclined, I can reliably get a dozen cities by the end of the BCs on Normal settings (I think my record is at 17, without warfare) and catch up in research once my thinly-spread empire recovers.
On the other hand, 6 cities are enough for an efficient road to cultural victory... with good specialisation and a focus on wonders you can still compete for other victory conditions, against empires several times that size.
I've been blocked in at 4 cities (2 of them sucky beyond belief or relief) until well into the medieval era, without being able to snag any wonders or remain at tech parity... and won by Domination after getting the ball rolling by scavenging cities in a war between Deity AI giants, with a thoroughly obsolete army.

Iranon by normal settings did you mean normal mapsize? If not, see below...

To both you and TMIT, when you talk about the number of cities you can support and how few you can run on to survive etc., isn't it important you mention the mapsize? Having 20 cities in the BCs on a huge map is easier maintenance-wise than having 20 cities in the BCs on a small map. These things do scale so I never understand why number of cities is mentioned without mapsize mention.

For example, 5 cities is pretty reasonable on a small map, but 5 cities means you won't last long on a huge map - you probably would want about 13 or so to be on par with 5 on small. But of course it also can depend on how many civs are in the game (too crammed and fewer cities obviously).

 

[Iranon]

Yes, I was referring to standard size and speed.

 

[NubianMercenary]

To me fellow Civers,

It's quite simple:

If you enjoy - fast, big-mapped, warmongering gameplay: Civ III.

If you enjoy - slow, tight, but more varied gameplay: Civ IV.

 

[Iapetus303]

Never played Civ 1
Loved Civ2 - I probably got more enjoyment out of it than any other computer game before or since.
Loved SMAC.
Couldn't really get into Civ 3.
Really like Civ 4.

Personally, I thought Civ 3 had too many flaws to be really enjoyable. It had a a number of interesting ideas, but IMO they weren't implemented very well. Strategic resources in particular - in one game, I simply couldn't get any iron (none anywhere near my civ, and none of the AIs would trade. So until I discovered gunpoweder, my military was utterly crippled. And even then, I only just managed to get saltpeter).

Additionally, the government choices seemed a step backwards compared to SMAC's Social Engineering.

(Plus it ran much slower on the computer I had then, but that's not really a fault with the game).

The biggest "problem" I had when I first gor Civ4 was simply adapting to the new ways of doing things - particularly combat ("Hmm... Can't attack with my knight this turn, he's got pikemen. I'll just sit them on top of this hill while I wait for reinforcements to arrive. They'll be safe there...")

Things I do miss from earlier versions of Civ:
* SMAC/Civ3-style artillery (although admitedly they could be very overpowered).
* (In vanilla - no paratroopers or spys)
* Trading cities (even when your cities are not redded out, you can offer an AI your entire empire for a pittance and he will turn it down).
* The ability to disband cities, and to transfer poulation from one to another.
* Some of the conversations with with the Civ4 leaders are a bit too silly.
* Not being able to grow your population while building workers.
* AI's explaining what they don't like about your social engineering choices (as in SMAC), rather than the bland "We disaprove of your choice of civics".
* Fusion 'copters. (j/k - they's probably the most overpowered unit from any Civ game, even more so than Civ2 Howitzers).
* But helicopters that could fly over water would be nice.

Of course, most of these things can be modded out.

 

[Longasc]

I just stumbled about this thread. It is going on for years already and very interesting!

I just cannot love Civilization IV. I tried it. I got two or three computers/notebooks in the time, and somehow the graphics feel wrong. The leaderheads, the animations, and the map scrolling do not look and feel right - even on my very latest system.

People already pointed out in great detail the differences.

Civ IV made some amazing improvements, but it somehow lost its soul. It simply is not fun. I really tried to get into the game, but it did not manage to entice and suck me in. No wonder that Wikipedia still list Civ3 as the most successful of the series so far.

Interesting thing to note:

Civ I: LOVE!
Civ II: Something wrong, did not like it, did not play it!
Civ III: LOVE! (my favorite)
Civ IV: I still try to find out why I do not like the game... I just do not like it

Civ V: ? I hope I will love it again.

 

[T.A JONES]

. No wonder that Wikipedia still list Civ3 as the most successful of the series so far.

Really? Thats cool. Thanks for bringing this up again. I love readin my past adventures in the 4ums. I still have a response left open on another thread but It seems Ive left it so long the feelin is dead, the contest 'which is better' I mean.
How can you argue when the forum has console players or mp entusiasts that civ4 plugs into. Its great civ4 reaches to these facets and lures the younger audience, if and only if ....
civ5 takes us more in depth like civ3 did to civ2 and, on a smooth graphics plain which has us NOT saying "crap!" more lag again, upon each epics 'huge' proportions, or a mod that adds to an already leaky frame
(Those who disagrees might not understand what civ3 stood for when it comes to sheer data compiling and operative options under your command, before lag facters in on replayabilty)
.
Civ3 on todays computer has zero lag any modded size. Heck, any modded game like say 1000 units blended for cultual diversity upon 31 civs played on a blown up 50% larger the default huge, will work flawless througout. No civ4 mod can say this without a doubt.
Still, How many here on the civ4 forum think this matters? Mybe more prefer short arcade bouts.
The civ3 forum dwellers may appreciate this freedom for any size map matched with higher civ counts each with more diverse, thus better reflection of the touted box feature "empire building simulation"?
With Civ3 only AI vs AI battles determine the lengh. Civ4 lacks a proper AI observing cam, and still can't pump out 20 civs with 400 units a peice. Its more for MP use, this latest sequal. That or playin a game completly changed with dazling 3d effects. With civ4 you can have 2 games in one. None are close to what civ3 can hold in empire buildin assets upon its simple modifcation.

It seems when I converse here that Im one of the rare ones who enjoys these large epics played only a few hours per sittin.
On a Civ4 frame this type of play is something just not do-able on the modded 'for more graphics 'detail' ' civ4 type of game.
You know, IM comparing civ4 mods to an epic I love where all the units left out are added in and with the Civ3 mistakes corrected. Things like Army invisable glitch erased, Intercontentential corruption improvments in play, pollution balanced to more life like occurancesd, that sort of thing.

Basically I like a civ3.5. A revison or refined 2d civ that adheres to smoother merge of simulation, or historic epics.
Balancer Reloaded, FAr Horizons, Anno Dommini. Medival Age mod, These are Civ expiernces at there best IMO. Its got to be played comfy with no worry of deley throughout. Even a map ranging 24 civs with 400-500 cities in play is not what civ4 purists call clout but in realty is more detailed gameplay. One where rangling in many large empires un-conqurable they seem by simple military means run alternative thoughts patterns of succesful strategy thought out.
Laying it down on a mix of civs together comprising 500 or more city's, its a whole new game. I mean "new" as its only with more recent monocore tech thats made deley free mammoth data accumiltion a real possabilty for modded civ3
Like they say in realty and Civ3, Asia can't be conquered in a land war. IN civ4 its a area holdin 20 citys, thus a 3 turns operation.

For me with these size challenges there can never be delay like the civ4 way. Here you can add more units and features knowing your not adding to the odds of irritable deley come payday (last 100 turns), . For me this makes civ3.5 the only choise for a beefed up civ expierence.

ANyway back to the wiki. I know the schools in Canada bought up 100 000 copies of civ3 Complete last year as part of learning modules for the classroom. Lot of copies for a game that was already sellin well for 7 yrs before this . I imagine sales are the reason for this claim

 

[sabo]

I wasn't too thrilled with Civ IV either when I first got it, I think I was looking for a better version of Civ III with more candy, but now that I've played it for a while I love Civ 1V, there is alot more you can do with IV and it's alot more flexible. Don't shy away from any aspect of the game, that all have their plus's if you play it right.

 

[RichPowers]

I wish Civ IV's rules and AI could be ported to the Civ III engine. You get the Civ III graphics, performance, and huge scale with the all the wonderful features of Civ IV. (Clearly, though, many of you don't find IV all that wonderful )

I personally hate it when these games get 3d graphics (see EUII vs. EUIII). The performance sucks and the maps get smaller.

 

[Elite]

I fell in love with Civ IV when I tried it out.

 

[orasis]

I did not like Civilization 4... even though I think I may reinstall it tonight and give it another change (this will be the third time.)

The first thing I hated about the game was the graphics.. everything is so big and gives it an ugly cartoony look.

The whole tech list is massive and confusing and the voice overs (the first time.) get annoying while you're reading things...
I would have liked the tech better if it stayed more like CIV III, quick and to the point.

I was shocked that the Leaders never change! No matter what age I am in they still look as if they are stuck in the classical or middle ages or what have you depending on the Civilization you are speaking with. Why did they think this was a good idea? Yeah! Nothing more
realistic than taking to the Italian Caesar dressed in a toga when your in the late industrial age.... WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?!

The gameplay just becomes way too complicated for something that is SUPPOSED to be FUN.


I'll give it another try tonight but I think that I'll be selling my copy on Ebay or something because.. the chances of me falling in love with the game (CIV 4) are slim to none....


P.S Warring now sucks when you have massive amounts of units to move and it's ugly --- the graphics are so stupid .. why why why have these giants on the map? blah.

And... come on be honest...

Don't you think it's stupid as hell to start off civilization and meet Roosevelt (for example) with a suit, tie and glasses even though no one has yet even discovered how to ride horses?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Doesn't bother me one bit. What bothered me in CivIII was having cities which were utterly unusable due to corruption (now there was a conquest killer), the total lack of any decent espionage system, and whack-a-mole pollution. Oh, and that is just for starters. If you want me to be *really* honest, I could think of a dozen other things which made CivIII suck. Lets face it, CivIII was really just Civ2b.

Aussie.

 

[T.A JONES]

Doesn't bother me one bit. What bothered me in CivIII was having cities which were utterly unusable due to corruption (now there was a conquest killer), the total lack of any decent espionage system, and whack-a-mole pollution. Oh, and that is just for starters. If you want me to be *really* honest, I could think of a dozen other things which made CivIII suck. Lets face it, CivIII was really just Civ2b.

Aussie.

Comon Aussie your allowed to use the editer you know, Don't be afraid to fix those mistakes that made you leave civ3. You bring up any gamekiller and I'll copy/paste from my repitioure the simple solution you seek

Both games needed bending and remodeling. Civ4 takes a language lesson to do most of it, yet still has freedom of size constraints before 'civ4 game killer' comes up/ (check out any big mods forum for % of post that are unrelated tech complaints, or civ4 tech forum for swelling sea of similar slowdown threads with latest rigs)

Unless you can put up a picture of a 400 city civ4 map or interturn b in motion ala youtube, my thoughts wouldn't change over whos has the freedom of options
Heck I'll match you a civ3 500 city map that plays less gamekiller deley to show civ4 is to slow unless arcade style or a more suitable "HOF" size is issued

Yes Auzzie I know if you prefer small maps civ4 has some great one sittin outtings but lots liked larger and civ3 enjoys moder loyalty as still the game refines in all areas. Yet your civ4 will never be deley free as we see with civ3 on any mod. THis is a shame for the Total realism enthusiast who just want 22 civ epics while not having to settle for 10 city "empires "

CAll it a coincidence for you that ailments like corruption in Conquests arn't a problem on similar civ4 proportionial sized maps. Corruption was "game killer" for you in a civ3 you refused to fix, so you must have played huge maps.
But when you moved to civ4 you ether settled with deley or forced a different smaller map instead of deley. Otherwise, If you went with the same city cap as comes with civ3's 'deafult' "Huge", then wouldn't your corruption/maintence become game killer on Civ4 aswell? Yes Indeed

I see you play civ4 modded. You tout your mods here. Infact, For you I bet every game with civ4 BTS comes modded rules intact. You find civ4 default unexceptable, yet nail civ3 on its 'deafult' faults as reason for your claims of its insuperiority?

 

[r_rolo1]

How many times I'll have to see the same arguments being branded......

T.A , I already told you this once: you can't compare Civ III with IV in the basis you're making. To have credible comparations you would have to compare Civ III 1.00 with Civ IV 1.00 or Conquests 1.29 with BtS 3.17, that are the assured equivalent points of the two games. Mods twist the comparison..... as the years of experience ( last Civ III patch got out more than a half decade ago... Civ III modders had 5 years to think and test over it ) or even the easiness/depthness of modding ( Civ IV has much, but much more modding potential than Civ III. Civ III in the other hand is easier to mod if you only want to change small things .... the fact that the game is 2 D surely helps with that ). It is meaningless to compare Warhammer Fantasy Mod 2.5 with Fall from Heaven II ( the Civ III and Civ IV more downloaded mods in CFC ), right ?