Which Civ game was better, Civ IV or Civ III?

Which Do You Think Was Better?

  • Civ III

    Votes: 41 16.9%
  • Civ IV

    Votes: 202 83.1%

  • Total voters
    243
I dont mind.I like the older ones reminds me of how i got started.But the graphics on civ 4 really blow me away!Gee i guess i do qualify for fanatic status,LOL!
 
I thought it was cuz you used expliots that some other person found on the net. Like how to use a few army units to take over the world. A glitch made armys not get targeted by AI This meant riding a stack of troops along the same tile to sneak in all the while untouched meaning, your full deck of arty's are there to destroy their capital defences. Makes a mop up of the world not any 'real' fun. (but ream an repeat makes one great score and for some internet egos, WHo wants more? Its where the braggin begins, what drove them to find and practice more, THe Top score
Civ3 score: a number that means nothing to a real Civ3 player who knows how skewed its result is derived and more, realize its more fun to have real victory goals. Untampered realty simulation where more challenge is acheived through brandishing an editer thats a breeze is whats behind true competive civving. THis is what civ3 unoffical patched sets out to acheive )

Patchin anything unoffical was banned if you had a plan of being the next HOF Civfanatic icon. Then, after that fame grabs your 'name' a spot testing the new civ4 they thin back what they endured on rise to cheeze King Whats the 1st thing they do? handcuff us all so repeat of their success ain't as easy as learning 'Ream 1' 'Ream 2'.. lol


but...flash to 2006 A keen modder found when you peeled away the "transported units" and instead tack on the "transport" a larger health bar, (I lost @art of baked here ;) ) this was fixed. NO longer did the AI avoid the army. NO longer did you get to avoid an effective AI army.

SO I say yes you were better, a better arse reamer who resorted to more broken cheasy expliots to win. No wonder you hate civ3's sandbox approach. Guys like you used it for a litter box when ever you could. Mybe make HOF hero for the day will the rest laugh how you blow you realism away. (Ya civ3 players here like that to stay) In fact Today modders take your cheapness away leaving you weak and feable.

What can I say? THis means no more night of chaos on the enemys capital by bypasssin his 300 units with 3 armies and few artys ?



Im on a strange work schedule Sorry seem to run out of time need to get going to Lavac 11 hours away (don't wanna get many dark hours of sriving in. What, with em deer antlers do to yer paint n all! )

How bout you just google "T.A JONES" "Civ3" "corruption patch" and get a taste of the total rebuttle you'll face or atleast what my response will be if you See me here in a 2 or 3 weeks (less if bed n breakfast has broadband)

Least you'll discover if you really wanna go there (on the civ3 attack) - Actually I suggest you do, go back to civ3 "Part Deux" that is :goodjob: Then you'll see you where all wrong, but 'unofficialy' like Bhuric


No.... I just don't cheat. i don't look for these things on the internet you suggest I have. I don't read as much on this site as you plainly think I do. In any game I play, I've never used 'cheats', because I don't get winning with cheating. It doesn't work in my head!!
I'm too competitive.
So I play, and sometimes I lose, and sometimes I win. And all the time I'm getting better.
I derive satisfaction out of knowing that I can win off my own ability.
To be honest I wish the AI was better (I'm sure I won't when I get to higher levels, ;) ) because I don't enjoy so much beating a civ where they don't use their units/resources/whatever very efficiently.

So I'm not talking about the ablity to cheat or mod anything. Civ3 is just too one dimensional when compared to Civ4.
I'm not saying that type of game isn't for anybody; but I like to stop and smell the roses as I play. I'm a history buff, and Civ4 gives me much more a feeling of being in a real(ish) 3d world - and I'm not just talking about the graphics.
e.g. Throughout history for the most part City states were a huge influence. Pretty much only one or two empires existed at a time in any form of close proximity to each other. City states were much more common. Civ4 allows that 'reality.' It's not for everyone I know... But Civ3 only allowed for huge empires in terms of success. Anything short of a huge empire and you're toast. So Civ3 is very formulaic.
8 times out of 10 a huge empire in Civ4 is still going to beat a few cities, but the door has opened to it not being everytime. Awesome.
 
I like civ 3, because you can make it really, really big. And the era costumes.

I like civ 4 for many reasons, some being:

-More of the mechanics are visible IE Diplomacy + and -, maitennance, science, combat
-No Corruption
-Civics
-No corruption
-New interesting features (Great people, espionage points)
-Wonder Movies
-Combat (xp, 1 strength number for offence and defence)
-Much less Micromanagement
-Basically, a lot of the bad/annoying things from cIIIv

Edit: Happy 1 year topic anniversary!
 
Love the religion issus and the new wonders on Civ IV.
Love the way of playing and one leader per civ in Civ III.
Love the UN voting in Civ IV.
Love the Leo's Workshop in Civ III.
Don't like that the balance of new-city versus money/Culture in Civ IV (I love to expand).
Love Civ III you really can expand.
Love Civ IV Colonies/Vassual/Capitulation mode.
Don't like the snow-ball effect of Mutual Protection in Civ III.
Love Civ I and Civ II, cause they have a very very good EARTH MAP. but between Civ III and Civ IV, I like more Civ III. The EARTH map and the EUROPEAN Map are very good.
Don't like the way of how to create a map in Civ IV. Love the creating map program of Civ III.
 
You dont need a big empire in Civ III to win. I'm no great player but I've won games where I've had a small island nation with hardly any resources before.

Of course. In civ 3 though, I like my games BIG, with all the civs in the game. Gives you the feeling of a true civilization. Oh and in CIV there is no :spear:
 
I have never played Civ 3, I would just find it hard to imagine anything better than Civ 4. :lol: Alright Civ Rev looks cool, can't wait for it!!
 
You dont need a big empire in Civ III to win. I'm no great player but I've won games where I've had a small island nation with hardly any resources before.

And the other civs you were playing against were they also on small islands? Or were they on a much bigger land mass?
What level were you playing at?
 
At first I didnt like the interface of civ4, the structure of the advisor panels mainly, but I have got used to it now.

I would say civ4 is better, I just think the advisor panels need to be redone, so you have more options to manage units and so on.
 
Civ3, while being a good game, had some issues and limitations that never got solved:

- Cheating AI (pre-knowledge of the map and hidden resources, the AI settling in the desert exactly where oil would be found several thousand years later annoyed me to no end; also the AI always knew exactly where your weakest city was, etc.)

- Corruption. Either it made running a large empire useless, or (if you turned it off) it left the game without a way to stop big empires from simply steamrolling the competition.

- Hardcoded limits. The 512 city limit really hurt in ultra-huge games. The hardcoded number of eras (4) limited the ways in which new tchnology could be added.

- Overpowered artillery. Civ3 never got the balance right imho.

Civ4 did away with those problems and added lots of new interesting stuff: religions, great people, promotions, moddable AI, random events, multilateral diplomacy, etc. etc.

So, for me, although I really liked Civ3, Civ4 wins hands down.
 
And the other civs you were playing against were they also on small islands? Or were they on a much bigger land mass?
What level were you playing at?

It was a loooong time ago but as I remember it was an Archipelago map where most of the other civs had bigger islands with better terrain. Most of mine were mountains.

I managed to make the island very secure through building forts on the many mountains with artillery covering a lot of the gaps so I was never in any danger of being invaded seriously. I think it was on Regent (maximum level I got to before I stopped playing a couple of years back).

As I recall, due to the many mountains I did have a lot of gold deposits and I went for money over techs and ended up buying or stealing virtually every one. I built the spacehip with about 2 turns jump on the lead civ. Was a fun game.
 
It was a loooong time ago but as I remember it was an Archipelago map where most of the other civs had bigger islands with better terrain. Most of mine were mountains.

I managed to make the island very secure through building forts on the many mountains with artillery covering a lot of the gaps so I was never in any danger of being invaded seriously. I think it was on Regent (maximum level I got to before I stopped playing a couple of years back).

As I recall, due to the many mountains I did have a lot of gold deposits and I went for money over techs and ended up buying or stealing virtually every one. I built the spacehip with about 2 turns jump on the lead civ. Was a fun game.

Sounds like a one in a million game. 90% of Civ3 games you would have to be one of the two biggist civs on the board to win, or very close to them in size. There's the odd game where this doesn't apply.
On an Archipelago map it's probably more common to win and not be in or near the "big two." However on your continental maps up, Civ3 is an expansion race first and foremost.
 
I like Civ IV, but I miss "Huge Maps" which I had on Civ III (My 6yr-old PC can't run them). I have been tempted to return to Civ III, but Civ IV is just so much better so I play simply standard maps
 
I've played a lot of Civ III and some Civ IV and there are a lot of things I like more about Civ IV:

Religion
Diplomacy is better
Combat system is much more interesting
Culture is much more important
Early wonders are much more even (Pyramids in Civ III was pretty much a game breaker)
Specialists are much more interesting
More variety of resources, used in different ways - in Civ III, you'd need to get luxes and strat resources, but you didn't need all of the luxes. In Civ IV, you are constantly trying to get different resources
More variety in leaders, etc.

Some things I like better about civ III:

War is easier - it's just hard to steam roll the map in civ IV.
You pretty much have to put the science slider to max for the beginning of the game.
Can't abandon cities and there are no colonies, so you can't grab something way out on the tundra easily.
Can't do anything but explore early
Units are all taller than the buildings.
 
hasn't this topic been beat to death yet? somebody posts this same thread every month. let it go!!!
 
hasn't this topic been beat to death yet? somebody posts this same thread every month. let it go!!!

Haha, yeah, I thought the thread must've been closed when I couldn't vote, then noticed it was a year old. It is fun debating it the first few times. But after awhile it just becomes...

:deadhorse:
 
First off Civ II is the best of the series, by far. As for Civ III I put that game away shortly after taking it out of the box. Civ IV is far superior to Civ III, although it missed much of the strategy Civ II had.
 
First off Civ II is the best of the series, by far. As for Civ III I put that game away shortly after taking it out of the box. Civ IV is far superior to Civ III, although it missed much of the strategy Civ II had.

The AI was much too bad back then to actually offer much strategy.
 
Top Bottom