Civ3/Civ4?

[gunkulator]

just b/c civ4 allows for these bonuses does not mean that it simulates the civ3 A/D formula.

I believe it means precisely that, although I confess to not knowing all the innards of Civ4 combat. If I give a Civ4 Spearman (strength 4) a 50% defensive bonus against everything, it is effectively a 4/6 unit.

a tank destroyer is an offensive unit and yes, it isn't possible, really, to realize this type of unit in civ3. however, i shed no tears from that fact.

YMMV. Recall that Civ2 did have unit type specific bonuses and Civ3 lost them forcing you to categorize units as offensive or defensive. I for one, am happy to have speciality bonuses back in Civ4.

the closest thing to implementing this in civ3 is to provide it w/ the stealth attack option against armoured units. if it has a high A or high bombardment and low D then it is reasonable to assume that any infantry/foot unit can easily overrun the AT infantry. so, knowing this, there IS a way to do it in civ3.

Kind of. If you give it stealth and a high attack, there's nothing to stop you from using it against any unit, including infantry. Constrast to Civ4 where you can actually make a unit tougher against just tanks. That to me is a better approximation of a tank killer.

what you have failed to comment on, as far as i have gathered, is the fact the many of us here would greatly desire a hybrid set-up for civ4. by this i mean that it would've been splendid imo if civ4 retained the A/D system from civ3 but incorporated civ4's promotion and specialty features. i mean, why try and fix something that simply wasn't broken? it was a step back imo.

And my point is that since you can simulate A/D with bonuses, the concept is effectively obsolete.

i personally find the civ4 format less flexible simply b/c their are key elements that are missing like bombardment for land and sea untis as well as the lack of a pure defensive unit. knowing that these features can't be "simulated" leads me to believe that it is "inflexible".

You can create pure defensive units. The Explorer, Scout and Machine Gun units all have a strength but they cannot initiate combat. They can only defend.

As to bombardment, you are partly right. You cannot bombard from sea to land at all, however, I found the success rate of Civ3 sea-to-land bombardment to so low as to be pretty tedious, at least until destroyers. By the time destroyers come about, assuming tech parity, the AI destroyers will sink you if you try it. If the AI doesn't have destroyers, then chances are you've already won.

For sea-to-sea bombardment, Civ4 has First Strike promotions, which are like defensive bombards in Civ3 except they work offensively as well. If you have enough First Strikes, you can signficantly reduce your opponents strength.

For land-to-land bombardment, Civ4 works differently. There are two kinds: one that reduces a city's defensive rating and one that causes collateral damage. Collateral damage is the counter to the SOD. Up to 6 units can take damage from a single bombardment.

What no longer exists in Civ4 is ability to bombard with no risk to the bombarding unit. With 20 artillery and a rail system, you were pretty safe from AI incursions in Civ3. The AI's use of bombard units in Civ3 is abysmal. They don't use them on attack at all and won't concentrate all their artillery on your advancing SOD even if they have a complete rail net. So IMO, arty were an exploit of Civ3 on par with armies. You use them right. The AI doesn't. So, no, bombardment doesn't work the same in Civ4 and that I believe to be a good thing.

 

[jim_bob]

Just a question for all of you who still play Civ3, what keeps you from switching over to Civ4? Are there some of you who just haven't gotten it for a reason, or are there more of you who've actually played Civ4 but for w/e reason like Civ3 better. Just curious on what everybody here thinks.

I swich to because I have competed and it is smthing new to play,and it will give me more of a chaleng.

 

[jim_bob]

is the best strategy game ever made as well as all the other CIV games so I dont mean theat I only play it,I play lots of over games to. Licke Diablo 1 and 2,Dungon Keeper 1and2.

 

[El Justo]

gunkulator,

i'm afraid that i must respectfully disagree w/ just about all of your sentiments.

while i see your point regarding the "simulation", i just don't buy it b/c i feel that the civ4 combat format is flawed beyond compromise. i've played civ4 and my impression, as well as that of many others, is that it is inferior to civ3 in many regards. reading your opinions on this matter (as well as your condescending tone) will do little to change my opinion. this is only my opinion though...although i certainly respect your opinion. i just don't agree w/ it.

i am going to change gears some a bit here b/c this issue has been beaten like a dead horse.

what is everyone's take on the civ4 gfx? do you like them?

i think that the terrain is nice to look at. my satisfaction w/ the gfx ends here though. i think that the low-pixel units and such are awful. i suppose that i've been spoiled w/ customized civ3 units by the likes of vingrjoe, etc. however, i would also like to know why everything is so darn 'cartoonish' looking? knowing this, i very much prefer civ3 styled units solely b/c they are more appealing to look at.

any thoughts on this?

 

[gunkulator]

gunkulator,

i'm afraid that i must respectfully disagree w/ just about all of your sentiments.

Fair enough. To each his own. If I was short with you, I apologize since you have been civil. To those who engage in ad hominem though, I see no reason to be polite.

i am going to change gears some a bit here b/c this issue has been beaten like a dead horse.

what is everyone's take on the civ4 gfx? do you like them?

IMO, the 3D graphics are my number 1 problem with Civ4. I have 3 computers: 2 desktops and a laptop. Civ4 only runs on my newest desktop, even then it was so slow that I ended up blowing $60 on a graphics card, although to be fair I was already considering doing that for other applications and games.

There was just no need to add a full 3D look to what is essentially a 2D game. Sure you can rotate the camera and all that but why would you want to?

i think that the terrain is nice to look at. my satisfaction w/ the gfx ends here though. i think that the low-pixel units and such are awful. i suppose that i've been spoiled w/ customized civ3 units by the likes of vingrjoe, etc. however, i would also like to know why everything is so darn 'cartoonish' looking? knowing this, i very much prefer civ3 styled units solely b/c they are more appealing to look at.

any thoughts on this?

Terrain is OK. Everything mostly looks like what it is supposed to. Since the game has something like 25 different resource types, it can sometimes be hard to tell which is which without mousing over. For example, aluminum and silver on the map look a lot alike to me.

I've never tried the low-end units. The cartoonish feel is partly because during combat, the game zooms in real close and so you start to see the limits of what battle animations look like.

 

[Red Door]

The Civ 4 terrain is beuatiful to look at, IHMO. The Civ 3 regular terrain is disgusting, but I really like Ares de Borg's new terrain.

The units on Civ 4 are awful, they are cartoons.

There are no culturally diverse cities, augh!!!

 

[SanPellegrino]

I was always a huge fan of the series, I began with Civ 1 in 1992, the time I spent playing can barely be measured in hours.

But Civ 4 totally ruined it for me, I can't believe I say this about a game of the civ series, but I HATE it. it even stopped me from posting on these boards for quite a long time.

 

[T.A JONES]

: Civ4 has some sweet eye candy, trouble is I don't have a sweet tooth. Im sure many younger gamers flock to these fun images and the cute little smilies Like the little banannas that fill up in the basket.

Now on the other side Ares De borg' terrain has everybody seeing perfection, Man To think back a months time, an imagine Civ3 plain jane terrain could be pushed as far as almost" real life replica" or "simulated satalite imagery" or "perfect geographical symetry" I can't express the amazed daze this artist has laid with this latest craze. I needed a smoke after I saw it.

This breakthrough is just another proud chapter in the Civ3 legacy..:

EDIT: WELCOME BACK SAN PELLIGRINO!!

 

[taipei_lad]

Interesting, if sometimes a bit heated, discussion here.

My two cents:

I have both games (cIV and CIV3 Complete). I play both, and I like both, to some degree. I just think that they are, in the end, completely different games. I find CIV3 to be more fun, generally, while cIV requires more thought. Right now, I guess I still prefer CIV3, but I find cIV a greater challenge.

Things about cIV I like:
-Promotions add individuality to units.
-Combat seems a bit more logical (haven't had the terror-inducing happen yet.
-More options for government make the game more detailed.
-It's generally faster to play.

Problems with cIV (for me, at least):
-Financial limits on expanding your empire. This really bothers me. How can your civilization be the most dominant in the world with six or eight cities?
-Overpowered catapults.
-The barbs in cIV are a real pain in the backside.
-Most importantly, I just don't get the "One more turn' feeling from cIV. Dunno why.

The more I play cIV, though, the more I like it. CIV3 is still my favourite.

 

[Turner]

To those who engage in ad hominem though, I see no reason to be polite.

You mean, aside from the fact it's against the rules?

 

[Sashie VII]

-Most importantly, I just don't get the "One more turn' feeling from cIV. Dunno why.

Aye I get the "Let's do something else before continuing with the next turn" feeling with civ4

 

[azzaman333]

-Combat seems a bit more logical (haven't had the terror-inducing happen yet.

TBH, ive always liked the unpredicability of the RNG causing swords and spears to be able to beat Infantry and Tanks. In Civ 4, when your outdated army is attacked, your doomed. In Civ 3, you will still have a small chance to sue for peace before you've been killed.

 

[El Justo]

piggybacking off the 'A/D values' vs the 'single value' debate...

i'm wondering how well civ4 is set up to modify/customize its air units.

by this i mean that for civ3, the A/D values for air units are great b/c one can sort of dictate a plane's role by adjusting either the A or the D in one shape or another. the net result, for me at least, is a high level of diversity among the different air units. i should probably note that i am not talking about the default/vanilla civ air units. a good reference for my example would be either my TCW scenario or my forthcoming AoI revision. in TCW, there's hundreds of air units ranging from late ww2 twin-prop fighters, 1st generation jet fighters to long range bombers, ground attack air craft and fighter/bombers.

now, my point is that w/ the A/D values, i was able to give each unit a special feature whether it was a higher A and lower D (think interceptors), a low A but a higher D (think ground attack aircraft), or a really low A and a medium D but a heavy bombardment # (think bomber). this method is tried and true. air combat in TCW is splendid and very balanced imo.

my question is this:
would civ4 allow for such diversity w/ the air units? do specialty traite for units apply to them? or would this cock-a-mamy 'single value' method throw the proverbial monkey wrench into this theory?

i'm curious to see what others think of this proposition.

 

[MAS]

I have been thinking about this, but I think i can see the flaw in C3's A/D system.
You see...

For example. In the differences between a tank and a tank destroyer, the tanks had better armour, but the tank destroyer usually had the more powerful gun. Common sense might then dictate that the tank being given a higher defence rating and a lower offense rating than the tank destroyer. But that doesn't take into account how these units were used. In practice, the tank destroyers were most successful when used defensively. IE: seclude them in defensive cover and wait for the assaulting armour to come to them.

This logic works in C3 too!
The best unit for defending your own land in C3 is the horseman, not the spearman. Its huge movent, 6 tiles on your own roadnetwork, means that a small number of them can defend a large border against any invasion force, by attacking them when they cross your border.

Take a look at the strategy forum, all the guru's there tell newbies to make offensive units. And I can tell from my own experience aswell, that even if you are a peacemonger, it is still better to build an archer over a spearman.
In fact, those spearman are actually more usefull to a warmonger. They can invade offensively, and take the blow from any defensive move your opponent makes.

I have never worked with Civ4 so far (couse i'm on a mac) but given this information, I think the Civ4 system is actually better. (you may not like it, but that is a completely diffrent thing)