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 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.