What's the biggest improvement between civ4 and civ3?

[Cho-Ko-Nu Power]

what do you guys think is the biggest improvement between civ 3 and civ4? I like culture its a good way of keeping people out of your civ.

 

[Acceptable_Loss]

combat: it's no longer: biuld unit x over and over and attack with SOD
now it's biuld until x but be sure to have a few of unit y and if the enemy use unit w make sure to bring along a few unit z... plus the promotion system adds even more to this...

 

[Vonreuter]

That the AI respects your cultural boundaries.

 

[imagod284]

I agree with Acceptable_Loss, military aphabet soup is much more compelling than the Civ 3 'build knights to capture, pikemen to hold' formula. Though Civ 2 was much worse, one cannon and one musketeer could take down an entire civ!

 

[vinstafresh]

No more riots and extreme corruption. It never made any sense historically and gamewise. Playing civ feels like playing now, not like work.

 

[xonixs]

the religion part + its inluence on diplomatic. Now you have an excuse to go to war

 

[Jazzster]

No more riots and extreme corruption. It never made any sense historically and gamewise. Playing civ feels like playing now, not like work.

Very good put.

While playing on Epic or Marathon, the game is better in just about every instance -- and I've been very fond of every version of Civ.

 

[NorthNovas]

That the AI respects your cultural boundaries.

I totally agree! Changes the strategy of the game from previous CIVs.

 

[Byrath]

This might be too broad a response, but to me the best change is that you do not have to go to war to win this game (possibly excluding the most difficult levels).
Removal of the Civ3 corruption/pollution models, or the end of insane early expansion would also be good answers.

 

[Older than Dirt]

Civ 4 seems to have more variety of viable strategies. The need to have combined-arms forces in all ages and the numerous civic options (especially with the addition of religions) requires so much more thought and planning than Civ 3 or Civ 2. I really like being able to build improvements without calculating whether or not I can afford the maintenance cost. I do miss the ability to replant forests. The USA has more trees now than when founded, or at least that is what I have heard - I am old but we didn't have time to count all the trees back then because we didn't have dishwashers and garage door openers.

 

[Breunor]

So many great changes, I have to pick one?

I would say balancing the game so that military victory isn't always the easiest way to win, with other victory types being virtual handicaps. I think changing the bombardment system for military is essentially the same thing, since it was THE way to win in Civ 3.

Again, in a similar vein, CIV IV does not have early expansion as its key to victory, which is essentially the same phenomenon.

Breunor

 

[Artanis]

For me, it's the death of ICS.

I sucked at Civ3 because the outright best strategy - deliberately making your cities crappy - was so completely, mind-bogglingly counterintuitive for me that it never even crossed my mind as an option until I wandered in here years later. In Civ4, thanks to making your cities not suck actually being a good thing, I'm pretty decent at the game, and what's more, I actually know what I have to do to improve.

 

[BlizzardGR]

That the AI respects your cultural boundaries.

I don't think it actually respects your borders. It just has no option BUT to respect them or go to war. In civ3 entering ones borders didn't automatically meant war. In civ4 you HAVE to go to war before entering.
I would prefer it if the AI really respected your boundaries without having the game mechanics preventing it from trespassing.

 

[Sidhe]

Yeah it did strike me as odd that moving 800 tanks onto your land wasn't considered an act of war untill they asked you to move them. If Rommel comes rumbling down the road towards your country with a few divisions of panzas I'm not going to stop to ask him to turnback He's not there to look at the scenery.

Civ3 was expand expand expand hook up iron/horse build enormous stack once you got there fastest fingers first would win you a game, really got dull quickly for me, although teamers are still fun. CIV MP is a strategy game at last not a point and click faster fest like AOE or as close as it gets, in mp if you know the tricks you can move as fast as anyone else, imediately the turn starts and from what I've seen the defender seems to move first in a 50/50 situation.

I posted how to move first on a different forum, but It's simply a matter of either clicking on the unit you want to move at the roll over of turn and preemptively hitting the numberpad key a few times or you can end your turn imediately which will move all automoves like lightening, et voila everyones Bruce Lee

 

[bobtheflob]

For me, it's the death of ICS.

I sucked at Civ3 because the outright best strategy - deliberately making your cities crappy - was so completely, mind-bogglingly counterintuitive for me that it never even crossed my mind as an option until I wandered in here years later. In Civ4, thanks to making your cities not suck actually being a good thing, I'm pretty decent at the game, and what's more, I actually know what I have to do to improve.

I wholeheartedly agree. I've always been a builder and prefer to build a smaller number of super cities over large numbers of crappy cities. In civ 3 it meant I had to play on a lower difficulty level to win the way I wanted to play.