Do you mainly play Civ3? Why?

[p55carroll]

Another thread asks if Civ3 is the best. What I'm wondering is if there are Civ fans who have access to all editions of the game but choose to mainly play Civ3.

And if there are, why.

I myself just started getting back into Civ3. I played all versions up through Civ4. I don't like 3-D graphics or a lot of animation, especially a TBS game, but I gave Civ4 a shot anyway--and it was very good. Due to compatibility problems, though, I opted to try Civ3 again. So far, I'm impressed; I didn't remember the game being as amazing as it is.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I understand its mechanics, which is more than I can say of CIV. It is somewhat overwhelming. I've also been playing it for eight years, so I'm quite comfortable with it and the mods I've created over the years.

 

[jtb1127]

No, I mainly play civ 4, but occasionally play civ 3 because it is very fun. I play civ v the least but sometimes I'm in the mood for what it has to offer. The fun of building huge empires in civ 3 can't be replicated in any of the other games.

 

[Ataxerxes]

I play more of IV but keep coming back to III for a change. Often the scenarios, which are fun. Besides the reasons of Smellincoffee, which are valid reasons, here are a few more.

Game speed. CivIII will run faster on most computers. On huge maps most people will notice CivIV taking a while between turns late in the game. This doesn't happen in III if you remember to hold down shift for AI moves or tell the computer not to animate AI moves. I've never had a III game take as long as some of my IV games on huge maps - unfortunately I love RFC and that's a huge map.

Flavorful AI vs. Practical AI. There is more variability in CivIV AI personality and it's very helpful to know them. Start next to Isabella, start next to Shaka is a BIG difference. You can also get some AI's to the point you can trust them in almost every game in IV. They won't attack or backstab you, will treat you better, etc. I've had games where I seriously neglected military in IV because I didn't need it (not often, but it does happen). In III I can never trust even the Gracious AI's - they all smell blood if you're weak. I know Spoonwood gets by without DOW's and little military but I haven't mastered that after years of play. And I've noticed the III AI is even more treacherous than IV. You think Cathy in IV is bad? Come to III!

"Elegant Simplicity" - You can learn III quicker without all the curveballs IV throws at you. IV takes a longer investment of time to figure out how to play and succeed at even an intermediate level. Diplomacy, Espionage, Warfare all are more complicated in IV. I can't comment of V - from what I've seen and heard it's a waste of money.

 

[Desertsnow]

3 is my preference. I don't like the religion mechanic in Civ IV; this opinion makes me a bit unpopular with fans of IV, but I stand by it. I never got around to trying V, mainly because I figured the limit of one unit per tile would do more harm than good; this turned out to be the consensus among players, or at least among detractors of Civ V.

I guess we'll see what Civilization VI (if it is to exist) will have in store.

 

[PaperBeetle]

"Elegant Simplicity"

This.
The only iterations of Civ this century to have elegance, imho, are III and Rev.

I like III the best by a huge margin, but the specific reason I actually play it still, rather than merely remembering it more fondly than the other versions while I play blockbuster actioners on PS3, is the Game of the Month. The feeling of shared experience and such good sportsmanship keeps me coming back, even though the community is so small and quiet now.
Also, a big shout has to go to CivAssist2, which fixes so many of III's shortcomings with what is known in the boardgame world as Hidden Trackable Information. Whenever I see people decrying III as an aberration, worst game in the series etc, I have to remind myself that most people must have played it without CA, CA2 or CivReplay. And yeah, playing without one of those, you lose a whole level of feedback from the game, and that makes it a lot less fun and/or a lot more work. Should a game need that kind of fixing to be enjoyable? Maybe not, but nowadays we live in a world of post-release patching, and these programs really constitute just another form of patch to the game interface. At least they were made by people who had a much better understanding of how to play the game than the actual designers.

In reference to the OP's criteria, I don't guess there's too many people left who have immediate access to I and II, but for sure I have owned them. I've got III (have bought at least 3 copies of C3C over the years), IV (have bought vanilla and Colo on disc, and also IV Complete via Steam), and a mere single copy each of V and Rev.

 

[CKS]

I have 2, 3, and 4. I never learned to play 2 very well, but I found this site shortly after getting 3, and I actually learned to play it. When I got 4, it barely ran on my computer. Now I have a new computer, but I don't have time to learn a new game. I may give 4 another try when the kids are bigger. The Games of the Month are also a big draw for me, and playing for the Hall of Fame (especially the gauntlets) is also fun, once I realized that you didn't actually have to be that good to submit.