Why are you playing civ 3 after all these years?

Oh my! I just joined the forum and dont' have time to read all these yet, but I'll be back and post my whys after reading all your whys.
i'm betting that many have a similar set of reasons.
 
Somehow they do look really good. If someone could crisp the resolution really high, I bet it would look like it could have come out somewhat recently.
I've been saying for a while that had they stuck with the Civ3 formula (i.e. a more complex game of chess just with a historical paint job on top) and refined it, the franchise would be doing much better in my opinion (not that it's currently doing poorly mind you).

What Civilization needs is a tight gameplay loop and I think Civ3, with some refinements could've been that gameplay loop.

The only stuff I would add to this hypothetical Civilization game would be maybe hex tiles, one unit per tile (I'm not married to the latter) and perhaps introducing unit limits per resource source, while keeping the 2D isometric art style and refining it.

All in all, at least at release, simpler is better.

While I do think Civ5's graphics look amazing, even after 13 years, they do hamper the game somewhat in regards to scale. In Civ3 a "huge" map was 160x160, while a "huge" map in Civ5 is 128X80. Definitely a step down. Civ3's "huge" map was 25.6K tiles, whereas Civ5's just just over ten thousand. Roughly the size of a "standard" map in Civ3. Civ6 is even worse with a "huge" map there being the equivalent to a "small" map in Civ3.
 
I've been saying for a while that had they stuck with the Civ3 formula (i.e. a more complex game of chess just with a historical paint job on top) and refined it, the franchise would be doing much better in my opinion (not that it's currently doing poorly mind you).

What Civilization needs is a tight gameplay loop and I think Civ3, with some refinements could've been that gameplay loop.

The only stuff I would add to this hypothetical Civilization game would be maybe hex tiles, one unit per tile (I'm not married to the latter) and perhaps introducing unit limits per resource source, while keeping the 2D isometric art style and refining it.

All in all, at least at release, simpler is better.

While I do think Civ5's graphics look amazing, even after 13 years, they do hamper the game somewhat in regards to scale. In Civ3 a "huge" map was 160x160, while a "huge" map in Civ5 is 128X80. Definitely a step down. Civ3's "huge" map was 25.6K tiles, whereas Civ5's just just over ten thousand. Roughly the size of a "standard" map in Civ3. Civ6 is even worse with a "huge" map there being the equivalent to a "small" map in Civ3.

Yeah, even though IV is my favorite, there is something consistently attractive about III which makes me want to go back to it. Maybe it's the relative simplicity of the gameplay in combination with its much greater scale, as you mention (though, Civ IV has really big maps too)? It must be something about the aesthetic, because, thinking about the game just from a mechanical standpoint, I can only think of a few areas in which I find it to be a better design from the standpoint of consistent replayability, balance, the range of viable options available to the player in any given situation, etc. It could also have something to do with a latent nostalgia, since this was my first Civ game, even though I was too young to play it seriously at the time when it was new.

However, I'm thinking it might be the simplicity itself. Civ 4 has a lot more information and even though a lot of the game concepts and mechanics are fundamentally the same, III is distinctly more clean-cut and uncomplicated with them. Sometimes that makes for a more fun game. Some notable examples of this which immediately come to mind (disclaimer, though, that I was never good at Civ3 so these are just impressions which might be somewhat wrongfooted):
  • Tile improvements; IIIRC, it's basically just irrigation/mines and roads/railroads. The sooner and the more of everything, the better. In Civ4, you have more strategic choices to make about the land that you use: do you want to farm right away or invest in cottages, do you want to build a windmill or a mine on that hill, for a markedly different tile yield?
  • Specialists and Great People; this was barely in Civ3 at all, and its inclusion in 4 added a lot of depth IMO to the range of things you could do; for instance, like playing a bit more tall or getting more out of individual cities at times when horizontal expansion isn't compellingly feasible.
  • Various civic choices instead of just entire government types
  • Diplomatic relations modifiers are more granular in 4, sometimes with several different factors weighing in
  • Formal religions exist in IV and are an important (arguably too important) factor in diplomacy, but also have a domestic factor which adds a touch of complexity.
  • Specialized unit promotions instead of XP just turning into HP. The kinds of decisions you make on how to promote a unit add a lot of depth, IMO. Do I upgrade my Maceman to Cover for the bonus against archers because I am at war with someone using Longbows, or do I upgrade it to Strength instead for a lower universal combat bonus, since my opponent is about to get Musketmen? Etc.
  • There are no commercial trade routes in Civ 3 (AFAIK - could be wrong on that one) which is a pretty big deal with blockades and naval warfare in the picture, notwithstanding the fact that it is a major part of real economies and a big factor in the game.
  • City maintenance is a real check on expansion in 4, but in 3, there's not really a penalty for expansion from corruption, since it just reduces the yield of new cities to be less and less efficient without actually making founding a new city a drain on the rest of your empire. This one might be the biggest mechanical difference WRT how the two games play out.

Other than that, they feel like the same game, but those things make such a difference and add so much, that I just don't see why someone wouldn't prefer 4 outside of nostalgia or because they just prefer a less complicated strategy game.

I play Realism Invictus, which adds things like epidemics, a logistical system which penalizes overstacking while adding combined arms bonuses for including different categories of units (which also improves with technology), separatism and revolutions which are variously problematic the more unhappiness, unhealthiness, foreign culture, and population a city has, but countered with things like a state religion, espionage, your garrison, etc., a reworked system of industrialization and food output, so that citizens eat 3 food, but the output of farms scales such that they produce much more in the late game, representing the urbanization of the era, and adding industrial craftsmen as a specialist, etc. It's really just the best Civ experience IMO. You might want to check it out.
 
(though, Civ IV has really big maps too)
Not really. Civ4's biggest map is still smaller (by almost ten thousand tiles) than Civ3's biggest map.

Civ4's "huge" map is the same as Civ5's "huge" map, i.e. 128x80, there's just an additional map size, "giant" that's 160x100 (or 16,000 tiles).

And of course, this ignores Civ3's max map sizes as found in the editor (362x362, or 131,044 tiles).
 
Not really. Civ4's biggest map is still smaller (by almost ten thousand tiles) than Civ3's biggest map.

Civ4's "huge" map is the same as Civ5's "huge" map, i.e. 128x80, there's just an additional map size, "giant" that's 160x100 (or 16,000 tiles).

And of course, this ignores Civ3's max map sizes as found in the editor (362x362, or 131,044 tiles).

Touche, wasn't aware. That is a pretty big difference.
 
Also, I never really got into Civ4.

It always just rubbed me the wrong way. Civ3 was always my bread and butter. Mind you I haven't seriously played in years.

Would you mind elaborating on that a little bit? That's exactly what I'm trying to get at: I see something attractive about it too, but I don't know exactly what that stems from. The people who love Civ3 and find Civ4 boring or distasteful usually don't have a reason why which they can easily verbalize, which is confusing to me when much of what it adds pretty objectively increases strategic depth. The criticisms of 5 and 6, for instance, are usually pretty concrete: e.g. "I think global happiness is a terrible mechanic which ruins the game," or "the districts system is cool in principle but the AI is braindead" whereas the people who love 3 and were disappointed with 4 never usually have any kind of definite criticism of it, other than that they simply just couldn't get into it. I know that taste is subjective and not always something which is easily articulated, but it seems like, outside of the aesthetics or some kind of preference for simplicity, it simply brings less to the table in terms of balance, dynamic choices, the interrelationship of various mechanics, and so forth. I fully respect your and anyone else's opinion, but I am just curious why you're indifferent to or dislike 4 or what's wrong with it/how it took the game in a worse direction, because it seems like this opinion is often pretty ambiguous and I genuinely want to know what goes on in the mind of a disappointed Civ3 player when playing or thinking about 4.

I can see the artstyle preference, or that one prefers a more casual game, but then why it would be continuously enjoyable after decades escapes me.

(One thing I do think off-hand that Civ3 did better than 4 was bombardment, particularly from bombers: how it could directly reduce city population and destroy buildings is more satisfying than merely reducing defenses and damaging units to a cap.)
 
Would you mind elaborating on that a little bit? That's exactly what I'm trying to get at: I see something attractive about it too, but I don't know exactly what that stems from. The people who love Civ3 and find Civ4 boring or distasteful usually don't have a reason why which they can easily verbalize, which is confusing to me when much of what it adds pretty objectively increases strategic depth. The criticisms of 5 and 6, for instance, are usually pretty concrete: e.g. "I think global happiness is a terrible mechanic which ruins the game," or "the districts system is cool in principle but the AI is braindead" whereas the people who love 3 and were disappointed with 4 never usually have any kind of definite criticism of it, other than that they simply just couldn't get into it. I know that taste is subjective and not always something which is easily articulated, but it seems like, outside of the aesthetics or some kind of preference for simplicity, it simply brings less to the table in terms of balance, dynamic choices, the interrelationship of various mechanics, and so forth. I fully respect your and anyone else's opinion, but I am just curious why you're indifferent to or dislike 4 or what's wrong with it/how it took the game in a worse direction, because it seems like this opinion is often pretty ambiguous and I genuinely want to know what goes on in the mind of a disappointed Civ3 player when playing or thinking about 4.

I can see the artstyle preference, or that one prefers a more casual game, but then why it would be continuously enjoyable after decades escapes me.

(One thing I do think off-hand that Civ3 did better than 4 was bombardment, particularly from bombers: how it could directly reduce city population and destroy buildings is more satisfying than merely reducing defenses and damaging units to a cap.)
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.
 
Would you mind elaborating on that a little bit? That's exactly what I'm trying to get at: I see something attractive about it too, but I don't know exactly what that stems from. The people who love Civ3 and find Civ4 boring or distasteful usually don't have a reason why which they can easily verbalize, which is confusing to me when much of what it adds pretty objectively increases strategic depth. The criticisms of 5 and 6, for instance, are usually pretty concrete: e.g. "I think global happiness is a terrible mechanic which ruins the game," or "the districts system is cool in principle but the AI is braindead" whereas the people who love 3 and were disappointed with 4 never usually have any kind of definite criticism of it, other than that they simply just couldn't get into it. I know that taste is subjective and not always something which is easily articulated, but it seems like, outside of the aesthetics or some kind of preference for simplicity, it simply brings less to the table in terms of balance, dynamic choices, the interrelationship of various mechanics, and so forth. I fully respect your and anyone else's opinion, but I am just curious why you're indifferent to or dislike 4 or what's wrong with it/how it took the game in a worse direction, because it seems like this opinion is often pretty ambiguous and I genuinely want to know what goes on in the mind of a disappointed Civ3 player when playing or thinking about 4.

I can see the artstyle preference, or that one prefers a more casual game, but then why it would be continuously enjoyable after decades escapes me.

(One thing I do think off-hand that Civ3 did better than 4 was bombardment, particularly from bombers: how it could directly reduce city population and destroy buildings is more satisfying than merely reducing defenses and damaging units to a cap.)
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.
 
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.
 
Not really. Civ4's biggest map is still smaller (by almost ten thousand tiles) than Civ3's biggest map.

Civ4's "huge" map is the same as Civ5's "huge" map, i.e. 128x80, there's just an additional map size, "giant" that's 160x100 (or 16,000 tiles).

And of course, this ignores Civ3's max map sizes as found in the editor (362x362, or 131,044 tiles).
Touche, wasn't aware. That is a pretty big difference.
Also the maximum number of cities! I think Civ3 allows a power of 2 (512?).
 
I have started playing Civ1, in my old 286, and was one of my fav games ever.
I jumped straight to Civ3 and I loved even more, had all the good stuff of Civ1 plus great graphics. The simplicity in a complex world is amazing.
Since they changed to 3D from Civ4 onwards I stopped playing CIV almost all, also became too complex and too different from the previous versions. (remind me when PES remade their game engine around 2010)
From time to time I come back to civ3, is by far one of my fav games of all time.
I have been playing a bit of HumanKind, really like it, seems the Civ version that firaxis should have made.
 
For the same reason I still play GoD's original "Mafia" (2001) despite owning the prettier and more varied Mafia Definite Edition, or prefer riding around in Vice City over GTA V. It was my first Civ game, it boots up instantly, and I'm innately familiar with its mechanics -- whereas Civ 5 and Civ 6 have such an overwhelming amount of information to process that playing them requires more attention than someone with a mentally taxing 45 hour a week job can muster. Civ4 was close enough to Civ3 to make it attractive, but I was just going to college when it hit and liked my mods too much. I'd like to give it another shot but I always miss the steam sale, and I'd prefer not to split a series between Steam and GoG.
 
Some things Civ 3 improved on over Civ 2:

Culturally expanding borders: so no need to found a town on a single awkward square just to stop the AI from settling there.
Increased peaceful victory conditions: Cultural victories and single-city protection to enable single city wins.
Much nicer graphics without sacrificing the essence of the overall look of the game.
An excellent array of music.

Some things Civ 3 regressed over Civ 2:

Can no longer alter terrain (chop Mountains, build mountains, create sea, create grassland, etc)
Workers no longer upgrade to Engineers (see above)
Put a minimum limit to turns per tech.
No Howitzers (and no power-rating for military generally)

There's lots more for both, but it's a shame Civ 4 didn't just blend the best bits of both and instead just got rid of lots of nice things while introducing a few more nice things.
 
Some things Civ 3 regressed over Civ 2:

Can no longer alter terrain (chop Mountains, build mountains, create sea, create grassland, etc)
Workers no longer upgrade to Engineers (see above)
Put a minimum limit to turns per tech.
No Howitzers (and no power-rating for military generally)
Except for the first, you can mod the others.
 
Top Bottom