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. Simak

    Simak Chieftain

    Jan 31, 2008
    My computer is 5 years old. I bought Black&White II, and was severely disappointed after installing the game to find out that I can't play it because, "your graphics card doesn't support pixel shaders." WTF! So, to save money, I only play all my old favorites and stopped buying new games, Civ4 being one of them. And honestly, I can't say I miss the new stuff. Too many companies putting out a product way before all the bugs are resolved so as to make the game completely unplayable until you get the nifty patch that you have to wait 4 weeks for. Forget it, give me a game that already works that doesn't require all the latest technological goodies to play.
  2. Charles 22

    Charles 22 King

    May 21, 2004
    Dallas, Texas
    I haven't been on this forum for a long time, so bear with me.

    To me CIV4 has no more purpose. I couldn't stand how the game played with space race and diplomatic victories on, so I played to dominate. I admit part of the problem lies with me wanting to often play a late UU civ (Germany) but it does rather conveniently coincide with my largely builder nature anyway.

    So while most of CIV4ers are done before 2000, I'm just getting fairly warmed up, as I think I have been up to 2200 before. I had spent a princely sum on trying to get around the game CTD's by adding another gig of memory. This helped quite a bit, but I still get them very late game or with enemy nuke launches. I sure wasn't going to buy BTS after that ripoff that was Warlords. One real problem I have with playing late game as so many others will not, is that there's not enough people to complain about it to get their attention to fix it.

    I spoke to somebody else on another forum. and I came up with the idea that if I had added another 1-2 gig more RAM then it might had solved all problems, but how ridiculous is that to add that much memory for a game that is mostly turn-based? I already felt ripped off having to buy another gig as it was (2GB total). I don't think wining in very late game is worthy of spending that much money, and if the earlier game with all options on doesn't interest me, there's just nothing left. The other guy I spoke to had leveled his memory up to 4GB and agreed with what I was saying, though I'm not sure if he played any games really deep or not.

    BTW, I'm not big on scenarios anyway, but I have yet to see a decent Civ4 scenario; they're just awful. I like a lot of the things Civ4 brings, excepting I don't have BTS but scenarios certainly aren't a strongpoint.

    I don't recall the global warming treatment in Civ3, but Civ4 is ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATING! I may be somewhat incorrect in stating this, but IIRC it would decimate the entire tile turning all tiles to desert in one blasted blow, while destroying improvements. Whether it destroyed units too or not, I do not recall. So what you have in long games, though they bragged that you could play them, is these awful death rays destroying everything you built up, because you know the AI wasn't going to clean up it's own debris. When I quit the last game I had played before the adjustment (more on that later) I had approximately 50% of my capital tiles destroyed in this way. Needless to say you will not be able to support your armies to attempt domination for very long, and you will inevitable go back to the Stone Age, without being able to buy Stone Age units!

    I often had turns where four or more of my tiles in the empire, if not more, were destroyed. There were some turns without any devastation, but I must had averaged at least two destroyed every turn. Consider if you will that there have been over 2000 nukes exploded in history, and you can see how this global warming treatment given in Civ4 is utter and complete nonsense (more powerful than the nukes quite frankly)!!! Sure, make a game that you can play late, but then make only a super-mega computer able to play it, and then on top of that make the death ray so ridiculous that only those in the know can all but remove it. As you can tell, just rehashing this gets me :mad: .

    There is an adjustment I made to greatly reduce the death ray frequency, which all but elimnated my problem with it, but I cannot recall where the settings were that I changed.
  3. eldar

    eldar ChiefTank

    Apr 19, 2004
    Mechanicsburg, PA
    There are many reasons. Mainly it just boils down to the fact that I just like Civ3 better.

    Why I prefer Civ3 to Civ4:
    - Civ3 is much better at "Instant Gratification". A half-hour game of Jaguar Conquest or (my favourite) OCC Immortal Conquest is do-able. Civ4 isn't quite so good in that regard. Also I can play to 1000BC in Civ3 (80 turns) and feel like I've got somewhere, achieved something, and can see where my future direction lies. Play a similar number of turns in Civ4 and you might have 3-4 cities and maybe a handful of Axemen but not much more.

    But here's a list anyway, of stuff I don't like about Civ4:
    - I can never find a comfortable zoom level for the graphics on Civ4.
    - I don't like the grid, I prefer the isometric look.
    - Combat, the promotions system aside, sucks. Who sends their artillery to directly attack a city?!
    - Diplomacy makes no sense any more. In particular the daft "units teleporting" business. WTF?!
    - Maintenance/unit upkeep/etc. is now unfathomable. At least in Civ3 I could get a basic handle on how my economy was structured just by looking at a couple of screens. In Civ4 it's nigh on impossible without diving into the XML, Python, or C++ code!
    - The adviser screens are all terrible. (Yes I know it can be modded. But... the vast majority of players never will do this!)
    - The city screen is awful, the Civ3 one is far superior. (See above on modding.)
    - The graphics aren't all that hot and quite unnecessary, also on more than one occasion I've completely lost sight of/not noticed AI units on tiles next to my cities, units, workers, etc.!
    - I have 3Gb of memory, dual-core 3.4GHz P4s, and an nVidia GForce 7900GT. I can play Oblivion nice and smoothly at 1600x1200 at exceptionally high detail with a 5x5 grid of tiles loaded. Yet Civ4 still slows down horrendously and gives me nasty graphical glitches (bars/lines, etc.). I am not impressed.
    - The espionage system in BTS completely breaks lower levels (Noble and below) and makes life far too easy for the human player. Badly thought-out and implemented IMO.

    To counter, there are some things I really like about Civ4!
    - Civics. My first Firaxis game was SMAC, so I guess that comes as no surprise to any other devotees of that game!
    - Production/research overflow.
    - The ability to rush Wonders. And the fact that pre-building doesn't work.
    - The way research works feels more natural than Civ3, and is less formulaic. Yes there are bee-lines but these are only single highly focused paths and for every game you play, you will generally mix-and-match more than one such path. You actually do have to think about it. And the AI are far cannier tech traders.
    - Unit XP/promotions. This is perhaps the best feature of Civ4, hands down.
    - The fact that the whole game is nowhere near as formulaic as Civ3. You do need different strategies for different maps/opponents. You do need to think more about city placement, unit mix, diplomacy, economy. Civ4 is so much about getting the right balance. Civ3 rewards smash-and-grab play.

    To sum up they are, of course, very different beasts! And right now I'm still enjoying Civ3 more than Civ4.
  4. Vampiloup

    Vampiloup Warlord

    Jan 21, 2008
    I'm an old Civ player.
    I have played kingdom games as Hamurabi before. I have played since :
    - Civ 1, 2 & 3
    - Master of magic
    - Age of Wonders 1 & 2
    - Master of Orion 1, 2 & 3 (waste of money, this one)
    - Call to power 1 & 2
    - Advanced Civilization
    - Ascendancy (awesome game with pitifull AI, as all games from this creator)
    - Galactic civilizations 1 & 2
    - Imperium Galactica 1 & 2
    - Space Empire 4 (not the 5 : Bored from all the patches)
    - Heroes of Might and Magic 1, 2, 3 and 4 (laste one was a waste of money, for me)

    And probably a lot i forgot. But i don't think i go for Civ4.
    Civ3 is not perfect but Civ4 have to much flaws :

    - I have other uses for my money for the moment (and lost my job).
    - I like BIG maps. In ALL types of games with maps i want big maps.
    - I want a big empire. What can i do with an handfull of cities ?
    - I just updated my computer with an 7600GS and can, at least, play Enemy Territory with max quality. Civ4 is too demanding for a turn-based game.
    - Seem the "Sid Meyer" tactic is to remove what the AI can't handle rather than enhance the AI. Bored of that.
    -Religion are... limited. Why just the "actual" bigs ? Why only ONE non-polytheistic (edit : Woops ! I mean "non(monotheistic) ?
    - Graphisms look ugly.
  5. Empiremaker

    Empiremaker Human Fish

    May 13, 2005
    The Northwest of the USA
    I also like Civ3 for the mods. While Civ4 has some very creative ones and good ones, none feel as well thought out as civ3 mods for the most part. Maybe because in 4 so much can be tinkered with, while in 3, there is a limit on what you can mod. But I can actually mod 3 fairly well, while in 4 I'm limited to basic XML changes. While I could learn Python, I actually enjoy modding 3.

    Other ideas, hopefully new:
    Combat, while promotions are interesting, I can't understand it how the battles really work. Civ3 was much simpler, I understood it. Also in 4, going from a 4:4 odds to 4:4.4 makes a huge difference, while Civ3 system is more realistic in odds scaling.

    No armies. Armies actually were powerful. GG's die way to much to create super units, which are so much fun.

    Naval combat: Privateers and the AI, frigates -> destroyers (At least 3 had semi-useful ironclads).

    And of course, I agree with most of what others have said.
  6. MAS

    MAS Deity

    May 18, 2002
    The Netherlands
    I can't argue about your personal preference, but I can argue about some of your arguments, if you don't mind: ;)

    You can create big empires in Civ4, and you can create big maps too.

    Thats just not true, The AI in Civ4 is a lot better than the AI in civ3, and this is not because of stuff being removed the AI can't handle. The AI in Civ4 is actually, a lot better than the AI in civ3

    I don't understand this argument, what exactly is your complaint here?
  7. bhinso

    bhinso Warlord

    Aug 13, 2005
    Lincolnshire, England
    I play both Civs but am currently back on Civ 3 at the moment.
    I'm not a huge fan of the latest Civ 4 (Beyond the Sword). Sure it has some good features like random events but I just don't like all the espionage stuff, its all a bit to Micromangement for me. Why would I want to spend Espionage Points performing Counterespionage making it temporarily more expensive for the AI to perform espionage on me. No I want to build a load of Swordsmen and beat their brains out! Also, it seems the AI can do loads more with espionage than you can which is annoying.
    I don't really like the fact that they have put new techs and stuff in the modern era either. This area is the most boring for me (in both versions), because its too complicated, and most of all because each turn/interturn takes ages on a slower computer. This period is where i'm normally thinking about my next game.
    Having said that I think the city maintainance idea on Civ 4 (to prevent ICS) is awesome and the best idea. You have corruption to try and stop it in Civ 3 which is crap and doesn't really work either because its still an advantage financially to build pointless cities because you get more free units (on most governments).
    What I would like to see is Civ 3 with the Civ 4 style city maintainance system (and no/little corruption). I don't know if this has been done in a mod?
  8. Northen Wolf

    Northen Wolf Young Hunter

    Feb 11, 2008
    I own civ 4, but I don't like graphics, it is too cartoony and I like to see civilizations not its leader with traits... Civ 4 also slows my comp down to low level when getting near middle ages (and I am using amd 2800+ for laptop...) Civ 3 works nice, if I don't touch HUGE maps.

    I also prefer low graphics over "eye-candy". If I could play civ 4 without that stupid cartoon graphic, I would!

    Althru civ 4 has nice promotions (complicated,yes) and sword->spear->axe type of triangle (like in fire emblem), choosing civics is not bad either.
  9. PaperBeetle

    PaperBeetle Emperor

    Aug 23, 2004
    I'm sure the AI was improved, but still Civ3 has good game mechanics (principally ROP rape and per turn payments) which were removed in Civ4 because humans were using them to exploit the AI. That wasn't the fault of the humans, who have a right to play their game however they like, nor of the mechanisms in question, which were entirely logical (as already mentioned in this thread). It was the fault of the AI, which was unable to either protect itself against abuse, or use the exploits itself. So it is the AI which needed fixing, not the game mechanics.
    This was a great disappointment to me, and one of the two main reasons I quickly went back to Civ3 - the other being the grossly inflated sys reqs, just in order that Firaxis could replace their rather clumsy 2D graphics with very clumsy 3D graphics. Happily it looks as though Firaxis's artists have upped their game a bit for CivRev; people still argue about whether they like the Rev graphical style, but at least it has style.
  10. LoboKhan

    LoboKhan Chieftain

    May 24, 2005
    I have an older notebook which doesn't have video support for games that require "hardware transitioning and lighting" so I had largely given up on running anything new. I play Fallout 2, MoO2, MoO3, Civ2, and Star Wars: X-Wing Alliance, and that's about it.

    I just noticed 2 weeks ago that Civ3 didn't require hardware T&L when I saw it at Best Buy and thought "wow, they're still selling Civ3? didn't I hear Civ 5 was coming out?" so checked the box for the requirements.

    I've been playing Civ3 ever since :D
  11. againsttheflow

    againsttheflow unpolitically uncorrect

    Dec 24, 2006
    northern CA
    There is no civ 5 project atm (that we know of).
  12. Chieftess

    Chieftess Moderator Retired Moderator

    Feb 10, 2002
    Personally, I like Civ3 just a hair better than Civ4.

    Battle System - Civ3

    While Civ4's system may be a bit more realistic in the sense that spearmen can no longer defeat tanks (although I did have that happen once... ;) but that was modded - 50 spears vs. 1 tank), you've got the rock-paper-scissors concept, with a bombardment unit to toss a monkeywrench into the works. Somehow, I just don't like the idea of the catapult attacking (in addition to bombarding!) and knocking down the HP of a whole bunch of units. XPs and promotions are unique, though. I actually like it to some extent. Although, I just don't like the idea of a spearman (especially those longbows!) having the same strength on attack as defense. At least in Civ3, if I lacked resources, and were forced to use spears and longbows, I'd be a bit more careful, and I wouldn't have suicide catapults. Having attack/defense bonuses is ok, but in Civ4, it's like a constant cold-war until one player gets a better unit. Domination and conquest seem harder, too.

    Advisor Screens - Civ4

    They can be graphically slow, unless you know enough programming to remove the overhead. The diplomatic screen is nicer than Civ3 since it shows all civs at once, and the screens can be modded. It's pretty much the same except that the trade advisor screen is gone (Civ3's could've used some work in this area in regards to which resources were in what area, and if they were connected or not, and what the asking price for those resources were), and there's no throne room. The military advisor screen in Civ4 was an improvement. Civ4 wins this category by a hair.

    Trade - Civ3

    I really don't like trade in Civ4 - trading like items only, which could set you back if say, all you had were 10 resources of the same type and wanted some tech for it. I suppose it was done so that players wouldn't exploit it and declare war to essentially get a free tech or two. There's much more fun being behind by 10 techs, and finding out that you can get 255gpt, plus a tech or two for a MPP with the first civ to Nationalism (I think that gives MPP, IIRC). In Civ4, if you're behind that much, you're almost out of luck.

    Economy - Civ3

    Civ3's economic system was much, much simplier. I still haven't gotten the hang of Civ4's economic system yet! Sure, I know that you're supposed to build cottages, but then growth and production take a backseat, and even then it doesn't seem to do much. Maintainence seems worse than Civ3, too. Build a 5th or 6th city, or move a nice sized stack out of your territory and watch your treasury plummet! It makes fighting wars very hard - compound the fact that the AI will often have a unit to counter your units. Also, in Civ3, at least when you built a road, you know you would get +1 gold instantly (if your city used it). In Civ4, I've found that building a cottage doesn't always mean +1 gold.

    Technologies - Civ3

    While Civ4 uses a Civ2 tech system, and has much more techs, it feels like it flows too fast, probably because there's no minimum turn limit. Sometimes, I like to build up a few dozen swordsmen and send them out in maybe 500BC. In Civ4, you might as well forget that and send in macemen, or even muskets. I've also seen isolated civs in Civ4 be on the same tech pace as the rest of the continent. Isolated civs shouldn't even be close to the tech pace that the rest of the world is in. In Civ3's system, at least they could trade resources (and these civs usually had a monopoly of a resource). Since Civ3's system has a limit, and you don't feel rushed to get the next best technology, Civ3 squeaks by.

    Culture - Civ3

    Civ4 really goes overboard in culture. In fact, a culture victory just isn't that fun, especially with many early wonders, and a culture slider. Atleast in Civ3, you have to work at it. In Civ4, you can culture flip AI capitals, too. What's up with that?!

    Foriegn Affairs (espionage/embassy) - Tied

    This one's a toss up. I do like Civ3's system in that you also need an embassy, too. Getting popups about what other civs were doing was nice, too. However, the latest expansion has improved things on Civ4's end.

    Bombardment - Civ3

    As I said in the battle section, using suicide artillery just seems wrong. Whenever I'm the first to more modern artillery, I can just take 20 of them and smash my way through a well defended city. That takes out the fun.

    Railroads - Tied

    This one's a tossup, too. While Civ4's rails are more realistic in that it's simply roads with better movement (Why not just add more movement with a tech?), and prevents the AI from landing on one tile during the first turn of a war, it just seems to add to the micromanagement when you do have a ton of units. Very often, in Civ3, I would gather all of my units of one type on an assigned rail tile.

    Graphics - Civ3

    They're both ok, but with Civ4, I always find myself watching a very zoomed in screen. I can't play huge maps because it starts getting really slow (Funny, though, having an active unit selected and pressing shift-enter still makes the game go faster between turns like it did in Civ3). At least I can easily edit a graphics file in Civ3 if I don't like the graphics. With Civ4, I need to download/find/buy special software.

    Government - Tied

    Another tossup. Civ3 is nice and simple, but Civ4 gives some nice options to choose from. Although, you're also limited in your selection again since certain ones are better for say, warfare. At least there's no 8 or 9 turn anarchy when changing civics...

    World Map - Civ3

    Civ4's minimap doesn't update, requiring you to constantly purchase maps, or use more explorers (which I think was one of the intents - so players actually use that unit for a change). This is more micromanagement, IMHO.

    Armies - Civ3

    Civ4's armies just seem a little more overpowered than Civ3's armies - save for C3C.

    Resources - Civ3

    Civ4 seems to try and give the player access to a good variety of resources (iron/bronze always being close to the capital, etc.). It's far more fun when you have to fight (expansion or war) to grab vital iron, and only have spears/archers/catapults to fight with. In Civ4, you'd be stuck unless you had a resourceless UU. Civ4 also starts you off on nice(r) terrain, even if it's in the middle of the tundra. At least you can have a deity level ice continent challenge...

    Golden Ages - Civ4

    While Golden Ages last less than Civ3, I like the idea of multiple golden ages. Granted, it doesn't help much when you can only build 1 or 2 units quicker in one city. Plus, an early Golden Age in Civ3 when in despotism is bad.

    Civ Traits - Civ3

    Civ3's traits seem more tangible than Civ4. In Civ4, the difference is subtle. Although, some are more noticable than others.

    Gameplay - Civ3

    Simply put, Civ3 allows you to make a mistake and recover from it. In Civ4, it's difficult. Also, it seems that you can't just decide to switch victory goals mid-game.

    Specialists - Civ4

    In Civ4, you get more options with specialists than in Civ3. Plus, you can produce a Great Person by building certain buildings/wonders.

    Modding - Tied

    I'm kind of leaning in Civ3's direction, but Civ4 has lots of nice modding features, too. Virtually all of its' code can be edited in notepad. For those who aren't faint of heart, there's even the SDK - granted, you need a compilier for it. On the downside, you may need special programs to edit graphics (more so than Civ3), and it doesn't come with a map editor. Sure, it has one built in (and the output is saved as a text file), but it's not a true editor in the sense that you can start over. At least in Civ3, you can mod something rather quickly, and you don't need to bother having to know what the XML database schema is to add something. (Go ahead, try removing all but 1 unit in Civ4's unit XML file and see what happens. ;)) At least you have a bit more control over other things in Civ4 that you don't in Civ3. What might've been better for Civ4 would be to compile the mod into one .PAK file, and include a utility to unPAK it if you wish. (Along with an editor to read it - although, it would be tricky with dynamic XML...) At least it'll tell you what went wrong when you try to load the game.

    Custom Games - Civ4

    This is one feature I really liked. You can start a custom game, and add more than the normally allowed number of civs (including specialized rules like OCC) without having to create a mod/scenario.

    Strategy Markers - Civ4

    I really like the strategy lines, and city radii when you go to settle a city (which tells you what tiles are already city tiles so you can avoid as little overlap if you wanted to). I also like the fact that, when you view tile symbols, the used tiles show up at 100% opacity. Resource/Unit bubbles are also nice.

    Zooming - Civ4

    Although I don't care for looking at every pixel, I do like the globe view (harkens back to Civ2).

    Barbarians - Civ4

    They can capture cities again! Plus, they even appear as cities, too. (and will build a wonder if you let them! :lol: )

    Civ3 - 12 points
    Civ4 - 7 points
    Tossup - 4 points
  13. Civinator

    Civinator Blue Lion Supporter

    May 5, 2005
    12:7 in favour of Civ 3. In most kinds of sport this result would be a devastating defeat for Civ 4! :D
  14. Chieftess

    Chieftess Moderator Retired Moderator

    Feb 10, 2002
    There were 4 tossups that could've easily fallen in Civ4's favor. Add a wildcard or two, and it's still fair game. ;)
  15. CommandoBob

    CommandoBob AbstractArt

    May 18, 2005
    Too near The Temple of Jerry Jones
    I don't have Civ 4 yet, but I plan to soon. Thanks for a point by point matchup of the game. Now I know what to expect.

    You are comparing the latest versions to each other, correct?
  16. Moosezilla

    Moosezilla Grognard Warlord

    Aug 29, 2007
    Canton of Roaring Waste
    This thread is convincing. They are two different games. Dali would love IV but I haven't dropped acid in twenty years. Sid is working on V, at least in his head and I hope it follows from III and not IV.
  17. Hrnac

    Hrnac Chieftain

    Jan 27, 2002
    Excellent Civ 3 - Civ 4 comparrison Chieftess! The biggest issue that I have with Civ 4 is that I just can't find a decent zoom level that I feel comfortable with. I also hate the Civ 4 bombardment system. Thankfully Dales combat mod fixes that. Overall I am currently enjoying Civ 3, but do hope to play Civ 4 down the road. I do own Civ 4 and the 2 expansions as well as Civ 3 and it's 2 expansions.

  18. SuperBeaverInc.

    SuperBeaverInc. Groucho

    Apr 10, 2003
    British Columbia
    It quite simple for me. Civ IV is terrible. Enough said.
  19. T.A JONES

    T.A JONES Deity

    Jan 22, 2006
    I like Civ3 best because its the funnest. :) Civ4 a bad lil bid a business.

    Beat that comparison. ;)
  20. El Justo

    El Justo Deity

    Mar 5, 2004
    Southern NJ
    i like civ3 more simply b/c the gameplay is more appealing to me. i've played civ4 only a little. and it was some time ago. but i forced myself to try to like it (b/c i've loved the other versions I-III) but it just wasn't happening.

    i'm also not a fan of civ4 gfx. i find them clunky, kiddy-ish, and inferior in all ways to the best civ3 gfx (unit mainly).

    now, this is an open-ended answer from me of course :) however, in a nutshell, i much prefer the battle system for civ3 over that of civ4 (a/d values for III whereas IV has the single no.) this is the single most reason i prefer III over IV.

    the memory hog that is civ4 is and never will be conducive to large map games...whether it be an epic game, a scenario, or a mod. this limit is awful imo...and the simplicity of the civ3 game engine (and its req'd specs) in connection w/ the high end processors out nowadays is very appealing, to me at least. i mean, the high-endedness we now have w/ pc processors and extra memory dwarfs that of what we had in, say, '01-'03 when III was released. iow, the high ceiling for civ3 is a huge, huge positive for me when compared against the iffy gameplay and memory intensive hog that is civ4.

    i was mildly disappointed about civ4 when i realized just how difficult it is to modify the game and/or design in-depth scenarios and mods. now, i say "disappointed" b/c we were all being fed info prior to civ4's release that it was going to be a modder's dream and that the ceiling for design was limitless. what they failed to tell us all was that one had to be versed in Python and the like and that even if one was proficient enough at it that it'd take teams of modders to produce a polished scenario or mod :confused:

    it may seem like sour grapes coming from me...but one needs only look so far as the scenario forum in the civ4 part of this site to realize that, in the end, the civ4 developers "mis-delivered" on their promise of greater and limitless modibility. so considering all of that, i can say now that i felt let down by false promises. and the ease at which civ3 can be modded is all the better when compared to this.

Share This Page