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. ZzarkLinux

    ZzarkLinux Engineering Programmer

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    156
    Location:
    Virginia, US
    My liking of Civ 3 is simple (and just an opinion)
    Civ 3 military and turnsets are more involving, challenging, and rewarding.

    Civ 3 is like a "power-gamer" type of game, since there's a lot to know and practice.
    I want action :hammer: I want tons of extra details. I want tons of responsibility. Civ 3 delivers.

    Civ 4 is just too "watered-down" for me.
    Yes there are many aspects of the game in Civ 4, but they're less "action-packed".
    "Research religion tech, build missionaries" just isn't as fun as fighting turn-by-turn for survival...

    Don't get me wrong. There are tons of great ideas in Civ 4.
    I just don't think they were implemented as fun / challenging / detailed as they could have been.

    Civ 3 Military:
    You are always in a losing position.
    Your military is weak for most of the game.
    The AI has huge bonuses, swarms of units, and tons of cities.
    Brains, tactics, strategy, the kitchen sink are required to win.

    Civ 3 Turnsets:
    You control every detail of your empire. Great responsiblity = Great power
    You control every detail of your hundreds of units. Great responsiblity = Great power
    You control every detail of your dozens of cities. Great responsiblity = Great power

    Civ 3 Scale:
    You're always struggling to manage your military.
    You're always struggling to manage your empire.
    You're always struggling to win.


    Civ 4 Military:
    Everything is balanced. Just build the required counter unit / catapult. You win.

    Civ 4 Turnset: (Common Quotes)
    "This start means we've already won. Regenerate to find worse start"
    "Do nothing. Press Enter. Do Nothing. Press Enter."

    Civ 4 Scale:
    Lack of detail / smaller scale means that "action" is harder to find, and doesn't last as long.
     
  2. bob rulz

    bob rulz Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2004
    Messages:
    568
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    Could you give some specific examples of arguments that you think don't make sense? I feel the opposite; a lot of gameplay elements in Civ IV feel "tacked on" to me and not very well thought-out. It just feels like they were making a game that appeals to the masses instead of the hardcore Civ fan. Of course, lots of hardcore Civ fans still love IV, so I don't know. It just didn't have that epic Civ feel to me anymore.
     
  3. MAS

    MAS Deity

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,080
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    That Civ4 is dumbed down for example, If anything, Civ4 is harder than Civ3.

    In Civ3 you can win most anything, as long as you just conquer more cities. In Civ4 conquest is not the answer to everything, and unthoughtfull conquest can even be bad. But you can still go the conquest route! It just requires more thought than Civ3.

    In Civ3 culture is close to useless, even if you choose a cultural victory, the only thing really useful about culture is that it allows you to reach the victory condition. In Civ4 culture is more powerful. You can make culture a forefront of your civ's way to thrive. Still, its very viable to not focus on culture.

    The thing is: Civ4 is more about overall strategy. In Civ3 tactics have more focus.

    Yes of course they did, and they did it on purpose, and gave that a lot of thought, among other things. They wanted it to appeal to the masses!
    Thats one of the reasons they tried to do things on a smaller scale in terms of numbers of units/cities.

    They did also try to make the hardcore fans happy, but not at the cost of the masses.

    "tacked on" is an other argument that doesn't make sense to me.

    I think a lot of Civ3 fans that are unhappy with Civ4 are just disappointed because they wanted a Civ3 version 2.0.

    Civ4 Is a different game. Just as Age of Empires is a different game. Civ4 was redesigned from scratch, instead of just adding more features, they completely rewrote the rules. You see this in the removal of the corruption model, and the health system, the "Strenght + circumstance modifier" battle system, instead of the att/def rating system.

    In comparison, the differences between Civ2 and Civ3 are much smaller. Civ3 is much more "Civ2 with a couple of extra features, and some stuff removed"

    How then can you say Civ4 feels "tacked on?"
     
  4. MAS

    MAS Deity

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,080
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Civ3 is a strategy game, if you know what you are doing, there is no such thing as "turn-by-turn survival." Because how well you are doing this turn depends on the decisions you made many turn ago.

    You do the same in Civ4.

    But you have to consider ahead of time that you need that catapult. You have less cities, and both the production cost and upkeep of units are more severe in Civ4. Its not as easy as you make it sound.
    In Civ3, you can basically just build a mass of horseman and you win.
    In civ4, Axeman are better against melee units than swordsman, but you'll need swordsman to take cities. You'll have to consider what you plan to do. And taking and keeping every city is not a matter of course.
    If you can't find the resources, you'll have to consider winning via a different route.
    In Civ3, you can also just build a mass of archers, its a bit slower than horses, but for the rest it works the same.

    Now thats funny, I remember vmxa posting "I spot a cow, this game is won! Unless you are playing SID difficulty" as a comment on a Civ3 game.
     
  5. Nergal

    Nergal Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Messages:
    390
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    I can see the tacked on viewpoint. One thing that annoys me about CIV is that it has too many features. Religion, Corporations and the expanded Espionage system. And I dont think any of them work particularly well. They seem fine at low levels, but as you increase the difficulty all of a sudden the AI flips from weak to overwhelmingly strong. Mainly because the player gets penalised in a lot of areas and the AI gains advantages in a lot of areas. The same thing happens at Emperor level in CivIII, the AI gains cheaper research and build rates at the same time as the player gets penalties. IMHO I think Revolutions looks even worse. The Civs have bonus abilities. To me that looks like the same sort of thing you get in other games, because it markets well to the kids.
     
  6. eldar

    eldar ChiefTank

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,244
    Location:
    Mechanicsburg, PA
    Somewhere there is a PowerPoint slide show done by (I think) Soren prior to the release of Civ IV. It highlighted sequels to a few games (Starcraft, AoE, etc.) and how often sequels fell into the trap of "more = less" and how, presumably, the idea was to avoid that kind of mistake with Civ IV.

    It'd be interesting to look at it again in hindsight; and also get an idea of how much input Soren and the original Civ IV team had into Warlords and more importantly BtS.
     
  7. rysmiel

    rysmiel Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,401
    There are some of us for whom that philosophy right there seems to be the root of most of what is wrong with Civ IV by comparison with Civ III.
     
  8. ZzarkLinux

    ZzarkLinux Engineering Programmer

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    156
    Location:
    Virginia, US
    MAS, you make very good points. :)
    My question is:
    How do all the extra Civ 4 features make the game more exciting and action-packed?

    I think "overall strategy" is too badly implemented in Civ4.
    Make a choice -> Press enter -> Press enter -> Press enter...
    Where is all the "excitement / action" in that "overall strategy" of pressing the enter key?

    I know Civ4 has great ideas. I just think they're all done in a boring way.....

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Point 1: Civ4 has more features
    I disagree that "all those extra features" make the game more fun than Civ3.
    I disagree that the combat changes are "more fun".
    Because Civ 4 focuses too much on planning, and less on action.

    Civ 4 "strategy": Change 2 builds. Press enter. Press enter. Press enter...
    Civ 4 "strategy": I want a religion. Press enter. Press enter. Press enter...
    How is this exciting? How does this meet my need for action?
    The only exciting feature I see in Civ4 is "random events".
    But that alone isn't enough to get me to switch.


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Point 2: War in Civ3 is too easy
    You either aren't playing high enough difficulty, or you never played "Always War" :)
    Up the difficulty, then see how easy it is when you're an age behind...
    You can still win when you're an age behind in Civ3. That what's so challenging :)


    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Point 3: Civ3 is too easy
    In Civ3, I have seen starts MICROMANGED to become easy, steam-roller games.
    In Civ4, I have seen starts "Press-enter", "Press-enter", "Press-enter" to become easy, steam-roller games.

    Again, where did all the action go?

    Thanks for your response man :) I spent most of my lunch trying to clarify my points.
    I look forward to your input.
     
  9. MAS

    MAS Deity

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,080
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Its a frigging turn based strategy game! Ever seen a chess match? Where is the excitement in that? Well, to some people, a chess game can be very exciting. But its still no Mortal Combat, Doom, or Diablo2!

    Where is the excitement in ordering an other 250 units about?



    I Know. In higher levels and AW, you use big stacks of bombardment units, combined with defenders and fast moving offensive units. (spear, catapult and horseman) Your conquest will be slower this way, but your win/loss ratio will be higher. And if you want to play it cheap, you can throw in some good old fashioned bikini-babe workers to pull some strings here and there.


    Is micromanaging action for you?

    I've seen civ3 games steamrolled to the end by pressing enter. Builder style, diplo/spaceship, or even worse, XCC 20k culture. Even at high difficulty levels, the only things the player needed to think about was what wonders to aim for, ahead of time. But once he found the right course to take, it was a press-enter steamroll.

    And I've seen Civ4 games action packed with war. It was a turn by turn micromanagement fest to conquer fast and keep up in the tech race as well. He used a specialist economy, and ran a negative income, that was maintained by pillaging towns and taking cities for their lump sum gold. Letting the war literally pay for itself.


    But anyway, ZzarkLinux, I do understand what you are trying to say, and I currently have a preference for Civ3 as well... ;)




    Yes, basically, thats what I was trying to say in post#63, Civ4 is a different game. Its not dumber, just different.
     
  10. ZzarkLinux

    ZzarkLinux Engineering Programmer

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    156
    Location:
    Virginia, US
    I don't know if it's action, but it's one darn good addiction. :lol:

    That's why I love random events in Civ4. That's more action, less planning :D

    I think Civ4 has great ideas for features, but they're too passive.
    Somehow "unique buildings", "espionage points", "culture", "colonies", etc... need to be more engaging. All those features are mostly "press enter" IMO.

    :whipped:
    :hammer: More units :hammer: More clicks :hammer: More calculations :hammer: More cities :hammer:
     
  11. T.A JONES

    T.A JONES Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    3,471
    It seems theres a map size thats just right where you engage proper before it gets a lil crazy

    Kinda like power meter in a Tiger woods golf game. With the approach off the drive(game settings) you want to hit with power but not over shoot into the tangles of micromanagment, er I mean the woods

    If you want to get on the green, where the majorty of civ players wanna be for best epic classic civ feel similarity, the sweet spot to let go the button is near the180x180 size marker, I mean map size. Something like this:
    Spoiler :


    Here the complaint of over micromanagement from to many cities is invalid and so is "this epic is to small, Not enough action", that follows civ4. NOTE: This is not the same as teh civ4 feels like its on autopilot arguement

    Today pluggin in the right huge map for best Epics is enhanced by unofficial civ3 patch that make less 'micro' intensive games.
    Ex: More pollution reducing improvements, better corruption set ups through a better realism vassel approach thanks to patches based on Embyo and Yoda'a mod research. Or, general tone down on 'red' levels mixed with new jails improvments or Interpol "Forbidden Palace" type wonders

    Also the army patch makes AI use and attack armys so puttin the army in the game without feeling guilty is a great big map bonus. Now both you and AI can use them to break in on 60+ city civs and you see less AI vs AI stalemates. Like where the AI usually calls peace on your MA instead of breaking the line for the money you forked out)
    AI using armies is a great improvement and beats taking them out aor having the cheasy advantages take over your realism factor
     
  12. Nergal

    Nergal Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Messages:
    390
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    Something I thought of earlier that I'd throw in is the realism of the maps. I dont like the layout of C IV maps. I've just used the CivIII editor to produce a map for a D&D campaign. And with a couple of generates got something that fitted my spec nicely. I considered using the World Builder in IV but it doesnt seem to come up with anything I like. And I use Snoopys graphics which IMHO give a really nice look to the map. I might play C IV more if it looked better. I love the roaming elephants and the little mines and windmills but the terrrain needs work.
     
  13. Ansar

    Ansar Détente avec l'été

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    10,555
    Location:
    Ithaca, NY (soon)
    Because I realized I wasted my money ;).
     
  14. timerover51

    timerover51 Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,526
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Chicago area in Illinois
    I have older computers, which means that Civ4 plays very slowly on them. I might put up with that except that I am not impressed with either the graphics or the game mechanics. Before someone says buy new computers, I am the guy that has to justify paying for those new computers over paying for other things like food, property taxes, and college bills. Guess which ones win. Civ3 plays very nicely on my Mac laptop.

    As for the game mechanics, I also play a lot of actual hard copy board war games and historical board games. I actually spend 3 weeks every summer teaching history using board games. Civ3 plays much like a board game or miniatures game with limited intelligence. I am very comfortable with that. I cannot say the same for Civ4. I just have never really gotten comfortable with it.
     
  15. Scratcher

    Scratcher Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,450
    Location:
    Deep in the Jungle
    Why do I still play Civ 3? The answer is the same reason I still play Heroes of Might and Magic 3. I really like the game.
     
  16. Theov

    Theov Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,222
    Location:
    Taiwan
    They didn't add the religion Pastafarianism; the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to the Religions.
    It's really a religion of a billion+ people, but we don't attract that much attention, because we never fought a war.
    .
    I reject religions anyhow.
     
  17. Moosezilla

    Moosezilla Grognard Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,037
    Location:
    Canton of Roaring Waste
    What timerover51 said is very true. I'm an old grognard who loves Axis & Allies and Kingmaker. Oh ot spaghetti nightmares are Quite common for panel wiremen!
     
  18. Quintillus

    Quintillus Archiving Civ3 Content Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    6,595
    Location:
    Ohio
    What exactly is the army patch? Is it making an Elite promotion automatically give an army so the AI will have armies and consequently will use them? I'd certainly like to see enemy armies. Ideally they'd even be created intelligently - three Cavalry instead of two Cavalry and a Rifleman - but any armies at all would be an improvement, especially since Great Leaders are already forbidden from hurrying Great Wonders in Conquests.
     
  19. Civinator

    Civinator Blue Lion Supporter

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,093
    Gender:
    Male
    In my eyes it´s not a patch. In the editor you set the Army to carry one unit and give the army lots of additional hitpoints so it has the value of several units. The AI uses this kind of army.
     
  20. BTB

    BTB Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2006
    Messages:
    116
    I like this thread. It's glad to see that there are other people out there who feel the same way I do.

    I'm even worse, though... I only play Vanilla Civ3 >.>

    Something about the original Civ3 is what has always stuck with me the most. PTW and Conquests just bogged the game down by adding a whole bunch of... well, crap I didn't really care for. The two new civ traits seemed horribly imbalanced, the new wonders were either completely worthless or completely overpowered, facism and feudalism both seemed like useless counterparts to other decent governments of the time, and the only thing it seemed to do right was fix the way corruption works in Communism.

    I wish that a patch for Civ3 Vanilla that just instituted all of the bugfixes that Conquests made >.<
     

Share This Page