Civ4 or Civ3: Which is the better game?

I have a system about the same as that too....
2 ghz Athlon
768 - 333 mhz RAM
256 MB Visiontek Xtasy 9500

I can play at high settings for everything with like 2x AA and I just get slight pauses at end of turns and switching units... I don't have a prob with crashes....

I'm having the same problem as meatwad on the weak AI thing, but then again we aren't playing very hard difficulties... I'll play up to Monarch and Prince and stuff before I make any assumptions... They don't seem very easy to bribe though...

I love the customization in your Civ, such as civics, the different types of cities you can make, natural wonders, new tile improvements... etc, etc, etc.... There's nothing like having a city with about 12 towns around it with free speech and natural wonders, making it pump out about 250 commerce, makes you feel all cozy inside...
 
I have a problem with the customization of the government. For Example, the Republic can't hurry production? I think Hurrying Production should be in the labor department. Universal Suffrage gets people to vote, not hurry labor. Hell add in a Criminal Justice civic choose whether you kill, imprison, or rehabilitate criminals.

Also is there anything that cuts military upgrades inhalf? I hate spending 200 in gold for 200 riflemen to become infantry or mech infantry, since when i needed to upgrade troops i was pretty low on money, i mean i had the cash to upgrade them, i would just go broke for a few turns.

I think ill try another game or two on a higher difficulty level. Then ill try something diffrent. Ill give everyone all the techs n the world. and see how a world War will go. If i start my people in the modern Era will Cities already be built? one way id like to play is Techs dont matter, build ur empire or. Techs dont matter your empire is built take ur enemys. Imagine if u could build an empire and put all ur money in military, or culture and military rather than research.

Anyways. Good game needs improvements, more AI's. I've installed the confederacy, but i want more than just that, but im afriad i may erase the confederacy by installing others.
 
meatwad4289 said:
Also is there anything that cuts military upgrades inhalf? I hate spending 200 in gold for 200 riflemen to become infantry or mech infantry, since when i needed to upgrade troops i was pretty low on money, i mean i had the cash to upgrade them, i would just go broke for a few turns.


Lots.... and lots.... and lots of towns... they won't cut the cost... but having +400 gold a turn while staying ahead in techs makes it not seem so bad... combine with free speech and you are good to go.... I had 25,000 gold stockpiled in my last game, so if I got attacked I could've just beefed up units where I needed them ^^ Alot of people don't upgrade though, because it is so expensive. I...am lazy.
 
gimhalos said:
Lots.... and lots.... and lots of towns... they won't cut the cost... but having +400 gold a turn while staying ahead in techs makes it not seem so bad... combine with free speech and you are good to go.... I had 25,000 gold stockpiled in my last game, so if I got attacked I could've just beefed up units where I needed them ^^ Alot of people don't upgrade though, because it is so expensive. I...am lazy.
i kno i ended up with about 35000 last game but thats long after i discovered all techs and had major cut backs on research, plus I.. Took over the world. lol when i was taking over the Aztecs and Spanish i rapidly gained techs to upgrade troops and well, by the time i was done with the war, I noticed Alexander started upgrading his troops to what mine were. I spent every dime to upgrade. After I took Greece, i didnt need anymore upgrades. well i had one riflemen that survived everywar by the end of the game. I sent him to each War front, and it always ended when he got there lol. I always sent him to the capitals. I remember it was the first rifle men i got sent him to madrid then tenochitlan then athens, then rome, then timbuktu, then Kyote. He never fought behind enemy lines always nuetral terroritory. poor little rifleman.. idk why he never got upgraded.
 
I have not played Civ 4 as extensively as Civ 3 or 2 or even 1, but IMHO Civ 4 is the better game for numerous reasons:

1) Religion. This is a critically needed aspect of the game that should have been incorporated in earlier versions. I love this addition and could not go back to another version without it.

2) Corruption. In this version, you can build a city halfway across the world, and it can be instantly productive, unlike civ 3 where you needed a buttload of specialists and population before farflung cities could be of any use. It was very annoying in Civ 3 to build a city just barely outside the "corruption area" where no matter what you did building-wise, it never produced anything, until you discovered the requisite specialist technologies and applied them within the city. (Or built your palace/forbidden palace.)

Granted, this game has a new corruption annoyance in the form of paying for new and distant cities, and growing in the beginning is much harder, but I'll gladly trade the lack of expansionism early for the ability to build a city anywhere (provided you have the cash) and being able to make it a worthwile city without any specialists or rebuilding of palaces.

3) AI. I completely disagree that the AI is dumber. They actually attack you in this game with a worthwile offense on the harder difficulty levels, unlike civ 3 where I NEVER had to restart a game due to a computer's army being unbeatable and them taking me by surprise. (One more example of this is invading fleets; in this game the AI will finally invade you from the sea with a worthwile fleet, like seven or eight galleons full of units, unlike civ 3 and below where the AI would be content attacking with a caravel with three longbowmen.) In civ 3 and all the ones before it, you could bank on the AI not defending anything with more than 3 units (except the capitol). In this game they will defend their cities bordering your civ with a far more worthy defense than before. The AI is still not a genius or anywhere near human competition, and much of the difficulty still comes from the AI cheating, but they are nonetheless a lot more improved from older versions.

4) Resources. I like the addition of all the resources and having them being "tradeable" and important as opposed to civ 3 where there were a few actual "resources" such as silk and oil, and then there were cows, tobacco, etc. which were just terrain enhancements.

5) The tech tree! I like being able to beeline for something.

6) Roads are no longer required everywhere. However, I don't really like Railroads being limited to 10 movements, I prefer the old rail way system.

7) Unit upgrades. You can upgrade almost anything, and although it is expensive, money seems to not have as much use for stuff other than this. (Unless you are one of the civics that allows purchasing stuff, I forget which one.)

As far as gripes, I also have a few:
1) I agree that the advisors could have a bit more info, such as the military advisor and the economics advisor, but I think in this version they are trying to simplify things, the economic side specifically, which is why the economic advisor is a bit thin. I dont mind the civics, I played a lot of Alpha Centauri back in the day so I am used to it, but some of them are a little weak and to me pointless. I don't mind the lack of advisor faces/personalities, I thought they were annoying anyways and didnt really offer any good advice.

2) The diplomacy. There isn't much different here other than the AI being harder to deal with, as far as I can tell. I also find it really annoying that it is a negative for me to not "give" them stuff when they demand it. And whatever happened to trading resources for something other than resources? It's also annoying that the AI is far less likely to want to go to war for you, I didn't really see much wrong with being able to buy the AI in older versions. I wasn't the type to buy all my advancements anyways, I tried to stay ahead of them towards the endgame. (In the beginning it was nice to buy, say, pottery, for 60 gold. I miss that!) Money is a lot less useful in this game, other than for upgrading units. I like the old civ 3 advisor who told you if your offer was acceptable or not.

3) My main gripe is the lack of civilizations! I was sorely dissappointed that there was a significant downgrade in the number of civs to choose from in this version, but I believe this and other issues are easily addressed in upgrades and expansion packs, which I am eagerly awaiting.

4) More modern units please! Battleships are not the be all and end all of naval warfare in the modern world, in fact they are quite old fashioned these days. And why do transports get weaker and weaker with every version of civ that comes out? I remember when they transported 8 units, what happened to that? Are you telling me a modern trans. can only fit one more thing than a three hundred year old galleon? Gimme a break!

Like I said before, most of my gripes are easily modded/fixed with expansion packs and such, so to make a long post short, I like the new version and thoroughly enjoy the changes. Now to try and get as much out of this game as I can until school starts at the end of Jan.!
 
PoU2 said:
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.

I am currently playing a game where I got Islam, the last religion left, and I was lucky enough that no one on my continent had any religion yet so it spread quickly around my continent to the 4 or so civs on it. (Huge world, prince difficulty) Once I get my shrine built I figure I will have about 50 or so extra gold per turn without even sending out a single missionary yet. So, even though the late religions don't necessarily spread on their own (unless you are lucky like me), it is still incredibly useful to have any religion of your own for money and spying reasons, you just need to spread it a bit more on your own.
 
I agree about the advisors, but they'll likely incorporate some of the mods that have been forming around here (like they did with the score graph). The interface is thankfully very easy to edit in the game.

I do miss the Council though. They were a lot of fun. :)
 
My oppinion after the first game of civ4:
I think the new graphic is much worse than civ3. Maybe it's a matter of getting use to it, but why on earth use 3d in a turnbased strategy game? The purpose of the graphic chosen should be to make it as clear as possible.
All the units look the same now unless you zoom very close (and so see them from the front instead of the top), which makes it more difficult and annoying to manage your civ.

And why are the enemy civs now being referred to by the name of their leader?

I'm glad they dropped the stupid people-will-build-you-a-palace thing though, since it didn't do anything, and to those of you who miss the advisors from
civ2: ????what???? are you serious? They were so ugly with their strange 'dancing'.

For now I think civ3-Conquest is the best game ever...
 
imho civ4 is better than civ3, but i miss some aspects from civ3. mostly the advisor faces :)
 
Whistlewood said:
why on earth use 3d in a turnbased strategy game? The purpose of the graphic chosen should be to make it as clear as possible.
Which is exactly one of the reasons why Brad Wardell said he designed GalCiv2 3-D instead of 2-d spites like the first GalCiv. As Brad pointed out when GalCiv (especially civ3) came out almost everyone was using CRT monitors (except the laptops of course) but now, including himself, a lot of gamer have LCD monitors which only looks good at their native resolution. 3-d advantage over 2-d is it looks good at many dfferent resolutions. But this isn't so with 2-d , it only look good at the resolution the game was design (both Civ3 and GalCiv ran at 1024x768) while a LCD only looks good at it max resolution. Thus going 3-D solves this problem which makes a game look as clear as possible with so many different LCD resolutions.
 
For me, its CIV 4 by a landslide. In CIV III, I really liked some of the mods, but it was always expand ASAP, build artillery, and kill. Some of the mods (like Rhye's) reduced this. Nonetheless, I think CIV IV is better in just about every way.

Fortunately, I have a powerhouse computer so some of the technical issues may mean less to me.

Breunor
 
Alright.. Its been what 2 months? I've played SEVERAL GAMES and now I can give a more accurate opinion on the games.. In a few simple areas ill explain.. Advisors, Units, Governments, Foriegn relations, AIs, trade, advancements(Tech Trees,wonders, n such) misc controls(Open borders, ect)

IS Civ IV better than Civ III?

1) Advisors...
4's Advisors Blow. Alright the Military adivsor SUCKS!!!!!!!! Foriegn advisor is alright(i like seeing how they interact with eachother) other than that, the advisors need major overhauls toward a more 3ish way, I liked my military advisor saying "We can support a larger army" or "Compared to these guys we havea strong military" I liked Advisors actually advising. Ofcourse theres no beating the Civ2 Advisors.

On Advisors Civ3 Wins.

2) Units...
4's Units are almost the same as Civ3s, However there are more options. Stacking is great, especially since in Civ3 u needed an Army guy. Also Route-To is also great. Artilery really makes a diffrence in this game. Disappointing though that units like the Cruise misssle(or was it tactical missles?) is no longer available I liked beign able to move those missles to the cities close to an enemys border, plus they were built faster than ICBMs and lets face it ICBMs were one of the last things u considered using(saving it for time in need) now its the only thing you can use until its no longer an advantage.

I do like promotions however, they add an extra thing to troops, which sometimes is annoying, but can sometimes decide whether or not a battle is winable.

On Units Civ 4 Wins

3) Governments...
4's Government is more complexed than 3's. Alot more options for customization, however.. Universal Suffrage allows you to hurry production by paying for it? Alright, that doesnt make sense. Other than flaws like that Civ4s governments are better than Civ3s. Even tho 3s seem more realistic.

On Govenrments Civ 4 Wins.

4)Foriegn Relations
In Civ 3, you could have major disputes and then bribe your enemy and he'd forget it. in Civ 4, you could have major disputes, bribe your enemy, and he might forget it. I do like relation ships + or - thing. That is a huge improvement, you help them they like you. I dont like the trade with enemies thing, especially when their not enemies(its happened a bit they are pleased with eachother, then one turn they say.. Stop Trading, and then they hate eahcother. But all in all I gotta say Civ4s relations are better.

On Relations.. 4 wins.

5) AI
While Playing Civ3 it seemed easy to bend the AI to your will, Military alliances, ECT. However, the more you bend the more they bend against you. in Civ4, as long as you have the same religion, and a powerful military the AI does what ever you want short of giving cities. Certain AI's do stand out, like Montezuma, and the spanish chick. But other than that you pretty much bend anybody to your will. If your same religion you send them to war, if your in war, they'll come to your aid no matter what. A few techs or a world map and they'll send their entire military to war for you. Once in a while you get a few who say, Nope cant do it right now, and actually stand up to me. but not many.

In AI, They are ALMOST Equal although the Civ 4 may have better strategies in military, and everything, they are much more easier to bend to my will. in Civ 3 they stood up to me after the 3rd or 4th invasion. And im actually giving 4 a little more credit than it deserves in AI department. I Say Civ3's AI is better simply because they dont like gettign ripped off in a deal. in Civ4 I say give me 10 peices of gold per turn and ill give you rice. in Civ 3 its normally 10 peices of gold per a turn for oil and a peace treaty.
So CIV3 Wins in AI

6) Trading...
Trading in Civ4 is ALOT BETTER. I mean theres more resources to trade, you can trade anything. and everything. However there are a few limitations i dont like. I think you should be able to trade gold per turn for ANYTHING.

Civ4 Wins in Trading.

7) Advancements
Alright.. Tech Tree is definatly better under Civ4, mostly because of the ALTernative routes. However I liked the Civ3 Tech Tree arrangement and eras better. Wonders tho, those are split down the middle. Some of the things you get on Civ4 suck, and some are unbeleivable. same with Civ3 wonders.

I give Civ4 Advancements because of the alternative routes.

8) Misc Controls...
Open Borders vs Rights of Passage...
Open Borders agreements are better than the Civ3 RoPs. If You had an Agreement it was alright but in Civ3 if they went in ur terroritory or they went in yours it could start a war. I like in Civ4 how they avoided that and made it open borders or no entry.

Passing Units...
In Civ3 only unites of the same nationality were allowed to occupy same space, in Civ4 anyone can go anywhere. I think Civ3s idea was better, however i think if you have open borders you should be allowed to cross over your friends units.

Mountians...
I like mountians better in Civ4, simply because I have realized the Defensive/offensive power they give you. For example lets say theres a huge continent thats seperated by a giant gulf, and then mountians, and theres a single tile open to travel thru, If you can Fortify this tile with a city and troops, it will allow you to easily Expand into your enemies part of the continent. If this was Civ3, it would make no difffrence at all.

In the end, Civ 4 Wisn the Misc Category simply because its open borders idea is near perfect and the mountians idea is either a great challenge or a great gift to those war mongerers out there like me.


Conclusion...
These are the only ones i could think of off the top of my head. I can tell you after months of experience and SEVERAL(somewhere between 25 and 30 games) Games of Civ4, as well as years of experience and countless games of Civ3, That Civ4 is the better of the two but not by much. There are features in Civ4 that are perfect, but there are features in it that need a little Civ3 Touch. It's also very lacking, there needs to be more added to it, like actual space ships or underwater cities, or bridges or something COOL. Civ4 is a great game, but isnt alot better than Civ3. As a matter of fact take out the religions, leonard nemoy, and the graphics and you have an expansion pack after Civ3 Conquest.
 
-- deleted --
 
I will make this quick and easy...

CIV4 is better than CIV3
CIV3 is better than CIV2
CIV2 is better than CIV1

I think each new version was hands down better than the previous. There were better graphics, more features, more gameplay, more options, better AI, and more units, not to mention improved interface. I could never understand how there were always a few who would claim a previous version was better. So basically, I don't know why someone would even ask whats a better game CIV4 or CIV3, I think the answer is obvious. I mean CIV3 was the best ever until CIV4 conquered it.
 
Meatawad,

I don't want to argue with an opinion of yours -- if you think CIV IV is only slightly better than Civ III, that's fine.

As a game reviewer for over 20 years', though, I disagree with the presentation of your argument as being 'features' based.

Many games are compared on features. Game x has tanks, but game y has tanks and tank destroyers!

The effectiveness of most games, though, come down to how the game works. I've played simple wargames with 6 pages of rules that were better than 50 pagers.


CIV IV largely eliminated key exploits, or more important, tried to eliminate 'best' strategies. When I look at CIV III, and reviewed it, I felt that its biggest weakness was that the key to winning was expansion. Once I was experienced, I knew if I was going to win or not at highest levels after the expansion phase was over.

Wargaming was THE best strategy, and on high levels, using artillery as your key componenet was THE wargaming tactic.

Other ways to win were possible, but they were almost challenges.

These were major changes int he design, they arn't CIV II expansions.


So, to me, if CIV IV didn't have any new features, it would be vastly better. ICS is NOT the key to victory. Building zillions of artillery is not the way to victory. Cutural, spaceship, and conquest victores seem to be balanced. For me, and people like me, this makes it vastly better.


Best wishes,

Bruenor
 
meatwad4289 said:
I liked my military advisor saying "We can support a larger army" or "Compared to these guys we havea strong military" I liked Advisors actually advising. Ofcourse theres no beating the Civ2 Advisors.

Uhhhhhhhh, why don't you just look at the power graph? In 2 seconds I can see how I stack up against *all* the civs in the game, all at once. Vs. Civ 3 where you had to check each civ one at at time and cycle through the advisor sayings until he told you how strong you were.

As for being able to support a larger army. Ummmmm, are you making money and have a tech rate you like? Then you can support a larger army. ;)
 
bonscott said:
Uhhhhhhhh, why don't you just look at the power graph? In 2 seconds I can see how I stack up against *all* the civs in the game, all at once. Vs. Civ 3 where you had to check each civ one at at time and cycle through the advisor sayings until he told you how strong you were.

As for being able to support a larger army. Ummmmm, are you making money and have a tech rate you like? Then you can support a larger army. ;)
lol well its pretty obvious. but. power isnt based on military assets alone. On Civ3, same thing, but i like the advisors actually advising.. i prefer civ34 advisors over civ4. But civ2 has the best
 
i miss the foreign advisor for trades. now i have to click "do you accept?" everytime instead of just looking at my advisor and adding some more gold till he says it's acceptable
 
thordk said:
i miss the foreign advisor for trades. now i have to click "do you accept?" everytime instead of just looking at my advisor and adding some more gold till he says it's acceptable

If you choose "what will make this deal work" the AI will give you it's best deal automatically so you'll get the max amount of gold you can get that way. No fuss, no muss.
 
meatwad4289 said:
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.

It sounds to me that you're playing at a lower level. Alexander is one of the Agressive civs and someone you have to watch for, especially if your military is weak. Almost always I end up in a war with him, whether I want to or not. He's not as bad as Montezuma though.
 
Back
Top Bottom