help out a civ 3 player

[soupnatizzle]

hi ive been playing civ 3 for years now and i just want some imput.

do old civ 3 players enjoy 3 or 4 more and what are the key differences in between the two games

 

[King Flevance]

I play 3 more personally right now. But I find 3 and 4 are about equally enjoyable. They play very different as to economic structure and empire management. But each have their advantages IMO. I like how wonders have been nerfed in 4. (Most only effect the city they are built in and nothing outside of it. Great library allows 2 free scientists instead of the usual free tchs from previous versions as an example.) I also like the new style of diplomacy added in, diplomacy in general is only slightly better than 3's. TO me 3 still holds some things over 4's system, due to the nature of the AI being more aggressive. (And no, aggressive AI is not near the same on 4) Eh, I will do this an easier way.

I would say the positives in Civ 4 are:
-Visible Diplomacy Model (You can see why someone likes or dislikes you)
-More trade options (Although mostly automatic)
-Variety of Great People with very different roles
-Wonders are not as powerful or game altering as before but still very effective.
-Bonus resources now benefit more if you build specific improvements on them. As well, resources now MUST have the specific impovement to gain the advantage. (Iron most not only have a road but also a mine before you can build swords.)
-Mod Capabilities are limitless.
-Better system using Happiness and Health to influence population growth than a standard hardcoded number.
-Better multiplayer interface.

Where Civ 3 prevails for me:
-Better Graphics. (4 is extremely cartoony - although some units look pretty cool, especially scaling them down and using SeZereth's formation mod.)
-More vicious AI diplomacy if wanted.
-Spontaneous Great people
-Much faster and easier modding although limited.
-Much more interesting map generator.
-Better Artllery Combat. (Note: I have not played beyond Civ 4 vanilla and I am aware that BTS has made some changes to artillery and such so this may be an outdated response even according to my opinion. I plan on buying BTS as soon as finances allow but am not able to atm. )
-There are seas, not just coast and ocean. (Seems small, but I love the aspect seas bring in)
-Air and Navy combat.
-GREAT advisor screens. Except cultural advisor is about worthless for me. (Although I like how in 4 it shows everyones relations to everyone as default for the foreign advisor screen, and that there is room for everyone.)
-You can cross through people's territory and "dare them to kick you out" without initiating war. SOmetimes it is scary to ask someone to leave your territory.(In 4 stepping in someones territory triggers war automatically)

Civ 4 BTS may also include the original Civ 1 and Civ 2 spaceship model. Can someone verify this for me please?

 

[MrCynical]

Civ 4 BTS may also include the original Civ 1 and Civ 2 spaceship model. Can someone verify this for me please?

BtS has a similar system. You can save time on construction by not building the maximum numbers of casings/thrusters/engines, but at the price of a longer travel tim efor the spaceship, and/or a chance of it failing completely. Victory is given to the civ who's ship reaches alpha centauri successfully and first (which due to varying ship speeds is not always the first launched).

 

[weregamer]

I love BtS, but since you like Civ3 your mileage may well vary. I found that while Civ3 fixed a lot of the stuff that made Civ2 too gamey (especially the Bomber Blockade), it somehow just wasn't very fun for me. I played it for maybe 150 hours and got bored. Civ4 vanilla grabbed me for about that long and I didn't so much get bored as get attracted to new shineys. Warlords brought me back for another hundred or so hours, and BtS is up to perhaps 150 already and still going strong - and I haven't really started modding yet!

 

[Airefuego]

I loved Civ 3 but I got bored with the fact that a single formula was the way to win any game: Spam settlers like mad, go 0% science and trade for techs, build a massive SOD and crush everyone.

It was very very boring checking the opponents for new techs to buy and sell every turn.

It was extremely boring that this was a better tactic than researching them yourself.

It was quite boring having millions of massively corrupt cities.

It was excessively boring that semi-exploits like palace jumps and ring city placement were good tactics to beat corruption, and building courthoses was not.

Despite that it was my number one all-time favourite game until I got Civ IV. In Civ IV every game is different and new strategies can be played each time.

I never played Civ III again.

 

[Tatran]

I never played Civ III again.

Same here.
It was the worst civ version.
Another exploit, the invincible armies.

 

[Byrath]

I agree, the ridiculous corruption model in Civ3 renders the game unplayable for me now.

 

[nullspace]

My opinion of Civ 3 is like Airefuego's. I played it a lot and enjoyed it, but once I figured out all the exploits (or read about them) the game wasn't replayable anymore. You can add to the list of imbalances/exploits that I didn't like: armies, artillery, republic, ring city placement, and the great library.

On the other hand, Civ 4 is very challenging on the higher difficulty levels, but it still feels fair and lots of different strategies are possible. There are big arguments about specialist economy or cottage economy, expansion versus war versus staying small, and all sorts of other strategies and variations, all of which can work.

I liked Civ 3 while I played it, but I could never go back now. If you liked Civ 3, you should really at least try Civ 4.

 

[sirhanselot]

I loved CIV III, however I hated corruption and pollution. Both problems have been fixed in CIV IV!

 

[HolyHandGrenade]

one of the major difference for civ3 players is that you haven't to micromanagment like crazy to be an effective player. The other major difference is that you can play multiplayer with civ4. These are the major changes preventing me to go back to civ3

 

[King Flevance]

BtS has a similar system. You can save time on construction by not building the maximum numbers of casings/thrusters/engines, but at the price of a longer travel tim efor the spaceship, and/or a chance of it failing completely. Victory is given to the civ who's ship reaches alpha centauri successfully and first (which due to varying ship speeds is not always the first launched).

Good to know. I wish I had the cash to get BTS currently. But it will probably be at least another month or two. I got a doosey of a speeding ticket this week. I coulda swore police stations were only contructed here in K.C. to reduce war weariness.

one of the major difference for civ3 players is that you haven't to micromanagment like crazy to be an effective player. The other major difference is that you can play multiplayer with civ4. These are the major changes preventing me to go back to civ3

You can play multiplayer with 3, I will be playing it today as a matter of fact. But 4 has a much better interface than 3 does for it. I will never understand why build/research pop-ups are disabled for Civ 3 MP play. I would actually pay for an update that just adds that feature in. Seriously. (Well, so long as it was like 15 bucks or something.)

Civ 3 needs one more expansion pack called "Civ III: Fixed Sh!t" They could even put on a big sticker that says: "Now with Functional Capture the Princess Feature!" I still can't believe that wasn't fixed. That's like having the cultural victory be broken and never fixed.