Your favorite thing about civ 3

[vorlon_mi]

It also hits the elements of scale and pace just right for me. There are enough cities in a Civ3 empire that something is always happening, yet unless you go overboard on the map size, it's still small enough to keep track of and quick enough that I stay engrossed in the game. Civ4 can get this, but it takes longer into the game to get there. I've never got into Civ5 in the same way as III, I think in large part because the empires are smaller and I lose that sense of having a large realm, and the reward of something being built almost every turn.

Yes! This applies to me, too. The balance of scale and pace expresses it well. I want to build an EMPIRE, not a 4-city province (I'm looking at you, Civ V). I want to expand; I love to get that little popup that says, "your borders are expanding". And I love to crash my troops into enemy cities. I love to move over mountains! I have always found the Civ IV and Civ V restrictions that mountains are impassable to be ridiculous. This freedom of movement is missing from Civ V, and coupled with 1UPT, dramatically hinders the AI's pathfinding algorithm.

The Civ III AI knows how to move its troops, and it frequently pounces on me if I make a tactical mistake when moving my troops. It does make strategic decisions that seem weird, and doesn't always take out a weak opponent to build up its own empire. But Civ III continues to be fun, after all these years.

I think I would still enjoy Civ IV BTS, if I could just remember to shed some of my Civ III habits.

 

[Spoonwood]

I disagree that it isn't challenging. I'm no Civ rookie, and I still struggle on Demigod, Deity, and forget about Sid! That being said, I used to think Monarch was impossible, but through practice and refinement I now play more regularly on Emperor and higher. However, it seems like the low hanging fruit has been obtained- improvement in play seems to be getting more and more difficult. Now I know there are some legends that easily beat Sid, but I think for most people, those levels are nearly impossible.

I don't know of a single legend that easily could beat Sid. At least not if you talk about randomly generated maps and disallow certain things like trade route cutting.

 

[Priyon]

I like the general simplicity and rustic beauty of Civilization 3. And that was exactly why I picked it up after years of playing Civ 5 and Civ 4.

It doesn't have the weird artificial-looking UI of Civ 5, or the rather mundane one from Civ 4. But at the same time it is not primitive and awkward to use today compared to Civ 2. The somewhat clean windows, the funny advisor text and leaders with era-based clothing, the more diplomatic variety etc. is a good thing.

Same thing feature-wise. It has most features of modern Civ games, yet doesn't stray far enough from the feel of the first two either. It gives me sandbox freedom that I never found in Civ 5, while running fine on my netbook. And I found that the 2D isometric map looks genuinely beautiful.

It is also the last game to feature things like global warming and palace.

I especially feel very constrained in even the largest Civ 5 maps after playing Civ 3 and 4. In that game a "large" empire consists of 12-14 cities...whereas I am really amused by the fact that large empires consist of 60-something cities in this game, and on the largest maps empires can have around 90 or more cities. I find this appealing even if micromanagement goes through the roof (people tell me to use AI governor but I don't know how yet).

Now, that's not to say it is a perfect game without any issues. There are too few settings, fewer units, not a large amount of content, and not enough civilizations - adding to that the fact that there aren't enough mods, and large number of them are seemingly dead or were never completed.

 

[Atheist]

I like the general simplicity and rustic beauty of Civilization 3. And that was exactly why I picked it up after years of playing Civ 5 and Civ 4.

It doesn't have the weird artificial-looking UI of Civ 5, or the rather mundane one from Civ 4. But at the same time it is not primitive and awkward to use today compared to Civ 2. The somewhat clean windows, the funny advisor text and leaders with era-based clothing, the more diplomatic variety etc. is a good thing.

Same thing feature-wise. It has most features of modern Civ games, yet doesn't stray far enough from the feel of the first two either. It gives me sandbox freedom that I never found in Civ 5, while running fine on my netbook. And I found that the 2D isometric map looks genuinely beautiful.

It is also the last game to feature things like global warming and palace.

I especially feel very constrained in even the largest Civ 5 maps after playing Civ 3 and 4. In that game a "large" empire consists of 12-14 cities...whereas I am really amused by the fact that large empires consist of 60-something cities in this game, and on the largest maps empires can have around 90 or more cities. I find this appealing even if micromanagement goes through the roof (people tell me to use AI governor but I don't know how yet).

Now, that's not to say it is a perfect game without any issues. There are too few settings, fewer units, not a large amount of content, and not enough civilizations - adding to that the fact that there aren't enough mods, and large number of them are seemingly dead or were never completed.

Outstanding comment!
I've been playing my own Historic World Scenario on the plane yesterday.
I will never stopped playing Civ 3!!!!

 

[DizzKneeLand33]

My favorite thing about Civ III? I still remember to this day the first time I heard it (wow, was that 15 years ago now??), and it never gets old. It's the sound when your warrior takes out a barbarian encampment and yells:

"YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!"

If only they would have followed that up with "Me smash!" lol.

A game with such a proper title as "Civilization" -- it's a stark reminder that you are truly starting out as a caveman....

--------

So, I think all of you are onto something in this thread. I have played all civs a whole lot from 2-6 (especially 3-6) and I'm beginning to think that I'm just expecting too much out of 6. Movies had their heyday back in the 40's and 50's (heck maybe even the 30's). Popular music had its heyday in the 60's and 70's. Civ had it's heyday in Civ III and Civ IV.

It's not that new movies or music or Civ games are bad. It's just not in the same societal context as today. And with Civ, when Civ III came out, this game was simply the bomb in relation to the computer environment and other games out. To me, there was no comparison. So, even if they make 6 better in the end, it's won't be better than III or IV if for no other reason than from the standpoint that the context is different.

Time to start up another Monarch game on a large map with 12 civs and try not to get crushed again.... I forgot that the AI doesn't mess around back in the III days! I need to remember how to maximize that cow and floodplains wheat again....

 

[Dishpan_Hans]

I like that you could risk galleys in the dangerous waters in hopes of reaching new land. I know Civ 4 did away with that. Disappointing. It gave the human player a risk advantage over the AI.

I like that in rare victories, privateers can defeat destroyers, capture them and turn them into wooden sailing ships


I feel like the newer CIV games take themselves a bit too seriously and in doing so, become over complicated. But I never played any past Civ 4. Can you even rename your leader and civ in the new games?

If they could redo Civ 3 with more than 31 civ's and maybe some other optional tweaks (like the alternate uses for land tiles)...that would be great. I suppose new civs would get repetative without new traits....not sure what they would be.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

As a strategy game, it is just about ideal based upon logical progression of unit attributes in balanced mod. It makes you think about history and why things unfolded the way they did.

It lacks a decent AI. It was illogical and simplistic about agriculture...think about irrigation versus actual rainfall and aquifers and fresh water sources. There is too much micromanaging as the ai will concentrate engineers together when based on calculations that has diminishing returns.

It badly needed scripting, lacked a RTS tactical game on a separate menu and map when Medieval War and other Total War games were going that route. Then you have actual instances where morale could overcome numbers. History is full of examples where morale and tactics and proper of terrain won the battle and the war...not numbers.

Still it remains the best of the Civ games and why people are still playing and developing mods.

Exploration to me was as interesting as battles and if you could have explored a single map coordinate as is possible in Total War, I would still.be playing it.

Naming units was great! Upgrading some units made sense. Identifying a notable map coordinate would have been awesome.

 

[darski]

What I love most about CivIII is that after more than a decade of play I still enjoy playing the game at Regent. Between lack of ability and the hatred of the RNG's I could never make the grade up the scale. But... I still love the game - ok, I hate the Celts but that is all part of the charm of the game. Should add that I agree with all that has been posted here.

 

[Jivilov]

What I love most about CivIII is that after more than a decade of play I still enjoy playing the game at Regent. Between lack of ability and the hatred of the RNG's I could never make the grade up the scale. But... I still love the game - ok, I hate the Celts but that is all part of the charm of the game. Should add that I agree with all that has been posted here.

Same here darski. Been playing Civ3 off and on for maybe 15 years. Just picked it up again with basic v1.29f after a long hiatus. There's something about this iteration of the Civ series which seems more real, more satisfying. Can't put my finger on it but let's just say that all the time spent on it was time very well spent!

Belated Happy New Year to all you die-hards. Cheers!

 

[fanofrazorblade]

1. Ease and speed of modding
2. AI behavior. I feel alone in this, but I really like 3's expansion and war behavior the best.
3. Planting forest on cattle!

I think most games have pretty bad AI. and by the standards of the time, the AI in CIV 3 is amazing.

 

[RealCadaver]

I think most games have pretty bad AI. and by the standards of the time, the AI in CIV 3 is amazing.

This, and the post you quoted from agonistes.

I have all versions, but I come back to 3 continuously (just played last night).

Ease of modding, even just using what's available in the vanilla editor lets you tweak the game in a minute.I love upgrading the barbarians and then set them to raging at game start.

The AI, compared to IV, V & VI is much better (still not great, but honestly in the newer versions it's completely brain dead).

 

[catalin72]

This, and the post you quoted from agonistes.

I have all versions, but I come back to 3 continuously (just played last night).

Ease of modding, even just using what's available in the vanilla editor lets you tweak the game in a minute.I love upgrading the barbarians and then set them to raging at game start.

The AI, compared to IV, V & VI is much better (still not great, but honestly in the newer versions it's completely brain dead).

Maybe much better=a percentage unpredictable,adding some fun in game(I play II to V,all are good games).

 

[Robo-Star]

It is also the last game to feature things like global warming and palace.

Civ 4 features global warming.

 

[fuad]

Civilization 3 truly does stand the test of time !!! Everything is Epic in it , easy modding plus simplicity , I always keep going back to it , true that there are some features that I do like in 4-5-6 but as a whole game nothing compares to Civ 3 , it’s simply the greatest civilization of them all !!!

 

[fanofrazorblade]

This may sound strange, but the thing I like about Civ 2 better than civ 3 is the fact that it shows your population size by millions. I always liked knowing that number for some reason.

I can't decide what game is better, civ 2 or civ 3. it is very close.

 

[catalin72]

This may sound strange, but the thing I like about Civ 2 better than civ 3 is the fact that it shows your population size by millions. I always liked knowing that number for some reason.

I can't decide what game is better, civ 2 or civ 3. it is very close.

Multiplayer ( ) Civ 2 is hard without simultaneous turns and slot option,in single AI play very bad,so clearly Civ 3 better...

 

[vorlon_mi]

This may sound strange, but the thing I like about Civ 2 better than civ 3 is the fact that it shows your population size by millions. I always liked knowing that number for some reason.

I can't decide what game is better, civ 2 or civ 3. it is very close.

I've been missing Civ2 since I moved to Windows 7 and Windows 10. How do you play it? Do you keep an older computer around?

 

[catalin72]

Look at threads of Civ 2 forum,are patches for 10,game will run without problems.

 

[fanofrazorblade]

I've been missing Civ2 since I moved to Windows 7 and Windows 10. How do you play it? Do you keep an older computer around?

I found this patch that enabled me to run it. Did it a long time ago, so I can't remember how.

I found out how to do it by google, so it is not that hard

 

[fanofrazorblade]

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/the-idiot-guide-to-play-civ2-on-windows-7-64bits.473017/

In fact I think I used a thread here on this very forum to get civ2 to work