Civ3 or civ4?
- Thread starter WaterDragoon
- Start date
Kool Keith
Warlord
What kind of system do you have?
madviking
north american scum
Toshiba Satellite Notebook, Win XP
Ya will do. I noticed a drastic cut in wait times when I upgraded my graphics card with a 128mb 9550 RADEON to replace the crap onboard it came with. Those onboard G card steal tons of memory man. That move was a dream for huge maps but it went faster still when I boosted the system from to 718mb (from 206). Its done speeding up turns now I imagine.
I can usualy get under a minute on maps hovering close to 200x200 18-24 civs. Try that in CIV you wait that long just to get in "Domentic Advisor" menu!
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
A 9550 is really a pretty sucky video card and 128 meg is not all that much. I think your real gain came from eliminating the conflict between on-board GPU and the CPU. E.g. giving them separate memory.
Look. I'm a proud Canadian and everything too. But the fact remains that all the best value these days come from Nvidia. I didn't want to buy their stuff, but I would have been a fool not to. From the little I have read, ATI seems to be in the lead in the portable market. It's leapfrog anyway.
It's expected that prices on computer appliances will continue dropping for a while.
It depends in what country you're in. The prices vary very much.
That's true.
Well, ok, let's say chances are it's a good time to upgrade if you're somewhere in the western industrialized world and definitely if you're somewhere in Germany.
I have been to Germany before and I find the prices are more expensive then in Australia. But it is true that prices are dropping.
I only have a laptop. I do everything on it... Play civ, use the internet etc. It plays civ pretty good. But its a pretty backward laptop. It's only about 1 and a half years old. It's only got like 32mb graphics card, 256 mb ram, 1.6GHZ. But it plays civ pretty good. Only untill the late industrial and modern eras does it lag a bit. And especially when civ assist is open. But other then that its suprisingly fast.
I find it just as fun to play on a notebook. You don't need the latest graphics for civ 3.
It is not sucky!!
Ya, actually I know its crap , but Ive got two set ups so I have to split power both ways 
Im on a laptop aswell but I hear ya though. If its the way you say I'll consider Nvidia for maxium power. Like ya said It was the probably the onboard stealing that made the big dif.
Not sure if using 256 instead would have added to performance. In civ4 yes, but good question is what point does better tech not carry over to the performance of Civ3 on that system.
I know the specs were super low on the box at release but if the hardware hadn't been invented yet, hows a person to know back then if optimal performace has been reached? What part of Civ3's design rules out improvement from todays powerful computers?
Abegweit
Anarchist trader
I didn't realise we were talking civ3 here. A 9550 should be just fine for that. More than enough actually.It is not sucky!!
Im on a laptop aswell but I hear ya though. If its the way you say I'll consider Nvidia for maxium power. Like ya said It was the probably the onboard stealing that made the big dif.
Not sure if using 256 instead would have added to performance. In civ4 yes, but good question is what point does better tech not carry over to the performance of Civ3 on that system.
I know the specs were super low on the box at release but if the hardware hadn't been invented yet, hows a person to know back then if optimal performace has been reached?
Well, if the graphics response is instantaneous, how can it get better? If you want to improve response beyond that, the only thing that can help is a faster computer. It should improve the inter-turn waits, which is the only thing left.
I switched from onboard to 128 Radeon and saw improvment in turn time. I coudn't help but wonder if going from 128 to 256 would do the same. I ruled that pattern is broken based on what the onboard did (steal mem), to which the the 128 dosn't. (Remember, also went from 206mb to 718mb shortly after inorder to boost turntimes again)
I want to try and go even faster!!
So I guess we learned optimal performance in turn times (civ3)is more a matter of the size of the processor. But when are you at the right amount of Memory to where that rule kicks in?
See its complicated. I want to maximixe my performance but cuz Civ3 is the only game I play, I don't want to needlessly overspend (my insurance is coming up
). Im using a Dell 4500 dimension 1.9 G processor. Will a new 3.0 help? I can get so called deals remember?
Just wondering what hardened Civvers think, since I'm definitely only a casual myself.
I played Civ3 Conquests for a while and had some fun, but there are things I didn't like about it.
I bought Civ4 when it came out because I hoped it would fix some of the things I didn't like, but I didn't like Civ4 at all and soon stopped playing it.
Recently I went back to Civ3 and seem to be having more fun (and more success) than I've had previously with the game.
So what do you guys think? Is Civ3 a better game than Civ4? Or is it just a case of different flavours?
I played Civ3 Conquests for a while and had some fun, but there are things I didn't like about it.
I bought Civ4 when it came out because I hoped it would fix some of the things I didn't like, but I didn't like Civ4 at all and soon stopped playing it.
Recently I went back to Civ3 and seem to be having more fun (and more success) than I've had previously with the game.
So what do you guys think? Is Civ3 a better game than Civ4? Or is it just a case of different flavours?
Bartleby
Remembers laughter
I know I'm not the only one to have tried CivIV and found that I simply didn't get into it the way I did with CivIII.
I replaced my laptop a couple of months before the release of CivIV, and I deliberately bought a high-end machine that would run it. It does run CivIV beautifully, and I never had any of the graphics problems that were so bad for many people at the start, but I found that I just plain didn't like the game. I went back to C3C and I haven't looked back.
Now, when CivIII was released I didn't like that, but my old CivII disk wouldn't install on my laptop (WinME compatibility problem I think) so I had to stick with III and before long I couldn't imagine playing CivII. Who knows what would happen if I wasn't able to run CivIII for some reason, but you'd have to pry the disk from my cold, dead hands.
I replaced my laptop a couple of months before the release of CivIV, and I deliberately bought a high-end machine that would run it. It does run CivIV beautifully, and I never had any of the graphics problems that were so bad for many people at the start, but I found that I just plain didn't like the game. I went back to C3C and I haven't looked back.
Now, when CivIII was released I didn't like that, but my old CivII disk wouldn't install on my laptop (WinME compatibility problem I think) so I had to stick with III and before long I couldn't imagine playing CivII. Who knows what would happen if I wasn't able to run CivIII for some reason, but you'd have to pry the disk from my cold, dead hands.
Moderator Action: Threads merged.
Sashie VII
Balance of Power
Well the same question always pops out every once in a while 
Well, I see from this thread the consensus here is definitely that Civ3 is the better game
There are a lot of things about Civ4 I didn't like. Apart from those already mentioned on this thread, some of the other things I didn't like were the minimalist interface, the manner of building units, the units with their silly, finicky "special abilities" (swords get +50% against cities, axes +50% against other melee units, oh great but why?), and especially the tech tree.
The tech tree in Civ4 seems dumbed down somehow, there's no real sense of any "must have" techs, they appear to be much of a muchness, bronze is pretty much as good as iron and so on. It's almost as though they engineered it so players would never find themselves getting into trouble if they didn't have that vital resource or couldn't keep up.
Also, you seem to run through techs so quickly after the mid game that they are obsolete before you've had a chance to churn out a single unit of that era.
As far as the UI, just look at the world building interface as an example. In Civ3, you just go in and select world size, climate, age, land mass type and so on. It's totally transparent. What the heck did they do with Civ4? After days of play, and numerous visits to the Civ4 help forum, I managed to figure out what I needed to do to generate the type of world I wanted - kinda. I still didn't understand half of it though, and if I went back to the game now, I'd have to start all over again.
But I think it's the lack of tension in Civ4 that is the main problem. In Civ3, there is a constant sense of tension about the action that stays remarkably intact for much of the game. You've got to churn those cities out quickly, you've got to stay in touch in the tech race, find that vital resource etc. In my current game, for example, the game is in the modern era and I am rushing to try and steal Japan's aluminium to build nukes before it gets nukes itself. I also need the aluminium to build modern armour and artillery to fend off the Russkies. It's been that way pretty much for the whole game!
In Civ3 you have to make the right moves, you have to do some forward planning and juggle all kinds of different goals. It's kind of like a complicated game of chess that rewards planning and strategic thinking. You need some luck too of course (a little too much, I think!). You do feel for the most part though, that your Civ's destiny is in your own hands.
For all I know Civ4 may have the same qualities, but if it does, they are hidden below the surface and the gameplay was not compelling enough to make me want to dig.
That's cuz you're in the Civ3 forum. Go to the Civ4 forums, and Civ4 is the better game.Well, I see from this thread the consensus here is definitely that Civ3 is the better game
Oh yeah, I'm sure. I just posted though, because I was wondering if anybody here thinks Civ3 is a better game apart from me. Because for all I knew, the people participating in this forum all prefer Civ4 but just drop in here now and again to help out noobs and so on.
Well, for myself, six years later I remember the wonder and awe I felt of my first game. Even though it was the demo, I didn't get the same sense from Civ4.
I may eventually one day get it, but I'm in no rush.
I may eventually one day get it, but I'm in no rush.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
Well, that's not true. 
I don't think of Civ3 as "the older game". I think of it as "the game". Civ4 is "the failed continuation of the game", to me.
Edit: Crosspost.
I don't think of Civ3 as "the older game". I think of it as "the game". Civ4 is "the failed continuation of the game", to me.Edit: Crosspost.
Sashie VII
Balance of Power
I don't think that Civ4 is a 'failed' continuation
Rather, it's a significantly different continuation that has a different play and feel from the civ I'm familiar with that it does not appeal to me. It's good, it's fun, but I can have more fun with Civ3.
Rather, it's a significantly different continuation that has a different play and feel from the civ I'm familiar with that it does not appeal to me. It's good, it's fun, but I can have more fun with Civ3.
"Quoted for truth!"
Sorry, just had to use that saying once For being on the money, I think this was nicly stated screwtype. You captured the essence man and thats not always an easy thing
Well, I see from this thread the consensus here is definitely that Civ3 is the better game
There are a lot of things about Civ4 I didn't like. Apart from those already mentioned on this thread, some of the other things I didn't like were the minimalist interface, the manner of building units, the units with their silly, finicky "special abilities" (swords get +50% against cities, axes +50% against other melee units, oh great but why?), and especially the tech tree.
The tech tree in Civ4 seems dumbed down somehow, there's no real sense of any "must have" techs, they appear to be much of a muchness, bronze is pretty much as good as iron and so on. It's almost as though they engineered it so players would never find themselves getting into trouble if they didn't have that vital resource or couldn't keep up.
Also, you seem to run through techs so quickly after the mid game that they are obsolete before you've had a chance to churn out a single unit of that era.
As far as the UI, just look at the world building interface as an example. In Civ3, you just go in and select world size, climate, age, land mass type and so on. It's totally transparent. What the heck did they do with Civ4? After days of play, and numerous visits to the Civ4 help forum, I managed to figure out what I needed to do to generate the type of world I wanted - kinda. I still didn't understand half of it though, and if I went back to the game now, I'd have to start all over again.
But I think it's the lack of tension in Civ4 that is the main problem. In Civ3, there is a constant sense of tension about the action that stays remarkably intact for much of the game. You've got to churn those cities out quickly, you've got to stay in touch in the tech race, find that vital resource etc. In my current game, for example, the game is in the modern era and I am rushing to try and steal Japan's aluminium to build nukes before it gets nukes itself. I also need the aluminium to build modern armour and artillery to fend off the Russkies. It's been that way pretty much for the whole game!
In Civ3 you have to make the right moves, you have to do some forward planning and juggle all kinds of different goals. It's kind of like a complicated game of chess that rewards planning and strategic thinking. You need some luck too of course (a little too much, I think!). You do feel for the most part though, that your Civ's destiny is in your own hands.
For all I know Civ4 may have the same qualities, but if it does, they are hidden below the surface and the gameplay was not compelling enough to make me want to dig.
Sorry, just had to use that saying once
For being on the money, I think this was nicly stated screwtype. You captured the essence man and thats not always an easy thingSimilar threads
