Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by wii46, Apr 13, 2010.
More generally, I feel generally that the strategic resources mechanic was only got right in Civ 4.
everybody is saying "get rid of civ3" because you are on the civ4 forum!!
you will get different results if you ask the guys on theciv3 forum!!!
Get both. IMO 3 has by far the best scenarios and is great even playing regular games.
4 Though has the better game overall and better mods. But the scenarios are generally boring.
True, the scenarios had more replayabillity in III. I also liked some aspects of III's bombardment system. While it wasn't perfect, overall I think I prefer it to IV's suicide siege.
CIV III was great, it kept me up playing for hours at a time... then CIV IV came, it kept me up playing for days at a time and still does. No matter how often or how many times I've played CIV IV it NEVER gets old.
If you absolutely, positively, stand no chance of being able to decide between Civ 3 and 4:
Get Civ 1
At this point, why not? More Civ is better Civ. Besides, it has been said thart this product does not have a disk check feature.
Not a fan of Civ3. Game mechanics and safeguards against degenerate playstyles were somewhat broken, as a result I found gameplay artificial and unsatisfying.
It also became bogged down in too many bureaucratic optimisation problems rather than true decisions. Civ4 is quite good at having a lot of valid playstyles and tough decisions.
I've played Civ III and Civ IV and... I must say somethings were better in Civ III and others in Civ IV... overall, after playing Civ IV I don't see myself going back to Civ III so I think Civ IV is slightly better main due to the following reasons:
- Promotions! They are fun and much better than the experience level in III
- Being able to enter allies land (that was annoying in Civ III)
- Being able to give military units
I only hoped that Civ V would be the junction of the good stuff of III + the good stuff of IV... but it seems not, from what I hear! (this is general impression of thing read in this site without having tried Civ V)
True! I've all Civs but play only 1 at the moment. From one point, because of DosBox it's truly cross-platform and I get no problems running it on Linux. But Civ4 & 5 are fairly easy to install & run on modern versions of that system. Somehow Civ1 is appealing enough to stick with it. It has simple and streamlined game-play with dynamic conquest. It's quite unpredictable and even in sure-win you can find yourself in withdrawal. Ha, I know that people hate it when battleship is sunk after battle with a transporter. But I just love emotions that go with it. Even governments are raw as they should be, with annoying features, not the polished ones from Civ2 on. And yes, I like to read in Civilopedia that anarchy was seriously proposed as an alternative to the government, not that it's only chaos and civil war with nothing more to it.
But basicaly it's all going down to the fact that Civ1 is the only Civ that really looks and feels like a classical board war game with squared, coloured armies, etc. It's because of, not despite, the simplicity of game-play and graphics.
Sorry for the off-topic post but I just couldn't resist
I hear that. Civ 1's a far cry from being my favourite but man is it still good. I especially agree with your point that it's the most board-game like of the all - though seeing as how it's based off a boardgame of the same name, I suppose that's no surprise.
I can't lose myself in it for days like I can with Civ IV, but in some ways that's almost a plus - having a Civ game that you can play in one sitting can be gratifying. Load it onto a netbook and play an entire game during your next train ride.
I liked III ok, but there were parts that really annoyed me. The whole resources disappearing, AI running through your territory constantly and requiring you to yell at them to stop every turn, and single golden ages the whole thing just feels like a learning experience. I like what they did, but feel that it all didn't really work until IV.
In general civ 4 btS is better, however civ 3 does have more mods and variety, plus i dont like how weak aircraft are now. Air power while useful isnt critical anymore, and everything is more expencive to build and whatnot. Also the diplimatic screen while unquestionably better lacks the advisor to tell if they will take the deal.
Well, with fantastic stuff like FfH2, Rhye's and Fall, Planetfall, Dune Wars, Revolution and other incredibly detailed and professional looking mods around - at least the "variety" part of your statement could be controversial...
And - although the number of unit- and grafics-mods for III is overwhelming - I'd say IV beats it easily with modpacks, maps and scenarios.
Civ 3 is a fun game - gets a lot of hate it doesn't deserve. Not as good as Civ 4 or Civ 5 though. Never played the original Civ or Civ 2 though so I guess I can't speak from experience on how as an earlier poster says that it feels like an "expansion pack" to civ 2
It's not bad, but the real trouble is that I cannot think of any reason (short of being on a very elderly computer) I would play it when I could be playing Civ 4.
Separate names with a comma.