1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

If you have Civ4, Why do you keep playing Civ3

Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by Kalimakhus, Feb 20, 2008.

  1. Kalimakhus

    Kalimakhus Emperor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,249
    OK, Here's my story.

    I am quite an old Civ fan. I played Civilization II, Test of Time, Call to Power, and SMAC. I took a vacation from gaming for almost 6 years. One day wandering in a mall I saw Civ4. I was struck by the fact that it is 4 already. Out of nostalgia I bought it. I played for a couple of days then was caught in real life stuff again. Several months later I discovered these forums and reading around the strategy threads got me more interested. I remember that then was the first time I patched my vanilla civ 4. Later I bought Warlords almost 6 months after it was released, but BTS I got it mailed to me from Europe the day it was released there and before it was available here in Egypt!

    Anyway, few days ago visiting a friend of mine who is a seasoned gamer we were talking about the civ series and it was his convection that no matter what short comings of civ 4 it is by all means the best in the series and an improvement over civ3 in particular. As I never played civ3 I wasn't able to assist his judgment. I still brought about the argument that many still play civ3 though they do have civ4. To give me a chance for trying civ3 first hand my friend was generous enough to lend me his copy of Civ3+Conquests.

    So, for the last few days I have been playing Civ3. It might seem weired but I do enjoy it!! I actually went on and started downloading some mods to further enjoy the game.

    I am posting this first to hear from others who still play Civ3 while having ,and playing Civ4. Second, I'd like to get some advice about the coming back to Civ3 as I don't feel I am successful enough in my games and I suspect that being used to the model of Civ4 might be the reason.
     
  2. Mirc

    Mirc Not mIRC!!!

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2005
    Messages:
    15,825
    Location:
    Düsseldorf, ->Germany, E.U.
    Because I enjoy it a lot more. :D That's the short answer! If you want the long one, I can post that one too. :D
     
  3. Theov

    Theov Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,222
    Location:
    Taiwan
    Because Civ4 is ugly. Yugh.
    It has some nice features like the civics and the resources map, but that doesn't make it better than 3.
     
  4. Nergal

    Nergal Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Messages:
    390
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    I think Civ4 is over complicated, its way more difficult to have a good game without a perfect start.
     
  5. Flak509

    Flak509 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    183
    Location:
    Denmark
    because civ 4 is pants, it looks like a cartoon game, the dipomacy in civ 4 is good but the rest is rubbish
    Civ3 is the ultimate civ game and at the looks for it unless the style is changed back it will be forever
     
  6. Optional

    Optional Deity

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,935
    Location:
    It Dockumer Lokaeltsje
    If you want a really long answer, and have a good laugh as well, you should really check out a thread in the Civ 4 forums called 'Civ 3 players won't move on'. That turned out to be a pretty heated debate!
    I'm pretty computer illiterate, so I don't know how to give you a link to it, but I can point you to the search engine in the top right corner of your screen. You should find it!
     
  7. vmxa

    vmxa Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    13,902
    Location:
    Oviedo, Fl
    As was stated the reason is that we enjoy it more than IV. Now the reasons we prefer it may be of some interest, not to me though.
     
  8. Sweetchuck

    Sweetchuck King

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    I've read a pretty fair amount of negative stuff about CivIV - and I doubt I'll every buy or play it. Not so much because of the negative stuff, but the things that I picked out from other players reviews makes it sound unappealing to me.

    Plus, I know CivIII is pretty darn good, so I'll stick to a good thing.
     
  9. Kalimakhus

    Kalimakhus Emperor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,249
    Thanks a lot for the answers guys.

    @Mirc

    If you have the time to write a longer answer, I sure have enough to read it.

    @Optional

    Thanks for the direction. I like such debates so it is an interesting reading material for me.

    @Sweetchuck

    While my experience with Civ3 is only a few days long but I can see that there is actually several differences that makes acquiring Civ4 worth the cost. So far I feel that I would love to have a Civ game that has most of the changes in Civ4 without the eye candy graphics that doesn't matter for serious strategy gamers. I also started to see a couple of features in Civ3 that I would liked them to continue being there in Civ4.
     
  10. Quintillus

    Quintillus Archiving Civ3 Content Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    6,591
    Location:
    Ohio
    Here's a medium-long answer depending on how much I end up typing:

    Areas Where I Prefer CivIII

    Diplomacy: Civ4 makes it much harder to backstab, which thus inhibits diplomatic options. Fewer diplomatic options make it less fun. For example, in Civ3 you can pay 45 gold per turn for Astronomy. Civ4 only allows you to pay 900 gold lump sum for Astromony, because in the Civ3 model you could turn around one turn later and declare war, thus getting astromony for 45 gold. While this does prevent you or the AI from getting ripped off, Civ3 still does a good job of penalizing this. Do this to the AI once and they will never sign a similar deal again, unless possibly if you pay an insane amount for it. And if the AI does this to you (which does happen) you can certainly start a vendetta against them.

    So while Civ3 allows such treacherous backstabbing, it does penalize it and, meanwhile, it allows you to buy technologies (or world maps, etc.) on credit provided you haven't trashed your credit.

    In a similar vein is right of passage violations. In Civ4 if you declare war all your troops in your rival's territory return to your territory. What is this? I'm sure if France sent tanks 100 miles into Germany and only then declared war, all their tanks would suddenly be back at their border. Sending troops in before declaring war may be a low tactic, but it is a tactic, and thus should be possible. Note that Civ3 does penalize you heavily if you do this - rights of passage will be much harder to get in the future.

    Not to mention that in Civ4 you can't even send guys into your rival's territory without a right of passage (excepting spies and subs and caravels). Again it's not the nicest diplomatic gesture, but there is such a thing as pointy-stick rights of passage. And the Civ3 AI (or human) can demand the rival's troops leave or declare war.

    Artillery/Bombing: Artillery cannot destroy terrain improvements or city improvements in Civ4 (nothing can for that matter), and this annoys me to no end. You think Dresden, Tokyo, and London suffered no damage to buildings in World War II? Or that there weren't a few farms damaged from artillery strikes in the Great War? Ships can't damage land units in Civ4, either. Yet the U.S. used extensive shore bombardment from battleships in WWII. The severe limitations on artillery and bombardment units in Civ4 is quite possible the thing that irks me most.

    That huge numbers of catapults is required to conquer also annoys me. A couple catapults helps in CivIII, too, but you can conquer without them and not lose 3/4 your army on one city.

    Graphics: In particular the leaders. Simply not realistic enough. The map as a whole also just doesn't seem proportioned right. Cartoonish seems to describe it well. I don't care if it's 3-D, it looks much worse than Civ3.

    Map Size/Memory Requirements: Civ4 maps are generally smaller, no two ways about it. Granted, Civ3 maps really bog down the processor when you make them huge (I have plenty of experience with this) but at least you can play huge maps. Civ4's memory requirements force smaller maps, which limit the sense of epicness in the games. It just doesn't feel like you're ruling an empire in Civ4. And that's a major problem. It should feel like you're ruling a powerful empire rather than a few piddling city states that have united together.

    Areas in Civ4 with Good Ideas that Don't Work Quite Right

    Religion: Realistically it makes sense, and it could be fun. But all the religions are the same. There's no advantage to being Taoist over Hindu and vice versa (other than what faith more of your people follow). Consider governments in CivIII - they'd be pretty boring if they were all the same, but they aren't, so it's a fun feature. Religion in Civ4 suffers from all being the same. Compare it to the Middle Ages scenario in Civ3Conquests. There the different religions/groups have distinctly different characteristics. Each one gives the game its own flavor, and they really add to the game. Religion in Civ4 could certainly be improved and be made more than a marginal part of the game.

    Civics: This works better than religion simply because there is differentiation. But it still doesn't feel quite right. I think a better model would be having the governments of CivIII and then having Civics be different laws you could enact. So, for example, if you were a Monarchy, provided you had the right technologies, you could enact Vassalage, Bureaucracy, or Barbarism (I forget the other two right now). Provided they didn't conflict, you may be able to implement more than one of these even though both are in the Legal category. However, if you were a Despotism, you couldn't enact Representation because it would be contradictory to your form of government. Obviously the civics would have to be restructured from what they are now, but I think this would be a better and more enjoyable solution.

    Examples of games that have similar systems of civics/laws/edicts/ordinances are Tropico and SimCity 3000.

    Combat System: I like the idea of pikemen excelling against Knights and machine guns against Infantry. The promotion system, where Longbows can focus on either city defense, hill defence, or general combat, also makes logical sense. And such systems seem to work well in games such as Age of Empires II. But it just doesn't work as well in Civ4 for some reason. What ends up happening is that no matter what you attack with, the defender always has something that has an advantage against your first attacker (and quite often second, third, etc.). So the attacker almost loses a whole bunch of units before they start winning. While this occasionally happens in Civ3 as well (if attacking with Medeival Infantry, you'll lose to their initial musketmen but win when they're down to Spearmen), it's much worse in Civ4. There always is a counter for an attack unless one civ is well ahead technologically, so attacks are useless without tons of catapults. The combat system needs to be modified so the everything-has-a-counter system doesn't result in field battles being useless.

    About the only change in Civ4 that doesn't have any significant negative side effect is great people. Nearly everything else has some negative effect that makes it less fun than the equivalent in CivIII (be it a different system, or merely the lack of a flawed one).

    And what it all adds up to is Civ3 is more fun.
     
  11. Tone

    Tone Deity Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    4,548
    Location:
    Singapore
    Because I enjoy it.

    Note that this doesn't mean that I don't enjoy IV or don't play it, because I do. I'm just one of those 'strange' people that actually think that they are both great games!
     
  12. Kalimakhus

    Kalimakhus Emperor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,249
    @Quintillus
    This is really an excellent write-up. I agree almost totally with you. Bombardment in particular is one thing that I can't understand why it was made the way it is in Civ4. Though this can be and is modded.

    The way Civ4 waste my hardware power on eye candies while limiting what I really enjoy (huge maps and many rivals), is the colossal short coming of it. I actually feel that as a strategy game lover, I was betrayed and sold-out so that novice youngsters' dollars can be lolled into Firaxis pockets.

    @Tone

    I agree, one can enjoy both games. There is no law that says "Can't play Civ4 if you continue playing Civ3". I just hope Civ5 will be a better game than both or else Civ4 will be the last I bought in the series.
     
  13. Nergal

    Nergal Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Messages:
    390
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    I think it has been prettied at the expense of the game. Revolutions sounds even worse though.
     
  14. ecuwins

    ecuwins Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,288
    Aww heck, I still play Civ2 and Moo2 from time to time. I guess Civ4 is just too new for me ;)
     
  15. Micheal1979

    Micheal1979 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    4
    I've got vista and from what i understand, its not compatible with Civ 4
    i cant even get the get the down downloadable demo to run so im not going to bother paying for a game I cant play.
     
  16. Tone

    Tone Deity Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    4,548
    Location:
    Singapore
    I have vista and it works fine.
     
  17. lucashp

    lucashp Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2007
    Messages:
    219
    I really do not understand how many people feel like we need to step up to Civ 4. Yes, I have the game, Yes, Its great, But to me, it feels like a whole differnt game with the buildings, religions, and civics.
     
  18. Padma

    Padma the Absent Admin Administrator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    14,419
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Omaha, Nebraska USA
    Well, Civ4 doesn't run on "my" computer. ;)

    But, after Sid himself gave me a copy of Civ4 Gold, I installed it on my wife's computer. Now, when I'm downstairs on her PC, I play Civ4. When I'm upstairs, on mine, I play Civ3. They're both fun; they're both "Civ"; they're just two different games. I like both of them.
     
  19. Empiremaker

    Empiremaker Human Fish

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,495
    Location:
    The Northwest of the USA
    I've got civ4 working on vista. On topic, I consider them different games. I play one for a while, then switch to the other.
     
  20. Bartleby

    Bartleby Remembers laughter

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    4,353
    Location:
    Englishman in Cork
    I think Civ4 blew up my video card. Or processor, I don't know which.
    After I finished my first game, my laptop cut out, and smoke came out of the keyboard. It was still under warranty, but I had to ship it back to the UK.
    So when it came back, I played civ3 instead.
    But, to be honest, before playing a game though to the end, I had faffed with it enough to know that I like Civ3 much more.
    I've since "loaned" Civ4 to a friend, and told him if he likes it he can keep it.
     

Share This Page