Should i get C3C or C4C?

[spacemonkey1958]

OK so,

Its been a while since I was a Civ player, last version I played was Civ 3 with no expansions, updates, patches, anything. I played ALOT on my own, never really got into the online community or playing other people. I am a decent player, Monarch level usually. That being said I love the game, have been researching strategy and its time I get back into the fray!

Should I by Civ 3 complete or Civ 4 complete ?

One thing you sould know is that i could care less about suerior graphics of civ 4, I'm all about game play, interface. I dont know much about C3C or civ 4 game play, I have read some reviews but like all reviews for civ games they just say its great.

Opinios?

 

[Elear]

I really encourage you to get C3C (though evidentally I have bias). There is more depth and improvements from the original Civ3, and I personally prefer the feel of it to Civ4.

I don't deny Civ4 can be a lot of fun though; to me, it has a big "Age of Empires" feel; combat also may be slightly more realistic in certain unit matchups. Otherwise, I definitely just enjoy C3C. It seems like a much better version of Civ2 to me, whereas Civ4 has some significant changes to the point where it really is a new game.

 

[TheOverseer714]

C3C certainly requires less computer horsepower, so if you don't have a really powerful computer, thats what you should get. If it has the horsepower, then it comes down to aesthetics and personal preferences.

 

[vmxa]

I suspect that if you ask in this forum you will get C3C as the answer. If you ask on the C4 forum, you may get another.

I have both, but only rarely play IV. It is not a bad game and there is a number of things to like about it. I just find it is not quite for me and I put it down for long stretches.

 

[spacemonkey1958]

I also posted this Q in the civ 4 thread, just to be fair.

C3C has been the front runner for me, from what i have seen with the screen shots I prefer the look of 3.

I just dont want to miss out on any improvements in the game play

 

[Civinator]

What´s about buying Civ Chronicles and to test yourself what you enjoy more?

As mentioned above, for Civ 4 you need a much stronger pc to play much smaller worlds with less cities.

The 3d-graphics, especially for units, that are used in Civ 4 are much more ugly than those in Civ 3. Cause of the severe limitations of the 3d-engine you have "lego-unit" graphics in Civ 4. As you are in the Civ 4 forums, too, please have a look especially on the tanks that are offered here. They look as if they would be done out of one piece of paper and most astonishing - no 3d in comparison to the Civ 3 tanks. But in Civ 4 you have animated waves and smoking funnels of buildings, what all use some parts of the limited ram.

On the other hand Civ 4 is better suited for multiplayer. It was constructed around that feature (other than Civ 3). The AI for single player games was added later to Civ 4 . That´s one of the reasons why a lot of people in the Civ 3 forums find Civ 4 boring. They mostly play single player games.

Concerning modding: If you are a specialised programmer, you can do a lot more with Civ 4. On the other side modding Civ 4 is much more difficult than modding Civ 3 where you have an editor.

There were some very hot discussions in these forums about the comparison of Civ 3 and Civ 4. It´s astonishing, that some of the strongest supporters of Civ 4 at those times now have lost all their interest in Civ 4.

 

[dexters]

If you already have Civ 3 and played it, Civ3 complete or the Conquests expansion will feel like a major upgrade, for the better. The final AI you encounter in C3C is much more capable than the one you faced in Civ3 and that's due in part to 2 years of work from the Firaxis team as they snuck in AI tweaks in patches and in the expansions.

One of the things Civ3 Complete/Conquestrs will have to offer on the AI side is improved tactics, better worker management, and all around superior use of air power and naval power.

I have civ4 myself but rarely play it. Civ3 is highly recommended for the fanatics in all of us. Civ4 just didn't feel the same to me.

 

[D'Artagnan59]

C3C is less complicated than C4C.

 

[spacemonkey1958]

I wanted to thank everyone for your help, you guys have been great.

 

[Ondskan]

I suspect that if you ask in this forum you will get C3C as the answer. If you ask on the C4 forum, you may get another.

I have both, but only rarely play IV. It is not a bad game and there is a number of things to like about it. I just find it is not quite for me and I put it down for long stretches.

ye agreed. Technichly many things are better in Civ 4 but the layout of the whole thing just doesn't go well with me.

 

[Schalke 04]

I just can speak for myself. I am playing CIV 3 for more than seven years now. I had some breaks with this game, but always find my way back to it.

I've tried CIV 4 several times, but after a couple of games it bores me somehow and I go back to good old CIV 3

 

[mythmonster2]

Curious, if we have been good help, I presume that means you have concluded your choice. Not to be nosy, but which game have you chosen? Just curious.

 

[Rhye]

hope you still haven't, spacemonkey. There's a lot of interesting discussion going on in the other thread

 

[againsttheflow]

I saw someone on the other thread say they'd come from 2 and been disappointed with 3 so I thought I'd mention that I came from playing the former and though it had been a while and took me a game or two to get going on III I fell in love with it.

There will be discussion about which is better till the end of time (or at least till civs 5 or 6 come out).

 

[Crowqueen]

Civ III I find a good break from Civ IV but lately I've been playing it alone as I don't have the time to concentrate on IV.

Sorry if this offends but Civ III is like playing Space Invaders compared to playing Civ IV.

 

[Spoonwood]

Galaga is basically a version of Space Invaders, and people still play that in arcades... so that's actually a compliment to Civ III.

 

[Ethan Moreau]

To be honest, I think that C3C is a hell of a lot better. It's just got a simpler interface that somehow allows you to have more choices.

 

[Glassfan]

I finally got a new computer at Best Buy and CIV was on sale so I got it as well. I didn't think I'd like it, but after a week of play I have to say I'm addicted. I started years ago with Civ II and then Gold, then Civ III and Conquests, and now it's time to move on. I see from the numbers visiting the General Discussions that I'm not alone. So long III fans...

 

[Crowqueen]

@Spoonwood - I now solely play Civ III, so that is a compliment to the game, not picking at its faults. However Civ IV is much more complex and adds a lot more dimensions to the game which I hope are explored fully in Civ V (such as random events and different combinations of civics), so comparing III to Space Invaders was only because I play it when I need some good hard Inca-bashing rather than a strategic and time-consuming complex wargame. I may be missing some elements of the game here - in fact all my games currently end in domination because if I sit still long enough to go for a space race or diplomatic victory, I end up granting drilling rights to all and sundry where I can't get the settlers out fast enough, so my first resort is to violence.

In Civ IV the boundary system was greatly enhanced by not allowing civs with which you do not have an open borders agreement with to move their soldiers across your land. That eliminates half the need for an aggressive strategy in one go; while my Civ IV games involve a lot of warfare it is by no means the only way I've won (I was quite happy with a game where I peacefully spread my religion and won a diplomatic victory with very little violence or troops built at all).

In conclusion I would say if you are looking for a game where the main object is to slaughter your way across two or more continents, then Civ III is your best bet. If you want a game which is more thoughtful, involves an axe rush or three but gives you a breathing space without four or five spearmen and settlers waltzing across your territory and snapping up prime real estate, necessitating a frustrating war over very little, then Civ IV is best. For me at the moment, Civ III is quite entertaining because I enjoy seeing my cavalry pulverising the AI's spearmen. However when I have a little more personal breathing space I am sure I will go back to Civ IV.

Until then I am quite happy to bash the odd "erm...missionary" to kingdom come .

 

[Spoonwood]

If you want a game which is more thoughtful, involves an axe rush or three but gives you a breathing space without four or five spearmen and settlers waltzing across your territory and snapping up prime real estate, necessitating a frustrating war over very little, then Civ IV is best.

Your example doesn't necessitate a war. It does come as possible to beat high levels in Civ III without any war (on your part)... I've done this several times... some of them are in the HoF.