Civ4 or Civ3: Which is the better game?

[meatwad4289]

I recieved Civ4 For christmas. I've played it twice now, plus once in Demo.
Ofcourse I didnt play much in the games because id restart alot. And I've played countless games of Civ3, and Even Civ Call to Power, as well as Civ and Civ2. I'll divide into several groups annd rate what I think and give my reasoning of why which is better. maybe some of you could do the same.

Leaders Personality:
But from what I can gather this is what I found.
In Civ 4 you get more personality in leaders. However in Civ 3 and other games, the leaders seemed to develop personality depending on situation. For example, tiny nations would either kiss up to you or hate you, larger nations would usually laugh at you or conquer you or protect you. Rival Nations would either join forces with you, attack you or leave you alone. all depending on Trade and property. From what I gather in Civ4 the Civ leaders on this are so personalized that they don't care what the situation is they act the same. Atleast each time I've played the greeks were friendly, and I've declared war on them each time, They would never declare war on me despite having more military power and my constant demand for monye or techs. The Japananse leader always got every1 to hate him, and the indians did nothing. Idk if its to early to say, perhaps others have experienced diffrent, but The AI in Civ4 may be improved but isnt based on situation.

I say Civ3 has better AI.

Graphics:
Civ4 no question has better graphics. Although The Terrian squares are alot bigger than the squares in Civ3 making the map look smaller in general.I also prefer the rhombus over the squares.

Advisors:
Lets face it Civ2 has the best Advisors. If Civ3 or Civ4 could of duplicated the live actors theres no question that the game would have sold atleast a million more copies lol. Anyway to put them in?? loljp. Anyways excluding the Civ2 live actors, Civ3 has better Advisors than Civ4, i think puttin a face on things helps out alot.

Units: I like the fact that Scouts can defend themselves from wild beasts, and Military units get a heal function. And the fact theres more units is even better. Especially the Route-To function for workers or improve around city. I don't like the 3 people thing tho. Although it adds a sense of realism because it seems natural that u never send a person out by themselves, i still prefer the one person per unit in the previous civs. And I also like the simple Unit stats thing, fight enough become elite etc, but I think I might enjoy the whole imrpovecertain aspects thing as well. Only prob I have is I like to have huge armies. By huge i mean I build massive walls protecting my borders, I dont really keep of what units doing what, so idk if id utilize it.

Bottom line, Civ4 units own.

Set-up: Civ3 set up and interface was alot easier to use, I liked the whole set up they had where u click the advisors button and u get to see ur advisors. The fact that they put all the advisors buttons right there kinda sucks.

Tech Tree -
I like the Tech Tree. Its new and diffrent allows alot more and makes sense, i mean. Don't care much about the diffrent era's Mostly cause i only think Ancient, Medievil, industrious and modern. but classical and al lthats good too


Cheating Aspects.
I use to think that Civ Call to Power had the ultimate Cheating ability. I mean u hit cheat menu button it pops up u get ur war walkers n gold as well as underwater cities and Space ships n colonies..(Do we get underwater cities or defense grid?????) always tanks war walkers and an extra 10k gold. then just destroy the enemy. Which was oddly enough fun because id play against my family members and we'd all be cheating lol so it even it out.

However after I seen the Civ4 cheat menu, its the same. well, theres more to it. like building improvements n such in cities, idk remember that in Call to Power. But its basically taking the Civ3 map editor and putting it in to the game so u can edit as you go. its pretty cool. Except im to tempted to use it. I mean literally, i start off and immediatly ill want all the power, i figure ill use it if i have to forexample, War time if i start loosing, or if i want to build a massive wall of troops, or ill use it to discover all the religions but hey thats what ya get when u make it so easy to acess cheating.

Overall id say civ4 is the best, but its not much of an improvement over Civ3. Religion is what really made it a better game, that and Barbarian Cities. Without those id say Civ3 would of been the best. Ofcourse Civ4 needs improvements like its whole advisor thing needs to be fixed up like the Civ3 one more, and we need a few more faces on those adivsors. and i wanna see a guy dressed up as elvis.


What do u guys think? What civ is the best? Why? Bring back The Civ 2 Adivsors(im pretty sure it was Civ2 and nto Civ1 that had the live actio nadvisors.

 

[iron_monkey]

I'm not too fussed about seeing faces on "advisers" really. I just want to see the info and that's it.

And while religion is a big poisitive in Civ4 the best thing about the new game for me is the unit promotions. There are so many choices meaning you've got to be prepared for anything. Although having said that the new civics are a massive improvement over the single government type in the older games. So...hmmm civics or promotions...one is the best new feature.

And Civ4 over Civ 3? Any day. It's a million times better. I never played Civ2 so can't comment but Civ1 will always be special to anyone who ever played it.

 

[King Flevance]

I liked this evaluation.
Here is a couple of things I will add.

AI - You should try out a few longer games if you havent already. The AI may be better than you are giving it credit for. I think it is the best addition to 4 myself although I agree 3 and 4 are about the same, yet I would choose a game of 3 over 4 for now.
Their relations depend on how you interact with them throughout the whole game now. No more buying their favor with 2000 gold. Also take time to watch your foriegn advisors and make your friends/enemies based off of viewing how other leaders are veiwing each other.

I too agree that advisors should all be in 1 area, so you can go from domestic advisor to military advisor, (P.S. Fix him and add nukes to the unit list), science advisor, etc. in one click. Civ 3 had an awesome interface and it stayed out of the way.

Units are cooler now, hopefully military GP get brought in soon.

Tech Tree - the and/or thing is very cool. But I think it would be nice to add more techs. It seems too small and I dont think increasing the research values will be the answer to this alone.

The best Civ, 4. Only because the AI adds an enormous amount of depth through diplomacy. I havent played 1.52 yet, I hope combat has fixed so that they dont hermit inside their cities still. It looks like they fixed the pillage wars.

 

[warpstorm]

IMHO, you haven't played enough to judge the AI yet. The AI in Civ4 is much stronger than Civ3's.

 

[MadMaligor]

I have to say the leaders in Civ IV have by far a greater personality than previous civs. I seriouslly hate certain leaders (Tokugawa and Napoleon can both bite me) and have found that certain others will go to great lengths to help once they are solid friends (Gandhi and Peter for example). There are distinct flavors, tactics, diplomacy traits, and even "styles" of play.

When I want a suprise or two I have the generator random the personality traits. =)

 

[meatwad4289]

You haven't played enough to judge the AI yet. The AI in Civ4 is much stronger than Civ3's.

no doubt its stronger. I'm just saying i liked in Civ3 when u were a super power people either loved u or hated u, and it depended on ur trading. The whole thing where htey interact with u based on the entire game is a bit bad, for me atleast. now if you kno my strategy ullcertainly understand why, i like civs that need money and trade then andnow rather than developing relations with some nations.

See I like to sign military alliances with every nation possible to destroy nations I can easily attack. Simply because, I dont worry about these nations attacking me. Eliminating the nearest nation that I outnumber is first on my agenda. Then massive build up of a miltary wall on the country on my new border(s) once i have more than enough troops, sign a right of passage, send in the troops while still maintaining wall. wait for it to end. declare war, get alliances. Destroy. Same with the next nation.. Now if they remember this simple startegy, they might not except my bribes to keep them quiet and shut up. Usually after doing this twice, the next nation on the list gets scared and hates me. So onc n a while i gotta get a foothold on other continents, massive naval attack take all their coastal cities nearest to me, as well as islands. call miltary alliances. bam. Then hold still for the rest of the era.

So u can see i need the goldfish minds of Civ3, so i can bribe them and get my way to domination.. I started playin a new round using custom civilization i dl from here. I actually figured I wanna see all sides of it. So I hit multiplayer turn on the HotSeat and I'm Both Franklin Roosevelt of the Americans and General Robert E. Lee of The Confederates. lol. I was hopin theyd start next to eachother, so i could expand one north one south or one eats and one west, but idk how far they are apart. I figured ill have them do diffrent civics and religions to see how they react to other nations. and also, so i have more power and I can crush them all. end of the Game, one of them will surrendor to the other. lol


This is the 2nd time ive met the japanese leader, and well. this time hes friendly. for first few meetings lol

 

[Corbeau]

Wait... are you complaining that the AI isn't stupid anymore about international diplomacy, and thus it's worse? Pardon me if I sound a bit confused, because I guess that I am...

Personally, I find it hard to even imagine going back to Civ3. Civ4 isn't perfect, but it's miles ahead of Civ3 in every phase of the game (yes, even military: I happen to think that the new system is simply but very effective at generating interesting tactical and strategic situations). The user interface of Civ4, though confusing at first, has become very easy to use over time (and I appreciate the fact that I don't have to thumb through several advisor screens each turn - sticking with the world view is much nicer!). Domestic management has become much more interesting with the new upkeep system. Government is, hands down, simply better than Civ3 (I'm still not sure that it beats Alpha Centauri, but I guess you can't win 'em all). AI and foreign relations are not perfect, but are more interesting than the mind bogglingly shallow AI of Civ3 (plus the new AI will make some darn good strategic moves). As others have already stated, the Civ4 tech tree is much better than the tech tree in Civ3.

So, yeah, I kinda think that Civ4 completely blows Civ3 out of the water.

 

[la cosa nostra]

Leaders Personality:
But from what I can gather this is what I found.
In Civ 4 you get more personality in leaders. However in Civ 3 and other games, the leaders seemed to develop personality depending on situation. For example, tiny nations would either kiss up to you or hate you, larger nations would usually laugh at you or conquer you or protect you. Rival Nations would either join forces with you, attack you or leave you alone. all depending on Trade and property. From what I gather in Civ4 the Civ leaders on this are so personalized that they don't care what the situation is they act the same. Atleast each time I've played the greeks were friendly, and I've declared war on them each time, They would never declare war on me despite having more military power and my constant demand for monye or techs. The Japananse leader always got every1 to hate him, and the indians did nothing. Idk if its to early to say, perhaps others have experienced diffrent, but The AI in Civ4 may be improved but isnt based on situation.

I say Civ3 has better AI.

That only true to a certain extent, however I've been at war with Greeks and Indians (declared by them) and in good trading relations with Tokugawa. I find that adding certain personality traits is better than having everyone the same and letting power alone decide.

Units: I like the fact that Scouts can defend themselves from wild beasts, and Military units get a heal function. And the fact theres more units is even better. Especially the Route-To function for workers or improve around city. I don't like the 3 people thing tho. Although it adds a sense of realism because it seems natural that u never send a person out by themselves, i still prefer the one person per unit in the previous civs.

You can change to 1 person models in graphics settings

That aside I think that Civ3 with Conquests applied is still the best Civ until the Civ4 expansion comes out.

 

[homeyg]

...and Military units get a heal function...Especially the Route-To function for workers or improve around city.

ummm, CivIII already had these.

...and Even Civ Call to Power

Why the hell don't you people understand that Call to Power is not part of the Sid Meier's Civilization series?

Cheating Aspects.

How good a game is is not determined by how easy it is for you to cheat. Why don't you play the game and get good at it without cheating?


As for me, CivIII had some missing things and CivIV did a good job putting them in, yet CivIV also removed some things I like that CivIII had, so I basically like both of them equally.

 

[Jecrell]

Civilization IV is a much better game imo. If I were to compare Civ3 to Civ4 I'd have to write out at least 3 pages before some people will be satisfied with my opinion. However, I will say that the game was so much more refreshing with new graphics, a strong AI, fast paced gameplay, enjoyable multiplayer, and was easy for me to get into and start modding. All very arguable points, but those are good enough reasons for me.

Note, I never tried modding in Civ3, maybe I was just lazy.

 

[Zhahz]

Civ IV by far in about every way possible. Civ III at its heart is too exploitable and lends itself too much to "strategies" that are less about strategy and tactics than they are about manipulating bad gameplay.

 

[meatwad4289]

alright...

I'm in the middle of my 4th Game now, and because I wanted to experience more parts of the game, I made it multiplayer and hotseat. So far, I'm dominating with both nations. And still have yet to meet myself lol. The Japanese went from very polite to very angry quick, the Romans and greeks love me, and the rest dont care. And, funny thing is they rarely talk. I mean, once i na blue moon they'll pop up a thing "wanna open borders?" or "Stop trading with the spanish" the greeks and romans have traded techs with me twice and thats about it. in civ3, I had every leader on their own try to make deals with me every 10 turns. which makes this pretty odd.

Anyway, about the whole civ ai misunderstanding. my point was, that the Civs in Civ3 thought about the now these civs think about the all. Alright, so lets say u get the tech to make a nuke, but hey guess what China is the only one on the planet with uranium and they dont feel like trading because 3000 years ago u took half their land, and allowed 3 other nations to take another quarter of it? I'd rather have it to where if the main government changes IE democracy communism monarchy. When they change I believe the foriegn relations should be changed. perhaps give a fresh start to the relationship or something. The japanese have been mad at me for clsoe to 300 years because i rejected their proposal to stop trade with Mansa Musa. thats just outrages. Other than that, i dont care about the AI.

now about the cheating misunderstanding. Alright. You ever just wanna have fun and nuke france or china or some stupid little place? or go ahead and crea a fullscale war with an even ammount of tanks n nukes for everyone? The cheating menu is cool for those. But its way to tempting, because its easy to access. And i kno i wont remember to turn cheating off all the time. And i kno if i use to to get extra gold, ill end up with 400 tanks instead. its neat but tempting to tempting.

I dont give a damn if call to power was a sid meier or not, I dont care if he made it or if it came out of a monkeys ass its a good game. And it had alot of good ideas, underwater colonies, space colonies. Defense Grid. I mean honestly, wh ocan say " Those ideas suck" wel lacutally the space on wasnt to good but underwater cities. That was freaki nawesome. it gave a way to smaller nations to expand. too bad all it did was helpme surround the other nations lol.

 

[sassoundwave]

for a long time I was in favour of Civ3. As in Civ4 it just didn't work out well. Untill I changed my strategies (using the civ3 strategies still) and then suddenly the full power of Civ4 came forward.
Civ4 rules over Civ3, and it is the first civ-version that made me really threat is a new game, while all others where the same game, with some cool new looks and add-ons, which was nice too.

 

[Psyringe]

Anyway, about the whole civ ai misunderstanding. my point was, that the Civs in Civ3 thought about the now these civs think about the all. Alright, so lets say u get the tech to make a nuke, but hey guess what China is the only one on the planet with uranium and they dont feel like trading because 3000 years ago u took half their land, and allowed 3 other nations to take another quarter of it? I'd rather have it to where if the main government changes IE democracy communism monarchy. When they change I believe the foriegn relations should be changed. perhaps give a fresh start to the relationship or something. The japanese have been mad at me for clsoe to 300 years because i rejected their proposal to stop trade with Mansa Musa. thats just outrages. Other than that, i dont care about the AI.

I actually struggle to understand you, which I find a little difficult because I sometimes have to guess which words you really wanted to type. Anyways. From what I understand, you want the AI to specifically suit your playing style, and frankly I'm glad that it doesn't. The AI was very exploitable in previous civ games because it only scarcely remembered your past aggressions. It does so now, and I'm glad that it provides a greater challenge now. The change you propose would bring back this exploitability. I wouldn't want to go back to a less competent AI.

 

[Brewster]

I would have to give my vote to Civ4 simply based on the UN alone. Civ4 improves on almost every facet of the game. Better AI, better military options, better graphics (but who plays for the graphics), better civics, and a vastly improved UN. Unfortunately, it has yet to grab me like Civ3 did (JOMT syndrom). Perhaps it is because I now have a girlfriend and a life outside of Civ.

 

[Bushface]

For me, Civ III was no fun because of the horrible corruption, though you could at least boost your distant cities (expensively) by building units in the richer places to send out and disband. That's the one feature I miss in Civ IV, i.e. getting some cash back when disbanding, or selling obsolete buildings.

The AI in Civ IV seems more human than in earlier versions, though it does make some weird decisions, like starting to build SS Casing in its only remaining city, which is already under heavy attack. And have you looked at the Funny Screenshots thread? Also, the AI sometimes posesses its own special technology, the Crystal Ball, for seeing things before they happen.

I like being able to see the odds of combat success, albeit the arithmetic is occasionally peculiar - as it is in other situations.

Overall, I think Civ IV is by far the best of the series. Surely there must be more to come: even more technologies, prettier graphics, more possible buildings, and so on.

 

[rabottens]

I prefer Civ iv over civ iii. For many of the same reasons that you have listed. The graphics and sound features Rox. Took some time to get adjusted to the expansion/cost in relation to previous games. To me Civ IV is a complete new genre based from previous sequels but the rules have change enough to make it a complete new game. What may have worked in 1,2, or 3 is not going to work in 4. It is more challenging and addicting. They have done an excellent job in making this game a success.

 

[PoU2]

Here is what I don't like about Civ4 compared to Civ3:

1. Poorly implemented unit stacks. The interface is plainly dumb. I have played 3 games and still do not quite understand how it works. Very very inconvenient unit management. Having stack of 20 units some damaged you spend cool 30 sec just to select healty ones. Also when stack of units is selected and the game asks if you want to promote some unit - you don't see unit eligible for promotion! I scroll them one by one to find it.

2. Reduced effect of Culture. In Civ3 you had to keep military units if your Culture is low. I think that was reasonable - if you barbarian you have to apply force to keep conquered cities under control. Now conquered city never defects to the previous owner, which is not real.

3. Religions add something to the game, but they are faceless. Every religion is like every other religion. I understand that Firaxis do not want to make one religion better than the other. But adding religions this style do not really add much to the game. And I still don't see the benefit of converting to the late religions, like christianity.

4. Game is too tough on pc resources for turn based strategy title. It is not nearly as beautiful as it should be for the requirements it has. I would scrap such 3d for good, well painted 2d anytime. Warcraft2 or Starcraft looked better with their 2D, than this one with 3D. This game is really long. For this title user wants convenient interface and fast response times! 3D is not evil, but if you can't implement it well, better don't touch it. This game does not really need one. Unit combat animations are worse compared to even Civ3.

5. I liked Civ3 production governor. It was not the dream come true, but it was customizable. I can't tune it in Civ4 so it is useless for me. Also I would appreciate one-click (or no-click) military unit pumping option. In my last game I had produced maybe 60 cavalry units. Oh boy, how boring it is to look for cavalry unit in production list over and over again.

I like this game, but it is definitely not the best they could make. But still there could be much done to improve the game.

Alpha Centauri 2 FTW!

 

[fishlore]

Well I actually used to enjoy playing Civ 3. I don't think there is a strong enough word to describe how much I loathe Civ 4. I'd have to give the nod to Civ 3 because after a week I still had the desire to play it every once in a while. Civ 4 was on my hard drive for about a week after release. I consider Civ 3 moderately fun and Civ 4 an ugly, redundant, repetitive, piece of trash.

 

[Red Door]

Civ 4 is better without any mods or anything added to it.
But because of all the great mods people created for Civ 3, I think Civ 3 is much better at the moment. Once the modding gets into full gear, Civ 4 will be a much better game.