CIV IV vs CIV III

[RedBananna]

I greatly prefer the Civics system over the standard governments system of previous games, the ability to customize your own government the way you see fit to make interesting blends in policy is better than selecting a number of preset governments that offer just one straight benefit.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

To once again prove that I'm not "all mouth and no trousers" on the issue of empire size, have a squiz at the map below. This is a game with about 9 players, each with an average of 15-20 cities each. Now I just confirmed that this is a LARGE (not HUGE) map, yet there is clearly room for about 200 cities in total (as not all the space has been properly utilized-I'm especially bad at this because I LIKE a lot of space between my cities and am very choosy about where I put them as regards resources and terrain). Now were this a HUGE MAP then you could probably get around twice as many cities in-even more if you choose low sea level and depending on the map type you choose (of which you have MANY choices, from Archipelago to Pangaea, with Big and Small, Hemispheres, Fractal and many others besides). Now as can be seen this is a late game save, yet the lag time for a turn is only 7 seconds on my machine (which is hardly top of the line-even when I bought it). Another interesting point is this. I'm coming 3rd to last in this game, yet I only have 2 cities fewer than the current leader of the game. More to the point, there are people with almost twice as many cities as the leader who are performing WORSE in points than the leader-which merely highlights my point that REX'ing and ICS are no longer tried and true routes to victory as they are in Civ2 and Civ3. Indeed, in Civ4 it would be possible to simulate the rise of an empire like Britain-something which I found impossible to do in Civ3 or even Civ2.
So I'll let this real, in game example speak for me far more eloquently than the claims of certain other people in this thread.

Aussie.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, though, that raises another critical issue. As much as people want to compare the number of cities you can have in Civ3 vs Civ4, the reality is that Civ3 cities can never-and will never-be the equivalent of a city in Civ4. In Civ3, all cities are pretty much THE SAME-surrounded by mines, farms and roads up to the limit of squares that city can work. By contrast, as can probably be seen in the above screenshot, all of my cities are very, very different. Some cities have pastures, whilst some have plantations. Some of Hunting Camps whilst others have quarries. Many have villages and towns surrounding them. There are also cities which have windmills, watermills and workshops. My coastal cities have fishing boats and some of my cities will one day build oil wells. Each improvement has its different benefits, and each has certain potential drawbacks. This makes each and every city truly unique in a way that simply never could happen in Civ3. Again, it is a question of QUALITY over QUANTITY.

Aussie.

 

[phungus420]

Civ 4 has.

1:More civs,units and techs.
2:Cooler scenarios with the game
3:FfH,nuf said.
4:RFC

Civ 3 has.

1:Easier modability
2:Historical Scenarios
3:Warhammer
4:RC

That's just plain incorrect. Civ 4 is probably the most modable commercial game in existence. Civ3 modibility quickly hits hardcoded limitations, whereas these are virtually non existant in Civ 4. And XML modding is trivial, you can't really get any easier... and any equivalent mod you can do with Civ3, can be done in the Civ4 XML. The only "easier" thing that Civ3 has in modibility is art. Art in Civ4 is 3D so it's far more complex. But still, no way you can claim Civ3 is more modable, it has nothing equavelent to the SDK and Python modding tools that Civ 4 has, which outside of handling graphics and the intro screen, is pretty much the Civ4 source code... I suppose the only way you can say things are easier in modding Civ3 is if you just want to add in new units, but that's such a limited definition... and really at the end of the day other then the model itself, it is just as easy. And keep in mind you have far more power and control over your creations in Civ4, even if you only limit yourself to the XML.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, so here's another example from an ongoing MP game. In this game we have 18 players, each with around 15-30 cities a piece. Not sure if it's huge or large, but by my calculation there are AT LEAST 400 cities on this map, and still all the available space is not yet being used. Again, its interesting to note that the Japanese-who have the same number of cities as me-is performing much better than I am and, yet again, the current "winner" is not the empire with the largest number of cities-again highlighting how REX and ICS are far less effective than in Civ2 and Civ3 (without the need for a game-crippling corruption system). So please, can we put an end to this MYTH that somehow Civ4 doesn't allow you to play with a LARGE number of cities, because it really is getting tired.

Aussie.

 

[T.A JONES]

So please, can we put an end to this MYTH that somehow Civ4 doesn't allow you to play with a LARGE number of cities, because it really is getting tired.

Aussie.

heh, Sorry OZ man, I didn't say the game dosn't compute 500 cities, I said Its deley ridden snooze fest. Why did you leave that part out? IT was the only thing I said.
I think a showdown is in order. PLenty of off varaibles but Im willing to risk my 400+ cities map on youtube agaist yours. Oh btw, Im only using one core p4 tech

Oh wait this is mp map you bring in as evidence? SO each turn is done by humans thus deley isn't a facter. Sorry you already know each turn is unlimted in time. This why you post this pic up?

Comon Auzzie. Read what I said. I toasted civ4 on its anti-MP-expliot-chockhold mentality.
Sadly, civ3 which admittidly may have had crap mp, has always been a game that prided itself on 'epic' solo expieriences where AI stacked and attacked with 10-80 cities whether your teammate or enemy.ANd this being one of 24-31 well delvelped civs you had to look out for.

THis can;t be replicated with civ4 without snooze control being activated. So Im sorry Aussie but what I say, This mod gamebreaker, its as real as the constant tech forum speal "dam this game is slow". Dude please just admit your wrong. Every forum headline here proves further civ4 lacks huge epic appeal.
I guess Thats just part of the candyland-super-3d deal.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Again with the myths T.A. Jones? Can't you win an argument without telling porkies? How very sad. The first map I produced was of a game which I had saved and I ran 4 turns in a row to test any turn-lag. As I said there, the maximum lag was SEVEN SECONDS in the late game. Comprende? Not the "Snooze Fest" you claim it to be. So here I am, with my middle of the road computer, playing 200-400+ city games with a lag time of less than 10 seconds in the late game phase. Even in games where there have been massive wars going on the lag time has never gotten above 20 seconds per turn on my machine-in the late game phase. Seriously bud, why can't you just finally ADMIT you're wrong and accept that your problem with Civ4 is simply down to the fact that (a) you can't be bothered buying a decent computer and (b) you're just ticked off because your REX'ing "strategy" don't work in Civ4? Everyone has told you you're wrong, more than once-and provided you with the evidence to PROVE you're wrong-but you simply won't ACCEPT you're wrong. Instead you keep repeating the same thing, which is: "Civ3 is broken out of the box but, if you're prepared to get a mod (or two or three) it becomes half-way playable". Seriously, if that is how you "sell" the benefits of Civ3 over Civ4, then no wonder you're forced to tell porkies about the lag time on large Civ4 maps. Every civ4 game I've played has had a MASSIVELY epic appeal, with no early game or late game boredom. Sadly, I cannot say the same about Civ3, which always seemed really "cartoony" and "gamey"-and utterly dull and boring long before the modern age. Indeed, I don't think I EVER finished a game of civ3 because I got so sick of cleaning up pollution, and because the winner was totally obvious before that point (i.e. the guy who had the most cities). Guessing from the fact that Civ4 is still in the Top 20 Best Selling Games after almost 4 years on the market, I'd suggest that most people agree with me! Seriously, mate, you LOST the argument, and continue to lose it after every ludicrous claim you make-claims which you've never once been able to substantiate.

EDIT: Oh and yes in fact you *did* claim that you couldn't have large numbers of cities. You made the claim that in civ4 you couldn't have more than 2-3 cities in a 20 player game. Well I've proven otherwise. That you won't simply accept this fact merely proves that you're a sore loser. Still, from here on in I'm just gonna take Oni's advice and ignore you from now on, because you're clearly not prepared to listen to ANYONE but yourself. Why don't you just scurry on home to your Civ3 forums and leave the Civ4 players to enjoy their adult, elegant and sophisticated game in peace?

Aussie.

 

[T.A JONES]

Again with the myths T.A. Jones? Can't you win an argument without telling porkies? How very sad. The first map I produced was of a game which I had saved and I ran 4 turns in a row to test any turn-lag. As I said there, the maximum lag was SEVEN SECONDS in the late game. Comprende? Not the "Snooze Fest" you claim it to be. So here I am, with my middle of the road computer, playing 200-400+ city games with a lag time of less than 10 seconds in the late game phase. Even in games where there have been massive wars going on the lag time has never gotten above 20 seconds per turn on my machine-in the late game phase. Seriously bud, why can't you just finally ADMIT you're wrong and accept that your problem with Civ4 is simply down to the fact that (a) you can't be bothered buying a decent computer and (b) you're just ticked off because your REX'ing "strategy" don't work in Civ4? Everyone has told you you're wrong, more than once-and provided you with the evidence to PROVE you're wrong-but you simply won't ACCEPT you're wrong. Instead you keep repeating the same thing, which is: "Civ3 is broken out of the box but, if you're prepared to get a mod (or two or three) it becomes half-way playable". Seriously, if that is how you "sell" the benefits of Civ3 over Civ4, then no wonder you're forced to tell porkies about the lag time on large Civ4 maps. Every civ4 game I've played has had a MASSIVELY epic appeal, with no early game or late game boredom. Sadly, I cannot say the same about Civ3, which always seemed really "cartoony" and "gamey"-and utterly dull and boring long before the modern age. Indeed, I don't think I EVER finished a game of civ3 because I got so sick of cleaning up pollution, and because the winner was totally obvious before that point (i.e. the guy who had the most cities). Guessing from the fact that Civ4 is still in the Top 20 Best Selling Games after almost 4 years on the market, I'd suggest that most people agree with me! Seriously, mate, you LOST the argument, and continue to lose it after every ludicrous claim you make-claims which you've never once been able to substantiate.

EDIT: Oh and yes in fact you *did* claim that you couldn't have large numbers of cities. You made the claim that in civ4 you couldn't have more than 2-3 cities in a 20 player game. Well I've proven otherwise. That you won't simply accept this fact merely proves that you're a sore loser. Still, from here on in I'm just gonna take Oni's advice and ignore you from now on, because you're clearly not prepared to listen to ANYONE but yourself. Why don't you just scurry on home to your Civ3 forums and leave the Civ4 players to enjoy their adult, elegant and sophisticated game in peace?

Aussie.

Aussie your talk is cheap, show us the money! Of course I said you can't have as many cities as civ3! I obviously mean without the lag we see civ3 go without. Its true for me but by coincidence not for you?

Can the 1000 people who have complained before you all be wrong to?

Youtube is where I air my vids and we end this. Id upload and try it on. Ive aired my grievences say to the point of standing to apoligize if you prove me wrong. We;ve come this far why not end the "myth" and all these complaints once and for all?

We had a guy on your side say 30 to an hour. Thats what Im expecting on your 400 city map. After that I'll put up my 500 city in less the half the time, or admit I was wrong like you with your civ3 expliot talk.

 

[PieceOfMind]

We had a guy on your side say 30 to an hour. Thats what Im expecting on your 400 city map. After that I'll put up my 500 city in less the half the time, or admit I was wrong like you with your civ3 expliot talk.

So you think Civ3 is superior because you can create more cities in a shorter time?

I find that pretty funny actually.

Even if the lag in Civ4 was ten times worse than Civ3's (which it's not) I'd still play it because it's a better game.

For me, a fun game is about decision making and it's my opinion Civ4 provides more of that, particularly at the higher levels.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

As I said before, I suspect the people who complained before simply didn't read the minimum and recommended system specs for Civ4-as I suspect is the case with you too. Either that or they're upset that their tried and true methods for victory are a failure in Civ4. I have played dozens of games with hundreds of cities and have never had to wait more than 30 seconds for a turn (I'm far too impatient to endure long turn times). Indeed, in the first game that I posted here (the one with 200+ cities), there are 2 wars going on between 4 of the biggest empires (all AI), and yet I was able to cycle through 5 turns in less than 3 minutes. I'd show you except that I don't have any means to capture video of my games. However, Psyringe has apparently proven you wrong himself, yet you've still not been prepared to admit you're wrong. I've also had many wars where I've brought in 30+ units to fight a bloody struggle to capture major cities (and, unlike Civ3, I have to use something more akin to combined arms to win such battles). The AI is also extremely good at waging war-as I've discovered to my detriment-a situation I've never faced in a Civ3 game. So, in fact, Civ4 has been a VERY epic game experience for me, something which cannot be said for Civ3, which was just very.....gamey. Oh sure I had lots of cities in some of my games, but as about half of them were totally non-productive I didn't much see the point. I also found whack-a-mole pollution control tedious in the extreme, and the start of Civ3 was always so very, very, very BORING (build a city, build a worker, build a mine, build a farm, build a road. Build a settler, build a spearman. Rinse and repeat). By contrast, the beginning of Civ4 is always a new experience each time-altered by the available resources, the proximity of neighbours etc etc, all of which effect what units and buildings I make first, what civics I pursue, the city improvements I build with my workers and what techs I select. I also found wars in Civ3 to be extremely tedious-thanks largely to the army exploit-trust me, the Civ4 AI knows how to make VERY good use of combined arms to defeat its foes. The siege weapon exploit also helped make civ3 combat very gamey. What is the main point here is that Civ4 doesn't require *any* modding in order to make the game epic and fun, wheras by your own admission Civ3 requires modding to make it even remotely playable. That is the sign of a BAD GAME. Seriously, dude, if the Civ4 experience is as bad as you claim why is it still in the top 20 best seller list almost 5 years post release? I doubt that civ3 remained in the top 20 for quite so long.

Aussie.

 

[RedBananna]

There seems to be quite a back and forth going on here, apparently the Civ Community is split into rival camps that are constantly arguing over which civ game is the best. Falling into to the Civ IV camp, I make my case:

Despite what controversy is spawned over amount of cities or graphics requirements, Civ IV is the better game because of its sheer depth and ease of play, the endless charm and the numerous random events, and the massive number of great scenarios and mods, and the sheer number of improvements and additions that really imrpove the series beyond what was ever expected.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

You're dead right RebBanana. I had very high hopes for Civ3 when it came out, but I confess it got very tiresome in a short space of time. It really was just Civ2 with extra graphics. Heck, I quickly ended up playing more Alpha Centauri than Civ3-sure it had the same corruption and pollution issues as Civ2 and Civ3, but at least it had social engineering. Civ4 managed to incorporate pollution and corruption into the game, but in a way which was more fun and strategic to deal with (e.g. how much more fun is it to try and seek out to solve issues of pollution and unhealthiness through changes in civics, building improvements and seeking new sources of food, than it is to simply send out workers on "pollution patrol"). Also, though I have some issues with some of the civics provided in game, they do provide a much wider variety of choices than the Civ3 government system ever did. Religious Civics most particularly-after all, do I want my State Religion cities to boost GP production or building production? Or perhaps I want units built there to have higher XP. I also love the Espionage system, the combat system, the way you can cultivate relations with neighbours. The decisions in the early game in regards to tech choices, religion et al are also excellent. Whether people believe me or not, I have not had to sacrifice rapid turn times or empire size in order to gain these massive improvements.

Edit: Sorry, AC didn't have pollution issues. I was thinking of the Xenofungus.
Aussie.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I also love the Espionage system,

The Espionage system (esp. the way the AI uses it) is one of the things I dislike in Civ4. The way AI destroys your farms and mines brings back the pollution worker patrols from Civ3 on a somewhat lesser scale, only they are AI espionage worker patrols now.

 

[T.A JONES]

So you think Civ3 is superior because you can create more cities in a shorter time?

I find that pretty funny actually.

Even if the lag in Civ4 was ten times worse than Civ3's (which it's not) I'd still play it because it's a better game.

For me, a fun game is about decision making and it's my opinion Civ4 provides more of that, particularly at the higher levels.

When did i say this? I said modded civ3 makes each city count with better/more (that being maintence) balance facters enabled aswell
Thus more cities means more for a greater sized epic.

On a bench test Id say we both sample from around the 400 turn mark as when planes get in the picture I find the turns go up a bit. (think of all those range choices for each AI bomber on a 400 city map!))

Im simply pointing out the obvious based on tech forum volume and mod thread observation. Auzzie is only one person. With his a passonate plea for a games supremacy He says his 400 city map takes a few seconds. Hmm.. Meanwhile others in his camp says 30min-1 hr.

Well, From what I see, and theres a new thread added just as I brought this up, The great majority can't play epics that compare to civ3.5 (where its a each city counts type mod sceanario)
Im talking area-wise and additions to the default frame. When trying the same thing with civ4 (modded-for-size and 'extras' that improve the civ4 expierence) deley by lategame makes the expierence ruinsome
Then again most wouldn't know how to modify the maps size to begin one of these. IT ain't easy without an editer like civ3's

But IM stressing the modded civ4. LIke one guy just said " the massive number of great scenarios and mods, and the sheer number of improvements and additions that really imrpove the series beyond what was ever expected."


Its unfortunate here that more units, and whatever else in is ADDED as stress, mounts lategame and kills /400map epics. Meanwhile, civ3 skates by freely in the same comparison (BAlanced and Reloaded)

 

[PieceOfMind]

Meanwhile others in his camp says 30min-1 hr.

Well, From what I see, and theres a new thread added just as I brought this up, The great majority can't play epics that compare to civ3.5 (where its a each city counts type mod sceanario)

Which thread? And who is it saying 30mins to one hour? Are you talking about in-between-turn times?

 

[Lone Wolf]

Are you talking about in-between-turn times?

Yes, he does.

 

[Senethro]

Wow, I really shouldn't have wasted my time reading two guys posting huge walls of text and pics about how big their cities are.

Anyway, Alpha Centauri is the better game.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Strange, Lone Wolf, but I never really ran into any particularly serious issues with spies in Civ4-certainly nothing on the scale of "Whack-a-mole" pollution in Civ3. Of course, the espionage system in the original Civ4 wasn't so great IMHO, but the espionage system since Beyond the Sword came out is a true revelation.

As to your latest claims, Jones. Come on-link to all these Tech Forum posts claiming 30 minute to 1 hour turns. Go on, I DARE YOU. My system can handle 200-400 city maps with no significant lag at all, and I have a middle of the road computer. I bet you dollars to donuts that every one of the posts you link to will show people using systems that are BELOW PAR-i.e. that are below system requirements for the game. Meanwhile, in modding Civ3 to make cities "all of equal value", you're actually ENHANCING Infinite City Sleaze/REX'ing as a guaranteed victory strategy. This simply makes the game MORE BORING. Far better to have a game where more doesn't always equal BETTER, as is the case in Civ4. More cities is no substitute for better quality cities, more units is no substitute for units with appropriate sets of promotions, more terrain improvements is no substitute for proper placement of terrain improvements, more roads are no substitute for building roads which simply connect a city into the existing trade network and more buildings in a city is no substitute for having buildings which boost the underlying benefits of that city. Lastly, once again, you've merely repeated the point that Civ3 is broken out of the box-and can only be salvaged through extensive modification. Meanwhile, even playing an extensively modified game of Civ4, such as Rhye's Mod, I can get through my turns without any significant lag whatsoever. None of which makes a good sales pitch for switching back to Civ3.

Aussie.

 

[Dave Hartwick]

You're being trolled.

 

[mechaerik]

Im simply pointing out the obvious based on tech forum volume and mod thread observation. Auzzie is only one person. With his a passonate plea for a games supremacy He says his 400 city map takes a few seconds. Hmm.. Meanwhile others in his camp says 30min-1 hr.
[\quote]

You are talking about time between turns? If so, their system much be abysmal. I'm talking a system like ENIAC.

Well, From what I see, and theres a new thread added just as I brought this up, The great majority can't play epics that compare to civ3.5 (where its a each city counts type mod sceanario)
Im talking area-wise and additions to the default frame. When trying the same thing with civ4 (modded-for-size and 'extras' that improve the civ4 expierence) deley by lategame makes the expierence ruinsome
Then again most wouldn't know how to modify the maps size to begin one of these. IT ain't easy without an editer like civ3's

My system isn't that great, but even at the late game, there is maybe a 5-10 second wait. That's it. And i'm playing on a laptop.

But IM stressing the modded civ4. LIke one guy just said " the massive number of great scenarios and mods, and the sheer number of improvements and additions that really imrpove the series beyond what was ever expected."


Its unfortunate here that more units, and whatever else in is ADDED as stress, mounts lategame and kills /400map epics. Meanwhile, civ3 skates by freely in the same comparison (BAlanced and Reloaded)

Even with mods on, my wait doesn't increase significantly. Maye 15-20 seconds total. Either offer up real proof, or get out.

I also don't personally feel like playing a game where it's just land-grabbing for the sake of land-grabbing.

And by the way, my grammar and spelling are impeccable, so there is no way you can completely ignore my points and complain about my grammar and spelling, which you have done previously.