OK, here are some of my specifics about why I like 3 more than 4. I don't dislike 4, but it's more a difference between good and excellent.
1. Suicide Catapults: That particular part of the rock-paper-scissors and collateral damage combat mechanic of Civ4 seems a bit contrived, silly to me. Each time that I prepare for a war, I have to build N units that I intend to lose/sacrifice to successfully capture a large city. And rebuild them *again* for the next war, or for reinforcements for the current war. Yes, city specialization means that I probably have a city with a 2-3 settled Great Generals with mined hills that can churn them out, but it seems like a waste of hammers.
2. Dominance of Whipping: In Civ3, I use a government (Republic) which allows cash-rushing. In Civ4, the Slavery civic allows pop-rushing that feels less fun to me. It's an empire building game; I want my people to be both happy and healthy. Sacrificing people to achieve goals is less fun than directing government spending to achieve goals.
3. Mercantilism: I love trading with the AI, especially resources. I find it frustrating when the AI go through their phase where they like Mercantilism and I can't set up trade routes with multiple AI.
4. Getting the "Right" Great Person: I struggle to have a Great Engineer when I need one to found a specific corporation, or a Great Merchant. My GP Farm city usually has a mix of GP points, so it's harder to optimize that aspect.
Overall, I probably have 25x more hours playing 3 than 4. So most of my habits, my instincts, are tuned to Civ3 timing and pacing. I have to consciously resist the urge to crank out a settler to grab that great city spot, because I can't afford it yet. I don't know instinctively which techs to beeline in 4, to win the Liberalism race or to grab certain wonders. I know better the inflection points for military in Civ3 -- rush when I get swordsmen, or knights, or cavalry -- than in Civ4 (elephants + catapults, cuirassiers). I need to remember which wonders have which effects in Civ4, so that I try to get them. I've had more instances of a faraway AI which is also a runaway in Civ4: more cities, better tech, hard to rein in. In a way, that's a testament to the quality of the AI in Civ4; they are coded to play the game well, to build up their empire.
Good food for thought in your answers, thanks.
1. Yeah, great point. I hadn't thought about that when I wrote my previous post because the mod I play thankfully removes that mechanic. I think that is one of the most disappointing things in the whole vanilla game, honestly, because it makes stack combat (which I frankly have no issue with, besides) and, by extension due to its prevalence in the game, most of warfare as a whole, primarily a question of having more siege and being able to attack with it first. That's so unintuitive (especially with earlier units like catapults) that it really damages the immersion. In RI, early siege weapons provide a small bonus attacking cities to other units in a stack, and are able to reduce city defenses. Gunpowder siege units get a ranged bombardment ability like in Civ3 but only modern artillery inflicts actual collateral damage, which is otherwise caused by cavalry in the earlier half of the game. I can see this aspect of the vanilla game being rather distasteful to people who prefer Civ3.
2. Yes, that one's annoying too. RI got rid of this one also. Not only does it feel counterintuitive to harm your own people when you're building an empire, but it's also just gimmicky, converting population directly into buildings or specialized units. In the mod I play, slavery lets you build a slave market which boosts improvement production and food output slightly, but only a modern forced-labor civic lets you directly sacrifice them (for buildings only). From a sheer strategic perspective, knowing when and how often to whip takes some foresight and getting used to I guess, but it's still a broken mechanic which is the best option 90% of the time IMO, which isn't very fun.
3. Wait, so you mean you set up individual commercial trade routes between your cities and the AI
manually in Civ3, and you're not just referring to resource trades? They're automatic in 4, and frankly I don't remember how they work in Civ3. (Sadly, every time I try to play 3 again, it crashes after a few turns, or I'd probably play through a whole game just for the throwback.)
4. I actually like this feature myself, but I can see why it's frustrating to some players. I like it because you have to consider the long-term effect of great people points, and weigh that against whatever other advantages (immediate or otherwise) you get for running certain specialists or constructing certain wonders. I like how it's kind of a raffle you have to win unless you specifically build an "engineer city" or something like that. In fact, that's one reason why The Pyramids is such a strong wonder, because you get engineer points at a time in the game where you cannot get them otherwise, so if you only build the Pyramids in a city, you
do get a guaranteed great engineer, which is pretty much a free ticket to another wonder. That it's dicey and uncertain in the late game when you run several specialists in multiple cities makes sense to me.
By the way, I've forgotten a lot about how the combat is resolved in Civ3. I remember that it uses attack and defense scores instead of a combined combat rating with specific bonuses against other types of units like in 4, but how combat itself is resolved is a mystery to me. Also, does cavalry get a malus directly attacking cities? In RI, it gets a steep penalty for this, and I find cavalry to be too powerful otherwise due to its greater mobility and generally high strength. You also mentioned having to calculate how many losses you'd likely take in conquering a city or empire, and then having to rebuild another army if you want to fight another war later on in the game, but isn't that normal and something you would expect?
It's simple. Civ4 feels way too "busy" in terms of gameplay mechanics. It felt like it was trying way too hard to justify itself as a sequel to Civ3, especially when there were people who complained that Civ3 stripped away features from Civ2.
Sometimes more isn't necessarily better because there can be way too much stuff for a player to deal with (obviously, it wasn't a major issue for Civ4 since it was a majorly successful game and beloved by fans, I'm clearly the minority). Mind you, it's not just the player's problem either, but a matter of the AI too. If the AI isn't properly programmed to handle these new mechanics then the singleplayer experience suffers. Not a problem for Civ4 by all accounts, but fast forward to Civ6 and it definitely seems to be an issue that regularly crops up.
Ultimately, I don't hate Civ4 nor do I think it's a bad game, it's just not my cup of tea and I can kind of see the trends that plague modern Civ6 have their start in Civ4.
Frankly, if you like Civ4 more than Civ3 then that's perfectly fine. I neither can nor want to force you to agree with me and I'm sure as hell ain't going to persuade you.
Ultimately, I'm the last person you should try to get an articulated response, especially on this issue since I haven't played Civ3 in years and never really played much of Civ4.
Oh, no problem. Thanks for your thoughts, though. To each their own, especially about a game preference. I was just curious to hear what specifically made a difference to you as someone who prefers 3.