Which Civ is superior?

Which Civ do you prefer?


  • Total voters
    301
Nope. ICS never got fixed; it was a fundamental design flaw. Modding didn't get fixed. You can't even do something as simple as trigger an event, preventing any serious quality scenario from being developed. Unit weakness didn't get fixed. The fundamental problem of Civ3 being a game of tedious micromanagement as opposed to strategy didn't get fixed, either.

ICS was not the winning strategy. Bigger empires was, but packing in the maximum number of cities was not the way to win. Modding, yeah too bad on that. Some great mods came out anyway though, and there was a fantastic method of personalized main-game modding. The unit weakness was not a design flaw. I found the micromanagement in that game and that game alone to be fun, and I think others did as well. There was something satisfying about it.
 
Well, it's been one of the few games where micromanagement has been enjoyable, yes.
 
ICS was not the winning strategy. Bigger empires was, but packing in the maximum number of cities was not the way to win. Modding, yeah too bad on that. Some great mods came out anyway though, and there was a fantastic method of personalized main-game modding. The unit weakness was not a design flaw. I found the micromanagement in that game and that game alone to be fun, and I think others did as well. There was something satisfying about it.

Well, it's been one of the few games where micromanagement has been enjoyable, yes.

Micro-management was certainly more fun than in Civ IV.
 
What's the difference between micromanagement in one game and in another? If it entails counting and recounting units of value incessantly, there's no real difference whether you do it in Civ3 or 4.
 
Yeah I don't know what it was, but microing in civ3 felt really satisfying, but in civ4 it felt really tedious. This is probably why in civ3 I was winning demi-god without the ring-city corruption buster type exploits strats(or emperor no sweat in vanilla), but couldn't actually progress beyond Monarch in civ4. I just didn't have the patience.
 
Could it be that... you were taken in by the graphix? :mischief:

But, really, it seems to me that most of the Civ3 attachment here has to do with flavour and not with the mechanics of gameplay. Also, it's very possible to win on Emperor and even Immortal in Civ4 without excessive Civ3-style micro. Check sig and all that :p
 
I never learned build orders or studied much strategy in civ4. I did semi-extensively in civ3 :smug:

And actually yeah the graphical differences may have done a lot to reward the joy of micromanagement.
 
Well, that's what I thought too, until I spent time trying to get back into Civ3 after 4. I learned that sometimes flavour just isn't worth the pain :sad:
 
I haven't played civ3 in about 6 years so we'll see....
 
I meant Rhye's and Fall on BTS.... I ought to try it on 3, though.

If your a big RFC player I recommend not playing RoC. It took forever to do anything and the religion stuff was quite broken and buggy.
 
I see. The download link is broken, anyway.
Thanks, man.

Ya I was quite disappointed due to the fact I was a big Civ3 player up until like a year ago before I got into RFC. Once I saw Rhye made a Civ3 mod I couldn't wait to try it but sadly it was a major disappointment.
 
The best part about Civ 3 was the immensity of the maps. Civ 4 felt like it was too cramped. You met everyone too fast, and the world was pretty much settled by the time the Renaissance came around. It was possible to enter the Modern Era in Civ 3 and still have not explored, much less settled, the edges of the world.
 
Never mind the odd island/continent here and there when playing archipelago.
 
The best part about Civ 3 was the immensity of the maps. Civ 4 felt like it was too cramped. You met everyone too fast, and the world was pretty much settled by the time the Renaissance came around. It was possible to enter the Modern Era in Civ 3 and still have not explored, much less settled, the edges of the world.
*scratch his head*
You can make maps as big as the ones in Civ3, so I don't really get your point here.
 
Civ4 suffers on very large maps imo. On normal sizes, both per-city and empire-wide optimisation of improvement/civics are competitive; on huge maps individual cities/national wonders matter less and one is forced to optimise for generic cities.
 
It's definitely Civ V for me thanks to hex, SPs, CSs, global happiness and 1uph (finally!), but III weren't bad either. F*ck IV and its mullah scampering religion bullsh*t.


Moderator Action: Welcome to CFC. Please read the rules though, as we don't allow either trolling or swearing. Not even the asterisk version you used.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
4, easily. Diss SOD all you want, but at least it's easy to move around. :lol: Corporations and religions are always fun. 2 is good fun too, because it's straightforward.
 
Wow, didn't expect Civ5 to get trounced quite that badly. Guess it still needs several expansions and patches before it's worth getting.

III and IV are the only ones I've played the full games of, and I prefer the former. But with all expansions and patches, IV isn't a bad game. In Vanilla, IV was pretty disappointing compared to III (Vanilla or Conquests). Some of my major complaints with IV include map size (lack of epicness), hard limitations to enforce fairness (such as not being able to pay GPT for technologies, because you [or the AI] might DOW one turn later), and some of the combat options (such as buildings being invulnerable to planes, and the way artillery worked [especially in Vanilla Civ4 where you could more or less make your entire army artillery and still win]). That said there were some things I liked in IV, such as the more fluid tech tree.

I played some IV earlier this year but in the past month have only played III.

I've also played the V demo, but wasn't enthralled by it as I was with previous Civ versions when I first played them (even Civ4 Vanilla). Didn't seem worth spending lots of money on at its current state.

The best part about Civ 3 was the immensity of the maps. Civ 4 felt like it was too cramped. You met everyone too fast, and the world was pretty much settled by the time the Renaissance came around. It was possible to enter the Modern Era in Civ 3 and still have not explored, much less settled, the edges of the world.

*scratch his head*
You can make maps as big as the ones in Civ3, so I don't really get your point here.

I agree with Cheezy, and while you technically can make maps as large as in Civ3, there's a major issue with that in Civ4, called Memory Allocation Failures. Take a 220x220 Extra Large map in Civ3, and it has about the same # of tiles as a 192x120 Extra Large map in Civ4 (isometric view accounted for). Civ3's AI turn times will probably be pretty slow in the late industrial/early modern ages, but it won't crash. With Civ4, you'll probably start getting crashes at some point due to inadequate memory. With later Civ4 versions it won't happen as early, but it will probably still happen. And I'd much rather have somewhat slow turn times than crashes. I don't even know if Civ4's turn times would actually be noticeably faster, either.

If you went with the largest possible Civ3 maps at 65,000 tiles, I'm not sure you'd even be able to start a Civ4 game with an equivalently large map (320x200), but there's entire scenarios with that large of Civ3 maps. I don't play them due to the turn time issue, but there definitely do have followings.
 
Back
Top Bottom