What is your view of Civ3?

[Fifty]

Civ3 has no strategy involved whatsoever. The extent to which the game is difficult is the extent to which you are willing to put up with tedious micro. In that way, civ3 is not so much a strategy game as a test-of-willpower game.

 

[Zelig]

Alright, my complaints about Civ 4's combat system. It's mostly about the way artillery type units are set up. The fact that the way to assault well defended positions was to churn out dozens of artillery units and just hurl them at the enemy.

What would you prefer? Churning out dozens of regular units? Being able to assault well defended positions with a small number of units?

I want to see economies suffer due to war time demands; I want to see minority upset at their overlords, and rebellions when you really piss them off. Plus the fact that you don't need to supply your troops at all. It's just: build death stack, send death stack on murderous rampage.

Civ4 has war weariness, upset minorities when you capture enemy cities, and unit supply costs...

The maps were smaller, cities were very expensive

As opposed to civ3, where cities were basically worthless.

and even the most zoomed-out play mode covered precious little of the map.

I see the FoV modification mod as pretty much a necessity to play Civ4 on any decently sized screen. (Available as part of the BAT mod, which greatly improves the game anyway.)

 

[Kyriakos]

Can you at least agree that civ4 cities are not as detailed/pretty as civ3 ones? This is always the case: the isometric games have better gfx.

 

[History_Buff]

What would you prefer? Churning out dozens of regular units? Being able to assault well defended positions with a small number of units?

I think Civ 5 has the best solution; prevent there from being overly well defended places in the first place.

Civ4 has war weariness, upset minorities when you capture enemy cities, and unit supply costs...

But aside from the unit supply costs, those things are meaningless after a few turns. After <20 turns, that Empire you conquered is effectively equivalent to the one you built yourself. That should not happen.

As opposed to civ3, where cities were basically worthless.

True, Civ 3 had it's failures there.

I see the FoV modification mod as pretty much a necessity to play Civ4 on any decently sized screen. (Available as part of the BAT mod, which greatly improves the game anyway.)

Intriguing. I shall have to look that up.

 

[Tommy Vercetti]

I still play Civ 3. My favorite game of all time.

 

[Zelig]

Can you at least agree that civ4 cities are not as detailed/pretty as civ3 ones? This is always the case: the isometric games have better gfx.

Not at a zoom level that anyone actually plays at.

 

[aelf]

Alright, my complaints about Civ 4's combat system.

No offense, but your comments seem to betray some unfamiliarity with Civ4's gameplay mechanics. And I think that's the reason for most people's problem with them - simple unfamiliarity.

I played both Civ3 and Civ4 extensively (it was during my army days), so for what it's worth, I'll tell you why I think you're mistaken.

Alright, my complaints about Civ 4's combat system. It's mostly about the way artillery type units are set up. The fact that the way to assault well defended positions was to churn out dozens of artillery units and just hurl them at the enemy. While Civ 3's artillery system was admittedly overpowered, Civ 4's was worse.

I don't agree with this at all. I got up to Demigod on Civ3 before switching and the real fight was in the eras before the Industrial. Once I'd built up a stack of more than 30 artillery, the game would become much easier. That speaks a lot about how overpowered artillery was in Civ 3. And there's one very good reason for that - they are not actually involved in combat.

Civ4's system seems counter-intuitive at first. Artillery being involved in combat? What the hell is that? A regression to earlier days of the series? But that actually goes a long way to solve the problem. Now you can actually lose lots of them in the process. You don't have a giant unkillable army of artillery anymore. As for collateral damage, well, either divide up your stack, screen or don't be caught sitting in your cities. Tactics can help you deal with it, and I think that's so much better.

And my complaint about Civ 4's graphics has a lot to do with them trying to make everything smaller. The maps were smaller, cities were very expensive, even if well sited, and even the most zoomed-out play mode covered precious little of the map.

What do you mean by smaller? You can control the size of the map, you know. And, IIRC, upkeep costs scale with size. That new city might cost you a bomb on small map, but it wouldn't on a big one.

And personally, fewer cities translate to less micro, and that's a big plus for me.

 

[Takhisis]

What I like about cIV is that we have Pitboss. That is the greatest thing about Civilisation is the ability to play others online without the need to send emails with the game, since this makes the game faster. If C3C had it. then it would be an awesome game. It was still a good game, but I have stopped playing it, since Iahve gotten cIV

You can play online in C3C, but it's not a very well-implemented feature. Hotseat parties rock, though.

Civ3 has no strategy involved whatsoever. The extent to which the game is difficult is the extent to which you are willing to put up with tedious micro. In that way, civ3 is not so much a strategy game as a test-of-willpower game.

The epic/vanilla version always sucks. It's the mods that are worth it.

I still play Civ 3. My favorite game of all time.

Wheeeeeee! Another civ3'er is still around. head over to C3 C&C now, lad!

 

[Kyriakos]

There have to be way over 40-50 in the OT alone

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

I rarely play Civ3 nowadays, though I still come back occasionally (see my unfinished story in the Stories and Tales section).

 

[Zelig]

The epic/vanilla version always sucks. It's the mods that are worth it.

So following this reasoning, since Civ4 crushes Civ3 in modding ability, it's still the better game.

 

[Takhisis]

Maybe it is. Depends on what you call 'better'. I don't like civ4's style, and I'm not much into 3D. I was brought up playing sprites in the '90s and i am a bit of a reactionary on that point .
There's another factor for preferring the civ3 mods: the pleasure that comes from playing your comrades' (C3C C&C folks) mod, enjoying their work, which is superb, and knowing that they also use your creations for the same purpose. I can't get that sense of satisfaction from civ4, sorry.

 

[Zelig]

There's another factor for preferring the civ3 mods: the pleasure that comes from playing your comrades' (C3C C&C folks) mod, enjoying their work, which is superb, and knowing that they also use your creations for the same purpose. I can't get that sense of satisfaction from civ4, sorry.

Well, maybe not with the same people, but the Civ4 community has talented modders, and more activity. (800k+ modding posts in 5 years for Civ4 vs. 500k+ posts in 9 years for Civ3)

 

[Takhisis]

Of course. I've never said that civ4 is a bad game outright (even if it has some DISGUSTINGLY bad features that were corrected in people's mods, just as civ3 had). I've merely said that i prefer civ3 to civ4.
Many people switched to civ4 on a 'ooohh... shiny... new... must get... ditch old' stream of thoughts. FfH, for example, is a GREAT mod for civ4. And there are many great mods for civ3 too, like Rhye's of Civilization, RFRE, TAM, EFZI, R&D, D&M, BfNY, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Zelig]

Many people switched to civ4 on a 'ooohh... shiny... new... must get... ditch old' stream of thoughts.

Same thing happened with Civ3, even though Civ2 was a better game.

 

[ThERat]

all I can say is, go try the latest mod called CCM (created by civinator). It gets rid of ICS via auto-produced settlers and workers, has plenty more techs, some really nice new concepts, much less corruption, virtually no pollution...
though still in beta, it's an outstanding mod for C3C

 

[Takhisis]

An there's some upcoming great mods like the war in Congo or the Meso-Americans!

 

[Aegis]

As opposed to civ3, where cities were basically worthless.

Even cities with 100% corruption can have a strong contribution towards commerce or science, by focusing on food production and turning citizens into Taxmen & Scientists. This works because a specialized citizen's contribution is immune to corruption.

 

[Bill3000]

Maybe it is. Depends on what you call 'better'. I don't like civ4's style, and I'm not much into 3D. I was brought up playing sprites in the '90s and i am a bit of a reactionary on that point

Then play Civ2, which has higher quality mods than Civ3, and it is also sprited. You can't even do a genuine scenario in Civ3 other than a remake of the vanilla gameplay because of the lack of a scripting system.

all I can say is, go try the latest mod called CCM (created by civinator). It gets rid of ICS via auto-produced settlers and workers, has plenty more techs, some really nice new concepts, much less corruption, virtually no pollution...
though still in beta, it's an outstanding mod for C3C

And still pales in comparison to any quality Civ4 mod, especially since, you know, you can modify the actual mechanics of the game.

 

[Takhisis]

Have you even played it?