Is this game better than Civ3? why?
- Thread starter kahgani
- Start date
Mat777 said:
I tried to like the game. Many other people have, and those people have voiced their rejections about the game. True, no one is ever happy, but come on, how can this game be called civilization? It's more like villageization to me.
kahgani said:
Hehe, as I was saying ever since I first started posting on this forum, some people simply will be unable to get over not having 50+ cities. I respect their decision, but I think Firaxis made the right one, because managing 50 cities is very boring for me and a lot of others.
Bolgard
Chieftain
kahgani said:
I'm sorry it didn't meet your expectations.
I hope you change your mind - it's the best Civilization yet.
JiggleTheHandle
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2005
- Messages
- 63
Awww, the Ensemble/Microsoft marketing team is getting upset.
King Flevance
Deity
I havent got to play many games, I am on number four now. None of which have came out of the dark ages because I like playing on Huge/Epic. And I am still suffering from major game graphic issues. I wont even do it for a fast game. A fast Civ game to me is like a slow lamborghini, why would I do that?
I must admit though as a HUGE fan of CIV 3, 4 does have some neat things. Granted I do wish the map was bigger on huge. I wish that soooo much. I also wish production would hurry the heck up or time would slow even more, one of the two. But I like the graphics.... all I can vouch for is city/units, the land all looks the same to me and I have yet to see the water. The units could be smaller for my taste but eh. I love how the improvements are shown ON the map, it something small and rediculous but it is so damn cool IMO.
I love that barbarians are now intimidating and hard to predict.
The tech tree is great and has improved though it also seems it has shrunk... it may just be me but it seems the tech tree has shrunk because, lets face it the whole game has shrunk because of the 3D stuff. I really am not happy about a game I enjoy as a 'World Simulator' being the size of a few tropical islands when the setting is 'Continents' but life has given me lemons. All I can hope for is they make it bigger on 5.
I like the religions/civics things even though I don't really understand them much... this could easily be because in the dark ages you dont really get to see the full aspect of them. I am aware these could hold some good potential though.
I wouldn't say Civ 4 is better than 3. I wouldn't say Civ 3 is better than 4 either. Heck, I really shouldn't be able to judge from my limited game experience BUT based off of it so far they both seem to be strong where the other is weak. I dont like trying to figure out the precise movements to get that 5% advantage in 3 either. I love the raw element of combat in 4 especially the way that the units can be formed to the environment/situation of your game. 2 warriors can be setup entirely different.
Really I guess for 3 the thing I like about it is size. It makes for a more elaborate world. It makes mobilization an issue. When 2 countries feud, and a 3rd jumps in, it changes stuff dramatically because in a huge map there are more of a chance for them to be in a more challenging position to fight.
I remain a fan of 3 and still will play it probably as often as I play 4 once mine starts working right.
My main view AS a fanboy of Civ games is 4 is good from what I have seen. I wont say it sucks. BUT I will admit they could have done better. Not just with size but a smaller game also means a smaller amount of effort. NOT that they didnt work hard on this game. But I dont think they perfected it the way they could have. I am not saying that they need to perfect it the way I want them too either. What I mean is I think they worked hard on it and they got to a point where they said, "I think this is good enough." And I agree it can pass as a civilization game and is VERY cool in some new ways and old ones. But it could also have been better.
Final score:
CIV 3 :
CIV 4 :
I must admit though as a HUGE fan of CIV 3, 4 does have some neat things. Granted I do wish the map was bigger on huge. I wish that soooo much. I also wish production would hurry the heck up or time would slow even more, one of the two. But I like the graphics.... all I can vouch for is city/units, the land all looks the same to me and I have yet to see the water. The units could be smaller for my taste but eh. I love how the improvements are shown ON the map, it something small and rediculous but it is so damn cool IMO.
I love that barbarians are now intimidating and hard to predict.
The tech tree is great and has improved though it also seems it has shrunk... it may just be me but it seems the tech tree has shrunk because, lets face it the whole game has shrunk because of the 3D stuff. I really am not happy about a game I enjoy as a 'World Simulator' being the size of a few tropical islands when the setting is 'Continents' but life has given me lemons. All I can hope for is they make it bigger on 5.
I like the religions/civics things even though I don't really understand them much... this could easily be because in the dark ages you dont really get to see the full aspect of them. I am aware these could hold some good potential though.
I wouldn't say Civ 4 is better than 3. I wouldn't say Civ 3 is better than 4 either. Heck, I really shouldn't be able to judge from my limited game experience BUT based off of it so far they both seem to be strong where the other is weak. I dont like trying to figure out the precise movements to get that 5% advantage in 3 either. I love the raw element of combat in 4 especially the way that the units can be formed to the environment/situation of your game. 2 warriors can be setup entirely different.
Really I guess for 3 the thing I like about it is size. It makes for a more elaborate world. It makes mobilization an issue. When 2 countries feud, and a 3rd jumps in, it changes stuff dramatically because in a huge map there are more of a chance for them to be in a more challenging position to fight.
I remain a fan of 3 and still will play it probably as often as I play 4 once mine starts working right.
My main view AS a fanboy of Civ games is 4 is good from what I have seen. I wont say it sucks. BUT I will admit they could have done better. Not just with size but a smaller game also means a smaller amount of effort. NOT that they didnt work hard on this game. But I dont think they perfected it the way they could have. I am not saying that they need to perfect it the way I want them too either. What I mean is I think they worked hard on it and they got to a point where they said, "I think this is good enough." And I agree it can pass as a civilization game and is VERY cool in some new ways and old ones. But it could also have been better.
Final score:
CIV 3 :
CIV 4 :
King you would love my mod, world is HUGE and like you like it I'm sure and the game lasts 960 turns instead of the standard 550, the first 400 turns are the first 4000 years of the game. Lots of wars, lots of production, yet, the research is toned down so there aren't any tanks or muskets before their time.
Are you familar with your XML files yet? They are soooooo easy to adjust to get the game you want. I'm playing a game now on HUGE 80x60 map, can go as high as 100x100 I'm sure. With 14 civs everyone can get near 10 cities each, but, about the time I hit my 8th or 9th city the AI has other plans for me. I set it to "aggressive ai" under the advanced options and I find myself in 3 and 4 front wars a lot lately and it's fun as heck trying to survive and still stay ahead of them playing monarchy. Best challenging CIV game I've ever played.
The AI in CIV IV is very good when set to aggressive. And adding the extra 410 turns for the early game gives you the feeling you're doing something besides pressing the end turn button racing to the middle ages or modern ages. It's like playing two games in one, the ancient game and then the middle ages and modern era, to me it feels just right. I feel like I've gotten the perfect experience out of the game, if I can survive the ancients, then it's onto the middle and modern ages and victory or death. hehe
I feel like the research time line I have set is just about right with history, it takes quite a few thousand years (near 200 turns) just to get to iron. Of course as you grow in science things will start to come a little faster and then the timeline follows up into gunpowder around the middle ages, though a little bit earlier than normal for the FUN factor of having about 200 to 300 turns of fun in the gunpowder ages.
If you want the files send me a pm and your email address and I'll send them to you, all you have to do is backup your origonal files and rename them something else and then drop my files in the approproiate folder (both files go in the same folder) and then you can be playing the game I think you want to play like me.
Are you familar with your XML files yet? They are soooooo easy to adjust to get the game you want. I'm playing a game now on HUGE 80x60 map, can go as high as 100x100 I'm sure. With 14 civs everyone can get near 10 cities each, but, about the time I hit my 8th or 9th city the AI has other plans for me. I set it to "aggressive ai" under the advanced options and I find myself in 3 and 4 front wars a lot lately and it's fun as heck trying to survive and still stay ahead of them playing monarchy. Best challenging CIV game I've ever played.
The AI in CIV IV is very good when set to aggressive. And adding the extra 410 turns for the early game gives you the feeling you're doing something besides pressing the end turn button racing to the middle ages or modern ages. It's like playing two games in one, the ancient game and then the middle ages and modern era, to me it feels just right. I feel like I've gotten the perfect experience out of the game, if I can survive the ancients, then it's onto the middle and modern ages and victory or death. hehe
I feel like the research time line I have set is just about right with history, it takes quite a few thousand years (near 200 turns) just to get to iron. Of course as you grow in science things will start to come a little faster and then the timeline follows up into gunpowder around the middle ages, though a little bit earlier than normal for the FUN factor of having about 200 to 300 turns of fun in the gunpowder ages.
If you want the files send me a pm and your email address and I'll send them to you, all you have to do is backup your origonal files and rename them something else and then drop my files in the approproiate folder (both files go in the same folder) and then you can be playing the game I think you want to play like me.
King Flevance
Deity
OK! 
That sounds great!
***This just in***
Results of the previous judging has changed.
CIV 3:
CIV 4:
Sorry Civ 3 but if this plays the way I am thinking it will, Civ 4 just beat the crap out of three and threw it at the new hardcore barbarians. Now I gotta wait on that patch.
That sounds great!
***This just in***
Results of the previous judging has changed.
CIV 3:
CIV 4:
Sorry Civ 3 but if this plays the way I am thinking it will, Civ 4 just beat the crap out of three and threw it at the new hardcore barbarians. Now I gotta wait on that patch.
I'd definitely say that Civ4 beats Civ3 in terms of accessibility and playability, but I never got into Civ3, so, yeah, I don't want to step on toes. I'll say, though, that Civ4 is on the same level as the original Civ to me in terms of fun and addiction.
LordRahl said:
And that may well be why so many or at least some hate it.
They want to rule the world, even parts that aren't theirs, they want to exploit the AI to do what they want it to do.
Now for the first time, we have an AI that actually plays for itself and that's not going to be to everyone's liking...that may sound strange, it's also true.
True, at a glance and statistically Civ4 looks smaller but at the same time it is soo much bigger.
SuperSloth
Warlord
the dirst day i played i could say that i was disappointed. but now after about 2-3 days of playing i can say that i am actually starting to enjoy it. it just took me a while to get use to the new feel of the game. now its like im hooked on some wonderful drug and i cant stop playing. Way WAY better than civ 3.
ps. thank the gods there are no more friggin 50+ city countries. i actually thought that that was one of the downpoints of civ3.
ps. thank the gods there are no more friggin 50+ city countries. i actually thought that that was one of the downpoints of civ3.
Big_Wang said:
I would call it damn simplistic.
Some of the best changes imo: no ics, settler prod consumes food, the govt/civics system, the great people system, the combat system. All much better than they were in either Civ2 or 3.
I AM disappointed that the time scale wasnt lengthened tho. Units still become obsolete far too soon, as techs still progress far too fast. (Also, I always thought that buildings should be much more production intensive than they are, more like 20 times the shields as a comparable unit, instead of twice.)
LordRahl said:
For new ones are yet to be found in Civ 4. Quoting a Bethdesa Developer on the development of Elderscrolls 4, 'There will be whole NEW bugs in this game!' Of course, with the ability to mod the actual game AI itself, these exploits may be gotten rid of, which is a plus. I bet, in a year or two, there will be Civ 4's own ICS type exploit, although the game was tested well, these things remain, and the AI is simply that, an AI which can be exploited for player gain...
did any of what I say make sence? Or am I talking blah to people?
btw, I definatly HATED ICS in Civ, I found it absolutly against my playing style. Although I dont have the game yet, the smaller number of cities in a game definatly seem like a blessing
I just wanted to weigh in a little late.
I think cIV is a better game than III.
Also I think everyone complains (as in I -> II, and II -> III, and their are still people who prefer SMAC (which I thought was unbalanced tot he extreme and with very weak AI, I stopped playing when I was receiving future techs every turn on the hardest level).
As for the improvements in cIV, I think the "simpler" (designers term) game is actually far more elaborate. There may be less units, but with the upgrades it changes the game entirly. Also, idea that units counter other units is nice (Axemen vs Melee ect). It allows for more interesting combat. For example my army of swordmen was great for taking cities with archers (after a few city raider upgrades) but they were useless in my next war because the opponent had axemen.
The tech tree is far more interesting, but harder to read (is it an and requirement or an or one), but it allows for a laser focus on a particular catagory and then later on to reconcile to a point.
I think having stone and marble speed up wonders/buildings is a nice touch (the copper requirement less so, since I have never not had it).
Railroads are a massive improvement over previous versions, which entirley screwed up balance and made airorts almost useless.
The pervasive tool tips are nice but buggy (must keep moving the mouse to keep some of them up), but from a pure gameplay standpoint ake the game much better.
The only stumbling block is the civilapedia, which I have counted on as being powerful and intuitive now sucks. It does not appear to be crosslinked (well actually, it appears to be, but they don't work for me), and it does not have an everything catagory, making it difficult to finde things. Also I can't seem to bring it up within the regular interface (except the tech tree one), which is kind of a shame, because I used to read about wonders after I built them and people when I met them and it really made me learn a lot.
Also, I disliked the lack of larger maps but apperently King Flevance has fixed that, and it was not a ame limitation. I personally assumed it was what they were settign aside for expansions, and also, I have a fairly good system (6600 GT, 1GB ram, 3500+) and the game really chokes opening some menues and popping up messages sometimes, larger map could be worse.
The copy protection also prevents me from using the start menu to start the game, but the autoplay still works.
Also, Ravinhood:
to use your mod do the following:
1) make a folder called Flavence in the mods folder
2) put only the files you changed in there, using the same directory structure as the game (see other mods for how that works).
3) when starting the game click advanced -> load a mod -> your mod and it should work (havn't tried, just from what I read).
This allows you to load distribute your mod as a zip file for unpacking into the mods folder and leaves the original game completly in tact.
If you have read this far I am sorry for wasting your time.
----------------------
Editied, aside at the end now to intended recipient.
I think cIV is a better game than III.
Also I think everyone complains (as in I -> II, and II -> III, and their are still people who prefer SMAC (which I thought was unbalanced tot he extreme and with very weak AI, I stopped playing when I was receiving future techs every turn on the hardest level).
As for the improvements in cIV, I think the "simpler" (designers term) game is actually far more elaborate. There may be less units, but with the upgrades it changes the game entirly. Also, idea that units counter other units is nice (Axemen vs Melee ect). It allows for more interesting combat. For example my army of swordmen was great for taking cities with archers (after a few city raider upgrades) but they were useless in my next war because the opponent had axemen.
The tech tree is far more interesting, but harder to read (is it an and requirement or an or one), but it allows for a laser focus on a particular catagory and then later on to reconcile to a point.
I think having stone and marble speed up wonders/buildings is a nice touch (the copper requirement less so, since I have never not had it).
Railroads are a massive improvement over previous versions, which entirley screwed up balance and made airorts almost useless.
The pervasive tool tips are nice but buggy (must keep moving the mouse to keep some of them up), but from a pure gameplay standpoint ake the game much better.
The only stumbling block is the civilapedia, which I have counted on as being powerful and intuitive now sucks. It does not appear to be crosslinked (well actually, it appears to be, but they don't work for me), and it does not have an everything catagory, making it difficult to finde things. Also I can't seem to bring it up within the regular interface (except the tech tree one), which is kind of a shame, because I used to read about wonders after I built them and people when I met them and it really made me learn a lot.
Also, I disliked the lack of larger maps but apperently King Flevance has fixed that, and it was not a ame limitation. I personally assumed it was what they were settign aside for expansions, and also, I have a fairly good system (6600 GT, 1GB ram, 3500+) and the game really chokes opening some menues and popping up messages sometimes, larger map could be worse.
The copy protection also prevents me from using the start menu to start the game, but the autoplay still works.
Also, Ravinhood:
to use your mod do the following:
1) make a folder called Flavence in the mods folder
2) put only the files you changed in there, using the same directory structure as the game (see other mods for how that works).
3) when starting the game click advanced -> load a mod -> your mod and it should work (havn't tried, just from what I read).
This allows you to load distribute your mod as a zip file for unpacking into the mods folder and leaves the original game completly in tact.
If you have read this far I am sorry for wasting your time.
----------------------
Editied, aside at the end now to intended recipient.
