Civ3 or civ4?

[Puppeteer]

The battle animations alone make me not want to play AW game. In C3C the health bar would go down while you fight and lets you really sweat it out once your own unit goes red. All you get in CIV is an animation and in the end one party dies, boring really.

Just to pedantically nit pick, this is true if multi-unit animations are turned off. (Not sure if I have the terminology right..been a while.) If you have multi-unit animations on then graphic units die off showing health going down. On the other hand IIRC it's pretty easy to tell who's going to win well before it's over because the death sequences follow a few patterns.

In Civ III you can't predict which unit will lose an HP next...a redlined unit may or may not lose the fight. I like Civ III combat better, too.

 

[ThERat]

I know about multi-units, but that was the VERY FIRST feature that I disabled. if I was forced to play a game with multi-units, I would not play it...it's so damn ugly (and of course messy)

 

[T.A JONES]

Civ 4's Ai is alot better than civ 3. In civ 4 the ai does not know where every reasorce will be b4 they appear. And each leader has there own personlity. I love that.

I like civ4 more for so many reasons.

Ahh! I see you brought some reasons! Very good, this is rare indeed. Defend them well and you get much respect. Civ4 is bad bid of business you must understand, but this stuff does make for a good read.

You enjoy your epics so thats all that matters for the money ya spent right?Keep that in mind cuz Many wern't so lucky over here. They payed lots for new hardware that never gave the "one more feeling" that Fireaxis claimed occured in its slogan
(resulting phrase came from Civ3 's gameplay and used to market CIv4)

Well we all win as it works out. luckily, Many returned jaded but now being able to use more civs same time on bigger maps, each controlling more massive armys but all the while enjoying faster 'interturn' then ever before.(so refreshing compared to CIv4's lag n drag blues )
See? everyone is happy. Thanks for stopping bye, but look at the time

 

[Chose]

chose, are you under the impression that a bold red tagline will convince us that CIV rocks?

It's a matter of taste and if you really like CIV better, that's great. Others prefer C3C and are not necessary worse off. I don't understand why there is always this underlying accusation that the other party must be wrong. Both are civilization games after all, thus it's good to have support for both games and we all might be blessed with a better Civ5 (but only if not done by Take2/Firaxis that is).

If you think C3C has no variety, then bugger off to CIV and play that game. A lot of us here think that C3C is huge fun and we play that game. I dare say that generally the older, more mature audience prefers C3C, while the young crowd likes CIV. Graphics alone in CIV make we want to cry and I am not alone.

If you think that cities are all the same in C3C, you are dead wrong, my friend. We all agree the corruption concept is somewhat annoying, but we know how to work around that and have them as science farms. They won't produce any units, but add maybe settlers and workers.
If you have cities with hills and mountains around, with proper management you can get super production powerhouses, a sea city might be a commerce heaven.
Many cities means also that you really feel that you own an empire and not such a mini state as in CIV. That's just a matter of taste.

As for me, I am a big fan of warfare and AW games. CIV provides hardly any goodies for such people. There are no armies, there is no artillery, just some screwed up suicide attacker. The battle animations alone make me not want to play AW game. In C3C the health bar would go down while you fight and lets you really sweat it out once your own unit goes red. All you get in CIV is an animation and in the end one party dies, boring really. If you have a stack of defenders and it gets attacked, you don't even have any clue what is going on with your stack after each attack. How much health is left for your units? No idea until after the whole battle. Confusing and not nice. If not for our AW SG game some time back where we had huge stacks attacking our cities and couldn't even tell how many units would attack, the stack display wouldn't even have made it to the patch.

Play an AW game and you don't even have a no AW government. Plain silly...


However, in the end it just comes back to the issue, that CIV is just not much fun to play (and I tried really hard to play and was only able to do so in SG's). I play a SP CIV game and get bored so fast, I can't even finish it...

ok lets avoid pointless questioins like your first one. I did it as a joke just like mirc did, ok.

at no point did i say that your wrong if you like civ 3 more. My post was to say the opposite. It all comes down to what you like more. Im 15, but i know alot of older people who like civ 4 more than 3.

sorry im at school right now, i will write a secont part when i get home, just know i dont like if you like civ 3 your "wrong".

and when you said civ 4 is not fun to play. thats a lie

 

[Kool Keith]

sorry im at school right now, i will write a secont part when i get home

My, how times have changed.

 

[T.A JONES]

My, how times have changed.

No kidding. Are laptops requirements in grade school now? Chose you disappoint me. One thing you learnt in class today is not to make 'aniti' remarks in the home forum, unless you bring the means to back it up. You should know theres a term that can follow members who act like that. Besides man, It dilutes your future remarks. Yes its just a game and all but dosn't change the fact readers show up for a fight when they see post like yours. They expect clever remarks to follow brave statements t not some guy giving cheap shots then throwing in the 'age' after a few small blows.

ITs ok your new sorry, Im to hard on you. The best way to observe how to make a game loved by the locals sound inferior in comparision, is by returning to your home grounds. Cheap taunts are only good for drawing in some jousting opponents and catching em by surprise. The whole time I was expecting you to surprise em with some great argument. What happend?

 

[Mirc]

ok lets avoid pointless questioins like your first one. I did it as a joke just like mirc did, ok.

at no point did i say that your wrong if you like civ 3 more. My post was to say the opposite. It all comes down to what you like more. Im 15, but i know alot of older people who like civ 4 more than 3.

sorry im at school right now, i will write a secont part when i get home, just know i dont like if you like civ 3 your "wrong".

and when you said civ 4 is not fun to play. thats a lie

It's not a lie. It's an opinion.

Oh, and BTW, I'm 15 too, and I like Civ3 more.

 

[Chose]

No kidding. Are laptops requirements in grade school now? Chose you disappoint me. One thing you learnt in class today is not to make 'aniti' remarks in the home forum, unless you bring the means to back it up. You should know theres a term that can follow members who act like that. Besides man, It dilutes your future remarks. Yes its just a game and all but dosn't change the fact readers show up for a fight when they see post like yours. They expect clever remarks to follow brave statements tnot some guy giving cheap shots then throwing in the 'age' after a few small blows.
ITs ok your new sorry, Im to hard on you. The best way to observe how to make a game loved by the locals sound inferior in comparision, is by returning to your home grounds. Cheap taunts are only good for drawing in some jousting opponents and catching em by surprise. The whole time I was expecting you to surprise em with some great argument. What happend?

i dont have a laptop, wow you guys are fast to draw false conclusions. I was in my intro to programing class and had alittle extra time at the end.

It was not ment to be a cheap remark, i was in a hurry, but i do apologies for what i said. It just If you have and opinion like that, you cant say it like its a fact. i really should not of made that post at all, i should of just waited till i got home.

as i said befor i had to leave from school, thats why i could not put any good arguments

Mirc thank you for making my point, Civ 4 is not just for younger people and civ 3 not just for older. Both games have poeple of all ages

chose, are you under the impression that a bold red tagline will convince us that CIV rocks?

It's a matter of taste and if you really like CIV better, that's great. Others prefer C3C and are not necessary worse off. I don't understand why there is always this underlying accusation that the other party must be wrong. Both are civilization games after all, thus it's good to have support for both games and we all might be blessed with a better Civ5 (but only if not done by Take2/Firaxis that is).

If you think C3C has no variety, then bugger off to CIV and play that game. A lot of us here think that C3C is huge fun and we play that game. I dare say that generally the older, more mature audience prefers C3C, while the young crowd likes CIV. Graphics alone in CIV make we want to cry and I am not alone.

If you think that cities are all the same in C3C, you are dead wrong, my friend. We all agree the corruption concept is somewhat annoying, but we know how to work around that and have them as science farms. They won't produce any units, but add maybe settlers and workers.
If you have cities with hills and mountains around, with proper management you can get super production powerhouses, a sea city might be a commerce heaven.
Many cities means also that you really feel that you own an empire and not such a mini state as in CIV. That's just a matter of taste.

As for me, I am a big fan of warfare and AW games. CIV provides hardly any goodies for such people. There are no armies, there is no artillery, just some screwed up suicide attacker. The battle animations alone make me not want to play AW game. In C3C the health bar would go down while you fight and lets you really sweat it out once your own unit goes red. All you get in CIV is an animation and in the end one party dies, boring really. If you have a stack of defenders and it gets attacked, you don't even have any clue what is going on with your stack after each attack. How much health is left for your units? No idea until after the whole battle. Confusing and not nice. If not for our AW SG game some time back where we had huge stacks attacking our cities and couldn't even tell how many units would attack, the stack display wouldn't even have made it to the patch.

Play an AW game and you don't even have a no AW government. Plain silly...


However, in the end it just comes back to the issue, that CIV is just not much fun to play (and I tried really hard to play and was only able to do so in SG's). I play a SP CIV game and get bored so fast, I can't even finish it...

In civ 4 you can turn the health bar on. Also i think the battles in civ 4 are much more fun to watch. the 3 guys are very similar to the 3 health bars. When you see your men walk up and your first two guys die, and your other one kills thiers. Then your you think all hope is lost, BUT NO your guy takes out one guy, then wait a swing... and the other guy goes down. And all that happens, faster (not always but most of the time) then in civ 3.if you turn the health bars on you can see how much damage the artillery has done to your units.

I have no idea what your talking about artillery. Not only is there siege, but there is an actual artillery unit in civ 3 you can win a game w/o any units, but just artillery. How much more scrued up can you get? 10 knights go to kill some siege units, and those big old rockes kills evey knight

I in no way think siege is perfect in civ 4, but its a hole alot better *in my opinin* Also i like that you can just make 100 of the best attacker. You have to build a many kinds of units to counter all of theres. And when you attack you need artillery to attack the SOD.

Also in civ 4 When i play i in no way feal like a small city state. yes at first you only have 4-5 cities. But very i can very fast make it into 15-20 citys. With couthouses and the forbidden place. What you said about civ 3 citys, you cant cutimize you cities even close to as much as you can in civ 4, with city specilists and way more worker choices. In civ 3 you cant even have a worker inprovment that gets you gold.

Finaly ( sorry i there points are out of order), I never said civ 3 has no variety for crying out loud, just not as much as civ 4. in the end as you said its you like more.

"I don't understand why there is always this underlying accusation that the other party must be wrong." -thERat I did not say that nor do i think it I in now way think that your wrong if you like civ 3 more.

 

[T.A JONES]

It was light hearted, that thing on laptops, don't to sweat it cuz that was pritty good. I guess your redeemed.
On the main topic, a search shows I can just reach into my war chest and pull out the right, IMHO, ammunition for common responses like these. I have extensive history in these threads/debates. ( Ive even been called a 'jihadist' by both sides )

This is a tough forum to critize on. I think I'll try something fresh by giving props for voicing a unpopular opinion plus staying round to defend them.
Again, Its good to see the debate cross over here ocassionaly

 

[Aceman101]

I have no idea what your talking about artillery. Not only is there siege, but there is an actual artillery unit in civ 3 you can win a game w/o any units, but just artillery. How much more scrued up can you get? 10 knights go to kill some siege units, and those big old rockes kills evey knight

I have never heard of such a artillery that can have lethal bombardment. But I know bombers have lethal bombardment in Civ3C. I have vanilla civ 3, so they might have added some extra units. But I don't know what you mean by rockets killing knights. Even if there were rockets in civ3c game (Not that I know of) they wouldn't be available in the middle ages when knights are available.

I in now way think that your wrong if you like civ 3 more.

Afterall, we are in the civ 3 forums, arnt we? I'm not trying to tell you anything mean but it is clear that nearly everyone here would like civ 3 better since this is the civ 3 forums.

 

[Abegweit]

I have never heard of such a artillery that can have lethal bombardment.

All artillery in civ4 have lethal bombardment. In view of this, I thought it curious that he hurl this accusation at civ3. This is one in civ3 though, the Hwa'atcha.

 

[Chose]

Afterall, we are in the civ 3 forums, arnt we? I'm not trying to tell you anything mean but it is clear that nearly everyone here would like civ 3 better since this is the civ 3 forums.

i know that, That is why i said that. So all the civ 3 people would not kill me.

EDIT o yes and abegweit. i guess your right But in Civ3 conquests siege is very over powerd and for little reason. In civ 4 there has to be siege to even out the SOD

 

[Abegweit]

But in Civ3 conquests siege is very over powerd and for little reason. In civ 4 there has to be siege to even out the SOD

Siege weapons are massively overpowered in both games, just in different ways. The difference is that in civ3, you don't have to use siege weapons. I generally prefer to use fast attackers. And armies are fun. In my current game, it's slow movers w/o arties. Rare, I admit, but the case happens.

In civ4, there's only one way. Trundle arties up to the city, bombard the fortifications (why does it take exactly the same amount of bombard, not matter how strong the defences ), suicide some arties, kill the rest of the defenders. Every step in the process can be performed by your siege weapons and usually best is. All other units are reduced to specialty status: to protecting your arty stack, looking out for stragglers, etc.

IT'S BORING. Slow and boring.

 

[Chose]

Siege weapons are massively overpowered in both games, just in different ways. The difference is that in civ3, you don't have to use siege weapons. I generally prefer to use fast attackers. And armies are fun. In my current game, it's slow movers w/o arties. Rare, I admit, but the case happens.

In civ4, there's only one way. Trundle arties up to the city, bombard the fortifications (why does it take exactly the same amount of bombard, not matter how strong the defences ), suicide some arties, kill the rest of the defenders. Every step in the process can be performed by your siege weapons and usually best is. All other units are reduced to specialty status: to protecting your arty stack, looking out for stragglers, etc.

IT'S BORING. Slow and boring.

This is be my last post in this thread because it seems that every here just thinks civ 4 sucks and everything about the game is dumb. You say think "IT'S BORING" but if it was true then why is there over 4 times as many online games and on this fourm almost 99% of the time 2-3 times as many people on the civ 4 side

i have taken many cities w/o the use of siege weapons. With good promotions on your troops you dont always need them. in civ 3 all you do is spam cities get a lot of the best attackers, attack and win ...yawn..O Wait i guess there is more, you can make a mine or irragagation. I got so bord of my works it drove me nuts, then when i put them on automate then they would undo eveything i did. .BORING.

In civ 4 you have so many choices. You dont need to keep a stak 20 works just wating to clean up pollutioin.BOARING. In civ 4 the workers have new things to make all the way up to replaceble parts. Corruption.... sucked and was BOARING. In civ 3 AI was the dumbest thing ever. As i have said they know where resources are going to be b4 they even appear. Every deal with the AI leaders was so unfair.

in civ 4 You dont have other civilzations bring settlers and units through your land. They respect your boarders like they should.

In civ 4 the cultural borders are imroved. In civ 3 a city always had to have one space of land around it but in civ 4 you cant just build a city by a different civlizatioins land and take it.

Great people are alot of fun and so is spreading your religion.

This post is not meant to make eveyone love civ 4, cuz it wont. It just to say we civ 4 people have good reason to like civ 4 more.

Well.. im off to play civ 4

 

[Abegweit]

Notice you completely avoided my point.

Curious because I actually prefer civ4, despite its many infuriating mis-features. The user interface and the graphics are both a step backwards. The F-key boxes have little info and no links. The ones in Civ3 are waay better.

However, from my POV, C4 has the huge advantage of not having to manage a million units, something I find boring. You have named some the reasons I prefer it. The main one is that it is, to me, a nicer pastime.

THeRat enunciated some important points. I doubt I ever will play a Civ4 SG because I just can't take it seriously and that's the way you should approach an SG. In the same vein, WOA is frustrated that you can't properly analyse a Civ4 game and work from reason instead of feel. If you want to play seriously, C4 is not for you.

In the same vein, if I ever play another GOTM, it will be in C3. GOTMs are serious and serious games need to be amenable to proper analysis. Besides, the C4 scoring system is utterly ridiculous.

In the meantime, if I just want have a bit of fun at my computer for a few hours, I'll play civ4. For one thing, civ3 games are too long for this.

 

[Smidlee]

And armies are fun..

But armies are totally unless in vanilla and overpowering in C3C. The AI can't use them either. (just a few armies you are unstoppable. I usually refuse to use armies in C3C for this reason) Too bad there isn't an AI improvement to civ3 like Blake's Civ4 mod.
Also I have taken many early cities without Cats in civ4.

 

[gmaharriet]

You say think "IT'S BORING" but if it was true then why is there over 4 times as many online games and on this fourm almost 99% of the time 2-3 times as many people on the civ 4 side

Just an observation here...

More folks read novels than read encyclopedias, but it doesn't mean that novels are higher quality literature, now does it? More popular does not necessarily equal better.

 

[Aceman101]

This is be my last post in this thread because it seems that every here just thinks civ 4 sucks and everything about the game is dumb.

No one said everything about civ 4 is dumb. I admit there are a few things in civ 4 that are better than in civ 3, but because I want a smooth game that wont take long to load and has that one more turn feeling, I play civ 3.

For civ 4 you basically need a really fast new computer. But if you want to save money you can still keep your old computer when playing civ 3 (Just not too old). But thats not the reason why I don't play civ 4.

It's always good to have a few people on different sides. And I completely accept that you play civ 4.

 

[grumbler]

Just an observation here...

More folks read novels than read encyclopedias, but it doesn't mean that novels are higher quality literature, now does it? More popular does not necessarily equal better.

Agreed. It just means that for most people novels are more enjoyable.

 

[Smidlee]

For civ 4 you basically need a really fast new computer. .

Actually I would say any average pc (by today standard) can easily run civ4 as long you have lots of ram. (1.5Gb) I've notice there more games today likes to use a Gig of ram.

I still at times play civ3 and civ 2 on an older pc. I wish at least one of them would come out for PSP.
***********
By the way WaterDragoon, Take a look at "Fall from Heaven 2" in civ4 modpacks. It's one of my favorite civ mods of all time. I like it just as much as if not more than the normal game. (You don't need Warlords to play it)