Civ3/Civ4?

[Padma]

I might point out that the Civ3 game engine was old when the game was written. It was creaky, and crumbling in places. Very heavily patched. They could not have done another game with it; they needed to write a new engine from scratch.

 

[T.A JONES]

Yes true The old engine was pushed to hard. So they design a new one that recreates the overall Civ3 formula with the extra power to push it further and faster so all the new ideas modders had dreamed of would be possible if not already complete. A engine that does all that plus the fancy eye candy, cool new animation, Faster processing could've been possible.

All Im saying is they could have stacked onto what they already accomplished. Instead its what they had on hand at the time and the "suit" said.. "lets see what we can do with this engine we've already invested tons of money on, even if its not a proven to perform on the Civ platform, It will save us money not having to start from scratch and best of all we can release sooner and capitialize on what the old engine has already established(Quality Craftmanship,Mass Appeal). Besides all the kids are into that 3d SH## now a days"

All this to please their new parent company who wanted a quick cash grab.
Shameful, but this is capitalism. what looks good on the corprate paper somtimes means more then what ends up on a players screens. Civ 4 fell victim to just this approach. but true

 

[Padma]

Actually, I can somewhat agree to most of this, except "All this to please their new parent company who wanted a quick cash grab."

Take2 bought Civ/Firaxis well into the development of Civ4.

And, to be honest, a lot of this sounds like when Civ3 first came out: "We don't like Civ3! They should have just made Civ2 better!"

 

[T.A JONES]

Well perhaps I did go just a bit to far, but Im glad you agree with the gist of it anyway and like I said in a earlier post, it'll all work itself out in Civ 5, Civ4 is only a "bumper sequal", At least thats what Im hoping anyway

 

[EMan]

I prefer Civ 3 for the reasons I stated above.

However, Civ 4 has mass appeal. The reviewers praised it, the competitive gamers and CFC visitors have increased dramatically since it came out.

From a business perspective, Civ 4 has been a great success, notwithstanding the cost of producing it..........which I would guess was so high that Jeff, Sid & Co. (viz. Firaxis) had to sell the "store" to Take2 to pay the bills.

So as a gamer, I'm a big fan of Firaxis. As a businessman..........Well, err, I stay away from the game industry........except for the 20G I lost on Take2's stock last year........dumb emotional buy!

 

[T.A JONES]

Hows this for a familiar Civ3 vs Civ2 argument
Civ 4 was financially succsessful only cause Civ3 three brewed up so many fans over the span of its 6 releases. It was like if you never heard of Civ3 on its vanilla release then it was Ptwthat got yer attention or if not then, it was when Gold hit stores.,or Conquest, etc,, By the Time Civ 4 was announced everyone was wipped into a fever pitch like it was the next Harry Potter book or something. Sales went throught the roof!!

...And man, no ones gunna like this, but I know the truth about those reviewers, they hated it, They didn't want to take a chance pissing off the wrong people, play it safe is all they do. Most computer gamer's love Civ so why bother taking the risk of alienating themselves, I found the loudest praise coming from these people that were paid to review, given free copies or involved with devolpment somehow. I Imagine most others have not even played Civ 3 before, at least not modded,

One could say its all pointless to argue which is supierior but I will be impressed if Civ 4 has the lasting appeal its predecessor enjoyed. Did Civ 2 survive the Civ3 modding onslaught,hardly. Ok now, how well has Civ 3 stood in the face of Civ4. Anyone whos seen the work accomplished by artists in the custum forum knows Civ4' got a long way to go.

 

[sandabella]

I bought Civ 4 in Nov, installed, and uninstalled. The dvd just sits on the desk gathering dust. I have no specific reason for not liking, just like Civ 3 too much maybe!!

 

[El Justo]

Actually, I can somewhat agree to most of this, except "All this to please their new parent company who wanted a quick cash grab."

Take2 bought Civ/Firaxis well into the development of Civ4.

And, to be honest, a lot of this sounds like when Civ3 first came out: "We don't like Civ3! They should have just made Civ2 better!"

i agree that it was not solely a 'cash grab'.

i should probably point out though that civ2 and civ3 share similar core game engine concepts whereas civ3 and 4 are completely different games.

i remember when i went form civ2 to civ3. it was quite a jump and i recall asking myself why they had changed around some things like arty and air units. i quickly got over this after a few sessions. however, this same thing did not occur for me when i tried to sort of force feed myself civ4 to see if i could muster a similar transition from civ3 to civ4.

 

[gunkulator]

T.A JONES,

despite all of this, i would very much still like to know why the A/D values were scrapped i mean, i'd have even accepted this 'new look' had they opened up new avenues w/ the existing engine/format.

I think they eliminated A/D values because it isn't all that clear what those two values were modelling. Why, for example, is a Medieval Infantry A/D 4/2 instead of 4/3 or even 4/4? If defense is supposed to mean catching a unit off guard, how do you explain the A/D values of spearmen, pikemen, musketeers and their ilk? And really, aren't most units created with attack in mind?

It's also almost never true that A=D in Civ4. First off, there are terrain, foritification and city defense factors that apply only on defense. The big change, though, that Civ4 added (or brought back from Civ2) was was "unit class bonuses". So pikemen get a 100% bonus against horse class units but get no bonus at all against swordsmen. Axemen get a 50% against melee class units, but none against horses. SAM Infantry get a bonus against air units. Etc. In addition Civ4 units can get promotions that can increase attack in some circumstances or defense in others. There's no way to do anything like this in Civ3.

As I said in a previous post, Civ4 combat is an acquired taste but once you really understand the bonuses, I think you'll find it is a more elegant system. Instead of having basically two kinds of units, attackers and defenders, (or three if you count arty) Civ4 has more specialization. It gives combined arms a whole new meaning. If you don't believe me, just build a stack of nothing but the highest strength unit you have and send it out against the AI and see how well you do.

 

[Bungus]

I think they eliminated A/D values because it isn't all that clear what those two values were modelling.

Taking vs. holding land. It's abstract sometimes, I won't argue that, but they can be seperate values. Terrain, fortification, and city bonuses aside, who's the favorite: The rifleman that has to charge onto the field, and push his enemy back or kill him, or the rifleman that can just lay down and pick off the other rifleman as he's moving. The difference in this scenario is the defender has the luxory of not having to move. The advancing rifleman could be dead before he even sees his opponent!
That said, the bonus are a good mechanism, the promotions so-so. But the necessity for combined arms can be achieved in Civ3C.
If you only played vanila civ3 or Conquests 1.22, you've only played half the game. The engine allows for the implementation of more than just Attacker, Defender, and Artillery type units. Depending on the era, I have 6 or more unit lines, all geared for different situations.

 

[gunkulator]

Taking vs. holding land. It's abstract sometimes, I won't argue that, but they can be seperate values. Terrain, fortification, and city bonuses aside, who's the favorite: The rifleman that has to charge onto the field, and push his enemy back or kill him, or the rifleman that can just lay down and pick off the other rifleman as he's moving. The difference in this scenario is the defender has the luxory of not having to move. The advancing rifleman could be dead before he even sees his opponent!

Both games already provide terrain and fortification bonuses plus city defense bonuses so I'd say that's covered. And your explanation is only applicable to defensive units. There is still no sense to me why Medieval Infantry is 4/2 or Swordsman 3/2. In fact, with most Civ3 units the strength advantage is not at all with the defender. Why should this be?

The engine allows for the implementation of more than just Attacker, Defender, and Artillery type units. Depending on the era, I have 6 or more unit lines, all geared for different situations.

Perhaps, however with bonuses the Civ4 engine can emulate Civ3's but the opposite is not true.

 

[Bungus]

Both games already provide terrain and fortification bonuses plus city defense bonuses so I'd say that's covered. And your explanation is only applicable to defensive units. There is still no sense to me why Medieval Infantry is 4/2 or Swordsman 3/2. In fact, with most Civ3 units the strength advantage is not at all with the defender. Why should this be?

fortification bonuses are well and good, but a defender doesn't have to be 'dug in' to be a clear favorite. Terrain bonuses sort of cover this, but they ussually are not high enough to emulate this. (10% for grassland). Plus, for some units this is more pronounced than others. For spearman, it really shouldn't make much difference eitherway. Now this is apllicable for defenders, but when is it reversed? Solitary archers for instance, would be bad defenders. THey're trying to hold a position, so they can't fall back. Historically, unprotected archers do not do well in this scenario.

Perhaps, however with bonuses the Civ4 engine can emulate Civ3's but the opposite is not true.

Yes, I'll agree that's one of the few things the Civ4 enginge has over 3.

 

[gunkulator]

Using a seperate offense and defence factor allows units optimised for one or the other to be simulated. Take ships. With seperate offense and defence factors, the gunpower/armour differences between battleships and battle cruisers can be more accurately represented.

So your contention is that defense = armor. offense = weaponry. The problem with that is that Civ3 does not use A and D in this way. In a typical Civ3 battle, there are several rounds. If you are the initiator of the combat, your A value gets used, if the other guy initiates the combat, your D value gets used. If A and D were modeled as you suggest, then rounds should alternate between using your A or your D, a la Dungeons and Dragons.

What I've read of civ4 units and their limited number of promotions, doing the mods above does not look easy or maybe even possible in anything near the same functional detail.

I can't speak to modding since I don't do it. Since Civ4 is only a couple months old, I would imagine that it is probably as easy to mod as Civ3 was when it first came out. With Python scripting and just about everything imaginable specified in XML, my guess is that Civ4 has the potential to be the most moddable civ game yet.

fortification bonuses are well and good, but a defender doesn't have to be 'dug in' to be a clear favorite. Terrain bonuses sort of cover this, but they ussually are not high enough to emulate this. (10% for grassland).

So make them higher.

Solitary archers for instance, would be bad defenders. THey're trying to hold a position, so they can't fall back. Historically, unprotected archers do not do well in this scenario.

Archers typically were given short swords or daggers, otherwise they would be truly useless once the melee began.

I still haven't heard a good explanation for why a Medieval Infantry is 4/2 while a Musketman is 2/4. I see nothing inherently defensive or offensive in these or most other units. The game already models "dug in" positions and terrain advantages. It doesn't satisfactorily model defensive armor either so why force a model onto units when it doesn't make sense? Why should a Sipahi have almost even odds to destroy a tank if it initiates combat but is sure to lose if the tank initiates? Same with Swords fighting Med Inf.

 

[bgast1]

It is decision time for me. I am a complete Newbie when it comes to Civ. I have played a few games in Civ III. Now I want to make the decision whether to get Civ III complete or go to Civ IV. My computer can handle Civ IV without any problem as far as resources go. I only have just Civ III and have never played a Mod. Any comments?

 

[Bungus]

Archers typically were given short swords or daggers, otherwise they would be truly useless once the melee began.

WAit, that's it, you're right. An archer with a dagger was every bit as effective in a melee as a knight wearing impenetrable armor riding a half a ton horse that likes stomping things, or a mass of trained and armored men with pikes 12 feet long. Good point.

I still haven't heard a good explanation for why a Medieval Infantry is 4/2

Neither have I.

..while a Musketman is 2/4.

In civ3 the musketman is actually an arquebusier. I can see, what with their heavy, inaccurate firearms that were set up using a fork, why they wouldn't be so good at fighting on the move.

The default values in civ3 are stupid. Perhaps I didn't mention. I changed all that in a mod soon as I figured out how. There's alot of dumbed-down machenics in civ4 too. I'm just agreeing with the principle of seperate A/d values, for gameplay, and I suppose to a lesser extent, authenticity.

 

[Bungus]

It is decision time for me. I am a complete Newbie when it comes to Civ. I have played a few games in Civ III. Now I want to make the decision whether to get Civ III complete or go to Civ IV. My computer can handle Civ IV without any problem as far as resources go. I only have just Civ III and have never played a Mod. Any comments?

Well if you want to start somewhere Civ3complete is cheaper. Just make sure you get the conquests 1.22 patch and I'd recommend downloading some of the good mods (there's alot of crap out there too).
Believe it or not, a high end computer will dramatically make Civ3 more enjoyable . With a 180x180 map with 31 civs, the industrial and modern ages will pretty much move at a crawl with the games recommended 900 MHz machine and 256 megs of ram. I just got a 2 Gig athlon 64 and 1 gig of ram and there's still a couple minutes between turns in the end game (hard drives full of crap, though)

 

[bgast1]

Thanks, I have been leaning more to staying with Civ III and picking up Civ III complete. It seems that I have read more favorable stuff about Civ III than Civ IV. Although I for one might like the graphics in Civ IV over Civ III but I can't really say not having played any mods. I have a P4 3.2 and 756 mb ram. I played Doom 3 with no problems whatsoever. But I think I will take you all's word for it that Civ IV just might be a system hog.

 

[T.A JONES]

Bgast Let me give you some good advice also, If you make your decision to get Complete it already comes fully patched, you'll see the 1.22 on the lower left side of the screen. Bungas probley has a earlier version so I can see how missed that.

THe biggest improvements for waiting between turns in later stages for those slowcomputers comes when you adjust the bios memory default allocated to the onboard graphics card. (or spurge 60 bucks on a new G card )
My games were drasticly improved with "massive epics". For some reason many compters with onboard graphics eat up valuble Virtual Mem. With a older model it can make a "massive" dif . Once I threw in A new Radeon 128 card I was in heaven with my old Dell 256m 1.9 4500 Dimension dino
Onboard G cards do a great job with the graphics requirments only they come with a" massive" draw back not many new players realize.

 

[gunkulator]

I'm just agreeing with the principle of seperate A/d values, for gameplay, and I suppose to a lesser extent, authenticity.

I'd agree if I understood what separate A/D models are trying to model. I still can't figure out out why strength value in battle depends on whether or not I initiate the battle - excepting of course the already modeled terrain, fortification and city defense bonuses. Why should the oucome of two Med Infs slugging it out in an open field depend so much on who starts the fight?

In Civ3, you never have equal battles when equal units fight. Doesn't anyone else find that a bit odd? One of the cool things in Civ4 is actually watching pikemen fight pikemen, or swords fight swords, rifles fight rifles, tanks fight tanks, etc. That's how much warfare has historically been fought.

Thanks, I have been leaning more to staying with Civ III and picking up Civ III complete. It seems that I have read more favorable stuff about Civ III than Civ IV.

Much of it depends on which forum you read...

I have a P4 3.2 and 756 mb ram. I played Doom 3 with no problems whatsoever. But I think I will take you all's word for it that Civ IV just might be a system hog.

Yes, it is. Because of the 3D graphics, the most important thing you need to run Civ4 is a lot of video RAM, 256MB at a minimum I would say, and a fast graphics processor.

 

[bgast1]

My video card is an Nvidia Geforce 5200 PCX 128 ram